Okay, but I do. And I wanted some 1080p HD content for my tv. The PS3 had that as a bonus...on top of my wanting to play games.
Fair enough; I am not in possession of a high-def TV (usually I play my 360 on a flat-screen CRT 21" monitor).
Antares said:
What currency is that? It's double the US dollar. Blu-ray discs cost anywhere from $16.99 to $29.99 new in the US...just like DVD's did in the early days back in 1998/99.
You are correct, I did no research on the subject and my misinformation was based on early estimates found on various technology blogs around the internet (yes, I know, a poor source) prior to the common release of Blu-Ray players. I had no idea Blu-Ray discs were in that price range, which certainly strikes me as much more reasonable than I previously thought (although still vastly more expensive than ordinary DVDs).
However, I still have absolutely no personal desire to purchase Blu-Ray titles, limited selection or otherwise, as from what I understand the difference in quality is negligible on a non-HD television screen (I certainly can't see much a difference at all, personally, though I'm sure that changes on larger, high-end sets). And, to be honest, I'm not a huge movie buyer to begin with; I purchase
maybe one or two DVDs per year, and rent the rest (often from Netflix if I'm in a movie-watching mood).
Antares said:
The 360 is $50 cheaper with a much smaller hard drive and no wi-fi or HD player (but you can leave those two out since you don't care about those)...the 360 is simply $50 cheaper.
$50 cheaper and includes two games (both of which happen to be rather good titles) as opposed to a movie that most fans already own. Not a
massive difference, to be sure, but certainly a good deal of money, and enough to grab a brand new game on top of the two that come bundled free. And let's not pretend the price difference is what brings on the PS3 fanboys; back when the system was a minimum of $500 and had virtually no good games, they still lined up for days and defended their decision to buy the system over the 360 as worthwhile despite the minimum
$100 price difference at the time (or $200, depending on the model) - and near as I can tell, the major PS3 price drop seems to have been due almost entirely to horrendously disappointing sales at its original sticker.
Obviously, the major consumers of the system don't seem to buying it for games alone, not at price differences like that. The main attraction seems to be the Blu-Ray player, which is certain a bargain inclusion if you're interested in it. It can't be due to the hyped-up superior hardware, as we've not seen this supposed superiority demonstrated in any actual
games thus far, at least from a technical standpoint.
And beyond that, the Arcade edition of the 360 is available at the price of $279, and a harddrive (if needed) can be procured on eBay easily within the range of $30-50. The fact remains that no such "budget" model of the PS3 is available at all. And let's not forget that the PS3 price competition is still
new - people were buying PS3s back when it went for ranges that bordered ludicrous.
Yes, for me there
is a substantial price difference between the two consoles (even at the minimum difference of $50), but I will insist again that even this is far from the primary driving factor for me. Games still take highest priority above all else.
Antares said:
Okay, well, that's how you should choose a system. Buy the one that has the games you want to play. But "vast number of incredible 360-only titles" is stretching it. Halo 3 and Mass Effect are the only two exclusives that you mentioned. Gears and BioShock aren't exclusive.
It isn't stretching it by any measure. When I refer to "exclusives" I refer to
console exclusives. I've already given my arguments against heavy PC gaming, and they're readily familiar to the majority of console players (price, inconvenience, lack of quality support, hardware incompatibilities, installation times, harddrive space issues, constant necessity to upgrade, lack of out-of-the-box finality of product design, etc. etc. etc.). Suffice it to say that PC gaming is out of reach for quite a few of us (and the game selection certainly seems to be dwindling with time, partially due to the MMORPG takeover, I suppose).
Even within the two you cited, Gears of War took nearly a
year to reach the PC platform, and demands nothing short of a computing
leviathan to play at any quality matching that of its 360 counterpart (and the same goes equally for Bioshock). In terms of "PS3 vs. 360" it's absolutely pointless to bring PC ports into the measure; the fact remains that the PS3 has yet to see said games at
all.
Virtually every major "PS3-exclusive" I was personally looking forward to has made its way (or been announced that it will do so) to the 360. Assassin's Creed, Unreal Tournament 3, Devil May Cry 4, Virtua Fighter 5 - the only PS3 "exclusives" I'm still currently looking forward to are Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII - and we'll see just how long MGS4 remains "exclusive" (given the series multiple platform track record and the disappointing sales of the PS3, I give it less than a year, if it doesn't go multi-system upon initial release). Ninja Gaiden 2, the sequel to my all-time favorite action game, is slated for a 360 exclusive release at the moment, but much like MGS4 I wouldn't be surprised a bit if it wound up multi-platform (however much Team Ninja denies it), although it may certainly take a long while after release.
And no, I am not a Ratchet and Clank fan. Forgive me that.
And what, at the moment, does the Xbox 360 have above the PS3 in terms of game selection? Halo 3, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Ace Combat 6, Dead Rising, Crackdown, and Saints Row are some of my personal favorites (can't say I'm a major fan of certain others, though - Project Gotham Racing 3-4, Viva Pinata, Blue Dragon, Dead or Alive 4, and Eternal Sonata all come to mind).
What do I envy on the PS3's current lineup? Eye of Judgment is phenomenal, one of the most entertaining and unique titles of the seventh generation, if you ask me. And, as I've said, Heavenly Sword really didn't cut it for me - one (extremely brief) playthrough was enough.
This is
all personal opinion, of course. Heck, someone could happen to
love Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet and Clank, and Folklore significantly more than they like the current 360 exclusives. And that's just fine; were I of that particular inclination of tastes, I would probably be willing to shell out the extra dough for a PS3 - the extra hardware would simply be a nice bonus.
Antares said:
Bad advice. What a great way to waste energy and lower the lifespan of your laptop. It has to be on and running for this to work.
Ever heard of
plugging it in? And I don't believe the energy usage of my Macbook is going to be a significant detriment to the environment.
It's an excellent solution for the budget-minded who have no immediate access to an ethernet port. I've been doing this on my Macbook until very recently for about a year, total, and my battery life is still excellent (seeing as it's not drained while the computer is plugged into the wall).
Antares said:
Well good for you. Do you want to pay for Ethernet ports to be installed all over my house? or deal with ugly cables being run across rooms to get to the tv. I honestly didn't know a majority of people live in dorm rooms.
College students comprise a massive number of gamers (the age 18-26 crowd, specifically),
particularly the PS3/360 crowd. And a lot of those that I know who are serious online gamers refuse to put up with wi-fi for gaming to begin with.
Still, I can understand the complaint. I don't really understand why Microsoft doesn't simply include wireless out of the box with the 360. I can see that being a big issue for some people; it simply never has been for me personally. And again, I'm not here to defend why
others have bought the 360; only why
I have.
In the end, it's all to each his own. My gaming philosophy is not necessarily going to be the same as anyone else's. That's why there
are multiple systems successfully co-existing on the market.
Antares said:
Wrong thread for this subject...but I don't see digital downloads coming close to replacing physical media in anywhere less than at least 10 years.
I do. They've very nearly replaced physical media for music in just a little over two years of major popularity. It seems to me that the so-called HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray "War" will prove to be entirely irrelevant - machines capable of playing both will rise to popularity quite rapidly, only to be replaced largely by another new medium - and, soon after, digital distribution - shortly after.
Pure speculation, of course, but it seems to be the trend. I seriously doubt most people two years ago would have forseen just how massive the digital distribution frenzy has become in such a short time.
P.S.
While I'm ordinarily quite annoyed by this sort of pointless comparison, I simply feel I must point out that I'm not alone in my game preferences regarding the 360 vs. PS3. A simple trip to Metacritic will clear that up. Assassin's Creed, for instance (which has an 85 average on the PS3 and 84 average on the 360), ranks on the PS3 gaming list as as tenth place of all titles on the system. Guess where it is on the 360's list -
thirty-five.
I will be flamed for bringing this up, I am sure, and to some extent I can understand why (Metacritic averages are certainly no judge of a system's quality). I simply wanted to point out that, as far as critics are concerned, an identical game on both platforms ranks among the
top ten PS3 titles but doesn't even hit the
top thirty Xbox 360 titles. And that's saying a bloody lot.
*Holds up a flame shield.*
