Buy a PS3 or Xbox 360?

[MorphingDragon]

Uh yes. The top 3 Xbox 360 exclusive games have sold more combined than every single PS3 exclusive combined so far.



Are you going to laugh or are you going to try to prove me wrong?

How about I post some links for you?

Uncharted 2: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2009/277/reviews/955125_20091005_screen028.jpg

Gears of War 2: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/307/938611_20081104_screen001.jpg

Look at the difference in texture resolution. The polygon count in the on screen characters is higher than the entire scene in the screen for Uncharted 2.

Uncharted 2: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2009/277/reviews/955125_20091005_screen035.jpg

Gears of War 2: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/307/938611_20081104_screen009.jpg

Again, look at the textures. Uncharted 2 can't even begin to compete. Then look at the polygon counts in the characters. Again, Uncharted 2 can't compete.

Should I go on? Watch that video I posted earlier. In fact, I'll post the link again: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-face-off?page=3

The PS3 version of Modern Warfare 2 is not only running at an average lower frame-rate, but it's missing lighting effects!



In your opinion. The last good d-pad on a game controller was the SNES d-pad. The Playstation d-pads have always been terrible. At least the Xbox 360 controller's directional pad is usable.



Who says the Xbox 360 sounds like a jet taking off? You? Mines quiet. I install my games to the HDD (which takes less time than PS3 mandatory installs), so the DVD drive is quiet. Theres a little bit of fan noise which even TV speakers on a low volume setting will drown out. Oh and if the Xbox 360 DVD drive is loud, its because its spinning the disc faster than the blu-ray reader in the PS3 and it has a higher read speed too, which results in loading times that are, on average, half as long as PS3 games WITH mandatory installs Even if you are playing off of the disc, TV speakers will drown it out. If you have a good surround sound system, you won't hear a sound from the console

The current Xbox 360 includes a 150 watt PSU. However, if you do some googling, you'll see that in real world use, the original PS3 used twice as much electricity as the Xbox 360. Which puts real world Xbox 360 power use around the same level, if not less than, the PS3 slim.



I hate to burst your bubble, but the only "new" feature that old players can't take advantage of is BDLive. And just how many times in all of your years of being alive have you watched a movie online with other people on a website? Exactly. All blu-ray discs will play on all blu-ray players, its just that certain features might not be accessible. However, when it comes to A/V quality, thats where the PS3 fails against modern and cheaper blu-ray players. Even other Sony branded players.



All of them. As I said, Xbox 360's top 3 exclusives have, combined, outsold all PS3 exclusives combined.



What does that have to do with the user interface?



Going through 10 of them? Yeah, you're telling the truth.

Don't forget that the YLOD and firmware bricking issues put the PS3's real world failure rate at exactly the same level as the Xbox 360's real world failure rate. It's just that Microsoft takes care of customers while Sony does not. Don't forget that the PS2 was notorious for DREs and it took Sony losing multiple lawsuits for them to finally help customers out, and they never refunded past charges for repairs. The original Playstation was known for failure too, but Sony never took care of it.



Not like the thing in my kitchen that cooks burgers, thats for sure.



Don't count on it being free forever. Lots of high level executives at Sony have started they want to monetize it somehow

Also, my experience with BOTH online services, Xbox Live provides much more stable connections with better ping times and far less lag.



First of all, no its not. The Cell is an architectural disaster. Benchmarks of PPC software have shown it to be slower in the real world than single core Power PC G5s. Second of all, when it comes to graphics, the GPU matters a lot more than CPU power. The PS3 is running a slower version of the GeForce 7800GT. The Xbox 360 is running a Radeon X1950XT equivalent. If you look at it like cars, the PS3 is a Mustang GT while the Xbox 360 is a Viper. Get the idea? Again, watch the video I posted. It shows just how much better the GPU is in the Xbox 360.



How is it being subjective? The Xbox 360 has proven better game performance, it has proven more successful games, and it has two generations worth of games it can play.



Yes quite. Gears of War 1 and 2 have sold 5 million each, for a combined total of 10 million. God of War 1 sold something like 2.4 million and the second game sold 2 million. Combined, the God of War series has failed to equal even one Gears of War game.

Don't post crap until you get your 'facts' right, and keep opinions as opinions. Not Truths. But saying this is pointless, as you've failed to show critical thinking and scientific critique times and times before.

comparing Cell to PowerPC is scientifically unfair because the Cell isnt true PPC. The PowerPC code isn't 100% executable on the SPEs so its like taking a quad core and crippling the other three cores then doing a benchmark. Yes the cell is different, but its also well documented. The Cell is more powerful, it just requires new thinking.

The Time Bug didn't corrupt saves. It deleted your trophie collection. And it was a firmware issue not a chip issue. Once again - half truth.

The Uncharted and GoW look similar. BTW, you don't know whats polys and whats bump mapping.

PS3

360

We can cherry pick all day until the sun comes up. I think the bloom in some games ruin the experience because the lighting specifications are too aggressive. like Halo 3.

Just look at that Poly Count!

And yes that is in-game graphics. I have the pre order demo.

---

http://www.product-reviews.net/2010...x-360-cutscenes-are-576p-ps3-1080p-confirmed/

 

[mosx]

Look, I have both systems and both are fine EXCEPT that the 360 has failed on me 10 times vs NONE for the PS3. Yes, I have gone through 10, no joke..... here is a similar post I had made before I had even more (3 since then) fail on me

I'm sorry, but you're just not being honest if you say you've had 10 failures on you.

And theres no way you've gone through "10". You know why? If you had an Xbox 360 and you weren't just playing into the anti-Xbox 360 hype, you'd know that Microsoft instituted a warranty years ago that takes care of this and, at that time, every Xbox 360 ever made.

Its just literally impossible for you to have had 10 Xbox 360 failures.

If you are going to start going into performance, then why the **** are you gaming on a console in the first place as opposed to a p.c.?

If I spend several hundred dollars on something, I want the best for my money.

In the meantime, have fun playing on a system that is highly prone to fail,

Proof? Real world failure rate is the same as the PS3. But unlike the PS3, the Xbox 360 has a 3 year warranty against the RROD.

costs money for online

And provides a much better overall online experience. Plus that money buys other things, like Last.fm and disc-less Netflix. You truly get what you pay for with PS3 online.

Oh and Xbox 360 doesn't have defective ARM chips in them that can't keep time and potentially corrupt your save games

can't play Blu-ray

Thats fine. I have a REAL blu-ray player. A real blu-ray player that has proven better image quality than the PS3 and fully supports HDMI 1.3 out of the box, which the PS3 didn't until the slim model came along.

Heck, I used to be a big fan of the 360 and despised the PS3 until the damn thing would just break on me time and time again resulting in me buying a play-station of any kind in the first place

Again, nobody is going to believe you had 10 Xbox 360 failures. If you did, then that is definitely the fault of the user.

If you read the link, the slim uses about half the 360….

The link uses outdated information. It's impossible for current Xbox 360s (basically, all of those made in the last couple of years) to draw as much power as the article claims because the Xbox 360 currently only has a 150 watt supply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#List_of_revisions Some Falcon units even ship with 120 watt supplies.

And yes, the 360 drive is VERY loud in comparision to the PS3

Again, Xbox 360 XNE allows you to install full game to the HDD. It takes less time than mandatory game installs on PS3 games that require installs.

And, again, the Xbox 360 DVD drive is spinning the disc at a higher speed resulting in a real world read speed that is actually almost double that of the PS3's blu-ray drive.

Please stop spreading FUD

So a single survey taken by a small number of people that could vote multiple times is THE authority on failure rates. Right.

And don't forget that the Xbox 360 is the most played console of this generation. In multiple surveys taken, the Xbox 360 comes out on top as the most played console, with more people playing the PS2 than the PS3. So naturally, even if the Xbox 360 were the best built machine of any type on the planet, it would still have a higher failure rate because more people actually USING it than the PS3. Why do you think the Wii has such a low failure rate? Not because its well built, but because people don't use it after the novelty wears off and good games worth playing on it are few and far between. New Super Mario Bros. Wii was the first major release for the system since Mario Kart Wii a year and a half prior. Its the same way with the PS3. Good games are rarely released for it so, other than blu-ray discs, it rarely gets used by its owners. I know someone that is a huge PS3 fanboy but theres been times where he has gone weeks at a time without even turning his PS3 on because there are simply no good new games. And to make things even better, he just recently got MW2 and couldn't play it because of the bug that shut down 8 out of 11 PS3s.

 

[dukebound85]

I'm sorry, but you're just not being honest if you say you've had 10 failures on you.

And theres no way you've gone through "10". You know why? If you had an Xbox 360 and you weren't just playing into the anti-Xbox 360 hype, you'd know that Microsoft instituted a warranty years ago that takes care of this and, at that time, every Xbox 360 ever made.

Its just literally impossible for you to have had 10 Xbox 360 failures.

I have. I am not lying Jeebus

If I spend several hundred dollars on something, I want the best for my money.

Don't we all

Proof? Real world failure rate is the same as the PS3. But unlike the PS3, the Xbox 360 has a 3 year warranty against the RROD.

No it doesn't. Just google PS3 and 360 failures and tell me the results. Where is this same failure rate?

And provides a much better overall online experience. Plus that money buys other things, like Last.fm and disc-less Netflix. You truly get what you pay for with PS3 online.

You do know similar services are on the Ps3 as well....

Oh and Xbox 360 doesn't have defective ARM chips in them that can't keep time and potentially corrupt your save games

ok? news to me

Thats fine. I have a REAL blu-ray player. A real blu-ray player that has proven better image quality than the PS3 and fully supports HDMI 1.3 out of the box, which the PS3 didn't until the slim model came along.

Once again, a ps3 is a real player

Again, nobody is going to believe you had 10 Xbox 360 failures. If you did, then that is definitely the fault of the user.

Once again, I have. Why would I make that up? User fault? It sat under the tv in a ventilated area off the ground

Buuuut then again I don't care if you belive me...all I know is I have went through 10 of the damn things

The link uses outdated information. It's impossible for current Xbox 360s (basically, all of those made in the last couple of years) to draw as much power as the article claims because the Xbox 360 currently only has a 150 watt supply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#List_of_revisions Some Falcon units even ship with 120 watt supplies.

So where are the links saying it draws less then the slim as you say?

Again, Xbox 360 XNE allows you to install full game to the HDD. It takes less time than mandatory game installs on PS3 games that require installs.

I do like that feature. Only con I have with the ps3 is the update process

So a single survey taken by a small number of people that could vote multiple times is THE authority on failure rates. Right.

Where is your survey that suggest equivalent rates? Sorry but I will take the data out there over speculation

And don't forget that the Xbox 360 is the most played console of this generation. In multiple surveys taken, the Xbox 360 comes out on top as the most played console, with more people playing the PS2 than the PS3. So naturally, even if the Xbox 360 were the best built machine of any type on the planet, it would still have a higher failure rate because more people actually USING it than the PS3.

I hopw you are familiar with % rates and not absolute...as I had provided % rate of failures

Oh, I am pretty sure the Wii is kicking the 360 and PS3 in most played console

Why do you think the Wii has such a low failure rate? Not because its well built, but because people don't use it after the novelty wears off and good games worth playing on it are few and far between. New Super Mario Bros. Wii was the first major release for the system since Mario Kart Wii a year and a half prior. Its the same way with the PS3. Good games are rarely released for it so, other than blu-ray discs, it rarely gets used by its owners. I know someone that is a huge PS3 fanboy but theres been times where he has gone weeks at a time without even turning his PS3 on because there are simply no good new games. And to make things even better, he just recently got MW2 and couldn't play it because of the bug that shut down 8 out of 11 PS3s.

That was quite humorous to say the least

However I am done arguing about children's toys. I bought what works for me. The 360 did not after giving it many chances. That is why I went to PS3 as the 360 is worthless if it won't even operate

 

[peskaa]

I'm sorry, but you're just not being honest if you say you've had 10 failures on you.

And theres no way you've gone through "10". You know why? If you had an Xbox 360 and you weren't just playing into the anti-Xbox 360 hype, you'd know that Microsoft instituted a warranty years ago that takes care of this and, at that time, every Xbox 360 ever made.

Its just literally impossible for you to have had 10 Xbox 360 failures.

No it isn't. I know somebody on their 8th Xbox, so 10 isn't beyond the realm of reality. Microsoft were dicks for a long time about the repair process, frequently sending back units that would fail quickly as they hadn't actually fixed anything. It took several years for them to work out what to do, and in the meantime there was a lot of repeat failures.

Proof? Real world failure rate is the same as the PS3. But unlike the PS3, the Xbox 360 has a 3 year warranty against the RROD.

********. Where is the uproar about PS3 failures? I have never, ever, seen a failed PS3, and none of the people I know have had a failed PS3 - yet their 360s have been RRoD'ing since day one. Where is your proof for your so-called "real world" numbers? Yes, Sony bricked some with a firmware update, but they fixed (for free) any consoles that were affected - both of my PS3s were fine (original and slim). I've seen a handful of forum posts about the YLoD, and reports are pegging them at about 1-5% of systems.

And provides a much better overall online experience. Plus that money buys other things, like Last.fm and disc-less Netflix. You truly get what you pay for with PS3 online.

Yeah, in the US. UK doesn't get Netflix. Gold is expensive, and yes, better, but not convincingly worth the price. Sony have done the right thing by allowing at least some level of online functionality for free - and if the rumours that they will add a premium level on top pan out, then fair enough, as the free access will stay as it is now.

Oh and Xbox 360 doesn't have defective ARM chips in them that can't keep time and potentially corrupt your save games

Oh no, a bug! That never happens in the world of electronics...

Thats fine. I have a REAL blu-ray player. A real blu-ray player that has proven better image quality than the PS3 and fully supports HDMI 1.3 out of the box, which the PS3 didn't until the slim model came along.

I have a pair of Sony BD players, and the PS3 is a good effort - it brings Blu Ray to people who don't want, or can't afford, a standalone player as well as a console, and anything that drives adoption is good. The PS3 will also support 3D, which the current crop of BD players won't be able to. The quality is fine, especially for a machine that does as much as a PS3 for the price tag. Of course you'll get "better" quality out of a dedicated BD player that costs as much as a PS3.

Again, nobody is going to believe you had 10 Xbox 360 failures. If you did, then that is definitely the fault of the user.

You mean you don't believe them, because you're an ardent Xbox fanboy unwilling to listen to any criticism.

Again, Xbox 360 XNE allows you to install full game to the HDD. It takes less time than mandatory game installs on PS3 games that require installs.

And, again, the Xbox 360 DVD drive is spinning the disc at a higher speed resulting in a real world read speed that is actually almost double that of the PS3's blu-ray drive.

Even when installed, the 360's fans are so damn loud. Some people aren't deaf, and as such don't have the TV blaring out. I can easily hear my 360 when I'm playing games. If you have to read off the disc, then it gets even worse. Yes, the 360 has a faster drive, but I don't mind loading screens - lets me go grab a drink. More recent titles have further avoided loading by smart use of caching.

The thing is, a high spin speed doesn't mean increased noise - Microsoft just cheaped out and got the worst drive they possibly could.

And don't forget that the Xbox 360 is the most played console of this generation. In multiple surveys taken, the Xbox 360 comes out on top as the most played console, with more people playing the PS2 than the PS3. So naturally, even if the Xbox 360 were the best built machine of any type on the planet, it would still have a higher failure rate because more people actually USING it than the PS3. Why do you think the Wii has such a low failure rate? Not because its well built, but because people don't use it after the novelty wears off and good games worth playing on it are few and far between. New Super Mario Bros. Wii was the first major release for the system since Mario Kart Wii a year and a half prior. Its the same way with the PS3. Good games are rarely released for it so, other than blu-ray discs, it rarely gets used by its owners. I know someone that is a huge PS3 fanboy but theres been times where he has gone weeks at a time without even turning his PS3 on because there are simply no good new games. And to make things even better, he just recently got MW2 and couldn't play it because of the bug that shut down 8 out of 11 PS3s.

Yes, the 360 is the most "popular" console by your logic. It has been out longer, and is cheaper, so no suprise there. Sony have made giant steps, resulting in a massively increased userbase and closing the sales gap with the 360 - indeed, outselling on multiple occasions.

As for the no games argument? Please, it isn't 2007 any more. I have 35 PS3 games currently, and about 10 for the 360. There are plenty of titles out there - yes, there are many cross-platform ones - and I've actually seen more games I want being released on the PS3 than I have on the 360 in recent times.


Basically, you're a biased Xbox fanboy who won't accept that Sony have actually made a decent console, and does several things better than the 360. Microsoft made it to market early, but in doing that they sacrificed the reliability of their system, and their games are drying up - the solution has been to throw vast sums at developers to try and get "exclusives" (hello GTA IV). Sony on the other hand spent more time developing their system, and it is finally paying off with a string of excellent titles (Uncharted, Heavy Rain, LBP, GOW3 etc) and a catalogue of cross-platform titles.

Now, the 360 isn't bad. It does many things right - I personally prefer the PS3's controller, but I understand that other people prefer the 360s. I personally prefer the XMB to the awful NXE where I can't find half the options I need, yet I get that some people can cope with it. The 360 has some great online features (although I stand by my opinion that it is too expensive), and some of the exclusive games are great.

 

[mosx]

Don't post crap until you get your 'facts' right, and keep opinions as opinions. Not Truths. But saying this is pointless, as you've failed to show critical thinking and scientific critique times and times before.

So you start with personal attacks and don't even try to prove me wrong. Good job there.

About the Cell, you do know that the XBOX CPU is made from the technology developed from the cell right?

Yup. The difference is the Xbox 360 CPU, the Xenon, is a triple core CPU with a co-processor, each core capable of handling 2 threads. The Cell is a single core CPU with half a dozen 32-bit co-processors that would be good for Photoshop, not game AI, physics, etc.

How do we know that those screenshots were taken from the same operating resolution?

All of the screenshots are at game native resolution and are engine grabs, directly from the game rendering engine and not a video feed.

http://www.product-reviews.net/2010...x-360-cutscenes-are-576p-ps3-1080p-confirmed/

Confirmed by who? Every single entity that has actually PLAYED both versions of the game so far has said the exact same thing, that the Xbox 360 version is sharper with better coloring, but that the cutscenes look more compressed.

Second, the source for the supposed 576p has already been proven fake.

Third, Square themselves have gone on record as saying they've made both games look exactly alike.

Fourth, you need to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nblesZv0Zyk its in actual 720p, so you can see the differences for yourself. The uploader of the video also provides a link to another site which doesn't work, but if you go there you'll be able to download and watch other videos from the Xbox version of the game proving that it does run at 720p native.

Also, all it takes is a little common sense. Look at the specs of the GPUs for the Xbox 360 and PS3 and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the Xbox 360 GPU is significantly more powerful than the PS3, so theres no reason that the Xbox 360 version would run worse. It would also go against every major multiplatform game, except Oblivion, released in the last 4 years, where the Xbox 360 version runs and looks better.

comparing Cell to PowerPC is scientifically unfair because the Cell isnt true PPC. The PowerPC code isn't 100% executable on the SPEs so its like taking a quad core and crippling the other three cores then doing a benchmark.

Thats funny, because the benchmarks I've seen say otherwise.

The Cell is more powerful, it just requires new thinking.

rofl, the Cell is not more powerful. It's just a crippled PowerPC chip with a bunch of co-processors tacked on. Thats it. The so-called "SPEs" are just 32-bit co-processors. You've got a main CPU that runs at 3.2GHz but isn't even as fast as single core 1.5GHz processors from the same family in benchmarks, and a bunch of co-processors that would have made Photoshop run faster in 2006 than on older processors. But in the real world, the Cell isn't even as fast as a Core 2. Thats why pretty much everyone involved in the development of the Cell has dropped future investment in it. Or in the case of IBM, they're taking lessons learned, but not technology, and using it in other ways.

Comparing the actual uncharted and gears of war gameplay (Not friggin cutscenes) they look identical. I've actually played both games, on a series 7 LED screen as well. Gears of War hides a lot of stuff with blur. The PS3 has Linear Gamma.

Gears of War 2 screens I posted are all real time

http://kotaku.com/5399871/modern-warfare-2-360-vs-ps3-[update]

BTW, the PS3 looks like a real snow scene.

Again, I direct you here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-face-off?page=3

You simply cannot argue the FACT that the PS3 version runs, on average, 12 FPS lower than the Xbox 360 version (sometimes dipping into the low 40s while the Xbox 360 maintains 60) and the FACT that the PS3 is missing an entire layer of lighting effects.

I have. I am not lying

Right. The same way Xbox fans used to say the PS2 only had such high sales numbers because PS2 owners were on their 4th and 5th consoles due to DREs..

No it doesn't. Just google PS3 and 360 failures and tell me the results. Where is this same failure rate?

Google it yourself Reading the Playstation forums is also a good indicator. The people reporting PS3 failures there far outnumbers the Xbox forums.

You do know similar services are on the Ps3 as well.

Sorry, but theres no Last.fm app for PS3.

And Netflix requires a disc.

ok? news to me

Follow the link in one of my earlier posts. http://kotaku.com/5482328/ps3s-suffering-from-global-network-lockdown

Once again, a ps3 is a real player

Doesn't matter. There are cheaper blu-ray players that offer better quality.

Once again, I have. Why would I make that up? User fault?

Because people like to make things up to make products look bad for some reason.

Buuuut then again I don't care if you belive me...all I know is I have went through 10 of the damn things

You didn't go through 10 of them because the warranty would have covered you.

So where are the links saying it draws less then the slim as you say?

Google it I read it a few days ago and, currently, have no obligation to provide it for someone who can't be honest.

Where is your survey that suggest equivalent rates? Sorry but I will take the data out there over speculation

Data that every other website is skeptical of? I googled it after reading your link and every single other site that referenced that survey noted that the information is fishy and that it absolutely does not represent the whole of Xbox users. How can 5,000 people, most which don't own an Xbox, represent tens of millions of people?

I hopw you are familiar with % rates and not absolute...as I had provided % rate of failures

Uh, no, you didn't. You provided a link to a survey that every other gaming website is skeptical of, on top of the fact that only 5,000 people took that survey out of the what is it? 32 million or so that own an Xbox 360?

Oh, I am pretty sure the Wii is kicking the 360 and PS3 in most played console

Nope. Those surveys track actual online playing time. Sorry.

That was quite humorous to say the least

When people say things like that its because they have no other way to refute the argument at hand.

However I am done arguing about children's toys. I bought what works for me. The 360 did not after giving it many chances. That is why I went to PS3 as the 360 is worthless if it won't even operate

Whatever you say man. Xbox 360 is still more popular than the PS3, Microsoft backs it up with a 3 year warranty, the Xbox 360 sells more games than the PS3, and I've provided links that show hard evidence of games looking and running better on the Xbox 360.

We can cherry pick all day until the sun comes up. I think the bloom in some games ruin the experience because the lighting specifications are too aggressive. like Halo 3.

You've edited your post so many times that I'm not about to go back and delete things I already wrote a response to just because you deleted them.

However, this is just your opinion. In the case of Modern Warfare 2, an entire layer of lighting effects was removed from the game because the PS3's GPU simply cannot handle it.

CPU power, even though the Cell is NOT more powerful than the Xenon, is irrelevant when it comes to actual rendered graphics. The GPU in the Xbox 360 is more powerful and thats a fact. A fact backed up by available specifications, the video I've linked to multiple times in this thread, and real world games. Just look at GTA4. The PS3's GPU is so weak that it doesn't include the in-game FSAA, it has lower resolution textures, and it runs at 1024x640 rather than 1280x760.

 

[MorphingDragon]

No it isn't. I know somebody on their 8th Xbox, so 10 isn't beyond the realm of reality. Microsoft were dicks for a long time about the repair process, frequently sending back units that would fail quickly as they hadn't actually fixed anything. It took several years for them to work out what to do, and in the meantime there was a lot of repeat failures.



********. Where is the uproar about PS3 failures? I have never, ever, seen a failed PS3, and none of the people I know have had a failed PS3 - yet their 360s have been RRoD'ing since day one. Where is your proof for your so-called "real world" numbers? Yes, Sony bricked some with a firmware update, but they fixed (for free) any consoles that were affected - both of my PS3s were fine (original and slim). I've seen a handful of forum posts about the YLoD, and reports are pegging them at about 1-5% of systems.


Yeah, in the US. UK doesn't get Netflix. Gold is expensive, and yes, better, but not convincingly worth the price. Sony have done the right thing by allowing at least some level of online functionality for free - and if the rumours that they will add a premium level on top pan out, then fair enough, as the free access will stay as it is now.


Oh no, a bug! That never happens in the world of electronics...


I have a pair of Sony BD players, and the PS3 is a good effort - it brings Blu Ray to people who don't want, or can't afford, a standalone player as well as a console, and anything that drives adoption is good. The PS3 will also support 3D, which the current crop of BD players won't be able to. The quality is fine, especially for a machine that does as much as a PS3 for the price tag. Of course you'll get "better" quality out of a dedicated BD player that costs as much as a PS3.


You mean you don't believe them, because you're an ardent Xbox fanboy unwilling to listen to any criticism.



Even when installed, the 360's fans are so damn loud. Some people aren't deaf, and as such don't have the TV blaring out. I can easily hear my 360 when I'm playing games. If you have to read off the disc, then it gets even worse. Yes, the 360 has a faster drive, but I don't mind loading screens - lets me go grab a drink. More recent titles have further avoided loading by smart use of caching.

The thing is, a high spin speed doesn't mean increased noise - Microsoft just cheaped out and got the worst drive they possibly could.


Yes, the 360 is the most "popular" console by your logic. It has been out longer, and is cheaper, so no suprise there. Sony have made giant steps, resulting in a massively increased userbase and closing the sales gap with the 360 - indeed, outselling on multiple occasions.

As for the no games argument? Please, it isn't 2007 any more. I have 35 PS3 games currently, and about 10 for the 360. There are plenty of titles out there - yes, there are many cross-platform ones - and I've actually seen more games I want being released on the PS3 than I have on the 360 in recent times.


Basically, you're a biased Xbox fanboy who won't accept that Sony have actually made a decent console, and does several things better than the 360. Microsoft made it to market early, but in doing that they sacrificed the reliability of their system, and their games are drying up - the solution has been to throw vast sums at developers to try and get "exclusives" (hello GTA IV). Sony on the other hand spent more time developing their system, and it is finally paying off with a string of excellent titles (Uncharted, Heavy Rain, LBP, GOW3 etc) and a catalogue of cross-platform titles.

Now, the 360 isn't bad. It does many things right - I personally prefer the PS3's controller, but I understand that other people prefer the 360s. I personally prefer the XMB to the awful NXE where I can't find half the options I need, yet I get that some people can cope with it. The 360 has some great online features (although I stand by my opinion that it is too expensive), and some of the exclusive games are great.

Also PSN allows local servers, so I can connect to a server in Australia instead of the US.

 

[MorphingDragon]

So you start with personal attacks and don't even try to prove me wrong. Good job there. [/QUOTE]

Just stating past trends. Insulting is calling names. Someone can tend to different thinking styles, its not bad. Some of them aren't suited for fair scientific reasoning. Yu assume so much when really you should assume nothing.

read, the edit Ive corrected myself and changed things.

Yup. The difference is the Xbox 360 CPU, the Xenon, is a triple core CPU with a co-processor, each core capable of handling 2 threads. The Cell is a single core CPU with half a dozen 32-bit co-processors that would be good for Photoshop, not game AI, physics, etc.

'Hyperthreading' decreases graphical performance due to cache conflicts. Sorry. BTW, the SPEs do Parallel programming which is vector based. And guess what. ALL OF MECHANICS USE VECTORS.

Use YOUR BLOODY BRAIN.

Confirmed by who? Every single entity that has actually PLAYED both versions of the game so far has said the exact same thing, that the Xbox 360 version is sharper with better coloring, but that the cutscenes look more compressed.

That is from the Gamma, the PS3 cuts of some of the colours but has better darks.

Second, the source for the supposed 576p has already been proven fake.

Third, Square themselves have gone on record as saying they've made both games look exactly alike.

Source?

Fourth, you need to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nblesZv0Zyk its in actual 720p, so you can see the differences for yourself. The uploader of the video also provides a link to another site which doesn't work, but if you go there you'll be able to download and watch other videos from the Xbox version of the game proving that it does run at 720p native.

I have.

Also, all it takes is a little common sense. Look at the specs of the GPUs for the Xbox 360 and PS3 and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the Xbox 360 GPU is significantly more powerful than the PS3, so theres no reason that the Xbox 360 version would run worse. It would also go against every major multiplatform game, except Oblivion, released in the last 4 years, where the Xbox 360 version runs and looks better.

I have looked at the specs, I helped make the articles in Wikipedia for both GPUs.

Thats funny, because the benchmarks I've seen say otherwise.

The benchmarks didn't run Cell optimised code, it ran PowerPC optimised code. Cell != PowerPC

rofl, the Cell is not more powerful. It's just a crippled PowerPC chip with a bunch of co-processors tacked on. Thats it. The so-called "SPEs" are just 32-bit co-processors. You've got a main CPU that runs at 3.2GHz but isn't even as fast as single core 1.5GHz processors from the same family in benchmarks, and a bunch of co-processors that would have made Photoshop run faster in 2006 than on older processors. But in the real world, the Cell isn't even as fast as a Core 2. Thats why pretty much everyone involved in the development of the Cell has dropped future investment in it. Or in the case of IBM, they're taking lessons learned, but not technology, and using it in other ways.

Did you read my sentence? I'm not saying that the cell is a perfect architecture. its just too specialized for any real use outside media functions and super computing.

Gears of War 2 screens I posted are all real time

I have played Gears 2. That part is a 'seamless' cutscene.

Again, I direct you here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-face-off?page=3

You simply cannot argue the FACT that the PS3 version runs, on average, 12 FPS lower than the Xbox 360 version (sometimes dipping into the low 40s while the Xbox 360 maintains 60) and the FACT that the PS3 is missing an entire layer of lighting effects.

You say that all of this is hardware based yes?

But how do you know that it is due to a hardware limitation and not bad coding? You say bad hardware but I say crap porting work. If they kept the textures the same, the gamma difference would instantly mean different colours.

Uncharted had lighting. GOWar has lighting. Resistance 2 has lighting. The RSX is capable, you just need to learn that there are more factors than hardware when running applications. Or you just can't admit or get your head around it.

You've edited your post so many times that I'm not about to go back and delete things I already wrote a response to just because you deleted them.

Hey, you do the same to me.

CPU power, even though the Cell is NOT more powerful than the Xenon, is irrelevant when it comes to actual rendered graphics. The GPU in the Xbox 360 is more powerful and thats a fact. A fact backed up by available specifications, the video I've linked to multiple times in this thread, and real world games. Just look at GTA4. The PS3's GPU is so weak that it doesn't include the in-game FSAA, it has lower resolution textures, and it runs at 1024x640 rather than 1280x760.

Actually, the Cell has 4 times the Gigflops power than the Xenon. Look it up in the Wikipedia article links.

And the Mesa project is showing that the Cell does darn good 3D rendering.

GTA4 runs 720p



BTW, going to forums are a terrible idea for statistics. They are an indicator of irrational behavior.

 

[mosx]

No it isn't. I know somebody on their 8th Xbox, so 10 isn't beyond the realm of reality. Microsoft were dicks for a long time about the repair process, frequently sending back units that would fail quickly as they hadn't actually fixed anything. It took several years for them to work out what to do, and in the meantime there was a lot of repeat failures.

I know more people that own an Xbox 360 now than I ever knew people who owned PS2s. None of them have failed.

Plus, if you want to talk about poor repair practices, look at Sony's history with the PS1 and PS2. Sony had to lose multiple lawsuits to finally start fixing the PS2. They never fixed the PS1.

********. Where is the uproar about PS3 failures? I have never, ever, seen a failed PS3, and none of the people I know have had a failed PS3 - yet their 360s have been RRoD'ing since day one. Where is your proof for your so-called "real world" numbers? Yes, Sony bricked some with a firmware update, but they fixed (for free) any consoles that were affected - both of my PS3s were fine (original and slim). I've seen a handful of forum posts about the YLoD, and reports are pegging them at about 1-5% of systems.

Wheres your proof of multiple failures?

If you want to talk about PS3 failures, Ars had a good article from one of the editors about being afraid of his PS3 failing after reading about numerous failures, because he didn't want his PS3 (original model) replaced with a less capable newer unit.

Yeah, in the US. UK doesn't get Netflix. Gold is expensive, and yes, better, but not convincingly worth the price. Sony have done the right thing by allowing at least some level of online functionality for free - and if the rumours that they will add a premium level on top pan out, then fair enough, as the free access will stay as it is now.

No proof the current system would stay free. Sony has a LONG history of not keeping promises. In fact, the PS3 itself is proof. Sony's official stance on backwards compatibility was that it was "paramount" to their strategy and that the older systems would "live on forever" through backwards compatibility. Not even a year later it was gone. The PS3 is currently half the system it was at launch, with backwards compatibility, SACD playback, and a list of other features removed as time went on.

Oh no, a bug! That never happens in the world of electronics…

Yeah because a bug that locks you out of your device that cost hundreds of dollars and was proven to corrupt save game files and delete other data is no big deal… right?

I have a pair of Sony BD players, and the PS3 is a good effort - it brings Blu Ray to people who don't want, or can't afford, a standalone player as well as a console, and anything that drives adoption is good.

Blu-ray players offering better image and audio quality than the PS3 can be had for $149 or less. An Xbox 360 Arcade is a better dedicated gaming unit than a PS3. So for the price of a PS3 you can get an Xbox 360 Arcade and blu-ray player that is better at playing movies. And despite the lack of a HDD, the Xbox 360 Arcade is still a full media center and still fully capable of playing games online.

The PS3 will also support 3D, which the current crop of BD players won't be able to.

Which matters how much? The whole "3D" thing is a gimmick.

Of course you'll get "better" quality out of a dedicated BD player that costs as much as a PS3.

Nope. Sorry. You can get a better BD player for less than half the cost.

You mean you don't believe them, because you're an ardent Xbox fanboy unwilling to listen to any criticism.

No, because theres mountains of evidence proving otherwise.

Even when installed, the 360's fans are so damn loud. Some people aren't deaf, and as such don't have the TV blaring out. I can easily hear my 360 when I'm playing games. If you have to read off the disc, then it gets even worse.

My TV speakers at the lowest audible volume setting drown out my Xbox 360 fans. I've never heard an Xbox 360 as loud as the anti-MS crowd claim.

Yes, the 360 has a faster drive, but I don't mind loading screens - lets me go grab a drink. More recent titles have further avoided loading by smart use of caching.

Sorry, if I'm playing a game I want to PLAY the game. I don't want to wait for it to load.

The thing is, a high spin speed doesn't mean increased noise - Microsoft just cheaped out and got the worst drive they possibly could.

Apparently you've never used a high speed optical drive? When the disc is being spun at about 15,000 RPMs theres not much you can do about noise. Thats just reality.

Yes, the 360 is the most "popular" console by your logic. It has been out longer, and is cheaper, so no suprise there. Sony have made giant steps, resulting in a massively increased userbase and closing the sales gap with the 360 - indeed, outselling on multiple occasions.

Over the last 4 years theres been a total of about 6 months where the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 and half of those occurred during times of supply issues for the Xbox 360.

Don't forget that the vast majority of Xbox 360s have been sold AFTER the launch of the PS3.

As for the no games argument? Please, it isn't 2007 any more. I have 35 PS3 games currently, and about 10 for the 360. There are plenty of titles out there - yes, there are many cross-platform ones - and I've actually seen more games I want being released on the PS3 than I have on the 360 in recent times.

Good for you. I spent more time than I would like to admit last year trying to justify buying a PS3. When I got my blu-ray player a little over a year ago now, I tried everything to convince myself that the PS3 would be the better purchase but I just couldn't do it. Then in the fall when I finally bought my Xbox 360, I spent an entire weekend trying to find a reason (good games) to buy a PS3. But everything just turned me away. I couldn't care less about the exclusives. Metal Gear Solid? No thanks. The first one was great, but each game since then has been more and more boring. Uncharted? Naughty Dog hasn't made a good game since the first Jak and Daxter, and the fact that each game they have released has sold less than their previous release proves it. Resistance? Again, no thanks. Insomniac should stick to platformers. But again, I got tired of Ratchet and Clank after the third one. Its the same game with prettier graphics. Gran Turismo? Again, no thanks. Sony went back on half of their promises for GT4, and GT5 is still more of the game. I picked up Forza 3 and its the best racing game I've ever played. If you had told me 10 years ago, a time when I was still playing GT2 and only GT2, that Gran Turismo would only get worse with time, I wouldn't have believed you. But it has. And Turn 10 was right when they said that Polyphony passed them the torch. Forza 3 is better in every way it can be better.

Basically, you're a biased Xbox fanboy who won't accept that Sony have actually made a decent console

I'm no fanboy. I've gone from NES to SNES to N64 to Playstation to GameCube to PS2 to the Xbox 360 now. I go where the best hardware and games are.

and does several things better than the 360

Such as? It certainly doesn't do the most important thing, games, better.

Microsoft made it to market early, but in doing that they sacrificed the reliability of their system

Proof? Don't forget that MS, unlike Sony with the PS1 and PS2, actually warrant their system for the so-called "common failures".

and their games are drying up

Oh yeah? Got proof of that? Because, so far, the top 3 Xbox 360 exclusives combined outsell the entire library of PS3 exclusives. Theres more on the way. On top of that, Xbox 360 versions of multi-platform games outperform the PS3 versions dramatically. Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 version by 2:1.

he solution has been to throw vast sums at developers to try and get "exclusives" (hello GTA IV)

GTA4 is multi-platform and is another game that dramatically outsold the PS3 version. Episodes from Liberty City will be released on the PS3 this month. Not exclusive, sorry. Just sold better and runs better on the PS3.

Sony on the other hand spent more time developing their system, and it is finally paying off with a string of excellent titles (Uncharted, Heavy Rain, LBP, GOW3 etc) and a catalogue of cross-platform titles.

All of the games you list pale in comparison, sales wise, to Xbox 360 exclusives. Again, the first TWO God of War games combined don't even equal the sales of one game in the Gears of War series. It takes combing the sales of multiple PS3 exclusives to equal ONE exclusive Xbox 360 games sales.

I personally prefer the PS3's controller, but I understand that other people prefer the 360s.

I always liked the PS2 controller. The Dual Shock 3 is just a slight modification of it. The Xbox 360 controller is better molded to actually fit in your hands. Its designed to be held. The Dual Shock 3 like a lump of plastic. Plus the analog sticks are better molded to fingers on the Xbox 360 controller and they're more sensitive and responsive.

I personally prefer the XMB to the awful NXE where I can't find half the options I need, yet I get that some people can cope with it.

I'm sorry, but the XMB is just stupid. You have a list of options that you have to scroll up and down through. When you find the one you want, you click on it and it opens up another list you have to scroll up and down through, which and open up another list, etc. and sometimes getting out of it requires you to go all the way back through everything you just opened. Its stupid.

'Hyperthreading' decreases graphical performance due to cache conflicts. Sorry. BTW, the SPEs do Parallel programming which is vector based. And guess what. ALL OF MECHANICS USE VECTORS.

Use YOUR BLOODY BRAIN.

You should take your own advice with that comment Read white papers, read what THIRD PARTY developers have said.

The Cell is an architectural DISASTER.

That is from the Gamma, the PS3 cuts of some of the colours but has better darks.

Xbox 360 has better black levels without the contrast and gamma issues the PS3 has. That goes for all games.

I have.

So now you know the truth about FF13, that it is exactly the same on both platforms.

Besides, a game that started out as PS2 game that was ported to the PS3 (and it shows that it has PS2 routes, some of the female character running animations are directly out of FFX-2) isn't exactly a benchmark for graphics.

I have looked at the specs, I helped make the articles in Wikipedia for both GPUs.

Sure you did. Then you should know that the Xbox 360 is basically sporting a Radeon X1950XT while the PS3 is sporting a slowed down 7800GT.

The benchmarks didn't run Cell optimised code, it ran PowerPC optimised code. Cell != PowerPC

The Cell is a PowerPC processor.

Did you read my sentence? I'm not saying that the cell is a perfect architecture. its just too specialized for any real use outside media functions and super computing.

Super computing? You can't be serious. Again, its an architectural disaster. Look at Folding@Home. A Core 2 Duo from 2006 will churn out more units than the Cell when utilized at full speed. My GeForce 9400M in my MacBook will process 6 units in the time it takes the Cell to process 1.

I have played Gears 2. That part is a 'seamless' cutscene.

Real-time engine dude, sorry.

You say that all of this is hardware based yes?

But how do you know that it is due to a hardware limitation and not bad coding?

Read the article. They explain it. It has to do with bandwidth limitations regarding the GPU in the PS3 and the Xbox 360 having a dedicated frame buffer.

Uncharted had lighting. GOWar has lighting. The RSX is capable, you just need to learn that there are more factors than hardware when running applications.

Again, it boils down to the PS3 using a slowed down GeForce 7800 GT. When it comes to MW2, the Xbox 360 has a faster GPU and a dedicated frame-buffer with bandwidth the PS3's dedicated video memory can't compete with.

Actually, the Cell has 4 times the Gigflops power than the Xenon.

On paper. Look at real games. Xbox 360 games look better, run better, Forza 3 has far more accurate driving physics than Gran Turismo 5 so far, and Xbox 360 games have more on-screen action.

Onscreen action is a combination of 2 factors. One being the GPU's ability to draw the stuff on screen and the second factor being the main CPUs ability to keep track of it all and calculate everything that needs to be done, like AI, physics, etc.

And, even for sake of argument, lets say the Cell is more powerful than the Xenon. It wouldn't matter if it was because the GPU isn't powerful enough to keep up with it. It doesn't matter how much main CPU power you have when the GPU can't keep up. Thats sort of like a modern Macintosh. Some of them have reasonably fast CPUs but they're paired with these really weak GPUs. Look at the MacBooks (Pros too). They have fast CPUs but they're all paired with 9400Ms, so it cripples them. So, again, even if the Cell was more powerful (its not), it wouldn't matter because of that lowly 7800 GT holding things up.

GTA4 runs 720p

GTA4 on the PS3 runs at 1024x640p http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/ps3-grand-theft-auto-iv-is-640p-nobody-cares http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46242&page=25 Sorry. You can also look at screenshots, plus gamespot has a screenshot comparison. The Xbox 360 version is cleaner, has higher resolution textures, and it doesn't have that famous Playstation Vasoline that so many games on the PS3 have to cover up their low resolution assets.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I know more people that own an Xbox 360 now than I ever knew people who owned PS2s. None of them have failed.

Plus, if you want to talk about poor repair practices, look at Sony's history with the PS1 and PS2. Sony had to lose multiple lawsuits to finally start fixing the PS2. They never fixed the PS1.



Wheres your proof of multiple failures?

If you want to talk about PS3 failures, Ars had a good article from one of the editors about being afraid of his PS3 failing after reading about numerous failures, because he didn't want his PS3 (original model) replaced with a less capable newer unit.



No proof the current system would stay free. Sony has a LONG history of not keeping promises. In fact, the PS3 itself is proof. Sony's official stance on backwards compatibility was that it was "paramount" to their strategy and that the older systems would "live on forever" through backwards compatibility. Not even a year later it was gone. The PS3 is currently half the system it was at launch, with backwards compatibility, SACD playback, and a list of other features removed as time went on.



Yeah because a bug that locks you out of your device that cost hundreds of dollars and was proven to corrupt save game files and delete other data is no big deal… right?



Blu-ray players offering better image and audio quality than the PS3 can be had for $149 or less. An Xbox 360 Arcade is a better dedicated gaming unit than a PS3. So for the price of a PS3 you can get an Xbox 360 Arcade and blu-ray player that is better at playing movies. And despite the lack of a HDD, the Xbox 360 Arcade is still a full media center and still fully capable of playing games online.



Which matters how much? The whole "3D" thing is a gimmick.



Nope. Sorry. You can get a better BD player for less than half the cost.



No, because theres mountains of evidence proving otherwise.



My TV speakers at the lowest audible volume setting drown out my Xbox 360 fans. I've never heard an Xbox 360 as loud as the anti-MS crowd claim.



Sorry, if I'm playing a game I want to PLAY the game. I don't want to wait for it to load.



Apparently you've never used a high speed optical drive? When the disc is being spun at about 15,000 RPMs theres not much you can do about noise. Thats just reality.



Over the last 4 years theres been a total of about 6 months where the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 and half of those occurred during times of supply issues for the Xbox 360.

Don't forget that the vast majority of Xbox 360s have been sold AFTER the launch of the PS3.



Good for you. I spent more time than I would like to admit last year trying to justify buying a PS3. When I got my blu-ray player a little over a year ago now, I tried everything to convince myself that the PS3 would be the better purchase but I just couldn't do it. Then in the fall when I finally bought my Xbox 360, I spent an entire weekend trying to find a reason (good games) to buy a PS3. But everything just turned me away. I couldn't care less about the exclusives. Metal Gear Solid? No thanks. The first one was great, but each game since then has been more and more boring. Uncharted? Naughty Dog hasn't made a good game since the first Jak and Daxter, and the fact that each game they have released has sold less than their previous release proves it. Resistance? Again, no thanks. Insomniac should stick to platformers. But again, I got tired of Ratchet and Clank after the third one. Its the same game with prettier graphics. Gran Turismo? Again, no thanks. Sony went back on half of their promises for GT4, and GT5 is still more of the game. I picked up Forza 3 and its the best racing game I've ever played. If you had told me 10 years ago, a time when I was still playing GT2 and only GT2, that Gran Turismo would only get worse with time, I wouldn't have believed you. But it has. And Turn 10 was right when they said that Polyphony passed them the torch. Forza 3 is better in every way it can be better.



I'm no fanboy. I've gone from NES to SNES to N64 to Playstation to GameCube to PS2 to the Xbox 360 now. I go where the best hardware and games are.



Such as? It certainly doesn't do the most important thing, games, better.



Proof? Don't forget that MS, unlike Sony with the PS1 and PS2, actually warrant their system for the so-called "common failures".



Oh yeah? Got proof of that? Because, so far, the top 3 Xbox 360 exclusives combined outsell the entire library of PS3 exclusives. Theres more on the way. On top of that, Xbox 360 versions of multi-platform games outperform the PS3 versions dramatically. Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 version by 2:1.



GTA4 is multi-platform and is another game that dramatically outsold the PS3 version. Episodes from Liberty City will be released on the PS3 this month. Not exclusive, sorry. Just sold better and runs better on the PS3.



All of the games you list pale in comparison, sales wise, to Xbox 360 exclusives. Again, the first TWO God of War games combined don't even equal the sales of one game in the Gears of War series. It takes combing the sales of multiple PS3 exclusives to equal ONE exclusive Xbox 360 games sales.



I always liked the PS2 controller. The Dual Shock 3 is just a slight modification of it. The Xbox 360 controller is better molded to actually fit in your hands. Its designed to be held. The Dual Shock 3 like a lump of plastic. Plus the analog sticks are better molded to fingers on the Xbox 360 controller and they're more sensitive and responsive.



I'm sorry, but the XMB is just stupid. You have a list of options that you have to scroll up and down through. When you find the one you want, you click on it and it opens up another list you have to scroll up and down through, which and open up another list, etc. and sometimes getting out of it requires you to go all the way back through everything you just opened. Its stupid.



You should take your own advice with that comment Read white papers, read what THIRD PARTY developers have said.

The Cell is an architectural DISASTER.



Xbox 360 has better black levels without the contrast and gamma issues the PS3 has. That goes for all games.



So now you know the truth about FF13, that it is exactly the same on both platforms.

Besides, a game that started out as PS2 game that was ported to the PS3 (and it shows that it has PS2 routes, some of the female character running animations are directly out of FFX-2) isn't exactly a benchmark for graphics.



Sure you did. Then you should know that the Xbox 360 is basically sporting a Radeon X1950XT while the PS3 is sporting a slowed down 7800GT.



The Cell is a PowerPC processor.



Super computing? You can't be serious. Again, its an architectural disaster. Look at Folding@Home. A Core 2 Duo from 2006 will churn out more units than the Cell when utilized at full speed. My GeForce 9400M in my MacBook will process 6 units in the time it takes the Cell to process 1.



Real-time engine dude, sorry.



Read the article. They explain it. It has to do with bandwidth limitations regarding the GPU in the PS3 and the Xbox 360 having a dedicated frame buffer.



Again, it boils down to the PS3 using a slowed down GeForce 7800 GT. When it comes to MW2, the Xbox 360 has a faster GPU and a dedicated frame-buffer with bandwidth the PS3's dedicated video memory can't compete with.



On paper. Look at real games. Xbox 360 games look better, run better, Forza 3 has far more accurate driving physics than Gran Turismo 5 so far, and Xbox 360 games have more on-screen action.

Onscreen action is a combination of 2 factors. One being the GPU's ability to draw the stuff on screen and the second factor being the main CPUs ability to keep track of it all and calculate everything that needs to be done, like AI, physics, etc.

And, even for sake of argument, lets say the Cell is more powerful than the Xenon. It wouldn't matter if it was because the GPU isn't powerful enough to keep up with it. It doesn't matter how much main CPU power you have when the GPU can't keep up. Thats sort of like a modern Macintosh. Some of them have reasonably fast CPUs but they're paired with these really weak GPUs. Look at the MacBooks (Pros too). They have fast CPUs but they're all paired with 9400Ms, so it cripples them. So, again, even if the Cell was more powerful (its not), it wouldn't matter because of that lowly 7800 GT holding things up.



GTA4 on the PS3 runs at 1024x640p http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/ps3-grand-theft-auto-iv-is-640p-nobody-cares http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46242&page=25 Sorry. You can also look at screenshots, plus gamespot has a screenshot comparison. The Xbox 360 version is cleaner, has higher resolution textures, and it doesn't have that famous Playstation Vasoline that so many games on the PS3 have to cover up their low resolution assets.

I suggest you re-read what I've written.

Physics realism has nothing to do with processing power. - You're starting to go off on tangents that dont make sense. Plus you can't seem to fathom the relation between code and hardware.

 

[peskaa]

I know more people that own an Xbox 360 now than I ever knew people who owned PS2s. None of them have failed.

Plus, if you want to talk about poor repair practices, look at Sony's history with the PS1 and PS2. Sony had to lose multiple lawsuits to finally start fixing the PS2. They never fixed the PS1.

Sorry, I didn't realise we were talking about the PS2. My bad. Speaking of PS2s though, I own three, two launch and a slim, and they've all been fine. My original PS was hammered for 6 years and still works too.

If you want to talk about PS3 failures, Ars had a good article from one of the editors about being afraid of his PS3 failing after reading about numerous failures, because he didn't want his PS3 (original model) replaced with a less capable newer unit.

One person being "worried" that he wouldn't get his original model replaced does not equal the same failure rate as the 360, it's an editorial. Facts and figures only please.

No proof the current system would stay free. Sony has a LONG history of not keeping promises. In fact, the PS3 itself is proof. Sony's official stance on backwards compatibility was that it was "paramount" to their strategy and that the older systems would "live on forever" through backwards compatibility. Not even a year later it was gone. The PS3 is currently half the system it was at launch, with backwards compatibility, SACD playback, and a list of other features removed as time went on.

Except that they've stated it will stay free, and if they did start charging for the current system then they would kill their userbase. Sony may make stupid decisions now and then, but that one is just a step too far.

The removal of SACD isn't exactly a big issue. Nobody buys SACD, and including it in the PS3 to start with was a weird decision.

Yeah because a bug that locks you out of your device that cost hundreds of dollars and was proven to corrupt save game files and delete other data is no big deal… right?

That locked you out for a DAY, with all trophies being recoverable and save data only being rarely corrupted - and all this only if you didn't see the millions of internet posts about it and know not to turn your PS3 on. Most people just couldn't connect to PSN, that's it.

Blu-ray players offering better image and audio quality than the PS3 can be had for $149 or less. An Xbox 360 Arcade is a better dedicated gaming unit than a PS3. So for the price of a PS3 you can get an Xbox 360 Arcade and blu-ray player that is better at playing movies. And despite the lack of a HDD, the Xbox 360 Arcade is still a full media center and still fully capable of playing games online.

I do love how you present opinion as fact.

Yes, you can get an Arcade and a cheap BD player for the cost of a PS3 - but then you have no HDD in your console, no wireless...the list goes on. The PS3 represents a good balance between all its components.

Which matters how much? The whole "3D" thing is a gimmick.

In your opinion. Film industry seems to think otherwise.

Nope. Sorry. You can get a better BD player for less than half the cost.

Yes, but you can also get them for double. What's your point? The PS3 also offers more than a dedicatedBD player.

No, because theres mountains of evidence proving otherwise.

Which you don't provide. I have seen ZERO conclusive evidence that shows the PS3 failure rate is the same as the 360. Go on, please, prove it.

My TV speakers at the lowest audible volume setting drown out my Xbox 360 fans. I've never heard an Xbox 360 as loud as the anti-MS crowd claim.

Well, mine is plenty loud. I have a new Super Elite arriving next week, who knows, it may be quieter.

Sorry, if I'm playing a game I want to PLAY the game. I don't want to wait for it to load.

Impatient much? Loading has been a part of gaming for decades.

Apparently you've never used a high speed optical drive? When the disc is being spun at about 15,000 RPMs theres not much you can do about noise. Thats just reality.

Yes there is. Rubber mounts help significantly to cut down on case vibrations. Disc drives are noisy, but there are ways to help, none of which Microsoft used.

Over the last 4 years theres been a total of about 6 months where the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360 and half of those occurred during times of supply issues for the Xbox 360.

In the US. Throw in EU and JAP data and it isn't quite as you picture it. The world does extend outside the US you know?

Good for you. I spent more time than I would like to admit last year trying to justify buying a PS3. When I got my blu-ray player a little over a year ago now, I tried everything to convince myself that the PS3 would be the better purchase but I just couldn't do it. Then in the fall when I finally bought my Xbox 360, I spent an entire weekend trying to find a reason (good games) to buy a PS3. But everything just turned me away. I couldn't care less about the exclusives. Metal Gear Solid? No thanks. The first one was great, but each game since then has been more and more boring. Uncharted? Naughty Dog hasn't made a good game since the first Jak and Daxter, and the fact that each game they have released has sold less than their previous release proves it. Resistance? Again, no thanks. Insomniac should stick to platformers. But again, I got tired of Ratchet and Clank after the third one. Its the same game with prettier graphics. Gran Turismo? Again, no thanks. Sony went back on half of their promises for GT4, and GT5 is still more of the game. I picked up Forza 3 and its the best racing game I've ever played. If you had told me 10 years ago, a time when I was still playing GT2 and only GT2, that Gran Turismo would only get worse with time, I wouldn't have believed you. But it has. And Turn 10 was right when they said that Polyphony passed them the torch. Forza 3 is better in every way it can be better.

Opinion.

I'm no fanboy. I've gone from NES to SNES to N64 to Playstation to GameCube to PS2 to the Xbox 360 now. I go where the best hardware and games are.

Yeah? And? I've owned every single console system in the last 15 years. Big whoop. You don't find me trolling the internet telling everybody that xxxx console is crap.

Such as? It certainly doesn't do the most important thing, games, better.

Again, your opinion that the 360 does games better. Opinion is not fact.

BD playback vs none
Free online vs paid online (some people just don't want to pay you know?)
Cheaper accessories (no WiFi add on etc)
Easier/cheaper HDD swapping

Proof? Don't forget that MS, unlike Sony with the PS1 and PS2, actually warrant their system for the so-called "common failures".

Oh ****, I keep forgetting we're talking about the PS1 and PS2. Microsoft were forced to pay for the RRoD because it was affecting 30-50% of their systems, which is a truly stupendous number.

Oh yeah? Got proof of that? Because, so far, the top 3 Xbox 360 exclusives combined outsell the entire library of PS3 exclusives. Theres more on the way. On top of that, Xbox 360 versions of multi-platform games outperform the PS3 versions dramatically. Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 version by 2:1.

I didn't mention sales of the "top 360 exclusives", I mean recent, exclusive titles. There's been Forza.....and errr.....yeah.

GTA4 is multi-platform and is another game that dramatically outsold the PS3 version. Episodes from Liberty City will be released on the PS3 this month. Not exclusive, sorry. Just sold better and runs better on the PS3.

Exactly. Microsoft paid millions just to get timed exclusivity. Throw money at something until it sticks.

All of the games you list pale in comparison, sales wise, to Xbox 360 exclusives. Again, the first TWO God of War games combined don't even equal the sales of one game in the Gears of War series. It takes combing the sales of multiple PS3 exclusives to equal ONE exclusive Xbox 360 games sales.

Wah wah wah, sales. Of course the 360 will sell more with a bigger install base. Duh. I am talking about quality.

I always liked the PS2 controller. The Dual Shock 3 is just a slight modification of it. The Xbox 360 controller is better molded to actually fit in your hands. Its designed to be held. The Dual Shock 3 like a lump of plastic. Plus the analog sticks are better molded to fingers on the Xbox 360 controller and they're more sensitive and responsive.

Opinion, again. I put my opinion in italics for a reason.

I'm sorry, but the XMB is just stupid. You have a list of options that you have to scroll up and down through. When you find the one you want, you click on it and it opens up another list you have to scroll up and down through, which and open up another list, etc. and sometimes getting out of it requires you to go all the way back through everything you just opened. Its stupid.

Again, opinion.
With the XMB you have, at most, one level to go to find your option (ie: System Settings>Date & Time), not the millions you make out. It took me twenty minutes to work out how to sign out from MSN on the 360, because it was hidden in the menu you get when you press the Xbox button.

 

[MRU]

Oh god the children are messing about in the mud again

 

[TheSpaz]

How are standalone BD players better than the PS3? I've had 3 Blu-ray players so far and the PS3 Blu-ray is the best one yet.

I've had a Sony BD player, a Samsung BD player and a Magnavox BD player and the PS3 is my favorite.

By the way... the PS3 has TWO 256MB graphics chips. I don't know if anyone realized that or not.

 

[peskaa]

Oh god the children are messing about in the mud again

Bored at work...

 

[dukebound85]

Google it yourself Reading the Playstation forums is also a good indicator. The people reporting PS3 failures there far outnumbers the Xbox forums.

Great, in other words, you can't find any data supporting that claim. I have googled it and provided links that you refute YET fail to present proof of your claims

Very bad at debating

Sorry, but theres no Last.fm app for PS3.

What part of "similar services" do you not understand?

And Netflix requires a disc.

Ok and so what?

Doesn't matter. There are cheaper blu-ray players that offer better quality.

Link? oh wait, you dont like to support your "opinions"

Because people like to make things up to make products look bad for some reason.

No, I started with the 360 and its failing on me is why I think it is bad. Hard to believe huh?

You didn't go through 10 of them because the warranty would have covered you.

Yes I did. And yes, the warranty kept sending me refurbs. That ever cross your mind that the replacements failed?

Google it I read it a few days ago and, currently, have no obligation to provide it for someone who can't be honest.

You are something. I am not kidding and yet you call me a liar. Unbeliveable. Dont be provind opinion as fact without any support links. Hard concept

Data that every other website is skeptical of? I googled it after reading your link and every single other site that referenced that survey noted that the information is fishy and that it absolutely does not represent the whole of Xbox users. How can 5,000 people, most which don't own an Xbox, represent tens of millions of people?

Provide links that say what you want/ You have yet to provide ANY. As far as sample size, you obviously have never taken a statistics course have you

Uh, no, you didn't. You provided a link to a survey that every other gaming website is skeptical of, on top of the fact that only 5,000 people took that survey out of the what is it? 32 million or so that own an Xbox 360?

Talk to me when you take a stats course

Nope. Those surveys track actual online playing time. Sorry.

Sorry but the Wii is not a "primary" online gaming machine now is it? Most games are played offline for the most part in my experience. The fact remains in terms of console sales, the Wii is killing the 360 and PS3. Might want to like you know understand what you talk about first

When people say things like that its because they have no other way to refute the argument at hand.

You are unable to make an argument, sorry

You keep stating your "opinions" as facts which is the worst form of arguing there is

 

[ViViDboarder]

Holy crap! I thought that this thread had finally gotten past this!

Seriously!!! It's an opinion.

The PS3 and the Xbox are two different devices with different features that are priced for their features.

They both offer different games and have a different UI and different controllers.

What's with the hate? One person likes their PS3 more than the 360, the other likes the 360 more than the PS3. So what? It's all about the games anyway!

I am a HUGE Xbox 360 fan, then I got MAG for PS3... So right now I'm a huge PS3 fan! It's all about what game I'm playing.

In my experience (I own both consoles)...
Xbox Live offers a faster online service that includes a community. The ability for party chats and the method of matchmaking with your friends is worth the $50 a month to me.

The PS3 experience is still good! It's not hard to join games with your friends but it's up to the game to implement the method as opposed to the Xbox where it's outlined by MS how it's to be done. But hey, it's free! I'm not complaining.

I have no Blueray disks, but I do have an HDTV, so I didn't mind paying extra for Blueray as I do plan on moving to blueray. Anyway, now the only way to get a 360 is with the extra harddrive and some crappy bundle so it ends up being very close the the PS3 cost.

Controllers are a personal preference.

Both consoles have failures and I've probably had the same % of friends who owned either consoles have failures, but hey, that's tech for you! There are PS3 failures, iPhone failures, iMac failures, HP failures, Xbox failures... etc... You get the picture. That's what warranties are for! Literally... That's what they were created for. Not so someone can pretend their system broke to get a new one.

So to sum it up... You like PS3, sweet. You like Xbox 360, sweet. Gold star!

 

[ghall]

I recently bought a PS3 after months of trying to decide if I wanted that or an Xbox 360. When it came down to it, my friends all have PS3s (one has all 3 current gen consoles), and I refuse to pay to play games online (an attitude inherited from my PC gaming days). I never really liked the PlayStation controllers, but the Xbox360 controller gives my hands major cramps if I play for more than 20 minutes (I play sometimes at my friends house). It has some great exclusives like Little Big Planet and Valkyria Chronicles.

Xbox 360 - for people who like mindless shooters.
PS3 - for people who like real games.

Neither are worse than the other, they both have their strengths. It depends on what you like.

 

[0098386]

Oh my awesome! We haven't had a good ol fashioned fight like this in a while. Carry on!

Also, I think I'll have to get my own PS3 just for FFXIII. I guess I'd rather have it all on one disc, higher res cutscenes, just better graphics all round (from what I've seen of screenshots).

Xbox 360 - for people who like mindless shooters.
PS3 - for people who like real games.

Um, what. Nonono.

 

[ghall]

Um, what. Nonono.

Hmmm??

 

[MorphingDragon]

Hmmm??

I second that. Folklore FTW

 

[ghall]

I second that. Folklore FTW

I have never heard of that game, but i just looked it up and now I love my PS3 even more!

 

[0098386]

How on earth can you say that the PS3 has real games, when so does the Xbox, the Wii, the DS, the Gameboy, the Spectrum? What do you define a "real game" as?

 

[Antares]

Fanboi Wars 2010

FIGHT!

Many of the arguments above seem to be emotional ones based on hearsay and opinion rather than fact. Regardless of that, aren't there more important things to *cough* debate about than who has the bigger *****? You know, some girls prefer girth to length or technique to mere size. It's all personal opinion. Enjoy the games on whatever system you have. I'm loving my Wii and PS3. I wish I had more time to game but don't. And, you know, I'd rather spend my time actually playing the games than arguing with people, in an online forum, about which version of the game (or system) is better.

 

[partyBoy]

News Update:::::::::::I can now use Pandora internet radio on my PS3 slim with my HDTV...that is AWESOME !. I have been trying to figure out how i can use Pandora or last.fm on my new HDTV for months. I was even thinking of buying a Boxee box. I did not even know i could do that with my PS3 slim and i bought it like 2 months ago...I said let me give it a try with the built in browser,I thought it was not strong enough to stream Pandora but i was trying it now and "boom" it worked. PS3 IS THE BEST...enough said

 

[upaymeifixit]

Ugh, I don't even want to get into this "fight" here, but it seems like people just loose more and more logic every post. It looks like the Xbox may have a slight advantage in the graphics "rendering", But I always thought the PS3 had better graphics until now. I have to say, being an Xbox owner, you do get nickeled and dimed for every little thing you do. Like what is Microsoft providing that allows me to play COD with my friends? If I were using their servers that may different. Or changing my name and avatar, really Microsoft? The other thing is people still say how bad the PS3's network is, I don't have a PS3, but I was wondering, what's so bad about it? How does it compare to Microsoft's network?

The Xbox doesn't seem to have as much a problem as it used to. The two consoles definantly seem more alike than they used to.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

You know, some girls prefer girth to length or technique to mere size.

Not a good analogy for this thread


I'm a ps3 fan, and i could spend all day arguing points about why its better than some other console, but all that matters is what games the player likes. If you prefer Halo and Gears to Killzone and Uncharted get a 360. If you prefer Gran Turismo and LBP to Forza and (insert 360 platformer here, i cant think of one) then get a ps3.