Ps3 Vs 360, I have both consoles and there both great Options

[stopit33]

Hi guys, bean reading a lot of posts about the 360 and the ps3 on this forum why is it that people have to slag the ps3 off against the 360?, I have both consoles and there both great love the 360 with Xbox live and I have a lot of friends on my friends list and have great fun on the 360 no problems, got the ps3 on launch day got the 2 games I play most of the time on the 360 that's snooker and tiger woods 2007 so I can do a good comparison between the 2 games, for me snooker looks a lot better on the ps3 and so dues tiger woods, now may be that's something to do with the ps3 having hdmi and the 36 using component cables I don't know, then there's the price difference in the uk 360 is around £279 plus about £129 if you get the HD drive so that makes the 360 around the £408 mark plus any plug and play charges and memory cards you may need, the ps3 is around £399 no memory cards to buy or charges? and it as got blue ray included? so if you camper like for like the ps3 is a little cheaper I am not saying ps3 is better than the 360, only the games I play are better looking on the ps3, and its good to have competition between the 360 and the ps3 so thing can only get better, there's no need for the arguments slaging each console off there both good, I personally wont be going out and buying the 360 elite with the bigger hard drive and the hdmi socket after all MS said hdmi is no better than component so why make a new 360???

[twistedsymphony]

If you really owned an Xbox 360 you'd know that you don't need any memory cards

[stopit33]

errrr you don't NEED then as such, point I was making you can use a usb pen drive for the ps3 saves, for 360 you need memory unit to transfer between 360s and actually I own 2 ps3 3 360 2 ps2 1 game cube 1 psx and 3 xboxes one game tag is stopit returns

[richbambam]

Topic 360 vs PS3

360 anyday,as its much better value for money,people make me laugh when they try to justify the price of the PS3 by comparing all the add ons that you have to buy for the xbox360 to get a similar spec machine like adding a HD-DVD,lets face it I bought a xbox360 to play games,I dont really give 2 hoots about high definition movies I have loads of dvd movies & there fine,

the day i buy a PS3 is when its available for around £250,although i notice a lot of places selling them for £399 now so its going in the right direction

[stopit33]

Topic 360 vs PS3

360 anyday,as its much better value for money,people make me laugh when they try to justify the price of the PS3 by comparing all the add ons that you have to buy for the xbox360 to get a similar spec machine like adding a HD-DVD,lets face it I bought a xbox360 to play games,

You must camper like for like when you look at the pries point dont you?? and dont forget PSN is free xbox live is £39

This post has been edited by stopit33: Apr 9 2007, 01:16 AM

[Mr Invader]

You must camper like for like when you look at the pries point dont you?? and dont forget PSN is free xbox live is £39

And you get a service with a value of $50(£39) when you get xbox live, the PSN is barely comparable with the first version of xbox live on some levels.

[twistedsymphony]

errrr you don't NEED then as such, point I was making you can use a usb pen drive for the ps3 saves, for 360 you need memory unit to transfer between 360s and actually I own 2 ps3 3 360 2 ps2 1 game cube 1 psx and 3 xboxes one game tag is stopit returns

I'm glad you own a lot of consoles... well, not really, actually I couldn't care less.

I guess I don't understand how a pen drive magically doesn't cost you any money... I don't have a pen drive laying around, I don't have a need for one. From what I've seen they're not any cheaper then a memory unit either. And if I wanted to bring my save games to a friends house I could just remove my 360s hard drive.

Also you failed to mention the costs added to the PS3 for Official Component Cables ($50), and a Sony headset ($50). If you want both consoles to be equally equipped, the PS3 doesn't come with those parts so you'd need to add them.

Though no amount of money will add achievements to the PS3, nor will it add an integrated friends lists and messaging accessible 100% of the time. I'd buy a PS3 right now if it had those features, they've become a vital part of my gaming experience. The friends list so I can talk to my college friends in other states while I game, even if we're playing different games. and the Achievements for the replay value they add to my games. $60 isn't so bad for a game when the achievements triple the amount of gameplay I get out of them. I wouldn't pay that price without them. Without achievements even Wii games seem overpriced to me.

I guess I don't understand why you feel the need to argue for one console over another. The PS3 has some decent features and some decent games, but it seems that most people feel it's overpriced for what it offers. Others (like myself) don't care about the price and aren't buying it simply because it doesn't offer what we're looking for.

No amount of money is going to give it features that it doesn't have... and no amount of features will make up for the price of entry if it is out of someone's budget.

This post has been edited by twistedsymphony: Apr 10 2007, 03:18 PM

[uberwoot]

Yes its more expensive buy you cant forget its also more state of the art. And with that it will coust you money.


Games wont start to shin and be worth the money untill devs take full advantage of the hardware. Look at the early PS2 games compared to the later made games. This is same for the PS3 the games now are just the tip of the ice berg.

360 is a great system however it was rushed into production causeing all the problems people are haveing. They been good about correcting the problem but the system still has its flaws but then again no system is perfect.


bottom line is sony did what the xbox did to the ps2. make there specs so much higher but they went one step ferther and chosen truely state of the art componets for there system.


so whats a better buy? if your still on a normal tv just get the 360. you wont enjoy any of the PS3 features on that tv or the 1080p goodness.

if you got a high def tv and want a blue ray player and all that stuff then the PS3 is a better value since you get your games, blue ray player ect and most of the stuff has to be bought seprate on the 360 what adds up really quick.


so what has better graphics? none to me they bolth look like crap. to meny jaggies im use to 2 8800GTxXs now and allways been running to of the most state of the art graphics cards in SLI. however the 360's graphics are close to as good as they will ever get why the PS3's are not. They still need to optamize things and devs need to take advantage of the hardware. Dispite what people may say devs will do it because thats how great epic games are made. no game can be programed in a day and if they want to program a game really easy chances are the game is going to end up sucking "the guy game, play boy mansion ect."



bolth are great. you cant compare the 2 systems tho. its like compareing a computer thats a year older than the outher one. i own bolth systems and im not a "fanboy" i think compatition is good for use because without it we would still be in the days of 8bit gameing.

[twistedsymphony]

Yes its more expensive buy you cant forget its also more state of the art. And with that it will coust you money.

What exactly makes it more state of the art? "Cell" based processing, high speed graphic ram, and a blue laser are the only new tech in the box. Cell based processing has so far been more of a headache then it's worth, the extra speed of the ram doesn't seem to matter because it needs that extra speed just to make up for the fact that there is 256MB of it. and the blue laser has pretty much only been useful for watching movies so far as the only game that has taken up more then a DVDs worth of space is Resistance.

By comparison the Xbox 360 uses a multi core processor, unified ram, dual purpose pixel pipes, and a GPU with built in memory to speed up specialized tasks. All of those are state of the art... If you look in the PC market, with the exception of the cell you can get all the PS3's tech in PC parts, you can't with the Xbox 360 it's still too new.

Just because Sony says their tech is more "state of the art" doesn't make it so. Read any technical comparison or devs who speak at the technical level (read: something other then just "I like like this one better") and they almost unanimously cite that the Xbox 360's architecture is designed better for making games.

Games wont start to shin and be worth the money untill devs take full advantage of the hardware. Look at the early PS2 games compared to the later made games. This is same for the PS3 the games now are just the tip of the ice berg.

Very true... but the same can be said for the 360, launch games looked markedly worse then todays games. So as much as the PS3's games will improve with time... so with the Xbox 360s, and So will the Wiis, and so will every other platform on the planet. What's your point?

360 is a great system however it was rushed into production causeing all the problems people are haveing. They been good about correcting the problem but the system still has its flaws but then again no system is perfect.

And the PS3 WASN'T rushed to market? Every console is rushed to market, heck almost every product is rushed to market, it's just a matter of how much. there is never enough time to do everything you want to do. When you look at the Xbox 360, yeah it had it's problem but the hardware has remained the same for almost a year. By comparison the PS3 has been out only months and already gone through a few major revisions... from a strictly hardware standpoint which company sounds more confident in the finalization of their launch hardware? Rushing to market and short changing your upgradeable OS and launch games is one thing... rushing to market and short changing your hardware is a completely different problem. the latter cannot be fixed down the road with time.

bottom line is sony did what the xbox did to the ps2. make there specs so much higher but they went one step ferther and chosen truely state of the art componets for there system.

Not really. On Paper the PS2 theoretically outperforms the Xbox 1.... Go look at some old Sony PR FUD from before the Xbox was released... they were ranting and raving that MS was stupid because they were choosing hardware that was considerably slower then the PS2. In terms of raw numbers the PS2 outperforms the Xbox 1 in nearly every category. I think we all know what the real world performance was in the end.

Nevermind that but the Xbox didn't start design until AFTER the PS2 was already released the tech really did have over a years worth of advantage. The PS3 and 360 started development at the same time, the hardware was finalized at the same time. After the hardware was finalized the PS3 was delayed six months supposedly due to them waiting for HDMI and BluRay spec finalization and then another six months due to blue diode shortages. The hardware is the same era... just because the PS3 was delayed almost a year doesn't make it a year better, the hardware didn't magically change during that time. Both consoles should have launched spring of 06, the 360 was released 1 season earlier then projected and the PS3 was released two seasons later then projected... doesn't change the fact that they're using the same generation of tech in their boxes. The difference in release time might be similar to last generation but the differences in the tech development is a wash.

so whats a better buy? if your still on a normal tv just get the 360. you wont enjoy any of the PS3 features on that tv or the 1080p goodness.

The Better buy is and always will be... the console that offers the games and features you want at the lowest price. That changes on a person to person basis... but if you look at the general game buying population it would seem that the Wii is the console that meets that metric for most people, and the PS3 is struggling to appeal to people in that regard.

Besides the point that the Xbox 360 is just as capable of 1080p graphics as the PS3. Unless you're sitting 8ft from a 100+ inch screen it's physically impossible for the human eye to determine the differences between 720p and 1080p
Don't believe me?: http://www.audioholics.com/education/displ...of-human-vision

so what has better graphics? none to me they bolth look like crap. to meny jaggies im use to 2 8800GTxXs now and allways been running to of the most state of the art graphics cards in SLI.

Your opinion and you're entitled to it... I'd disagree but that's mine.

however the 360's graphics are close to as good as they will ever get why the PS3's are not. They still need to optamize things and devs need to take advantage of the hardware. Dispite what people may say devs will do it because thats how great epic games are made.

I agree that the PS3 games will improve with optimization over time... but how do you figure the Xbox 360 has been tapped out... NOTHING ANYWHERE points to that being the case. Even Epic has stated that Gears of War only uses a fraction of the Xbox 360's potential and could have looked worlds better with further optimization. I have not heard 1 dev on either side of the fence even hint that the Xbox 360 has reached it's limit... both sides agree that both consoles could a whole lot further then where they're at right now.

[mlmadmax]

Well said twisted, couldn't have put it better myself.

[cerberus414]

One thing I want to mention about optimization and console's potential.

!!!THERE IS NO POTENTIAL METER!!!

You may argue the CPU meter as being a potential meter, but it really isn't. I have some background knowledge about computers and computer coding. Gears of War probably did use 100% of the Xbox 360s CPU but so did Resistance: The Fall of Man on the PS3. The potential the people usually refer to is the efficiency in the coding. There are a million ways to write the same program that will do exactly the same thing, but they will all be different in terms of how many commands each require to accomplish the task. Logic tells me, the less lines of code you got, the better efficiency and more resources are left for other things. So what I'm trying to say is that potential cannot be measured, it is just natural for developers to try out different codes/commands and see which works best with the hardware, and at the same time keeping everything simple and efficient. That's what is meant by exploiting. And please don't listen to idiots who say: "Only 20% of PS3's potential was tapped" - Thats a statement totally pulled out of someone ass.

This post has been edited by cerberus414: Apr 22 2007, 06:53 AM

[Molten Universe]

Before i start, twistedsymphony is abit of a legend for just being true to what he believes and not sub conciously starting a topic just to flame 360 users.

Studying computer coding at school right now and from what i've been taught cerberus414 is right about less lines of coding using less RAM etc.

What's really quite funny is people always comparing their beloved PSN to Xbox Live... get real.

You said yourself you didn't want to start a flame war (did you? i don't remmember) but who would come here to start one anyways when you clearly were making it seem your subliminally putting down the 360.

I actually never knew the ps2 had better specs than the xbox.. none the less xbox still is obviously better, anyone with eyes can see that.... maybe it will happen again... lower spec console winning? but there is no lower spec in this battle, i think that the 360 beats the Ps3 in some ways and Ps3 beats the 360 in some ways.
As twistedsymphony said its what you want solely, not oh look it can read memory sticks i'm gonna get the Ps3.

Now can someone please actually tell me why the "Cell" is so good... and why blu-ray is soooo much better than anything else besides the fact it can hold more data on the discs. I have never heard of any devs myself, say that there wasn't enough room on the discs so we couldn't finish the game. (i'm not trying to be a smart ass just haven't researched the Ps3 enough)

[throwingks]

Now can someone please actually tell me why the "Cell" is so good...

http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=598326

[coldasice]

Well, I'm a poor ass college kid. So for me the 360 works. I dont have some fancy schmancy HDTV. I dont need Blu-Ray disks. And all that stuff. I use my 360 to play games and stream the occasional movie from my computer. I think both systems are great, I know a guy who has a PS3 and I have played on it quite a bit. Honestly though, I dont think its worth the money. As one other member said its the cutting edge, so you will pay out the ass. I think the 360 makes more sense for the general population. Its cheaper, and on a regular TV there really isnt a huge difference between graphics (if any). If you are a huge home theater buff and have the change to pay for one well go for it, but for the rest of us who don't the 360 offers a viable competitive option.

[luther349]

the failer that is ps3. and im not kidding sony is now doing layoffs in the eu and im shure other countrys next couse there losing so mutch money and nowthey even lost capcom. and no game has used all the 360 or ps3 power as far as i knoe.

This post has been edited by luther349: Apr 23 2007, 01:42 PM