Xbox 360's future vs. PS3's future

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GameFreak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
330
As far as games coming out, new tech, and value; which system do you guys think has the better future? I know that right now, arguably, the xbox 360 is the best. However, with the advent of blue-ray(higher storage disks) for the ps3 will it eventually do in the xbox 360? How soon will blue-ray encoded games become necessity? Also, how about title line-ups? I figure xbox will probably be able to acquire nearly all games that come out to the pc(save a few). How about the ps3?

Which system has more (video)processing power and will be able to "wow" us with graphics? I would think xbox 360 is getting to the age where it's "wow" factor is reaching it's end, but what about ps3?

Just asking because I'm probably going to bite on this xbox 360 60gb holliday bundle for $275(after taxes). Just wondering how long before ps3 will start to own xbox 360 hands down.
 
In all Honesty, You have to own both systems.. Plain and simple.

Xbox 360:
Awesome Online service
Been out longer so more developers have better experiance
"Truely the first Next Gen experiance"
Easily obtainable for cheap
Backwards compatible

PS3:
More raw power
Have yet to see the PS3 at full power in games
Still young and has alot more up its sleeve
Blue ray player

Those are only the ones that matter to me.. I own both systems and both get equal play time. Some games just work better on one system than the other. Skate is the prime example for me. Worked flawlessly on 360, no stuttering, nothing. PS3 version tho, crappy frame rate lead to massive stuttering in between tricks..

So theres really no right in my opinion. Both systems rock, and Everyone should own both!! If only it was possible for most people there wouldnt be as much fanboyism...
 
I have both, but personally I like my 360 a lot more.

Achievements don't mean anything, but they add a ton to the experience for me. Once I beat a game, I still have stuff to shoot for and unlock. It seems like such a silly thing, but it's awesome.

The 360 controller is more comfortable to me too, ps3 controller feels small and makes my hands hurt after playing for a while.

The best things the PS3 has going for it are the reliability, and noise. My 360 sounds like a train (elite model about a year old). The blu-ray thing is cool, not sure if the storage capability will make much of a difference.
 
I own both so I'll give my unbiased opinion on each system

360 pros
Lower hardware cost
Great online play
Fast servers for downloading demos, movies etc..
Great controller (the best ever imo)
Large catalog of great games

360 cons
Noisy dvd drive
Seems to have reliability issues (I haven't experienced this much)
Interface seems dated compared to the PS3
Have to pay for online play (but not for everything else done online)

PS3 pros
Fairly quiet
Slick interface
Great Blu-ray player capability
Free online play

PS3 cons
Higher hardware cost
Online play is lacking compared to XBLive
Slow servers for demos/movies
Lacks the large back catalog of games that the 360 has
Multi-platform games usually look or run slightly worse than the 360 counterpart (I have confirmed this using my Gamefly account)

Overall I would call it even....but if I could only keep one it would probably be the 360 simply because of the sheer number of games available and the better controller. The Blu-ray player on the PS3 is very nice to have...but both systems offer HD movies/tv shows for purchase or rent which is much cheaper than buying a $20-$30 Blu-ray disc that you may only watch once. Speaking of movies/tv...the 360 has a wider selection of both.

As the gentleman above said...get both if you can afford it, and you won't miss out on anything.;)
 
I was all for the Wii at the beginning of this generation. Honestly, I probably would have bought one near launch, like a friend of mine did, if I could find them / if I had the motivation to wake up at 6 am on Sunday that getting one required. However, watching his experience with it instead of getting one myself has led me to believe that regardless of their stellar hardware sales (which were a total fluke, in my opinion) the Wii is failing. Nintendo doesn't give a shit about getting good exclusive games, or good games in general. The first party titles, which in the past were uniformly stellar, are now all about exploiting the market. What are we at now, Mario Party 23? How many generic "music" or "sports" games can they release? And the third party situation on the Wii is disgusting.

The PS3 has kind of the same problem. I've owned a PS3 for about a year now, and in that time, I can count on one hand the amount of titles I've honestly felt compelled to purchase...a good amount of which I ultimately decided not to get. I got Burnout Paradise, which I bought at full price when it first came out and I'm glad I did, because Criterion's utter dedication to releasing more content without charging should be a model for the rest of the industry - but that's just a racing game, and can only last for so long. I got Rock Band, which doesn't really count, because it wasn't an exclusive anyway (and was worthless in the long run because every hardware peripheral except the microphone broke within 3 months). I thought about Dead Space, which doesn't count, because it's not an exclusive. DMC4 was supposedly better on the 360. GT5:p is a fucking demo that they charge you $40 for. Mirror's Edge is a 6 hour game for SIXTY DOLLARS. Prince of Persia, I might get, depending on the reviews. But that's about it - there has been an absolute lack of compelling titles like the PS2 had like Okami, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, or any of a number of other games.

I'm rambling at this point, but basically I feel that PS3 is more of a media center, whereas the 360 is by far more of a gaming console. I don't know which of the two will "win" ultimately, but as far as games go, in my opinion it will end up with the 360 on top, with the Wii and PS3 fighting for a distant second. Nintendo only gives a shit about making as much money as they can (ironically) whereas Sony apparently only gives a shit about being a status symbol. If you had asked me in 2006 I would have had those two opinions reversed, and I would have had the Wii on top, with the 360 in a distant second and the PS3 in a distant third.
 
i own both as well and like both for different reasons but as far as the higher hard ware cost the 360 is cheaper because you get less out of the box when it comes to the little things, PS3 Blu ray, 360 no HD content, PS3 built in 10/100/1000 ethernet and wireless, 360 10/100 expensive wireless add-on, PS3 rechargeable controllers, 360 you have to buy battery packs, PS3 hard drive can be easily upgraded to the largest drive you want, 360 has 120GB limit and it is proprietary,

now i think games and game play, and image quality, online experenice, controller feel, are all subjective things and are up to the individual because everyone is going to to feel differently about different things.

but i do believe that some dev's have been lazy when it comes to making their games for the PS3 because it is harder to code for in relation to the 360 but i think and some dev;s have shown us this the PS3 is more of a power house compared to the 360.

and i think we can all agree that no game for any platform has been absolutely perfect right out of the box, i am playing Gears 2 and Resistance 2 and both have some small issues that i notice but i still like both games.

Now the new xbox live experience is going to add to the 360, i went out and bought a 120 drive just so i can install games to keep the noise down on my 360, this is something the PS3 had when it launched.

my opinion when the new MS console is released in the future i think that the PS3 will still be able to hold its own against it except it the graphical increase because face it other sheer horse power what can MS add that the PS3 doesn't already do. when the next gen systems are ready i think it going to be a battle like Intel vs AMD who has the most hardware power.

anyways just my 2 cents.
 
I had all three systems, but i sold my PS3.

I play my 360 alot and my Wii just sits there.
 
I'd say the only thing holding back the PS3 from shining, is developers focusing on the mass appeal of the lowest common denominator for HD gaming; The 360. Clearly when given time to optimize and actually program for the hardware the PS3 shines... at this point in time it's just not a bang for the buck kind of system. It's harder to program for and it doesn't have the 12 year old kids backing it.

I play my 360 and PS3 about equally, and before I buy any multiplat release I read the reviews and comparisons... PSN is a step in the right direction, but everyone swears Xbox Live is the holy grail of gaming. To me, it seems like a step back. But, that's because I'm a pc gamer first and foremost.

I think the future for the PS3 IF they can retain exclusive content will be bright. The PS3 has a lot going for it, moreso then the 360. But, few developers seem keen on doing anything exceptional and only for the ps3.

I own all three and I played them all regularly up until Fable 2 arrived at my door... because my new graphics card came in the same day, and I went from consoles back to my roots.
 
Though the topic is shit... and done to death. I do love the way people level the "lazy" accusation at devs all the time. Because yeah, we've all got unlimited budgets and time to work around limitations.
 
Mac[X-D];1033317924 said:
i own both as well and like both for different reasons but as far as the higher hard ware cost the 360 is cheaper because you get less out of the box when it comes to the little things, PS3 Blu ray, 360 no HD content, PS3 built in 10/100/1000 ethernet and wireless, 360 10/100 expensive wireless add-on, PS3 rechargeable controllers, 360 you have to buy battery packs, PS3 hard drive can be easily upgraded to the largest drive you want, 360 has 120GB limit and it is proprietary,

now i think games and game play, and image quality, online experenice, controller feel, are all subjective things and are up to the individual because everyone is going to to feel differently about different things.

but i do believe that some dev's have been lazy when it comes to making their games for the PS3 because it is harder to code for in relation to the 360 but i think and some dev;s have shown us this the PS3 is more of a power house compared to the 360.

and i think we can all agree that no game for any platform has been absolutely perfect right out of the box, i am playing Gears 2 and Resistance 2 and both have some small issues that i notice but i still like both games.

Now the new xbox live experience is going to add to the 360, i went out and bought a 120 drive just so i can install games to keep the noise down on my 360, this is something the PS3 had when it launched.

my opinion when the new MS console is released in the future i think that the PS3 will still be able to hold its own against it except it the graphical increase because face it other sheer horse power what can MS add that the PS3 doesn't already do. when the next gen systems are ready i think it going to be a battle like Intel vs AMD who has the most hardware power.

anyways just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Sadly misinformed post. :(
 
Nate_MachV said:
Clearly when given time to optimize and actually program for the hardware the PS3 shines
Click to expand...

Part of what makes a console good is having good games with it. If you cannot design a console that is easy to program, your going to limit your library and/or quality of your games.

The PS3 has a lot going for it, moreso then the 360.
.
Click to expand...

Right now the only edge the PS3 has is a blu-ray and processing power. However the 360 has the edge in graphics, the edge in online, the edge in UI, the edge in games, and even the edge in exclusive titles.
The 360 has been out for three years, and the PS3 two years. The console war is half over and right now and the 360 has been maintaining it's lead since launch. I don't really see much going for it before the next gen consoles come out, other than Killzone 2, assuming it's good.
 
I like where this thread is going: into untapped regions of things that have never been discussed before
 
LoL at PS3 "untapped" power. I think that by two years, most of the power has already been "tapped" (i.e. MGS4 and Uncharted). Anyways, I think the PS3's problem is that it doesn't have any game that would make it worth to people to shell out the cash. Most of the gaming experience on the PS3 can be had on the xbox at a much cheaper price. Thus, there's little reason to get a PS3 except for the blu-ray.

I think the future is that the Xbox will continue doing what it has always been doing, which is releasing hit titles and improving its online content, while the PS3 will sadly be playing the catch up game. PS3 will most likely have more ports from the 360s and be losing more exclusive. It's a pretty dim picture for the PS3. Of course, things will change when Sony decides to quite acting like an asshole company and drop the PS3's price to something more affordable (at least $299).
 
The PS3 is still going to be around, with games being made for it, when the 360 is retired. But in the US, where online gaming is huge, mostly because people like to brag, the 360 is going to always be ahead of the PS3.

The issue I have is, when the 360 had 15 million units sold, it was getting all sorts of exclusives. Now the PS3 has 15 million, it's getting ignored.

All in all though, Live/Gamerscore is a really nifty gimic/novelty, sorta like the wiimote. It's something that really doesn't matter, but people think it's the only thing that does matter.

Everyone I know has a 360 and the one person besides me with a PS3, never plays it. If you want to share games and trade, get a 360.
 
bigdogchris said:
The PS3 is still going to be around, with games being made for it, when the 360 is retired. But in the US, where online gaming is huge, mostly because people like to brag, the 360 is going to always be ahead of the PS3.

The issue I have is, when the 360 had 15 million units sold, it was getting all sorts of exclusives. Now the PS3 has 15 million, it's getting ignored.

All in all though, Live/Gamerscore is a really nifty gimic/novelty, sorta like the wiimote. It's something that really doesn't matter, but people think it's the only thing that does matter.

Everyone I know has a 360 and the one person besides me with a PS3, never plays it. If you want to share games and trade, get a 360.
Click to expand...

totally unrelated to the merits of either console, your shitting on online gaming as some kind of gimmick that only people in the US like, and that it's somehow a "novelty" is really funny.

I guess sometimes these threads are worth the amusing quotes that we get out of them.

What does "share games and trade" mean, and how do I accomplish this on my xbox btw?
 
bigdogchris said:
The issue I have is, when the 360 had 15 million units sold, it was getting all sorts of exclusives. Now the PS3 has 15 million, it's getting ignored.
Click to expand...
Thing is... when the 360 had 15m units sold there wasn't another HD console out with 23m units sold (I have no idea if that number is right, it's just an example).
 
well to answer the original question Just go to the movie fight club for the answer as all things should be :D :

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
 
The problem the PS3 has is that it's a bitch to program for and that for some reason Sony thought the Cell BE was good enough to do everything. So when it wasn't they had to throw a graphics chip in there it came out unbalanced, with a really good FP processor with 7 cores and an merely okay GPU. So it's gimped compared to the 360s superior graphics chip, at least in graphics. I'm sure there could be some awesome gameplay physics games for the PS3 if they use the Cell BE to it's full potential but as it stands the Xbox 360 is superior:
-Better graphics chip
-better games
-easier to program for because of normal CPU
But if someone can utilize the positive of the PS3:
-Amazing CPU for physics and stuff like that
-Use the HDD for actually installing games
 
Uberbob102000 said:
The problem the PS3 has is that it's a bitch to program for and that for some reason Sony thought the Cell BE was good enough to do everything. So when it wasn't they had to throw a graphics chip in there it came out unbalanced, with a really good FP processor with 7 cores and an merely okay GPU. So it's gimped compared to the 360s superior graphics chip, at least in graphics.
Click to expand...


People on the internet like to say "PS3 was supposed to have 2 cells and no GPU, and at the last minute they realized it sucked, and so they threw in a GPU." That is not entirely true. Early in Ken's design, but they knew many years before launch that was not feasible, and it would need a proper PC derived GPU. RSX was designed concurrently with G70 which launched in 05. Hardware is designed years in advance of actual production. It was expensive enough. If they delayed another year for a G80 type GPU, it would have cost $700 and lost even more market share. :p

Also some greatly exaggerate the difference in GPUs, "gimped" vs "superior" etc. They have similar transistor budgets, clock speeds, and process sizes. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Yes on paper, the Xenos is superior, largely due to being the first unified shader chip. It's more efficient. But experts like Criterion have downplayed the difference to "within 10% real world performance". We're not comparing a G70 to G80 or something.

The big paradigm shift is with the Cell processor. X360 and PC game code are practically cousins. They use very similar Microsoft APIs. Sony's hardware is fundamentally different.
Due to low level architecture, it likes data in smaller granular pieces, pushing it through a highly parallel path. Many developers are reluctant to expend the resources to learn and/or properly optimize for Sony's platform. In the current business environment, it's less profitable for them to develop multi-platform titles for PS3.

But some shoddiness is due to laziness. Many seasoned developers have mentioned how the PS2 or old systems like the NES were harder to create games for than PS3. Everyone learned the PS2. It's really about the bean counters, not the PS3's supposed exotic hardware. But there is no excuse for many of the slapped together ports they've cranked out on PS3. Do they not care about the quality of their work ?

Don't lose money on the effort, but why not be willing to make accept a lower ROI with PS3 multiplatform titles to keep a good reputation ? Evidently, some agree. Because there are studios putting out top notch multi-platform games on both systems.

At least Sony has the best 1st/2nd party support in the business. That and reliable hardware is why I bought a PS3. In the long run, I think PS3 exclusive titles have more untapped potential and headroom.
 
To keep it simple I own all three consoles. The 360 is used everyday by my wife (still plays DVDs with it), my son or I (gaming or media center), my wife uses the PS3 for blu-ray movies she rents. My daughter and her friends play the Wii about once a month.
 
I want a PS3 to go with my Xbox360, I'll get one eventually.

I don't want my Wii anymore. Only a few games worth playing, nothing on the horizon, and nothing planned either given the market it's aiming for.
 
IMO they are pretty much equal. Each has their own exclusives, but going one over the other isn't going to hurt you for the most part. Unless you are a Halo or MGS addict, then you could probably get by with just one. Most third party publishers are beginning to make the games for the two systems. The PS3 also tries to match the big 360 exclusives with their own. IE Resistance/Killzone for Halo and Gran Turismo for Forza.

The PS3 does have a little bit of an advantage because of its blu-ray player though.
 
misc rabbling. some extensive muttering and mumbling.

wii sucks
/retort/

360 pwns
/counter retort/

ps3 is alright, but my box gets a lot more play time.
/counter-counter retort/

pc> xbox > ps3 > warm dog shit in your cold cereal > finding out your girlfriend is pregnant > wii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top