XBox 360 or PS3

[the_wolf27]

I was planning on buying the 360 but then everyones telling me "wait for the PS3, its way better."

Should I, and is it?

 

[99.vikram]

tbh, I think the Xbox has more potential for good games (going by past history).

Buy the Wii after a while if you must, when it has proven itself.

 

[destrukt]

well, why do they say it's 'way' better ?

.. and who the hell is 'everyone' with the current common opinion i would expect 'everyone' to be telling you sony is the plain clueless, evil and ignorant.


- 360 graphics will be on par with the ps3.
- i normally wouldn't make a comment like this, but i seriously see sony's online part sucking and it's common knowledge that xblive is awesome.
- the price is ridiculous and you're paying for unwanted/usless hardware [see: blu-ray].
- games.. it has some exclusives like mgs4 otherwise there isn't a whole heap there, but i guess it depends on your videogame taste.
- they dropped 'rumble' from the controllers in favour of some [useless] motion sensing thing (basically just tilt/yaw i believe).
- the amount of broken promises is insane; where are my 7 controllers, dual hdmi, dual ethernet and so on ? ;(

i honestly think waiting for the ps3 is a bad idea, or at least at the moment it is.

i'd get an x360 + wii, or just either of the 2 and wait for the ps3 price to drop.

also, someone who touts 'real time weapon switching' as some amazing gameplay feature must really suck/have nothing.

 

[X-FacToR]

I see nothing game wise for the 360 worth getting the system for but thats my opinion. I know that the future is very bright for the PS3 & don't listen to haters on either side, pick the console you think will have the best longevity and have the games that you have enjoyed in the past and most likely will in the future. I plan on buying a Samsung 30'' widescreen hdtv or a cheap 52'' projection hdtv in preperation for the ps3 but if funds are tight I will snag the wii most likely.

 

[Ikerous]

Kind of hard to tell considering the ps3 isn't out yet...
I'd wait till it's released and then make your decision based on the actual product instead of speculation.

 

[99.vikram]

Don't you have to pay extra for Xblive? Sux. :|

 

[satch919]

I've already got a 360 and it's a great system so far with tons of great looking games on the way. The 600 dollar price point for the PS3 really turned me off as did the gimmicky motion sensor controller. I'll be getting the Wii instead of the PS3. Don't get me wrong, the PS3 looks like it has some neat games but nothing at the moment that makes it worth 600 bucks.

 

[99.vikram]

I personally think the Wii could revolutionize gaming, if the new controller is utilized well. (No, I'm not a fanboy )

 

[destrukt]

I see nothing game wise for the 360 worth getting the system for but thats my opinion. I know that the future is very bright for the PS3 & don't listen to haters on either side, pick the console you think will have the best longevity and have the games that you have enjoyed in the past and most likely will in the future.

okay, so you see nothing bright [gaming wise] for the 360, but why is the future very bright [gaming wise] for the ps3 ? please, if you say something like the 360 has nothing bright [gaming wise] and the ps3 does, say WHY.

Don't you have to pay extra for Xblive? Sux. :|

it's free, except for online gaming otherwise you can still download trailers, demos, arcade games and so on.

paying for a good service ? oh noes ! sarcasm aside, it's worth it.

 

[X-FacToR]

okay, so you see nothing bright [gaming wise] for the 360, but why is the future very bright [gaming wise] for the ps3 ? please, if you say something like the 360 has nothing bright [gaming wise] and the ps3 does, say WHY.

it's free, except for online gaming otherwise you can still download trailers, demos, arcade games and so on.

paying for a good service ? oh noes ! sarcasm aside, it's worth it.

I just said why, cause I don't see any games that I will enjoy from the xbox 360 and had no interest in the regular xbox (yes I baught one)

 

[Asuka]

Dunno so far it looks like the 360 is all around a good console. Dunno tho im getting both so i cant really help you out with a decision.

 

[smwScott]

It's too early to say for certain, I would at least wait until the PS3 releases to make a decision.

Personally I think the PS3 will be the better console. You get a Blu-Ray player and what I find to be the best games. You get MGS4, all Naughty Dog games, future ICO developer games, and the best versions of multi-platform games due to the controller and increased power. Oh yeah, and you don't have to pay a monthly fee to play online games.

Except for Bioware games, there is no reason I'd want to buy a 360 ... and those get ported to PC anyway. I will almost definitely not get a 360, and I will probably get a PS3 after it has its first price drop. But like I said I'll wait and see.

 

[destrukt]

I just said why, cause I don't see any games that I will enjoy from the xbox 360 and had no interest in the regular xbox (yes I baught one)

no you didn't, you said you didn't see anything gaming wise for the 360, sure, good for you, but you didn't say why the ps3 has a very bright future and that was my question.

so, once again:

okay, so you see nothing bright [gaming wise] for the 360, but why is the future very bright [gaming wise] for the ps3 ? please, if you say something like the 360 has nothing bright [gaming wise] and the ps3 does, say WHY.

why is there a very bright future [gaming wise] for the ps3 ?

 

[Ludah]

Ignoring the fact that it's too early to judge the PS3 at this point...

Get the 360. It's there. It's tangible. It's showing results. I wouldn't hold a lot of stock in the PS3 because of all the smoke and mirrors Sony has employed around it. Granted, your taste in games may be a deciding factor, so it does have MGS4 and future FF games.

I personally found those titles to be positively boring and overrated.

Plus, you'd be paying 600 bucks for a crap load of technology that's severely underutilized at this point. It's really not a good deal when you consider that the PS3's visuals will largely be on par with the 360.

But you might want to wait any way. God knows that MS will reduce their console's price when the PS3 rolls around.

 

[pomegranate]

If anything, I'm gonna get a Wii (plus DS Lite), I think consoles are ridiculously expensive for the amount of fun you get out of them. I'll stick to my PC for 'serious', solo gaming.

 

[smwScott]

If anything, I'm gonna get a Wii (plus DS Lite), I think consoles are ridiculously expensive for the amount of fun you get out of them. I'll stick to my PC for 'serious', solo gaming.

You say that, but how much money do you have in your PC right now? How much have you spent in parts that are now obsolete?

The way I see it, consoles are far and away more cost efficient than PCs when it comes to games. Even if they cost $500.

 

[Warbie]

It's hard to say before the PS3 is launched.

I'm very happy with the 360, far more so than with the original Xbox. Over the last few years i've become disillusioned pc gaming and have found the 360 fill the gap more than adaquately, providing both pc style games and your usual console selection. If you are finding pc gaming dull, or are fed up with the constant hassle/expense of upgrading, then the 360 is a very good choice (being able to play Oblivion, or future games like Alan Wake, was part of the reason for me getting a 360). Bioware jumping onboard with MS is another huge bonus, and knowing the games like Resident Evil 5, PES6, Halo 3, Gears of War etc are on the way is all good.

Another plus for the 360 is Live, which is exccellent, and well worth the small subscription. I play online with quite a few of my mates and am enjoying more than i've enjoyed online pc gaming in a long time. I doubt the PS3 online service will come close to matching this (but would like to be wrong)

Either way, i'll be getting all 3 next gen consoles. The PS3 is bound to offer some quality software - especially if you like your games with an eastern flavour - and also doubles as a george foreman grill

 

[VictimOfScience]

That's a really tough question to answer at this point. There's only one system out right now and it still doesn't have (m)any games that show off any of its potential. The PS3 and the Wii sound great, but they're a ways off yet. That said, if you are even remotely considering a PS3 then wait and use your 360 money (potentially) for a PS3 to help offset the high sticker shock. Or use it for the Wii and a lots of games. The best strategy here is wait and see what the other systems have to offer. There's absolutely no intelligent reason to be an early adopter with any new tech, esp. consoles.

However, the absolute best reason to get a console is for its games. If you like the sort of games one has to offer as opposed to the other systems, then your answer is clear. Forget everything else--as a console gamer, you focus is obviously on games first, everything else second, so start there. Good luck!

 

[bodhi]

Don't you have to pay extra for Xblive? Sux. :|

you pay extra for maintenance of the servers that you play on. thats fair as far as im concerned.

Sony are saying that there will be no fee for any of THIER online portion of the PS3, which is most likely true. The sticking point is (and get ready for this nooby - cos this is the important bit) is that sony havnt denied that you will have to pay GAME PRODUCERS INDIVIDUALLY to play their games online.

that means rather than one fee per annum to microsoft for xbl and access to all online games, sony are expecting you to pay the game makers for each game you want to play on a individual basis. and if they dont charge at all, then your gona have a poor online experience with badly maintained and under powered servers (just like ps2 "online" and the snails pace it runs at)


say what u want but id rather pay a set amount and have everything covered in a highly professional way than pay each game producer for what is going to be a disjointed experience altogether.

 

[Gray Fox]

you pay extra for maintenance of the servers that you play on. thats fair as far as im concerned.

Sony are saying that there will be no fee for any of THIER online portion of the PS3, which is most likely true. The sticking point is (and get ready for this nooby - cos this is the important bit) is that sony havnt denied that you will have to pay GAME PRODUCERS INDIVIDUALLY to play their games online.

that means rather than one fee per annum to microsoft for xbl and access to all online games, sony are expecting you to pay the game makers for each game you want to play on a individual basis. and if they dont charge at all, then your gona have a poor online experience with badly maintained and under powered servers (just like ps2 "online" and the snails pace it runs at)


say what u want but id rather pay a set amount and have everything covered in a highly professional way than pay each game producer for what is going to be a disjointed experience altogether.

You do not have to pay for a lot of games for the PC to play them online and it works great, why would it be any differant for the ps3?

 

[bodhi]

You do not have to pay for a lot of games for the PC to play them online and it works great, why would it be any differant for the ps3?

pc servers are often sponsored, thats how their paid for. usually the sponsors are only on front ends etc but you know what sony is like, there will be crap everywhere. which id rather not have because i just know it wont be subtle, itll be irritating big flashy adverts you have to wait to play through and i just cant be assed with that


oh yeah and often it does work great on the pc, but there are some shocking servers out there in terms of speed and bloody plugins for unreal sounds etc.
btw, anyone know how to disable servers downloading all that "headshot!", "multikill!" and "un-stoppable!" crap?

 

[Gray Fox]

pc servers are often sponsored, thats how their paid for. usually the sponsors are only on front ends etc but you know what sony is like, there will be crap everywhere. which id rather not have because i just know it wont be subtle, itll be irritating big flashy adverts you have to wait to play through and i just cant be assed with that


oh yeah and often it does work great on the pc, but there are some shocking servers out there in terms of speed and bloody plugins for unreal sounds etc.
btw, anyone know how to disable servers downloading all that "headshot!", "multikill!" and "un-stoppable!" crap?

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=312255

 

[VirusType2]

About the on-line component:

I own a PS2 on-line and an Xbox with Xbox live. I have played about 10 on-line games for the Xbox and 5 on-line games with the PS2.



For the PS2, some games still have a monthly fee just for that game, along with lots of down time.

The on-line component was horrible. Every server had a guy standing there to keep the room open. He wasn't playing, and was a free kill for the opposing team anytime they came across him. If he wasn't there, the server would close. This made the score basically worthless, and you couldn't have a good game.

On other games you couldn't play for 5 minutes without the server crashing and you would lose all your experience and items you had gained while playing... so there was no point in playing. It was laggy as shit, and had bad slowdown.

Some games are literally filled with cheaters using game-shark or codebreaker.



For the Xbox, everything was always smooth and problem free. I never had any problems. It was literally amazing the way that almost every game has some on-line component, even if it's just to compete for the best score or something. When playing on-line, it is very smooth and fast. Everyone was 'on the same page' and everyone has a global gamer-tag. You can even chat with them and party room with several people talking from the dashboard (no game in the console). You can send an invite to a friend who is playing a different game. You can leave voice messages, (and soon video messages) Now they are about to release their Xbox video camera attachment. It will also work with the PC. They really have some innovative ideas for it to be used with games. Xbox live kicks ass. If you pay for it for a year, it's a good deal, you save quite a bit - plus I saw a $20 off the purchase of any 360 game coupon included with it! However, if you pay for a few months it's a little bit expensive. I played shooters, flying games, FPS, sports games, racing games, etc. It was always a near flawless experience. In thousands of hours on-line, I might have got disconnected only three times.

 

[pomegranate]

You say that, but how much money do you have in your PC right now? How much have you spent in parts that are now obsolete?

The way I see it, consoles are far and away more cost efficient than PCs when it comes to games. Even if they cost $500.

Well, the question doesn't really apply to me cos I have a laptop, though I can see where you're coming from. But the thing with a computer is, I, and most people, have to have one even if I didn't play games, so the value is more than just as a games machine.

 

[Reginald]

Having not read the thread, I'll give you my unclouded judgement.

The 360 is what I am currently leaning towards as my second console after the Wii. It already has a fair few games I want to buy and we have the prospect of several other games in the future.

As for the PS3, nothing on it interests me at this time apart from perhaps Assassin's Creed. A lot of people are also saying the PS3 could be a dud and won't be as popular as the other two. While I don't believe it fully, I think it will be the first console to stop recieveing as much support, like the Gamecube did this generation.

So my order for anyone who asks is:

1- Wii, give it a chance.
2- 360, you probably won't be dissapointed
3- PS3, every chance that it may turn out to be dissapointing.

 

[Asknoone]

360.

 

[the_wolf27]

I will take all that into consideration. But I must have been under a rock or something lately cause I have no clue as to what a Wii is. Would someone care to explain?

 

[Stigmata]

You do not have to pay for a lot of games for the PC to play them online and it works great, why would it be any differant for the ps3?

I'd say it's comparable to running an MMORPG. The bandwidth costs can range from decent to insane, you need to run content servers to keep everyone up-to-date, you need good high-speed connections, you need authentication servers to prevent ID duplication, deletion and so forth, and you need security features to prevent your network from getting ruined by hackers. These things don't come cheap, and the vast majority of developers are not going to, or simply cannot afford to, allow people to use them for free.

[edit for total relevancy] I would say 360. Sony has, traditionally, hyped up its systems with a complex and very, very sneaky array of smoke&mirrors, and the end result is usually far below what you expected. Remember how the PS2 was supposed to allow for real-time Toy Story-like graphics? And Xbox Live is, quite simply, amazing. If you play games online for any decent amount of time per month, it's well worth the $5/month.

 

[99.vikram]

I will take all that into consideration. But I must have been under a rock or something lately cause I have no clue as to what a Wii is. Would someone care to explain?

Wii is the renamed Nintendo Revolution. It's cheaper than the 360 and PS3, and offers a motion-sensitive control pad.

 

[Asus]

If you like online multiplayer then I would really recommend the Xbox360. Some of the titles will be different between the Xbox360 and PS3. The Xbox360 graphics will be similar to the PS3 at launch.
Do you have a HDTV?

But I must have been under a rock or something lately cause I have no clue as to what a Wii is. Would someone care to explain?

Nintendo Wii

 

[JNightshade]

If it's between the XB360 and the PS3, I'd go with the 360 at this point. Of course, I'm willing to bet that a load of games will get ported to PC later, but... whatever.

However, I am obligated to say that the Wii looks much better than either of them

 

[99.vikram]

Get the 360. It's like, the point angle and everything!

 

[Anthraxxx]

well, with vista... PC players are supposed to be able to play with 360 players, so it would make sense that some games will be on pc and 360. Cheers for XNA!

 

[MultiVaC]

The PS3 is ripoff. You're paying a lot for new tech (Blu-Ray) which will be useless to most people for a long time, perhaps forever if HD-DVD beats it.

It does suck that you have to pay for Xbox live, though. I just can't stomach paying for something that's been free on the PC for a long time. I don't care if they have to maintain servers, there are tons of content servers for Steam, Valve runs around 60 of them. Yet Steam is a free service. Microsoft is loaded, why can't they offer a free service?

 

[99.vikram]

What storage is MS using in 360 against Blu-ray?

 

[MultiVaC]

There will be a seperate HD-DVD attachment. Which means you won't have to pay for it until you can actually use it.

 

[VictimOfScience]

There will be a seperate HD-DVD attachment. Which means you won't have to pay for it until you can actually use it.

And it is only for movies. All 360 games will be on DVDs. This could pose a disc-swapping problem in the future, but time will tell.

 

[Dog--]

I think the graphics on the PS3 will be better, not by much, for example if the 360 graphics are 4, then the PS3 will be 5-6, not alot...

Other than the graphics + MGS4, it is pointless, and this is coming from a long-time Sony fan (I never had any other console, besides the NES... otherwise I have PS1, PS2, and PSP). Because of the broken promises and outrageous price + all of the shit they are screwing around with, the PS3 will destroy itself, forget about console wars with it...

In short: Buy the 360, then the Wii (It's cheaper)

 

[VirusType2]

All 360 games will be on DVDs. This could pose a disc-swapping problem in the future, but time will tell.

Correction: Dual layer DVD's. (a double DVD)

Besides, disc swapping didn't seem to hurt the Playstation 1 or the Gamecube did it? It's really a non-factor.

I remember swaping discs in Resident Evil 2 for PS1 (CD-Rom), and Resident Evil Zero(mini-DVD) for Gamecube.

Dual layer DVD's cost the consumer less than $2 a piece, but Blu-Ray discs cost the consumer upwards of $35 each.

So if a 360 game was huge and spanned more than one Dual layer DVD, they could include a second disc and it wouldn't really cost them anything.

A game this large would already probably be a few dollars more than other games, like most huge RPG's are, so it's not going to cost the consumer any more.

I don't think the graphics will be better on the PS3. At least not for about 8-10 years.. if it is still supported at this time. The graphics will likely be worse, at least initially. It could take 10 years before they figure out how to use the PS3 to it's full potential. I'm not making this up, it's been said by industry proffessionals. They also said it could take 4-5 years before they tap the full potential of the 360. Which means the 360 graphics are going to get much more impressive over time as well.

 

[destrukt]

yeah, disc swapping is misc. and not really a good argument, at all.

.. and by the 'future' i'm guessing you mean at least 2+ years when games will actually use more then 9gb.