Need help deciding between PS3 and 360

Mayhs said:
i just scanned this and someone mentioned ninja gaiden...theyre making a new game for the 360

oh and to all the people who say the 360 has bad build quality, why not buy a 3/5 year warrant, theyre only £30 here in england so probably $50-60 in america


back on topic...im deciding between these two (i own an xbox and a ps2)...i find myself leaning towards the 360 for the simple reason that it has better games and is eating the 'exclusive' stickers on the ps3 games
Click to expand...

'Better' games is a matter of opinion my friend. New exclusives are coming to the ps3, I find it interesting how xbox360 fans get all excited that they get to share playstation's last gen titles.

I wish people would just be honest and say hey I just can't afford it. Instead they try to convince themselves and others that it sucks. Some will say that the xbox is more of the same, generic fps, american football and nascar and that the dpad sucks for genres like fighting games etc. but that is simply their opinion. except for the dpad of course.

yay the xbox roxors it has blue dragon.

w h a t e v e r.
 
cornfield said:
'Better' games is a matter of opinion my friend. New exclusives are coming to the ps3, I find it interesting how xbox360 fans get all excited that they get to share playstation's last gen titles.
Click to expand...

Ok . . . Really? You seem fond of saying stuff like this. Instead of saying something that just sounds cool to say, how about you site some games. As far as I know, the games that I have been excited about for the 360 are either 360 exclusive games like Dead Rising, Gears of War, and Forza 2 as well as some games coming out this year like Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Halo 3, etc., or multi-platform games like GTA4. So, I'm wondering now, what last gen titles are you talking about? I didn't buy a PS3 because the games just weren't there right now, especially for that $600 price tag. Instead of listing games that come out in 2008 and further, tell someone why they should buy a PS3 right now. Whats out for it now and in the near future that makes it worth the $600.

Stop saying that people don't buy it because they can't afford it. Getting the most for your money is just being a smart consumer. A rational consumer attempts to get the most utility for their money. If the price of the PS3 was $300 I still would not have bought one. The games are just not there yet. Why would I buy a system that doesn't have a decent amount of games out that I want for almost a year? That would just be irresponsible spending on my part.
 
cornfield said:
'Better' games is a matter of opinion my friend. New exclusives are coming to the ps3, I find it interesting how xbox360 fans get all excited that they get to share playstation's last gen titles.

I wish people would just be honest and say hey I just can't afford it. Instead they try to convince themselves and others that it sucks. Some will say that the xbox is more of the same, generic fps, american football and nascar and that the dpad sucks for genres like fighting games etc. but that is simply their opinion. except for the dpad of course.

yay the xbox roxors it has blue dragon.

w h a t e v e r.
Click to expand...

Saying that people dislike the PS3 because they can't afford it is kind of absurd in my opinion. I can't afford an Aston Martin, but I still like them.

I own both a PS3 and an Xbox 360, and right now the 360 gets a lot more attention because there's nothing decent to play on my PS3. All but the most deluded Sony fans agree that there's a drought of good games to play for the system. Heck, even Sony are admitting it.

If you love Sony products and the Playstation brand, great for you. Let's not get carried away though. Just because something is too expensive doesn't mean people are mad because they can't afford it.

Dead horse beating FTW
 
Defective said:
. Whats out for it now and in the near future that makes it worth the $600.

Getting the most for your money is just being a smart consumer. A rational consumer attempts to get the most utility for their money. If the price of the PS3 was $300 I still would not have bought one. The games are just not there yet. Why would I buy a system that doesn't have a decent amount of games out that I want for almost a year? That would just be irresponsible spending on my part.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that Games are the only justifacation for buying a PS3? I bought mine because it has all the features I wanted in a system including the ability to play Hi-Def movies. I wanted to have access to the online content more than actually Gameing online so I also wanted the WiFi since the Game room it is placed in is on the third floor and I didn't want to run a cat 5/6 line from the basement. I priced the 360 first because I liked the idea that it had more games available now. When priceing it I included the price of all the addons I would need to make it fit my needs. and it was more then $100 more expensive. I went and looked at the available games for the 360 and found that a lot of the Games out there are actually cross-platform and it was only the exclusive titles that made the differance. I also looked into the PS3 and found that it was backward compatable for the PS2 and the PS1. I only own 5 games for the X-box but I have a much more extensive collection for the PS2 as well as some PS1 titles. It looked to me that the PS3 had a couple of interesting titles and so did the X-box 360. Neither system had anything that mad ME say "Wow I have to have that one!!" I also looked at the systems for where they would go in my Movie/Game room. I thought that the PS3 was more pleasing to my eye. I then priced out stand alnoe Movie players and the PS3 was much easier to upgrade firmware and such. This is a real treat when dealing with new tech. I looked at the upcomming titles and the ones that appeal to me were once again even. I also liked the fact that the player on the PS3 was a Blue-Ray drive for the increaced capacity for upcomming games. I don't really think I want to be switching discs in the middle of games . This has always been problematic to me. I further more love the fact that I can put ANY 2.5" HD in my PS so I can price shop around if I feel like getting more HD space.

With all of this thought put into my machine I believe I was a very responsible consumer. This being said My needs were specific to me and they may not apply to all or any of you, but the Hardware was my justifacation not the software that will be comming out. I have no doubt that the near future will be filled with great games for both sides and that I will have wished I could play at least some of the games on the 360 as I would have said if I chose the 360 and saw some cool games on the PS3. I for one love the fact that this blow is greatly lessened due to the current trend for Cross-platform games.

Now I just want to see some games come out that are truely crossplatform on-line experiances. This way my friends wiht the 360 and I can game on-line together. :D
 
Thanks for everyone who posted... after reading all your thoughts and posts I decided to go with the 360 elite as the game lineup seems to suit me more.
 
AllSpad3s said:
Thanks for everyone who posted... after reading all your thoughts and posts I decided to go with the 360 elite as the game lineup seems to suit me more.
Click to expand...

Glad you came to a decision amongst all the bickering in this thread. You'll enjoy the 360. When you get it, add your Gamertag to the thread and let us know what games you purchased.
 
Crighton said:
snip
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not slamming people that bought a PS3. I was attacking the statement that people that say bad things about the PS3 are just angry that they can't afford one. For me, I am not interested in the Blu-Ray player right now and don't need wireless. So these did not factor into my purchasing decision. If you are looking for a Blu-Ray player and a game system the PS3 can be a value to you if you are comparing its features with the other Blu-Ray options available to you, and the cost to you for buying a Blu-Ray player and a competing video game system. I don't argue this point at all. You might find that when you add it all up, you find that the PS3 is a good choice for you. Thats fine. But when you are doing a comparison of the system as only a video game system, which is what I did before I bought my 360, the value of the system changes. Don't get me wrong though, if someone says they want Blu-Ray also, then the PS3 is the way to go for a value right now, given the price of stand-alone players. However, available games might still be an issue for many. Right now the PS3 just really doesn't have many, and isn't going to have many for quite a while yet.
 
Defective said:
However, available games might still be an issue for many. Right now the PS3 just really doesn't have many, and isn't going to have many for quite a while yet.
Click to expand...

Isn't going to have many for a while? You act like cross-platform titles don't count or exist for the PS3...

IF the PS3 HAD come out the same time as the X360... I bet 1/2 -3/4th of the games that make up the X360 "large library" would also be on the PS3. Some exclusives might not be out for a while... but that doesn’t mean PS3 will have nothing being added to its library...

Games are actually being released faster than I can get money to purchase them (on top of raising gas prices :rolleyes: )
 
Baker said:
Isn't going to have many for a while? You act like cross-platform titles don't count or exist for the PS3...

IF the PS3 HAD come out the same time as the X360... I bet 1/2 -3/4th of the games that make up the X360 "large library" would also be on the PS3. Some exclusives might not be out for a while... but that doesn’t mean PS3 will have nothing being added to its library...

Games are actually being released faster than I can get money to purchase them (on top of raising gas prices :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...

Yeah but with as poorly as PS3 is doing in the marketplace *worldwide*, it's very likely that any exclusives will come to a *trickle* for PS3. Let's face it, the guys selling the most hardware are the guys that *publishers*--the guys who sign the checks--are interested in. And from what we've seen so far PS3 is dead last with very little momentum and public perception working against it en masse.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Yeah but with as poorly as PS3 is doing in the marketplace *worldwide*, it's very likely that any exclusives will come to a *trickle* for PS3. Let's face it, the guys selling the most hardware are the guys that *publishers*--the guys who sign the checks--are interested in. And from what we've seen so far PS3 is dead last with very little momentum and public perception working against it en masse.
Click to expand...

PS3 isnt even finished being released "worldwide" :rolleyes:
 
Baker said:
IF the PS3 HAD come out the same time as the X360... I bet 1/2 -3/4th of the games that make up the X360 "large library" would also be on the PS3. Some exclusives might not be out for a while... but that doesn’t mean PS3 will have nothing being added to its library...

Games are actually being released faster than I can get money to purchase them (on top of raising gas prices :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...

That "IF" didn't happen. The same thing that happened to the Dreamcast when the PS2 came out, also didn't happen to the 360 when the PS3 came out. So, now, PS3 is up against a successful console with steady sales in the HD arena (I'm leaving Wii out of this on purpose, again, I think people that buy Wiis will also buy another next-gen console). Now, PS3 sales are starting to drop off. Now, this won't mean that games that are coming out for the PS3 are not going to come out for it, but it does mean that it is likely that more former PS3 exclusives are going to go multiplatform. I suspect that there will be very few non-first party exclusives for the PS3 after FFXIII and MGS. Its just not in the developers best interested to do it. This doesn't mean that if you bought a PS3 that you are doomed, it just means that for prospective PS3 buyers, its price might be more of a concern if there aren't going to be that many exclusives.
 
Baker said:
PS3 isnt even finished being released "worldwide" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It has in pretty much any market that's going to make a difference for Sony. The US, Japan, UK, EU, AU... Those are the markets that will swing a console one way or the other.
 
John said:
Saying that people dislike the PS3 because they can't afford it is kind of absurd in my opinion. I can't afford an Aston Martin, but I still like them.

I own both a PS3 and an Xbox 360, and right now the 360 gets a lot more attention because there's nothing decent to play on my PS3. All but the most deluded Sony fans agree that there's a drought of good games to play for the system. Heck, even Sony are admitting it.

If you love Sony products and the Playstation brand, great for you. Let's not get carried away though. Just because something is too expensive doesn't mean people are mad because they can't afford it.

Dead horse beating FTW
Click to expand...

While PS3 is expensive, there are 360 owners that can justify a purchase such as this.

halo3dg0.png


That helmet better bake a cake or microwave a pizza or something
 
cornfield said:
I wish people would just be honest and say hey I just can't afford it.
Click to expand...

I'm personally fortunate to be able to say that I'm a position that I can afford pretty much anything I'd like to buy. With limits of course. I'm sure there are lots of people on the hardforum site that live comfortably as well.
That having been said, I still wouldn't pay more than 20 bux for a PS3.
Not that it isn't worth more than that. Just isn't worth more than that to ME. I have a 360 that I play at least a little while every day and I have a collection of games that I like and I have all the accessories for it that I wanted (except the wireless wheel...but I don't need one until Forza 2 and Dirt come out anyway).
I wouldn't play the PS3. And I have no Blu-Ray movies. If anything, I'll get the HD-DVD drive for the 360 if I want to watch HD movies at home. There are theaters around here locally that play the movies on a DLP projector in HD. Not sure if it's 720p or 1080i or p but...looks damn good that's all I know. I would much prefer to go to the movies and watch them there anyway.
There aren't any games for the PS3 that I think I would enjoy much. I was excited about MotorStorm but after awhile of playing it on a buddie's PS3, I got kinda bored and frustrated with the gaming quality experience. Having played alot of that sort of game, I'd still have to say Flatout 2 (on PC) is my favorite non realistic type of racer.
Basically, if I bought a PS3 for 20 dollars, it would just wind up costing me more money. The price of Pledge and dust cloths.
 
Sixthsense said:
While PS3 is expensive, there are 360 owners that can justify a purchase such as this.

halo3dg0.png


That helmet better bake a cake or microwave a pizza or something
Click to expand...

The Legendary Edition is for the the uber-nerd who has no problem shelling out that sort of cash. For everyone else, they will have no problem buying Halo 3 at its standard $60 without the bells and whistles. In addition, Halo 3 is an optional title; people can elect to not even buy the thing [I have no plans in owning Halo 3]. The PS3's sticker shock, however, is not something that can be avoided. As such, your analogy fails because the consumer is given choice here.

Furthermore, software titles and console prices do not go hand-and-hand. The reality is that the PS3 is very expensive, and even an [excessively] bloated Halo 3 Collectors Edition isn't going to change that.
 
Choice, a word that is not synonyms with the 360. Where was my choice to use my G25? or arcade stick for fightng games . The option to even buy the DOA stick brand new at a B&M store does not even exist. Because of this , I'm limited to playing R6 (which I do not regret) on my 360.
 
Sixthsense said:
Choice, a word that is not synonyms with the 360. Where was my choice to use my G25? or arcade stick for fightng games . The option to even buy the DOA stick brand new at a B&M store does not even exist. Because of this , I'm limited to playing R6 (which I do not regret) on my 360.
Click to expand...

It is true that Microsoft largely has a closed system when it comes to peripherals [they don't want to share their wireless tech], but that does not necessarily apply here. Hell, his mention of Halo 3 was completely irrelevant to this thread. Omitting my comments about said consoles, the bottom line is that the Legendary Edition of Halo is not the ONLY Edition. He mentioned the LE as if anyone wanted to buy Halo would've had to shell out $130, and this is completely false.
 
No arguement from me there in regards to "Legendary Edition of Halo is not the ONLY Edition" :) The PS3 cons list is slowly dwindling , rumble
support, backround downloading, upscaling , media support issues have been addressed
 
cornfield said:
'Better' games is a matter of opinion my friend. New exclusives are coming to the ps3, I find it interesting how xbox360 fans get all excited that they get to share playstation's last gen titles.

I wish people would just be honest and say hey I just can't afford it. Instead they try to convince themselves and others that it sucks. Some will say that the xbox is more of the same, generic fps, american football and nascar and that the dpad sucks for genres like fighting games etc. but that is simply their opinion. except for the dpad of course.

yay the xbox roxors it has blue dragon.

w h a t e v e r.
Click to expand...

lol...classic, instead of a constructive arguement you decide to retreat into the defensive fan-boy mode

i know 'better games are a matter of opinion' thats why i said I AM leaning towards the 360 because it has better games...

and you know nothing about my financial situation lol, if you do want to know im 17 and my parents are millionaires...if i wanted both they would buy me both but right now i see no reason to buy a ps3 because only 1 or 2 games appeal to me, i dont need/want blu-ray right now and my friend has one so if i ever want to play on it then i can jus shoot around his place

the only reason i havent decided to get a nex gen console already is because i stopped gaming in the middle of 2005 but now ive decided to start gaming casually as i have more time on my hands
 
Mayhs said:
i know 'better games are a matter of opinion' thats why i said I AM leaning towards the 360 because it has better games...
Click to expand...


LOL you must not even know the definition of fanboy. Maybe my english wasn't clear enough.

Better is a matter of perspective. Take that to your english teacher maybe she/he can translate it for you. By the way I was just speaking in general not of your or anyones financial situation. This is a forum everyone is anonymous and everyone is a trillionaire guess what, I do not care.

All the fangirls took my comment way too personally.

EDIT:

STANG22GT said:
I jsut got both and end of the story.
Click to expand...

I agree. Like I have said many times before, this is what you may have to do eventually Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses.
 
Sixthsense said:
No arguement from me there in regards to "Legendary Edition of Halo is not the ONLY Edition" :) The PS3 cons list is slowly dwindling , rumble
support, backround downloading, upscaling , media support issues have been addressed
Click to expand...

See, I don't even mention that stuff on the con list. Some stuff didn't make launch, and thats fine. The problem is that its expensive and there aren't that many games out for it. Its premier exclusive fanchises won't begin to come out until 2008. On top of that, its been losing many of those exclusives. So, as a game system, its not a great value right now. You get more bang for your buck out of a 360 than a PS3. That is what the big difference is right now. As far as direct game comparisons, developers seem more reluctant to offer downloadable content for the PS3 games than 360 games. I think this is because of Sony's "do it yourself" sort of philosophy with developers when it comes to handling the online component of the games.
 
cornfield said:
LOL you must not even know the definition of fanboy. Maybe my english wasn't clear enough.

Better is a matter of perspective. Take that to your english teacher maybe she/he can translate it for you. By the way I was just speaking in general not of your or anyones financial situation. This is a forum everyone is anonymous and everyone is a trillionaire guess what, I do not care.

All the fangirls took my comment way too personally.
Click to expand...

I don't even think you were correct in general. You made other wild comments in the post that were also completely out of nowhere.

Like this one . . .
I find it interesting how xbox360 fans get all excited that they get to share playstation's last gen titles.
Click to expand...

Here is what I would like to see. Before you post something just outlandish and condescending. Try posting some examples. I responded to that original post also and asked for specifics. I noticed that your "drive by shooting" post couldn't be weighted down with things like facts or actual examples. Last time you posted examples, half of your examples were erroneous. Do your research or just stop.
 
I am not quite sure what your are looking for in online content. Do you mean additional game content? If so are you not the one telling me how few games are available for the PS3? Well I do know that Sony has some additional content for a few of it's current games. I also know that there isnt a huge amount out there at this time but PSN is always updateing and more comes out at a decent rate. I do not own a 360 to compare content with XBL but I am sure that there is a great deal more than on the PS3. I dont see this as "reluctance" as much as a familiarization for a different tech that they are not used to useing yet.

There have been many many posts in the past at how reluctant game developers were about the programing for the PS3. Now it seems some of those very same companies have desided to make games for the PS3 and port those to the 360. It isnt an ease of use issue as much as a quality issue. From what I have read games developed for the 360 tend to port almost directly to the PC (due to the almost identicle archetectureand the saem dev tools i.e. DX ) but not very well to the PS3. (take FEAR as an example.) Doing lighting effects for the PS3 is totaly different than the DX way. It translates much better going the other direction since the tools on the PS3 carry over to the port.

I think that more and more developers will start to make Cross platform games and the Exclusive titles we are all discussing will start to dwindle. Everyone here knows that is is the almighty dollar ( or whatever currancy you use ) that rules this business as well as all business. The last numbers I saw had the 360 at a little over 10 million units out there while the PS3 has a little over 3 million. X-Box has a distinct advantage but not enough that it would be a wise choice for developers to not make games for both systems. ( 13 million is better than 10 million ) I think the cost of makeing games now prohibits them from discrimination. I have herd of titles costing in the $40 million range. I cannot see why people would rather insist that one system is dead or that it is comming on now. We may see in the future that the point was in effect moot.

I made the choise to buy the sytem that fit my needs. I liked what it had for hardware and I looked at the current crop of games and found that in TOTAL I wanted to purchase 6 games that were out now. Of those 6 titles 2 were 360 exclusive, 2 were PS3 exclusive and 2 were cross platform. So no matter who has 1000 games I only wanted 6 and of those 6 I would be screwed out of 2 no matter the system I chose. I had to make up my mind either way and the one that had the tech that fit my needs was the one I purchased. I know this doesnt help anyone make thier choice but in the end I dont know what anyone else's needs may be. I would prefer people buy the same system I did if only to make some new online gameing friends. This may be selfish but I do hope that some of you will get together with me on line and play some games
 
Crighton said:
I am not quite sure what your are looking for in online content. Do you mean additional game content? If so are you not the one telling me how few games are available for the PS3? Well I do know that Sony has some additional content for a few of it's current games. I also know that there isnt a huge amount out there at this time but PSN is always updateing and more comes out at a decent rate. I do not own a 360 to compare content with XBL but I am sure that there is a great deal more than on the PS3. I dont see this as "reluctance" as much as a familiarization for a different tech that they are not used to useing yet.
Click to expand...

The reluctance I was refering to was the additional game content. GTA4, as an example, is not going to have additional DLC for PS3, only for 360.

The upside of the PS3 way of handling online content is that its free. The downside is that developers must develop their own online setup for their games. For the 360, the online platform is provided for the developers to use. This saves alot of development costs and most games seem to have some sort of DLC for 360. Now, there is another thread about the irritating costs of some DLC, but thats another dicussion.

So, what I'm talking about really has nothing to do with the tech of either system, it has more to do with their approach to online gaming in their consoles.
 
Defective said:
See, I don't even mention that stuff on the con list. Some stuff didn't make launch, and thats fine. The problem is that its expensive and there aren't that many games out for it. Its premier exclusive fanchises won't begin to come out until 2008. On top of that, its been losing many of those exclusives. So, as a game system, its not a great value right now. You get more bang for your buck out of a 360 than a PS3. That is what the big difference is right now. As far as direct game comparisons, developers seem more reluctant to offer downloadable content for the PS3 games than 360 games. I think this is because of Sony's "do it yourself" sort of philosophy with developers when it comes to handling the online component of the games.
Click to expand...

Honestly, my concern with the 360's current revsion .Is how long can it last without a next genration storage medium for games (such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) As most of you know, the unreal engine uses texture streaming, and unfortunately requires a large amount of disk space (which dual layer media ; xbox 360) does not have at the moment. I think MS is reapeating the same mistake Nintendo did way back when they decided to stick with cartridge opposed to cd.



not the quote I was looking for from the epic forums,but this will do..

Ever wonder why Gears of War was short playtime wise?

Speaking on Gears itself,
Hasting noted, "Gears of War is a beautiful game and shows off the highest resolution textures of anything yet released, partly because of the Unreal Engine's ability to stream textures.”

“This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you’re going to chew up more disc space for each level."
Click to expand...

Note: Brian Hastings works for Insomiac , they will be implementing their own rendition of texture streaming into the sequel for Resistance
 
With firmware 1.80 you can access movies, music and pictures via your network.

From this day forth, my PS3 has a purpose.
 
Sixthsense said:
Honestly, my concern with the 360's current revsion .Is how long can it last without a next genration storage medium for games (such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) As most of you know, the unreal engine uses texture streaming, and unfortunately requires a large amount of disk space (which dual layer media ; xbox 360) does not have at the moment. I think MS is reapeating the same mistake Nintendo did way back when they decided to stick with cartridge opposed to cd.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they made the right choice in sticking with DVD. DVD is a proven format with no technical challenges. Think of all the problems that Blu-Ray technology has caused Sony, the high cost and system delays, so far has far outweighed the benifit the system from its inclusion. The only games that I see stretching beyond DVD anytime soon are RPGs with full motion video clips. I think multi-disc RPGs are not a huge hinderance for the system. I can't think of a non-RPG that is going to need more than 9.4GB anytime this generation.

Cartridges were EXTREMELY limited at the time the N64 was up against the CD based consoles. There isn't even any comparison. CDs were also not bleeding edge technology at the time.
 
Think of all the problems that Blu-Ray technology has caused Sony, the high cost and system delays
Click to expand...
Although they did get it right the first time, how many more revisions do we have to go through in order for MS to create a console that will last the normal lifespan of an avergae console? HDMI 1.3 was not even implemented on the Elite. There are existing consumer products that are in the market as we speak that have HDMI 1.3. Such as the Samsung HL-T6189S and Onkyo SR605. I would not be surprised if MS were to release a 3rd revision in a year's time to implement HDMI 1.3. If there was a delay? I think that wait was worth it, Sony created a console and got it right the from the get go.Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the 360
 
Defective said:
The reluctance I was refering to was the additional game content. GTA4, as an example, is not going to have additional DLC for PS3, only for 360.

The upside of the PS3 way of handling online content is that its free. The downside is that developers must develop their own online setup for their games. For the 360, the online platform is provided for the developers to use. This saves alot of development costs and most games seem to have some sort of DLC for 360. Now, there is another thread about the irritating costs of some DLC, but thats another dicussion.

So, what I'm talking about really has nothing to do with the tech of either system, it has more to do with their approach to online gaming in their consoles.
Click to expand...


This what I mean you see it as a reluctance to do so while I still see them looking for the best way to impliment it. As it stands now GTA4 is not out yet and you and I have seen many many changes before release as to what will and what will not be available once it is released. With XBL have a set infrastructure it much easier to confirm the Downloadable content for the Xbox since they already know how to do it. With the PS3 it is still a new tech for them, but it would be irresponsable for them to say they can do it until they know how they will. I think ( wild gut feeling ) that they are looking to the cost effectiveness of such downloads for the PS3. My reasoning is all conjecture but I think it is solid. There are over 3 million PS3s out there at the moment, and GTA4 is a huge title. I think it fair to say that there will be a significant amount of purchases of this game on the PS3. That being said if they can charge for the extra content ( that I think is already done and is being held from release to offset the R&D costs of creating this game.) then the potential for extra income vs. the cost of setting up a system that could be used in future titles as well as this one may be too tempting to pass up.
 
Defective said:
Actually, I think they made the right choice in sticking with DVD. DVD is a proven format with no technical challenges. Think of all the problems that Blu-Ray technology has caused Sony, the high cost and system delays, so far has far outweighed the benifit the system from its inclusion. The only games that I see stretching beyond DVD anytime soon are RPGs with full motion video clips. I think multi-disc RPGs are not a huge hinderance for the system. I can't think of a non-RPG that is going to need more than 9.4GB anytime this generation.

Cartridges were EXTREMELY limited at the time the N64 was up against the CD based consoles. There isn't even any comparison. CDs were also not bleeding edge technology at the time.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you saying that only RPGs will benefit from the added space of the Blue-Ray. Look at the quote above about gears of war. Also think about the amount of uncompressed audio that can now come on games. I see many many benefits beyond the abbility to play Blue-Ray movies. As for the added cost to the system that is regretable and another regret about it I have is the fact that it is only a 2X drive. Since it is an early adaptation that is the fastest it could be. When it matures I think future PS3s will have 4X or 8X drives that will lower load times. I cannot even think of the amount of data transfer you could achieve when the drives hit regular DVD-rom drives
 
Crighton said:
I disagree with you saying that only RPGs will benefit from the added space of the Blue-Ray. Look at the quote above about gears of war. Also think about the amount of uncompressed audio that can now come on games. I see many many benefits beyond the abbility to play Blue-Ray movies. As for the added cost to the system that is regretable and another regret about it I have is the fact that it is only a 2X drive. Since it is an early adaptation that is the fastest it could be. When it matures I think future PS3s will have 4X or 8X drives that will lower load times. I cannot even think of the amount of data transfer you could achieve when the drives hit regular DVD-rom drives
Click to expand...

In general, game consoles seldom recieve hardware updates and changes. The PS2 was largely unchanged for 4 years after launch with the exception of some minor board revisions. It is expensive to offer those updates and it obseletes the older units on the shelves. In the console world, its just not that easy to roll out a hardware update for your console. You pretty much have to charge more for it or your sales on your older console just dies. All your PS3 games are going to be designed for that 2X drive, don't hold your breath for a 4X or 8X edition of the console. There is just no reason for Sony to incure the additional cost. If you think about the PS2 Slim, there were only 2 additions to the console, it had an IR reciever and an ethernet port. Both of these were available as addons to the old system. Other than that, it was just smaller. It had no functional advantage over the original PS2.

As for the texture streaming post. I will have to research when I get home. I don't want to talk out of my ass. The only thing thats interesting is that many of the major releases this year for the 360 are using the Unreal 3 engine, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Oddessy and Too Human. I've seen video clips from Mass Effect and Bioshock and they look great. None of those games look like they will be too short either. That is all speculation though, the games, nor a demo, have been released.
 
Crighton said:
I disagree with you saying that only RPGs will benefit from the added space of the Blue-Ray. Look at the quote above about gears of war. Also think about the amount of uncompressed audio that can now come on games. I see many many benefits beyond the abbility to play Blue-Ray movies. As for the added cost to the system that is regretable and another regret about it I have is the fact that it is only a 2X drive. Since it is an early adaptation that is the fastest it could be. When it matures I think future PS3s will have 4X or 8X drives that will lower load times. I cannot even think of the amount of data transfer you could achieve when the drives hit regular DVD-rom drives
Click to expand...

uncompressed audio is coming out on br games just because they have the extra space, not because uncompressed audio is needed. with compression they can fit the same data in a lot smaller space. so far, i havent seen much of a need for blu-ray in games, but its only been 7 months tho. resistance said they needed all the space, but if my memory serves a good chunk of the space used was white space. LINK. this gen so far has been a big let down. on one hand the sony's shoving blu-ray down gamers throats in order to push a new standard, ms is nickel and diming us with dlc, overpriced accessories, and paying for xbl, and game devs (ubi) seem to be leaving content out of games to make us buy it later. and after all this we have to pay $10 more per games! If there were more games on the pc that i'd enjoy, id just spent a g and build a new pc and say to hell with fuckin console.
 
Sixthsense said:
Although they did get it right the first time, how many more revisions do we have to go through in order for MS to create a console that will last the normal lifespan of an avergae console? HDMI 1.3 was not even implemented on the Elite. There are existing consumer products that are in the market as we speak that have HDMI 1.3. Such as the Samsung HL-T6189S and Onkyo SR605. I would not be surprised if MS were to release a 3rd revision in a year's time to implement HDMI 1.3. If there was a delay? I think that wait was worth it, Sony created a console and got it right the from the get go.Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the 360
Click to expand...

Mm, I'd say you're making a far bigger deal out of 1.3 than is warranted. HDTV's *period* are still only a fraction of that market, those with HDMI at all are a smaller slice, and with 1.3 a smaller slice still. While 1.3 would have been nice from the higher end enthusiast standpoint, relative to the overall market this is just a sparrow on the radar.

I don't think it can be argued that Sony "got it all right from teh get go", however. they made some *very* poor choices in designing PS3, not the least of which is the inclusion of an unproven media format that still has a good shot of failing in the marketplace, as the format war is just now *heating up*, it's not going to cool down any time soon. That one poor choice caused them a year of delays and forced them to price the system well outside the reach of your average consumer, and let's face it, in the game market, you need the average consumer to buy your product because there simply aren't enough of the hardcore out there to sustain a game console through an entire lifecycle,

All the systems have made their share of mistakes, though. Clearly Xbox 360 is a shoddy piece of electronics manufacturing, and Wii suffers (well, I say suffers, but obviously it's a non-issue for the vast majority of interested parties) from a lack of graphical "oomph", etc. that's the way it goes, though.
 
Crighton said:
I disagree with you saying that only RPGs will benefit from the added space of the Blue-Ray. Look at the quote above about gears of war. Also think about the amount of uncompressed audio that can now come on games. I see many many benefits beyond the abbility to play Blue-Ray movies. As for the added cost to the system that is regretable and another regret about it I have is the fact that it is only a 2X drive. Since it is an early adaptation that is the fastest it could be. When it matures I think future PS3s will have 4X or 8X drives that will lower load times. I cannot even think of the amount of data transfer you could achieve when the drives hit regular DVD-rom drives
Click to expand...

PS3's won't get faster drives to reduce load times any more than PS2's did, LOL. I also think you're mistaken if you think that developers are going to spend a lot of time, money and work to develop additional content to *just include* to fill the space on a BD disk. Sure, uncompressed audio is nice, but does the majority of the population give a shit? No. For that matter, the majority don't care about Bluray *or* HD DVD at this point.

I'd say that based on the evidence so far, Microsoft made teh right choice with regards to optical media, and Sony made the wrong one. If indeed the rumors of a massive Wal Mart buy-in to HD-DVD are true, they could well commoditize that format, effectively leaving PS3 as the also ran who chose the wrong side. Betting the Playstation brand on Bluray before the format was even ready to be released was just poor planning and poor decision making, and they're reaping what they've sewn right now as we see in the declining sales month after month.
 
In all honesty I would probably pick up a PS3 over a 360 right now if I were choosing to actually buy one.

I already have an X360 so I guess that point is moot but if I didn't have a 360 I would probably pick up a PS3...and most likely still will eventually.

That being said my reasons are more personal than others.
These are all huge pluses for me:
- Blu-Ray built in is big for me, I LOVE watching movies and of course HD is the best so bam there it is
- Wireless built in is awesome for gaming and for browsing if need be
- Ability to install Linux is very cool so I can run some basic computer things without having my laptop in my living room
- Ability to install any hard drive is awesome because fuck anything below 100GB and fuck paying more than 70 cents a gig for it.
- Free Internet play is a huge plus for me on a console because I don't do it often enough to be willing to pay for it....even if customer service is less than amazing as I guess XBL is.

But my reasons for the system are going to be different than many gamers. I don't play my console everyday as thats what I do on my computer. I play when friends are over but mainly I would use it has my all-around entertainment center. Streaming, Movie watching, internet browsing etc etc

So those are my reasons:) Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top