MS might be in a little trouble now that the PS3 has reached affordability.

Dan_D said:
They don't all feature the same games. Preference certainly factors into it. I'm not saying the PS3 is a bad console. I've just never found a real reason to justify buying one.
Click to expand...

most games are the same mate. name me 20 AA titled games from each platform that are exclusively bound to them.

you may list 20 but 20AA games is only a small percentage of games out each console.

my point is that MANY games are multiplatform mate.
 
Stereophile said:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/playstation-3-sales-rocket-1000-percent-on-slim-release

Last year's sales were virtually tied. PS3 had a strong start but faded toward the end of the year after the market crash and X360 price drop. With the new competitive price, it will unquestionably outsell the X360 worldwide in 2010 and become consistently competitive in the NPD races. At the $400 price, it still managed to win several months last year. At $300 it will split evenly, if not an edge to PS3 based on the strength of its upcoming releases and superior hw for the dollar (Blu-ray, wireless networking).

GT5 will sell more games and consoles, in Europe alone, than Forza 3 will accomplish worldwide. I read the slim sold 150k last week in Japan. It's amazing how much impact a $100 price drop and redesign can have.
Click to expand...

Serious question, did you copy paste that from a sony PR release?
 
z3r0- said:
I'd rather pay 60 dollars a year for a service with a HUGE user base that isn't going anywhere than shell out 60 dollars for a bluetooth headset so I can talk to the whole 10 people who actually play ps3 games online. I know maybe 3 people in real live who play ps3 online vs dozens with LIVE.

GIANT fail on Sony's part not including a headset with the PS3.
Click to expand...

Heck, I have a friend(djbon2112) who has and pays for a xbox live gold account and he doesn't even have an xbox 360!
 
I have yet to play any game on xbox live, I pay the live fee for the netflix streaming and it's easily worth it to me.
 
Technoob said:
you can't play games and have friends if you're on the wired internet? Didn't realize there were two internets.
Click to expand...

most people do not have rj45 wired up throughout there house. for many people, its easier to simply connect to a wireless router which can anywhere that is convenient for them.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Dan_D said:
Nope. The XBOX 360 and PS3 are game consoles first and foremost. Anything else is just fluff.
Click to expand...

I would like this statement retracted. You say "fluff" like it is a bad thing. fluff is Great with peanut butter.

On a serious note though. a lot of people need the "fluff" to justify their purchase for a console. Even at $300 for a gaming only machine seems like a lot of money, but if they include a HD movie player and a means to stream media from anywhere in the house to your unit. They put in a wireless conectivity device so you don't have to run a cable or drill a hole in your living room. These things actually add to the value of your choice of Gaming device since it does so much more than just gaming. It helps people justify the amount of money they had too spend on it.

When you have 2 items in the grocery store that have the same price. How do you choose which item you actually buy? I would compare the two and see if one thing gives me a little more bang for my buck.

As for the guy who calls the lack of a headset an "epic fail" I don't see it. The online comunity is much larger than you think on the PS3. There aree millions of registered players for COD4 alone. If you took a poll here of all the people who own PS3s and see how many play games online, buy games on the PSN store and generally use them online for whatever reason you would see that a good portion of PS3 owners are in the on-line community. Sony has sold quite a few consoles and if that ratio hold true for the PS3 as a hole you will see that the PS3 on line experience is more than just a handful of people.

I for one am glad not every person has a mic. There are always people who are on and are quite annoying. Until there is a way to mute people in the lobby between games of COD4 I find the relativly fewer people I can hear the better chance that there are less jerks. When I can pick and choose who I hear on my head set at all times, that is the time that I would like to see a much greater voice chat presence than there is now.
 
ocellaris said:
most people do not have rj45 wired up throughout there house. for many people, its easier to simply connect to a wireless router which can anywhere that is convenient for them.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait....you think more people have wireless routers in their house than don't? That's pretty .... interesting.
 
Technoob said:
Wait wait wait....you think more people have wireless routers in their house than don't? That's pretty .... interesting.
Click to expand...

Technoob I live in RI and my local cable company gives them away if you sign a 2 year contract with them as your service provider, and they will come and hook it up for you. The router they give away is a Cisco-Linksys unit that is only wireless g but for the PS3 that is all you get anyway.

I know that wireless is not the norm but it is getting more prevelant every day
 
I already have a 360 and a PC so I'm set for gaming... but if I were a consumer looking at the PS3 and the Xbox360 right now, I'd definitely go for the PS3.
 
Crighton said:
Technoob I live in RI and my local cable company gives them away if you sign a 2 year contract with them as your service provider, and they will come and hook it up for you. The router they give away is a Cisco-Linksys unit that is only wireless g but for the PS3 that is all you get anyway.

I know that wireless is not the norm but it is getting more prevelant every day
Click to expand...

I was responding to the statement that you cannot game with friends or meet people online, unless your console has wireless.
 
Technoob said:
Wait wait wait....you think more people have wireless routers in their house than don't? That's pretty .... interesting.
Click to expand...

A lot of families have laptops that they want to have wireless Internet access. The large ISPs in my city all offer integrated modems/wireless routers.

Then again you're nothing more than an obvious troll, so your might just exist for the sake of starting an argument.
 
noobman said:
A lot of families have laptops that they want to have wireless Internet access. The large ISPs in my city all offer integrated modems/wireless routers.

Then again you're nothing more than an obvious troll, so your might just exist for the sake of starting an argument.
Click to expand...

It's fun to not read the whole thread.
 
Technoob said:
I was responding to the statement that you cannot game with friends or meet people online, unless your console has wireless.
Click to expand...

actually the original statement said something about making it more easy to move around and game with friends etc. The key was the mobile part not what you do once you get to the spot you set up at. I don't think this is the reason for wireless conectivity but that is what he said. since the PS3 has no battery and it is hooked to a tv you are limited in your mobility by those wires. I like it since I am too lazy to run Cat5e or Cat6 cables all over my house. It gives me the freedom to move my furniture around if I want but that is as mobile as I can get. Also re-reading his statement seemed to imply it made it easier to have his friends come over with thier PS3s and set up anywhere in his home and play like a lan party. This seems to me to be a great idea since you don't have to worry where the closest switch or router is, and it could be fun
 
z3r0- said:
I'd rather pay 60 dollars a year for a service with a HUGE user base that isn't going anywhere than shell out 60 dollars for a bluetooth headset so I can talk to the whole 10 people who actually play ps3 games online. I know maybe 3 people in real live who play ps3 online vs dozens with LIVE.

GIANT fail on Sony's part not including a headset with the PS3.
Click to expand...

Right.... "10 people who actually play ps3 games online" That isn't a fanboy statement at all.

You do know there is a large enough player base on the PS3 games that are popular on the 360 as well?

COD4/5 had no problems looking for games on a FREE service. Oh a blue tooth headset is not $60 and even if it is, beats paying $60 a year.
 
Despite the fee, Xbox Live is better then the PSN network.

I do overall prefer the Xbox 360 for its controller and online play. I do think the PS3 is a very good piece of hardware, although I will say, I wasn't impressed by the PS3's abilities to port multi-console titles. They just ALWAYS in most cases look better on the 360.
 
I'm not disputing XBL compared to PSN quality wise - you definitely get what you pay for. But for the free service, PSN is pretty good and I have had no problems looking for games.
 
jonneymendoza said:
most games are the same mate. name me 20 AA titled games from each platform that are exclusively bound to them.

you may list 20 but 20AA games is only a small percentage of games out each console.

my point is that MANY games are multiplatform mate.
Click to expand...

Again I'm not knocking the PS3 or saying it's a bad choice. I'm not even much of a console gamer. I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on which platforms have which exclusives. I only play a handful of game types anyway. All I know is that every game I've heard about that I thought would be worth picking up has been available on XBOX 360 or PC. Thus I have no need for a PS3 given what I already have. I suspect many other people are in the same situation as I am. Even if they aren't, I don't think Microsoft's market share is in danger of diminishing significantly just because the PS3 came down in price. I think that many of the features that these consoles have today go untilized by many of their owners or aren't the main reasons why they consider one platform vs. another. I think the Blu-Ray feature is compelling but it hasn't been in lieu of the Playstation 3's price compared to the XBOX 360's. The other features I doubt are fully understood by the bulk fo the people who buy these things. (IE, parents.) My point is that again first and foremost we are talking about game consoles. Everything else these consoles can do is largely fluff. In the arena of gaming neither the XBOX 360 nor the PS3 is decisively better than the other.

I realize that most of the AAA titles are found on both platforms and in some cases are available for PC as well. For me, If I have the choice I opt to get any given title on the PC first before getting it on a console. I've had my XBOX 360 for some time now. In fact I don't believe the PS3 was out when I got mine. Given that all the titles I'm interested in have been available for PC or XBOX 360, the idea of purchasing of a PS3 has held little to no appeal for me. The PS3 has some nice features but given that I've got an HTPC with a Blu-Ray player, a gaming PC and the XBOX 360 I've found no reason to buy the PS3. There is nothing the PS3 will enable me to do that I can't already do on another platform that I already own.

I'm just saying that the XBOX 360 isn't in trouble just because the PS3's price came down. I do think that more people will be interested in the PS3 now given that the price is much more reasonable than it has been in the past. I think the PS3's price in the past is the main reason why PS3 sales aren't as strong as they could have been.
 
sonofander said:
Xbox as a media center box makes no sence to me at all. I have both consoles and the PS3 is my media streamer of choice. The 360's inability to stream 5.1 audio is a huge deal breaker. The PS3 handles all my DVD and BD rips with full Dolby surround out of the box.

I also do my online console gaming on the PS3... Free online play FTW
Click to expand...

2.5 broke the PS3's streaming capabilities for most people. Its weird actually. My PS3 can't find my media server without TVersity now, and it stutters so bad as to be worthless. It was so bad I finally gave up trying to fix it since so many others apparently were having the same trouble after 2.5 and Sony acknowledged it but decided it wasn't worth fixing. I just brought down the desktop from the spare bedroom and use that now for streaming videos and music to my home theater.

My buddy who has the 360 and PS3 prefers his 360 for media streaming due to the PS3 stuttering a lot on his end as well. I'm highly considering buying a 360 so I can use it as a netflix and media streaming device and move the spare computer back upstairs.
 
Technoob said:
Wait wait wait....you think more people have wireless routers in their house than don't? That's pretty .... interesting.
Click to expand...

Uh wait what? Honestly everyone I've met in the last 2 years or more has had a wireless router. I mean mine is 4 maybe 5 years old, I just naturally assumed everyone had them by now. Do they even sell non wireless routers anymore haha :confused:
 
Technoob said:
Wait wait wait....you think more people have wireless routers in their house than don't? That's pretty .... interesting.
Click to expand...

people will definately buy wireless router over non wireless as it

1. saves them a lot of work running ethernet
2. allows them to be freely moving with their laptop or place their desktop anywhere without having to stay where the jack is.....
 
Most recent stats I found from 2007 are 15% wireless adoption in the US, in 2007. Obviously almost everything will be wireless eventually, but let's not overestimate things based on anecdotes and personal experience.

The point, as usual, is about wireless on a console, and how exactly that can conceivably have an effect on "meeting people online", which again, is what I was responding to.
 
Dan_D said:
Again I'm not knocking the PS3 or saying it's a bad choice. I'm not even much of a console gamer. I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on which platforms have which exclusives. I only play a handful of game types anyway. All I know is that every game I've heard about that I thought would be worth picking up has been available on XBOX 360 or PC. Thus I have no need for a PS3 given what I already have. I suspect many other people are in the same situation as I am. Even if they aren't, I don't think Microsoft's market share is in danger of diminishing significantly just because the PS3 came down in price. I think that many of the features that these consoles have today go untilized by many of their owners or aren't the main reasons why they consider one platform vs. another. I think the Blu-Ray feature is compelling but it hasn't been in lieu of the Playstation 3's price compared to the XBOX 360's. The other features I doubt are fully understood by the bulk fo the people who buy these things. (IE, parents.) My point is that again first and foremost we are talking about game consoles. Everything else these consoles can do is largely fluff. In the arena of gaming neither the XBOX 360 nor the PS3 is decisively better than the other.

I realize that most of the AAA titles are found on both platforms and in some cases are available for PC as well. For me, If I have the choice I opt to get any given title on the PC first before getting it on a console. I've had my XBOX 360 for some time now. In fact I don't believe the PS3 was out when I got mine. Given that all the titles I'm interested in have been available for PC or XBOX 360, the idea of purchasing of a PS3 has held little to no appeal for me. The PS3 has some nice features but given that I've got an HTPC with a Blu-Ray player, a gaming PC and the XBOX 360 I've found no reason to buy the PS3. There is nothing the PS3 will enable me to do that I can't already do on another platform that I already own.

I'm just saying that the XBOX 360 isn't in trouble just because the PS3's price came down. I do think that more people will be interested in the PS3 now given that the price is much more reasonable than it has been in the past. I think the PS3's price in the past is the main reason why PS3 sales aren't as strong as they could have been.
Click to expand...



This is a well thought out post that has been carefully worded, but the one problem I have is the entire premise it is based on. I do think that there are many people out there that are like you and that is a VERY valid position to be in, considering your circumstances. What I have a problem with is the point of this thread. I think the original poster meant that if a person who was looking to purchase a game console and had narrowed the choice down to the X-box or the PS3 he believed that the PS3 has more value now at the $300 price point.

I can see no way that MS can ever be in any real trouble at this point since they are actually making money on hardware at this point. They have sold so many consoles that there will never be a time during this generation that a game manufacturer will say "forget the X-Box "the customer base is just too large to ignore. The only thing I can see happening is the PS3 getting closer to the sales numbers that the X-box has and expanding their customer base to make them more relevant as a development platform. I personally do not own an X-box and cannot justify the expense of buying one no matter the price since like you I already own equivelent machine. I just don't think weare the people that the OP was talking about
 
Dan_D said:
Again I'm not knocking the PS3 or saying it's a bad choice. I'm not even much of a console gamer. I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on which platforms have which exclusives. I only play a handful of game types anyway. All I know is that every game I've heard about that I thought would be worth picking up has been available on XBOX 360 or PC. Thus I have no need for a PS3 given what I already have. I suspect many other people are in the same situation as I am. Even if they aren't, I don't think Microsoft's market share is in danger of diminishing significantly just because the PS3 came down in price. I think that many of the features that these consoles have today go untilized by many of their owners or aren't the main reasons why they consider one platform vs. another. I think the Blu-Ray feature is compelling but it hasn't been in lieu of the Playstation 3's price compared to the XBOX 360's. The other features I doubt are fully understood by the bulk fo the people who buy these things. (IE, parents.) My point is that again first and foremost we are talking about game consoles. Everything else these consoles can do is largely fluff. In the arena of gaming neither the XBOX 360 nor the PS3 is decisively better than the other.

I realize that most of the AAA titles are found on both platforms and in some cases are available for PC as well. For me, If I have the choice I opt to get any given title on the PC first before getting it on a console. I've had my XBOX 360 for some time now. In fact I don't believe the PS3 was out when I got mine. Given that all the titles I'm interested in have been available for PC or XBOX 360, the idea of purchasing of a PS3 has held little to no appeal for me. The PS3 has some nice features but given that I've got an HTPC with a Blu-Ray player, a gaming PC and the XBOX 360 I've found no reason to buy the PS3. There is nothing the PS3 will enable me to do that I can't already do on another platform that I already own.

I'm just saying that the XBOX 360 isn't in trouble just because the PS3's price came down. I do think that more people will be interested in the PS3 now given that the price is much more reasonable than it has been in the past. I think the PS3's price in the past is the main reason why PS3 sales aren't as strong as they could have been.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think you could switch ps3 and 360 in the whole post and it would be pretty much just as valid, other than the last paragraph.
 
sonofander said:
But I can stream to my PS3 Without issue... Doesn't seem like a PC problem
Click to expand...

Sounds like a PC problem to us. The majority have been streaming 5.1 since November of 2005 on our 360 without issue.

devman said:
Also worth mentioning, the PS3 has a flash-enabled web browser (HULU :D) and it is also a DLNA client (the Xbox 360 might be as well, but I can't find it listed) which makes it play much nicer with Linux-based media servers.
Click to expand...

Hulu doesn't work on the PS3 browser.

Rash said:
nah not really an advantage over play tv which is cheaper (cost and energy wise)
Click to expand...

lol @ nah. Actually, it's less expensive using the Windows Media Center, which is in the PC's sold today. People already have the Media Center PC, so they are all set there. If one had a PS3, and they already had a Media Center PC, THEN they would have to spend more money and get PlayTV. Then again, good luck getting PlayTV anywhere other than the UK. You can get Windows Media Center PCs in every country, and that is what most people get shipped to them default.

than having to set up and leave a media pc on,which probably the bigger percentage of 360 owners haven't got a clue about.
Click to expand...

Most 360 owners I know knew about this because they were prompted to set it up as an extender when they turned their 360 on, ROFL. It's on the same network, it pops up to ad it. In fact, I personally don't know a single person who has a 360 that doesn't have it connected to their Windows Media Center PC. I also don't know a single person who shuts their PC off at home.

Also with the new bbc iplayer link on the ps3 making it far easier to get to now.I say the ps3 has more of an advantge when used with the now cheap playtv.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. Please tell us how to DVR with our PS3, lol. We would love to know, at least the rest of the world besides Europe.

300+ movies,200+ games,80gig+ of music, bbciplayer, vidzone,light surfing,bluray movies all on 1 unit without relying on any external stuff or any other pcs/macs makes it pretty much fact the ps3 is the better media center.
Click to expand...

15,000+ movies, 1200+ games, 120gb of music, lastfm, light surfing, 1080p instant on movies, without relying on any external stuff or any other pcs/macs makes it pretty much fact that the 360 is the better media center, especially when you add the media center extender functionality from windows.

alg7_munif said:
I can't imagine the XBox360 being a part of a media centre, it is too loud.
Click to expand...

I can't hear mine.

jonneymendoza said:
the social aspect sucks but the online element is as good as if not better then the 360's "i cant have more than 16 players in a MP game" rubbish compared to ps3's "i can do any player count i want from 60 players in resistance to 256 in MAG"
Click to expand...

ROFL. 16 players only on 360? Since when. I have 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 and 50 player games on my 360. Not sure why yours is any different. Oh, and 256? You do know that FFXI Online on the 360 is an MMO right?

ocellaris said:
most people do not have rj45 wired up throughout there house. for many people, its easier to simply connect to a wireless router which can anywhere that is convenient for them.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

Most people I know use wired internet at home along with wireless. However, most people I know use hardwired for gaming because it's a solid, faster connection.
 
What a strange thread this is. Not least because we have absolutely no idea what the long term effect of recent changes are going to be.
 
theNoid said:
A. Wireless - 100% optional and is not required to play games.
B. Blu Ray - 100% optional and is not required to play games.
C. Upgrade HDD - 100% optional and is not required to play games.
D. Any BT headset - 100% optional and is not required to play games.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Dan_D said:
Nope. The XBOX 360 and PS3 are game consoles first and foremost. Anything else is just fluff.
Click to expand...

Both echo my sentiments exactly, and I could never understand why gamers, of all people, seem to focus so much on the "fluff", the extraneous features of consoles.

I've always owned both consoles, and being a hardcore gamer since childhood (I'm 34 now), I can honestly say that if you make the comparison between what matters - the gamer themselves - the 360 "wins" hands-down.

Sure, there are some excellent PS(3) exclusives (God of War or Killzone, for example), but unless you're hardcore into sports, the 360 has a far more impressive library, and in terms of quality games, not just quantity. The PS3 just does not have enough high-quality titles (in my opinion, unless you're much into sports titles), nor the same library of games, and is slightly behind in visuals with most multi-platform releases.

Also, a comparison in visuals... in almost all cases, the 360, even if by a small margin in the realm of aliasing, wins over the PS3 for visual quality.

I've been a hardcore PC gamer for the last decade, but still play consoles (sometimes there's just no choice, since the PC is getting screwed all-too-often regarding ports, dropped titles etc.) and 99% of games that both I and my wife play are on the 360.

I'm fairly "picky" regarding visuals as well, and certainly no "elitist" regarding any platform. I don't care what it is, as long as I can game enjoyably on it!

However, if you compare what really matters - the games - the 360 is, generally speaking (notice I said "generally") the superior console in terms of both it's game library and visuals.

I have a DVD player for watching movies, and multiple PC's and laptops to use for browsing the web etc. I don't need all that nonsense on my consoles.

While there are games on the Playstation (1, 2 & 3) I've definitely loved, nothing (at least for what I'm into) from the PS3 has ever touched what I play on the 360.

Gears of War 2 on the 360 and a 35" LCD TV is just astounding. I've never seen a PS3 title, exclusive or otherwise, match it in comparison. Comparing other games that have been released on both consoles, the 360 has always both looked and run better in my experience.

So, is MS in "trouble" just due to "affordability"? I hardly think so, because regardless of how many people may outright be a die-hard "fan" of the PS3, I've known and seen countless people change their tune and "secretly" end up with a 360 in their home after all of their "the PS3 is superior" hub-bub.

The PS3 might come with a larger HDD, free online play, Blu Ray etc. etc., but what it comes down to is games and gaming, honestly, the PS3 I do not feel really holds a candle to the quality and quantity of the 360's library or visuals. The PS3 can have every peripheral in the world, but when it's "lacking" in it's main purpose compared to the 360, games, to me it makes it less worth it, regardless of price.

I like the PS3, but when you speak about what matters, the games and gaming experience itself, I'd have to say that the 360 is a bit "superior" in that regard, and if you're an actual gamer, that is all that should matter.

Oh, and P.S. ...
When first owning a 360, I went through six, that's right, six of them initially due to hardware failures, and I still stick with the 360, hands-down. That should show that, despite such a debacle, I'm not "biased", just honest and objective. Finally having 360's that seem to be far more stable recently has made me extremely happy.
 
Coming from someone who has owned the Wii then the 360 then the ps3 last. I must say the exact opposite, I have enjoyed the PS3 exclusives much more so than the 360 exclusives. Halo 3? Yeah that got boring -- FAST. CoD4 came out and blew it out of the water (Game was good for both consoles doesn't matter about the 640p issue or what not). Pretty much any exclusive game on the 360 IMO does not hold a candle to the types of exclusives you get for the PS3 (Which look better and more impressive (KZ2 looks really good though it wasn't my cup of tea). Graphically nothing on the consoles have yet to compare to KZ2 that I have seen.

People seem to forget that almost ALL games that are popular end up on both consoles. Halo3/GoW2 not-withstanding as well as KZ2/Uncharted2 etc. PlayStation has a big enough user base that nobody is missing out if they aren't on the 360, you will ALWAYS be able to find matches provided the game is popular (That's for both systems).

I play on my PS3 now and have pretty much put my 360 on the back burner for over the past year or more.
 
Once again, multi console owning wins the thread. And a pc to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.
 
Exclusives on PS3 > 360 exclusives
imo
that's about as un-bias as anything else said in this thread had been.
 
bigdogchris said:
A PS3 or 360 w/0 a HDTV? You're missing 1/2 of the experience! I bought my TV with my PS3 and have also enjoy HD NFL games ... worth the money.
Click to expand...

I know a few people with 360's and sd tv's. A lot of kids have them setup like this as well(from what my brothers friends have said). Sure the family might have a HD tv or 2 but the kids rooms are rocking hand me downs.

Dan_D said:
I don't see a problem here. As far as I am concerned the XBOX 360 has been and always will be the better console when compared to the PS3. There are far more games I want to play on the XBOX 360 and none of the so called "features" of the PS3's appeal to me outside of Blu-Ray playback. I've got an HTPC for that and while I don't like the fact that I'm stuck with Power DVD or something like it vs. Windows Media Center or VLC for Blu-Ray playback, I can live with it. If I ever bought a PS3 it would be for Blu-Ray use and maybe one or two games. Still given that I have found more games on the XBOX 360 that I like and given that I find my HTPC adequate for Blu-Ray playback, I still view the PS3 as a waste of money.

My thoughts on the features:

A. Wireless connectivity. will they pack in a wireless adapter or will they build wifi into the console it's self?

This is a feature that I don't care much about. I use wired network as much as possible and try to avoid wireless networks in my home. I realize that this feature is far more important to other people who may not have an network infrastructure in their home that would make connecting their XBOX 360 to their network easy. My house is actually wired for RJ-45 so this wasn't a problem for me.

B. Blu-ray playback

An awesome feature. I really wish the XBOX 360 could do this. This is really the only feature that I truly think makes a PS3 worth considering.

C. Ability to use/upgrade to a larger HDD without risk of banning your console

not really important but nice to have

My thoughts exactly. I've rarely ever run out of space on my XBOX 360 and the only times I did, it was due to having too many movies from XBOX Live downloaded to the console. I deleted them and I was good to go again.

D. Ability to use pretty much any BT headset

This is nice but given that I don't use the headset my XBOX 360 came with, nor do I have any desire to use one, this feature is meaningless to me.

Now if there are games you really want to play on the PS3 then obviously there has never been a better time to buy one.
Click to expand...

I'll add a few thoughts in here.

A: The 360 elite should include wireless. Just gives people more options. That being said the friends I know that ran the 360 or ps3 via wifi have switched to a cabled connection due to extra lag they can feel. Still for a casual gamer it would be nice.

B: While I agree blue ray would be nice I have yet to really use a console for movie playback. This includes video cds off the sega saturn(had the player for it from japan), dvds off the original xbox, the 360, or the ps2, and blue ray/hd dvd from the ps3/360. Considering how long that added to the PS3's price I think sony would have been better without it.

C: I will say this is something I wish they had more options for. My 20gig 360 hard drive is pretty much full from arcade games and addons. Thinking of just buying an elite and using my friends ms transfer cable to move my shit over. The 120gig 360 drive is just too much by itself. I then would have a spare system to throw in another room or something.

D: The 360 has some nice headset offerings that hook into the controller which means no extra batteries. They also have their own wireless headset that seems to work well. Don't really consider this a big deal.

I think Microsoft's biggest selling point is live. Sony hasn't been able to really compete with it yet. Nintendo's online solution is a joke. While I do wish live was cheaper or free, I don't mind paying for it as it works great. Sony's solution has a ways to go although I will say it is getting better.

Live is one of the big reasons I buy games for the 360 over the ps3, same can be said for a lot of my friends. I sold my ps3 a while ago because of this. Might pick up a slim down the road for a few games but only time will tell.
 
Bogie 19th said:
Most 360 owners I know knew about this because they were prompted to set it up as an extender when they turned their 360 on, ROFL. It's on the same network, it pops up to ad it. In fact, I personally don't know a single person who has a 360 that doesn't have it connected to their Windows Media Center PC. I also don't know a single person who shuts their PC off at home.

15,000+ movies, 1200+ games, 120gb of music, lastfm, light surfing, 1080p instant on movies, without relying on any external stuff or any other pcs/macs makes it pretty much fact that the 360 is the better media center, especially when you add the media center extender functionality from windows.
Click to expand...
I think most punters skip the media center part, Not shutting your pc off?, obviously got money to burn or dont pay the bills!!

You can fit all that on a 120gb xbox 360 elite without the use of a pc/mac??...... well done how long did that take to terra compress, im sure the whole world would want to know!!? My ps3 has all that i stated without having to rely on other external hardware or pcs/macs, the sky is the limit if you add something external or another machine/machines lmao

A 360 is hardly a media center if it has to rely on everything else!!

1080p instant on movies? Not many people have the connection for that im afraid but i suppose in your little world everyone you know has the broadband speed and bandwidth allowance for that!!
 
z3r0- said:
I'd rather pay 60 dollars a year for a service with a HUGE user base that isn't going anywhere than shell out 60 dollars for a bluetooth headset so I can talk to the whole 10 people who actually play ps3 games online. I know maybe 3 people in real live who play ps3 online vs dozens with LIVE.

GIANT fail on Sony's part not including a headset with the PS3.
Click to expand...

If that's a giant fail for Sony, then HUGE fail on Microsoft's part for not adding rechargeable controllers from the get-go and at least being able to play game online without having to pay for it.
 
Since I own both, I have trouble understanding those who get so emotional if another choses something else for their use.
 
refraxion said:
Coming from someone who has owned the Wii then the 360 then the ps3 last. I must say the exact opposite, I have enjoyed the PS3 exclusives much more so than the 360 exclusives. Halo 3? Yeah that got boring -- FAST. CoD4 came out and blew it out of the water (Game was good for both consoles doesn't matter about the 640p issue or what not). Pretty much any exclusive game on the 360 IMO does not hold a candle to the types of exclusives you get for the PS3 (Which look better and more impressive (KZ2 looks really good though it wasn't my cup of tea). Graphically nothing on the consoles have yet to compare to KZ2 that I have seen.

People seem to forget that almost ALL games that are popular end up on both consoles. Halo3/GoW2 not-withstanding as well as KZ2/Uncharted2 etc. PlayStation has a big enough user base that nobody is missing out if they aren't on the 360, you will ALWAYS be able to find matches provided the game is popular (That's for both systems).

I play on my PS3 now and have pretty much put my 360 on the back burner for over the past year or more.
Click to expand...


I'm gonna have to agree with you on this one. I haven't bought a 360 game since I can remember. Although, my PS3 gets way more use. I tried Windows Media Center for my 360 and was not satisfied because most of my video files wouldn't play. However, with the program called "PS3 Media Server" I can play everything... even MP4. And also, the exclusives for PS3 are just... idk how to put this... better? I mean, I have almost 20 360 games and about the same amount of PS3 games and the exclusives I have for PS3 outweigh the 360 ones in terms of gameplay, story, graphics... whatever. Some examples of exclusives I have for PS3...

Metal Gear Solid 4
Killzone 2
Resistance 1 and 2
Warhawk
Uncharted
Ratchet and Clank Future
Heavenly Sword

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm looking way more forward to the upcoming PS3 exclusives than the 360 ones... Gran Turismo 5, Uncharted 2, MAG, Heavy Rain, God of War 3, Agent...

I love both consoles, but I just haven't even played my 360 in months.
 
You guys are hitting the nail on the head but continue to miss the picture entirely... Yes, the PS3 has more features. Everybody knows that. But, the 360 has a MUCH better library of games, and if they did not release another game for over a year, the PS3 still would not catch up. The PS3 is also on par with the 360 for almost all multi-platform games. Yes, there are some exceptions(NOT PS3 only games), but they are the exception.

For gaming the 360 is still LOADS better. It is missing some of the bling that the PS3 has, but I bought my console to play games with, not to watch movies on. If I wanted to watch the best quality Blu-Ray, I'd buy a stand alone system with much better picture quality than the PS3.

Just in case you people think I am biased, I do own both consoles, but the PS3 is mainly used to watch Blu-Ray and play the occasional PS3 game. Hell, the only reason I bought it was to play MGS4 and GT5(God, when is that going to come out?). It is kind of a let down, because Sony has lost so many of its exclusives and RPGs that made the PS2 such a hit. Maybe they will get their act together soon though...
 
hdawg06 said:
You guys are hitting the nail on the head but continue to miss the picture entirely... Yes, the PS3 has more features. Everybody knows that. But, the 360 has a MUCH better library of games, and if they did not release another game for over a year, the PS3 still would not catch up. The PS3 is also on par with the 360 for almost all multi-platform games. Yes, there are some exceptions(NOT PS3 only games), but they are the exception.

For gaming the 360 is still LOADS better. It is missing some of the bling that the PS3 has, but I bought my console to play games with, not to watch movies on. If I wanted to watch the best quality Blu-Ray, I'd buy a stand alone system with much better picture quality than the PS3.

Just in case you people think I am biased, I do own both consoles, but the PS3 is mainly used to watch Blu-Ray and play the occasional PS3 game. Hell, the only reason I bought it was to play MGS4 and GT5(God, when is that going to come out?). It is kind of a let down, because Sony has lost so many of its exclusives and RPGs that made the PS2 such a hit. Maybe they will get their act together soon though...
Click to expand...

I think you are the one thats missing the point. 360 DOESNT have the better libary of games imo. they are both the same because MOST games are multiplatform. each console as good exclusive games and i wouldnt say 360 or ps3 has more. they more or less have the same amount of decent exclusive games on both platforms.

IMO 360 is only ahead so to speak is because it was released first. i can see why people woth 360's dont want to buy a ps3. its not because the ps3 has lack of games. its because MOST GAMES are on the 360 as well so why pay £250 just to play 10-20 exclusive gameS? Same could be said in the other way round. why buy a 360 if you already have a ps3 just to play a couple of 360 games?

in all honestly, the best combo to have this gen is the ps3 and PC. why? because most 360 exclusive games arrive on the pc such has mass effect while none of the ps3 exclusive games come out on the pc.

imo you will get a better "variety/larger catalogue of games" if you have a ps3 and pc.
 
hdawg06 said:
Those games right there are all rentals. None have much replay value and are relatively short. Heavenly Sword is fairly long though.
Click to expand...

Gears of war is short too plus the argument the guy was on about was not about longevity of a game but the quality of the game itself.

dont know why you think warhawk is a rental too as thats a multiplayer game. Not everyone is like you who blitz through games as you have lots of time to play them. some people take there time going through a short game. it took me a month to complete uncharted for example.

i certainly got my money's worth on that. Uncharted 2 will have online coop and various online game modes so that will only make the lifespan of the sequel even greater.

At the end of the day, sony or ms are both doing well this gen. they are both selling hardware at a reasonable rate and they both have great games that we can all enjoy. no1 is losing out and no1 is in trouble and wont be.

if sony or MS was in sega's shoes ie the dreamcast, then you can say they are in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top