# A ps3 to 360 comparison, DO NOT START A WAR



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

So I want to make a note of this right now...

*I AM BY NO MEANS A FAN BOY OF SONY OR MICROSOFT.* 

i own both systems.

By far the most annoying thing is seeing fan boys boast about which system is better blah blah with illogical reason and dumb ass examples. This thread may be long and i may have to finish it a few times over, i have done literally over 6 months of comparing the both of these systems. So this is my review

I will make this content as organized as possible i will explain strength and weakness and than i will go onto summarizing it for people who are too lazy to read.

Xbox 360 Release Date: 11.22.05
Revisions of the system: 5 (soon to be 6) mainly for RROD issue
Networking type : Xbox Live Gold ($50.00 a year)
Different Connection types: 3 USB ports,Ethernet,A/V port,HDMI port (not all models),optical audio out
Different Variations: Arcade,Pro,Elite 

The Xbox 360 in my opinion is a great system.  Plenty of games, Great online community, Very User Friendly and acts as a very good Media Center unit for your entertainment center.
The issue with the 360 is that the 360 has reached its maximum potential graphically as a system (which is understandable considering its limits). Anyone who owns a Xbox 360 or even an Xbox is that we know Microsoft's outlook of how they handle hardware. "out with the old in with the new". Once they tap out of ideas, including the project natal. They will release the next Xbox and will quickly shut the doors on the remaining xbox 360 users (as they did with the original Xbox). Having the ability to only write to dvd-dl disk it really limits possibility for much, Pushing the system to its extent as we've seen a lot of the time is showing it's age. With a strong line up of exclusives and a great launch, the 360 was here to do one thing, to show in Microsoft's eyes what "next-gen" means.

Playstation 3 Release Date: 11.17.06 
Revisions of System: no..EDIT SORRY 1, THEY TOOK OUT THE E.E., wait..maybe 2...for whatever they took out to disable software emulation.
Network type: Built in wifi, Ethernet,HDMI,optical audio out,A/v port, 2 usb ports (some older models 4) some older models a media card port.
Different Variations: too many to type but as of now its just 2..? i dunno something like that. 

The ps3, Sony has been making video game systems since the launch of the psx (also known as ps1..etc) and  they are very good at it i might add, the ps1 destroyed sales for its time, took the life of Sega's Saturn, just did everything right for its time. Come the ps2..even better took the life of the Sega Dreamcast (R.I.P), and at that time it made Sega basically throw in the towel for making consoles anymore. With this much power over the market its only safe to assume when buying a console from Sony, your in no threat of the console going under. and i feel safe having spent the money for my PS3. 
Sony had a great idea on paper and presented it in the form of PS3, basically not making a Video Game Console...but a "entrainment experience". They incorporated there own technology (blu-ray) into the PS3. One thing sony did very right was continue to support the PS2, because it was and is a great system and it proved that sony doesn't leave its achievements in the dust to further better opportunity. One thing that sucks was to cut "cost" for the system they took out the emulation for ps2 on all ps3 systems. *with little hope that they may run software emulation (like 360) to add it back.


Ok now with both positive and negative done and said about both systems. Time for part 2.

Part 2: Comparing features 

Xbox 360:
1080p HD playback of Digital Downloaded movies.
Huge software library with lots of great games, and exclusives
HDMI (certain models)
great controller feels comfortable for hours


Playstation 3
-1080p HD playback
-Blu-Ray movies
-Built in WiFi
-Upgradeable Hard Drive (up to whatever amount you'd like)
-Supports linux out of the box 
-Good and Great exclusives
-HDMI 
-Free Online Gaming 
-Controller has built in Chargeable battery

__________________________________________________

	Now by this alone a lot of people would ook at it like...wow the ps3 has so much more to offer and that's just the thing it simply does, as much as i can say i enjoy my 360 way more i have put way more into it i have a library of over 75 titles. I am not being bias about this i am talking in all technical terms and not fan boy terms. One thing that aggravates me about the 360 is how they promised a great amount of games that are backward compatible, funny that they stopped updating the list of games compatible in 2007. Yeah, thank you Microsoft for showing us how much you really hated the regular Xbox.


	Everyone is always talking graphics this graphics that blah blah, you need to shut the F#@k up! Graphics are only a small portion that really count, ask any true gamer they can play a 10 year old game and enjoy it cause of controls and story. Technically the ps3's gpu is slightly underpowered compared to the 360 mainly cause of the AA, But my biggest peeve is the fact that when they see Metal Gear Solid 4, they don't say shit. That game alone proves that with the right developers and time the PS3 can destroy the competition. 

	The fact that the 360 is already pushing and has pushed its limits in games is scary, why else would they concentrate on some motion control shit to keep people "entertained" there running out of options and running out fast. I solely believe that the reason that MGS4 never made its way to the 360 because the system just could NOT handle it.

	Compatibility yeah, the fact that sony took it out is stupid i honestly thought that wouldn't happen, yeah it cut cost by a whole hundred dollars, but i think they should've just replaced it with software emulation the same way 360 does it. Why in the hell does Microsoft think that someone should spend 100 dollars on a 60GB hard drive, that is stupid, but hey gotta make money right?
At least with the ps3 they allow you to put your own in if you feel like upgrading.

	Sony, why would you release a system that is so hard to develop for? Was this part of your master plan, were you assuming that "we can only show great gaming with exclusives?'. This is the hurting point of the PS3 the games that are for both systems usually favor the 360 so when it comes down to it people say 360!. But the exclusives on the ps3 can show its potential and that gives some gamers hope that soon this will all be worked out.

	So my opinion on the entire subject, if i HAD TO PICK ONE system which would it be? 
Well at this point i think i would buy a PS3 even though blu-ray players can be found for a hundred dollars it's still showing that this system may push longer than the 360 (just like the ps2 did), The price tag for the ps3 is pretty justifiable being $400 seems steep but put in and calculate the difference in both systems

Xbox 360 Pro (with 60gb hdd)
299.99
Wi-fi card to play games wireless 
100.00 (cheaper unofficial alternatives but this is about official)
Xbox live for a year 
50.00
play and charge kit for 360
20.00
HDMI cable official Microsoft
50.00
No option for blu-ray playback through the console (yet, if ever)
______________________________________________
520.00 for a 60gb 360 with wireless and a chargeable battery and HDMI cable, internet play, and chargeable battery

Ps3 60gb version
399.99
Ps3 official HDMI cable (comes with a extended usb cable also)
50.00
_________________________________________________________
450.00 for 60gb ps3 with wireless internet, chargeable battery, HDMI cable, Internet play and Blu-ray format media.


So please people stop bitching about the price? yeah they should in theory drop the price of the console but than it's ok for them to remove the wifi, and charge for a battery for the controller?


Both systems have extremely good strong points, and shitty weak points.

In the end its all about the person spending the money on it.

I'm just simply saying that i think longevity is seen in Sony products and only seen in Microsoft operating systems. But in the end i have over 75 games for the 360, and only 11 games for the ps3. 

DON'T HATE ME FOR THIS PLEASE AND SEND ME DEATH THREATS


----------



## Kursah (Jul 16, 2009)

Nice work, can tell you have some serious time into this and both systems. I've considered getting both, but enjoy gaming on my PC too much, plus I'd have to get a decent TV, pay more for games, bleh. I've tried both, but I think I'd go PS3 just out of habit. Even when I had both PS2 and Xbox I played more PS2, games like GT series, GoW series, some games that even if they weren't as "pretty" were very fun to play. Very nice unbiased review imo, you're honest overall and it's because of reviews like this, people can walk away with a better idea of what to choose by having a nice list of good/bad for both. Again, nice work.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

Hah! phew, first feekback isn't someone threatening to kill me !

yea i wrote it for that purpose to give people a better idea rather than reading other sites (that i researched and its all about the graphics and OMG microsoft)

But thanks for taking the time to read!

appreciate it


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 16, 2009)

Most people that want one or the other are usually pretty solid in their choice... and then the rest of the crowd either buys neither (LOL ME), or has both anyways.

I think everyone Ive met that has a PS3 also owns a 360 and/or a wii, however...

I think that would be an interesting study. The composition of what people have: 360+more, PS3 only? ps3+360+wii? Do I smell a... POLL?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

i work at a computer shop man haha, you'd be surprised how many people ask me what i think they should get so this happened and i was arguing with a 360 fanboy in the shop and it made me want to write this haha.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jul 16, 2009)

nice review man,i'm glad someone said this because i'm fed up with my friends(xbox fanboy) going "ohh you got shitty ps3 now his going go ps3 fanboyy faggot",i was thinking..i got all 3 next-gen why would i turn into a ps3 fanboy?? i bought my 360 and wii first and i have to say 360 is a great console but i hate the fact of paying £40 per year for xbox live. It actually sums up altogether for the price you pay for 360 will equal buying a ps3.
I love playing online on the 360,but before they allow you to install games it lagged like a b*tch because of the disc being slow reading which makes your ears popping by the fans.
The ps3 was the console i always wanted when i heard the launch and i love it but i like both of the consoles as they both have strong points and weak points,one thing i love about ps3 is all the games are region free so i can play japanese games

I hate hearing fanboys going "360 betterrr" you get it a lot.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 16, 2009)

kurosagi01 said:


> nice review man,i'm glad someone said this because i'm fed up with my friends(xbox fanboy) going "ohh you got shitty ps3 now his going go ps3 fanboyy faggot",i was thinking..i got all 3 next-gen why would i turn into a ps3 fanboy?? i bought my 360 and wii first and i have to say 360 is a great console but i hate the fact of paying £40 per year for xbox live. It actually sums up altogether for the price you pay for 360 will equal buying a ps3.
> I love playing online on the 360,but before they allow you to install games it lagged like a b*tch because of the disc being slow reading which makes your ears popping by the fans.
> The ps3 was the console i always wanted when i heard the launch and i love it but i like both of the consoles as they both have strong points and weak points,one thing i love about ps3 is all the games are region free so i can play japanese games
> 
> I hate hearing fanboys going "360 betterrr" you get it a lot.



I completed my tri-fecta a few months ago with an Xbox elite.  Each does something better than the other imo.


----------



## powerspec (Jul 16, 2009)

*Before I start, everything in this thread is OPINION!  If you like one or the other better and it works best for you, then congrats.*

Very nice, I agree with just about everything but a few things 

You should add in there that all 360 games run in 1080p (upscaled of course) and only what (just guessing here) 20% of PS3 games run in 1080p.  Last time I counted (not including sports games from Sony) I could count all the 1080p games on both of my hands, and this was a few months ago (but this was from the very small wall of games for the PS3 in Gamestop).  I mean, the only game I have for my PS3 (out of 3 games I own total) that runs in 1080p is MGS4 which is the only good game for the system and why I bought a PS3 (and for blu-ray as im a movie junkie)

One of the things I don't agree on with you is this "The issue with the 360 is that the 360 has reached its maximum potential graphically as a system"  Then why do the same game running on both systems look better on the 360?  People keep'd saying GoW was the best that the 360 could do then came GoW2... and now RE5 (holy crap does it look good). "I solely believe that the reason that MGS4 never made its way to the 360 because the system just could NOT handle it."  We will see when the new MGS for the 360 comes out which one will look better.  "Graphics are only a small portion that really count"  Not in my eyes, I bought a GTX 295 just to make sure I get the best graphics out of my games.

Now for the cost, for the 360, you really don't need wireless (but it is way over priced).  And that 50$ HDMI cable, come on now, I got a 6foot cable from newegg for 10$.  And even then you don't need it as the 360 will do 1080p over component cable and they look the same over each.  You don't need a play and charge kit but in the long run it would be better.  For the PS3 controller, what happens when the battery stops charging, you would have buy another PS3 controller for 55$.

You should also put in there that about 50% (just guessing again by the games that I have played on the PS3 that needs to be installed just to play) of PS3 games need to be installed to the hard drive because the Blu-Ray drive is to slow to read the data off the disk, and even then, if the game is on the 360, the 360 can still load faster off the disk than the PS3 off the hard drive.  And if you install that game on the 360, its even faster loading.

Now note, im not a console fanboy, im a PC fanboy so both suck anyways (mouse and keyboard FTW).  Hell, I just had this happen to me yesterday on my 360 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYII01gxI8Y
I own both systems because I like playing games and not all games are on the PC so I have to have a console to play the rest.

BTW, go here to see comparison in games for both systems http://www.lensoftruth.com/

/flamesuit on


----------



## mrw1986 (Jul 16, 2009)

I pretty much agree with you 100%. I've owned a PS3, Wii, and 360 since their release. I've recently sold my Wii as it's just terrible and I've been through 2 360's because of RRoD issues. Still on my original 60gb PS3 and its running perfectly and currently acting as a media center streaming 1080p content over my gigabit ethernet from my PC. I personally think that PS3 has a better lineup of games but I will agree with you and 99% of others that the 360 has a FAR more comfortable controller. I am in NO WAY a fanboy and have had a HUGE amount of time with each system. I gave my 4 year old son my 360 for his birthday (June 30th) and it sits in his room where he uses it...but he still prefers PS3, haha. He likes gaming on my 40" XBR2 1080p LCD and $6000 home theater setup instead of his 37" Sceptre 1080p LCD with built-in speakers. He also like a lot of the games PS3 has to offer. And yes, my son is 4 and rocks at CoD:MW. He plays it on Xbox Live.


----------



## BrooksyX (Jul 16, 2009)

I think you mean 80gb PS3. They don't make 60gb PS3s anymore.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jul 16, 2009)

i love my 360, but was a longtime ps2 supporter, so im a fan of sony and microsoft.

the wii needs to fade away tho, pos hardware


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Most people that want one or the other are usually pretty solid in their choice... and then the rest of the crowd either buys neither (LOL ME), or has both anyways.
> 
> I think everyone Ive met that has a PS3 also owns a 360 and/or a wii, however...
> 
> I think that would be an interesting study. The composition of what people have: 360+more, PS3 only? ps3+360+wii? Do I smell a... POLL?



Ya 2006 my Brother wanted a Wii, i Got it for him, but then a year later he got me one and i wasnt even asking for a Console, anywho i play it, enjoy it etc, Ill probably get the other 2.


----------



## psych7111 (Jul 16, 2009)

Oh I love this stuff! Someone claiming to be a non fanboy but if you just read the comments, they always reveal themselves somewhere. I for instance will go on to say, sorry. Sorry that I DO have to say BS on almost everything you comment on. I will also say I own both consoles and play one 20 times as much as the other. Yep it's 360. I'll get to the reasons in a minute. 

Let's see where to start. "I own both systems." Awesome anyone can say that. It's a very simple scapegoat fanboys commonly use to escape from being flamed by another fanboy of the opposite console. This commonly gives the comment readers a sense of acknowledgment that whatever this guy says must be true! Right....... Well I do own both consoles as well! (asuming you actually do and if you believe me is up to you as well.) But I don't care letting people know why 360 is much better. I'm the assistant manager at a gamestop and let people know that very clearly. I actually am friends with many of them on xbox live. Many of them I agree with the types of games we like and many of them are my friends from being happy that I led them with a smart purchase of a kick ass console. Anyways everyone I work with has a 360 and 3 of us have ps3s as well. None of us like ps3 as much as our 360s. We talk about it all the fucking time because we get EXTREMELY bored and talk about the ups and downs of consoles. 

Sorry about that rant about my side story, back to ripping this "nonbiased" "nonfanboy" jarble. Let's see, "By far the most annoying thing is seeing fan boys boast about which system is better blah blah with illogical reason and dumb ass examples." 
Really? That's kind of what I'm seeing right there! weird... 6 months of comparing? Try owning every console on release date and seeing the real ups and downs of both! For example, RROD! OMG it sucks! yes it was a fatal flaw I admit, but when it happened it felt like I lost a child! I was in shock! There's a reason behind this. RROD is such a big deal since you go from ultimate gaming awesome to brick. It is so bad that people post about it everwhere about their pain. and I agree totally. But the ps3 fanboys need something to really get back at 360 fanboys since nearly half of all arguments over this shit ends up with this being mentioned. As for ps3 it was like a slow death. no games, waiting for good games,(and for updates and installs and load times, lol) I bought my ps3 on launch day and bought resistance. 3 days later gears of war came out. Yeah... my thoughts of ps3 went very far down as a game such as gears of war graphics weren't really matched for another year when Assassins creed, and cod4 came out. (Gears looks better than both though) and Assassins creed had real time lighting and looked much overall better on 360. 

Ok next. Revisions of System: none (ps3) right. looks like the 360 "Revisions of the system: 5 (soon to be 6) mainly for RROD issue" was an easy way to point out the rrod issue. ps3 has actually had multiple revisions. 60GB(BC) 20GB(BC) 80GB(LBC) 40GB 80GB 160GB. That looks like 6 to me. hmmmmmmm. Cut cost and take out media card readers, usb ports, ps2 playability. Oh but it's ONLY $399! wait, I don't need blu-ray, or wi-fi, or a big hard drive! well too bad! I think the 360 arcade for $199 is the greatest gaming deal I've ever seen! Working at a gamestop I sell anywhere from 1-2 of these a day. Compared to a few used ones and a pro here and there. And also compared to 1 ps3 every..... couple of weeks (I'm not kidding, including new and used) and a few wiis every week. I live near Kansas city where people want a next gen console to just play games now and maybe get online later and not sell a kidney. It's so easy to sell those arcades! The biggest reason ps3 is selling is the fact that every one is used to their ps2 with huge library of games and tons of exclusives and assuming that ps3 is the same, until I show them the 15 feet of new games and 25 feet of used games on the wall (half on bottom rows are spined too) compared to 10 feet new and 10 feet used for ps3. 

Man it's so hard to not rant about this, sorry.
"out with the old in with the new". Once they tap out of ideas, including the project natal. They will release the next Xbox and will quickly shut the doors on the remaining xbox 360 users (as they did with the original Xbox)
All righty, so 360 will discontinue this year? wait. That's not going to happen. But according to your logic it will. xbox had a 4 year shelf life. not bad for a console that was the same price as a ps2 with a hard drive and MUCH better graphics being sold for the same price. so 4 years and its up? With the new natal coming out late next year, their shelf life will likely go on to 2014, 2015. As the project manager at microsoft has said, "There's no need for a new xbox. The graphics are fine (look at RE5! {better on 360 btw http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=5454}) and there's no technology to improve enough upon the current xbox. And with Project Natal coming out, there will be new ways to play as well with the same system." so looks like microsoft is doing a 10 year cycle. OH DANG! Isn't that what sony said about the ps3! Sony also said that is why the $399 price tag is justified! or a $199 360. 

All right next. 
Different Variations: too many to type but as of now its just 2..? i dunno something like that.
Something like that? Sounds like you did your research! LOL, I already stated above what skus there were but I'll break it down for a laymen as yourself.
60GB full backwards compatible, media card reader, 4 usb $600 new, now $420 used
20GB full backwards compatible, no media card reader, 4 usb, no wireless $500 new $350 used
(I have the 20gb, had the 60 but traded with my friend and $50  since I didn't need the wireless or media card reader or big hard drive. {not much to dl anyways on psn! oh snap!})
80GB (first) 65% backwards compatible media card, 4 usb $500 new, $420 used
40GB no BC, 2 usb, no media reader $400 new, $330 used
80GB (current) no BC, 2 usb, no media reader $400 new $350 used
160GB (holiday bundle SE) no BC, 2 usb, no media reader $500 new $400 used (a rip off used and especially new. basically sony's way of saying large numbers and dumb people buying it. It sadly works on uneducated people.)

"Come the ps2..even better took the life of the Sega Dreamcast (R.I.P), and at that time it made Sega basically throw in the towel for making consoles anymore. With this much power over the market its only safe to assume when buying a console from Sony, your in no threat of the console going under. and i feel safe having spent the money for my PS3."
Well this would be true 5 years ago. but it's 2009 and, yes, the dreamcast died! yay! not really, i loved the dc! but current sales see a very bad turn for everything sony especially when compared to 360 and wii.  www.vgchartz.com
this was a really bad paragraph for a reason to buy a ps3. "The console isn't going to die! yay! numbers from 5-15 years ago say this!

And to the good stuff, the features. Let's start out with the ps3 and get the smaller list out of the way. 
1. its a bluray player! OMG! really! so i can spend anywhere from $25 to $35 on a movie that half the time is just an upscaled dvd! sweet. If you really need blu-ray, get a standalone player for $150 or better yet if you've got a decent pc, get this! http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106325
$60 not bad!
but seriously if you use netflix and rent movies it's not a bad deal, $12 gets one blu-ray out and stream video through pc and 360, as much as I want! the best of both worlds without wallet getting raped!
2.free online. I use this term loosely since you'd have to pay me to make me wait the absurd amount of time it takes to dl and install those damn updates! (that almost always do nothing!) but it's really not laggy like most 360 fanboys say and it's not that much different if you want to jump in and kill some bitches! but if you have friends, forget it! not happening. Connecting to friends and chatting with them is such a pain! 
3. upgrading hard drive. it is cool to be able to put in your own hard drive but really do you need to? there's not really much to dl on the psn however if you want to play a lot of games without reinstalling the games, then it might be a good thing to do.
4. mandatory installs. Ok this isn't really a feature but needs to be mentioned. When a CONSOLE REQUIRES you to install games, where's the advantage over pc games? With console it was put in and play! WTF! metal gear 4! (one of the best games ever btw) 5 installs throughout the game! HOLY BALLS! Why! oh ya. because blu-ray sucks at reading from the disk and the ps3 only has 256mb of ram! Therefore developers result to installing games to the HDD so games don't have ps1 loading times! especially since they have to load so often because of the limited ram!
5. -1080p HD playback, no. just no. go start up a game in your ps3. ok. now hit status or change your channel to see what resolution your running at. What's This!?! 720p! but it's BLU-RAY!!! no. ps3 has no upscaler chip and can only run games at what the developer can physically run it at. There are some games that do though. The new ghostbusters game runs in 1080p and looks amazing! well the 1080p part is true for ps3 and 360 but it looks like shit on ps3. http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=10974
if developers want 1080p on ps3, they must take out textures and draw distance etc.
6.Controller has built in Chargeable battery. Cool. I like this. I really do. But, when the battery quits accepting charge, controller is trash. Bam! new $55 dualshock! man that's expensive. $5 more for rumble! YEAH! go Sony! 

"Everyone is always talking graphics this graphics that blah blah, you need to shut the F#@k up! Graphics are only a small portion that really count, ask any true gamer they can play a 10 year old game and enjoy it cause of controls and story. Technically the ps3's gpu is slightly underpowered compared to the 360 mainly cause of the AA, But my biggest peeve is the fact that when they see Metal Gear Solid 4, they don't say shit. That game alone proves that with the right developers and time the PS3 can destroy the competition.
I solely believe that the reason that MGS4 never made its way to the 360 because the system just could NOT handle it." 
AND THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART! 
so at least you've realized the 360 has better graphics at the beginning of this paragraph but then you go on to say MGS4 can only run on PS3? Man your logic is based on something that even I don't know about! I can't wait until metal gear rising on 360 runs better and looks better on multiple disks and when I beat a couple chapters, I can get off my ass and insert the next disc. instead of waiting 5-10 minutes! I'll bet the game fits on 2 DVD-9s!

"The fact that the 360 is already pushing and has pushed its limits in games is scary, why else would they concentrate on some motion control shit to keep people "entertained" there running out of options and running out fast."
Yeah says who? Oh wait an EA exec said that! His exact words were, "I mean the PS3 has like 8 cores and the 360 has only 3! There's a lot more room for improvement on the PS3."
This guy isn't even developing for the system! Their own guys at Criterion said that if they think they've maxed out the 360 than they're just running out of ideas!
Here I'll break it down for you.
PS3 8 cores
1 turned off for stability
1 for background os
6 left for gaming
360 3 cores
all running hyperthreading (meaning the 3 physical cores the 360 has have 2 logical cores each)
A total of 6 logical cores all available to developers.
360 has 512mb ram (at gddr3) shared so can be used for random access memory and graphics, plus 10mb dedicated to AA in games. It also has an upscaler chip which makes every game, dvd, arcade title run in any resolution up to 1080p over component, vga, or hdmi.
PS3 has 256mb video, and 256mb ram. Limiting developers to use only up to 256mb of ram of only video or loaded content. With FSB speed being slower because of the split components.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware
Each system has pretty much the same specs but the 360 is built with developers in mind and is much easier to code for. 
and for the "motion control shit", Project natal is at least different than Sony's "motion control rip off of the Wii" {i think that's what it's called  }

As for your pricing graph.
you can take off the hdmi cable on 360 since it comes with component and composite and does 1080p over component.
you can also add 30-50 dollars for a headset for ps3 as it does not come with one.
so it looks more like $470 for a 360 with all the accessories you might need. (optional) 
and upwards to $500 for a PS3 with a non-shitty bluetooth headset.
or you could get like a $200 arcade $15 component cable $15 play and charge kit (not $20) and for $230 you have a next gen HD console and tons of games to play! many people don't have internet believe it or not!

OK! So my rant is finally done and hopefully people will look at this and get knowledge from it (unlike what you gave) and look at things with a bit of foresight before an expensive console purchase. There are many things to consider but as I stated the positives on the 360 by far outweigh the positives of the ps3. Also I love xbox live and play it nearly every day! so many games, so little time! PEACE!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Both are great systems, I prefer the PS3, but if I had the money I would also own a 360. Good to see an informed write up and the + / - of each system, I've known them, but sometimes it seems people don't realize both systems have strengths and weaknesses.



psych7111 said:


> Oh I love this stuff! Someone claiming to be a non fanboy but if you just read the comments, they always reveal themselves somewhere. I for instance will go on to say, sorry. Sorry that I DO have to say BS on almost everything you comment on. I will also say I own both consoles and play one 20 times as much as the other. Yep it's 360. I'll get to the reasons in a minute.



I'm going to leave the quote at that as everyone can see the crap you wrote up top. This a thread about info, not your personal opinions on anything, at least not slinging crap opinions. If you like one more say so, but if you have to go to the point of insulting others and talking in caps and ending sentences with "!!!!" then you need to either calm down and think before you post, or don't post. Most of your arguments are not very good, I don't have to sit and wait for good games to come out for my PS3, a lot of games come out for both consoles now, and plenty of PS3 olys come out that are great, just using that as an example. But really that doesn't matter as this thread isn't suppose to be about tht. You do have some good info, you need to configure it better so people actually real through that instead of seeing a childish argument.


----------



## psych7111 (Jul 16, 2009)

opps, no delete button....


----------



## psych7111 (Jul 16, 2009)

opps, no delete button....


----------



## powerspec (Jul 16, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Both are great systems, I prefer the PS3, but if I had the money I would also own a 360. Good to see an informed write up and the + / - of each system, I've known them, but sometimes it seems people don't realize both systems have strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to leave the quote at that as everyone can see the crap you wrote up top. This a thread about info, not your personal opinions on anything, at least not slinging crap opinions. If you like one more say so, but if you have to go to the point of insulting others and talking in caps and ending sentences with "!!!!" then you need to either calm down and think before you post, or don't post. Most of your arguments are not very good, I don't have to sit and wait for good games to come out for my PS3, a lot of games come out for both consoles now, and plenty of PS3 olys come out that are great, just using that as an example. But really that doesn't matter as this thread isn't suppose to be about tht. You do have some good info, you need to configure it better so people actually real through that instead of seeing a childish argument.



He was just correcting what the OP has wrong.  He was not trying to insulting anyone.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 16, 2009)

I used to own all 3, my 360 broke, and I never repaired it, why? Simple, I don't particularly find it to be that good. The AAA games are mainly focused around FPS, which I just can NOT play on a controller, I need a mouse and keyboard (same for the PS3 really).

Because that limits my selection of games so much I had to justify either buying a new 360, or paying to have it repaired (out of warranty), and I couldn't. There were no games I wanted that I couldn't get on my PS3. Not only that, but my PS3 is my Blu-ray player and my DVD player, it also has a better media streaming capability than the 360 in my opinion.

Also joinmeindeath417, your comment about the cheap Blu-ray players was proved to be moot a while ago. They did a comparison of all the current Blu-ray players, the cheap ones failed, mostly because they couldn't be kept up to date with the latest BR specs, where as the PS3 will always be kept up to date thanks to Blu-ray Live! it's a necessary feature for Blu-ray players, but (at least here in the UK) you need to spend considerably more than a PS3 for a Blu-ray Live! compatible player.

The PS3 has integrated in to my media set up far easier than the 360 did, it just sat at the side and was brought out to play games every so often, and if I wanted to play online I had to pay for that "privilege", which unless I'm playing day in day out just was a waste of money for me.

However!

Money-wise, if you don't already own a console, and don't want Blu-ray, get a 360. 

If you're looking for a Blu-ray player, or a Blu-ray player and a games console, get a PS3

Simplez.


----------



## Nighshalo789 (Jul 16, 2009)

I work at a game store. I'm pretty sure that people who own ps3's are retarded. #1 why spend so much money on something that does nothing. I spent just about that much on my first pc build and that PC would would rape a ps3. If you want to play games get a 360 if you want to be bored wondering why all your friends are smarter that you buy a ps3. I'm not a fanboy I own all three systems and a badass computer. And don't give that RROD bullshit. I got it, I admit that I was pretty pissed. Did I go out and spend an additional $400 on a system fu** no. That is stupid. and about games. Ps3 owners come in to my store all the time look at the ps3 wall and the first thing they say is "Man there aint any games" and the people that own 360 can't make up their mind cause there are so many games to choose from.


----------



## Darknova (Jul 16, 2009)

Nighshalo789 said:


> I work at a game store. I'm pretty sure that people who own ps3's are retarded. #1 why spend so much money on something that does nothing.






Nighshalo789 said:


> I'm not a fanboy I own all three systems and a badass computer.



Your previous statement begs to differ.

What the hell is wrong with you people? why is it so damn hard for you to accept that what works for one, doesn't work for someone else?! You fling insults and berate anybody who doesn't agree with you and your sentiments. Get over yourselves, you only need to justify your choice to ONE PERSON, yourself, and if you can't do that, well, you're a lot more insecure than you believe.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

powerspec said:


> He was just correcting what the OP has wrong.  He was not trying to insulting anyone.



His post was beyond filled with sarcasm and many of the things he said he was doing himself, I guess I will explain it all in responses to his thread.



psych7111 said:


> Let's see where to start. "I own both systems." Awesome anyone can say that. It's a very simple scapegoat fanboys commonly use to escape from being flamed by another fanboy of the opposite console. This commonly gives the comment readers a sense of acknowledgment that whatever this guy says must be true! Right....... Well I do own both consoles as well! (asuming you actually do and if you believe me is up to you as well.)



You are using the exact same scapegoat you just warned about, then you move onto using the 2nd most common scapegoat "you can believe me or not"



psych7111 said:


> But I don't care letting people know why 360 is much better. I'm the assistant manager at a gamestop and let people know that very clearly. I actually am friends with many of them on xbox live. Many of them I agree with the types of games we like and many of them are my friends from being happy that I led them with a smart purchase of a kick ass console. Anyways everyone I work with has a 360 and 3 of us have ps3s as well. None of us like ps3 as much as our 360s. We talk about it all the fucking time because we get EXTREMELY bored and talk about the ups and downs of consoles.



Now your using the 3rd most popular scapegoat, your knowledge of things. Don't need to work at Gamestop to know a ton about games. I work at a grocery store and all we do is talk about games, sounds like your Gamestop 



psych7111 said:


> Sorry about that rant about my side story, back to ripping this "nonbiased" "nonfanboy" jarble. Let's see, "By far the most annoying thing is seeing fan boys boast about which system is better blah blah with illogical reason and dumb ass examples."
> Really? That's kind of what I'm seeing right there! weird... 6 months of comparing? Try owning every console on release date and seeing the real ups and downs of both!



He didn't boast about any system being better, he pointed out the good and the bad things of each, did a fair price comparison, you must be reading something I'm not seeing up there. His post wasn't filled with snappy remarks like yours, or him bragging about his job, and his followers, just good info.



psych7111 said:


> For example, RROD! OMG it sucks! yes it was a fatal flaw I admit, but when it happened it felt like I lost a child! I was in shock! There's a reason behind this. RROD is such a big deal since you go from ultimate gaming awesome to brick. It is so bad that people post about it everwhere about their pain. and I agree totally. But the ps3 fanboys need something to really get back at 360 fanboys since nearly half of all arguments over this shit ends up with this being mentioned. As for ps3 it was like a slow death. no games, waiting for good games,(and for updates and installs and load times, lol) I bought my ps3 on launch day and bought resistance. 3 days later gears of war came out. Yeah... my thoughts of ps3 went very far down as a game such as gears of war graphics weren't really matched for another year when Assassins creed, and cod4 came out. (Gears looks better than both though) and Assassins creed had real time lighting and looked much overall better on 360.



RROD sucks leave it at that, you said it yourself, but so does any issue with any system. I don't revert to RROD arguements because they are both decently powerful machines in a small box that doesnt get great airflow. Blu-Ray, Wi-Fi, Free internet are the most common examples I see, and are all great examples. PS3 has a ton of good games, and like I said a lot of games release for both consoles. Gears was a good game, but got dry after a while, was only fun as Co-Op. It did look good, but if your judging a game off graphics... especially console graphics, then this is all a joke. 



psych7111 said:


> Ok next. Revisions of System: none (ps3) right. looks like the 360 "Revisions of the system: 5 (soon to be 6) mainly for RROD issue" was an easy way to point out the rrod issue. ps3 has actually had multiple revisions. 60GB(BC) 20GB(BC) 80GB(LBC) 40GB 80GB 160GB. That looks like 6 to me. hmmmmmmm. Cut cost and take out media card readers, usb ports, ps2 playability. Oh but it's ONLY $399! wait, I don't need blu-ray, or wi-fi, or a big hard drive! well too bad! I think the 360 arcade for $199 is the greatest gaming deal I've ever seen! Working at a gamestop I sell anywhere from 1-2 of these a day. Compared to a few used ones and a pro here and there. And also compared to 1 ps3 every..... couple of weeks (I'm not kidding, including new and used) and a few wiis every week.



Hard drive size doesn't mean revision, but I do agree it has been through 3, 1st Gen with 100% PS2 compatibility (60GB + 40GB), 2nd Gen with most PS2 compat (80GB + 40GB), 3rd Gen with no PS2 compat (160GB + 80GB + 40GB). I do agree $199 is a great deal, but with a 20GB HDD, no wifi, no blu-ray, no wireless controller, it makes a diff. These are noticeable out of the box for many people as the console still plays games, but these are all features I use each and every day on my PS3 and it makes it very nice. Sony should bring back the 20GB PS3 to a lower end market though.



psych7111 said:


> Man it's so hard to not rant about this, sorry.
> "out with the old in with the new". Once they tap out of ideas, including the project natal. They will release the next Xbox and will quickly shut the doors on the remaining xbox 360 users (as they did with the original Xbox)
> All righty, so 360 will discontinue this year? wait. That's not going to happen. But according to your logic it will. xbox had a 4 year shelf life. not bad for a console that was the same price as a ps2 with a hard drive and MUCH better graphics being sold for the same price. so 4 years and its up? With the new natal coming out late next year, their shelf life will likely go on to 2014, 2015. As the project manager at microsoft has said, "There's no need for a new xbox. The graphics are fine (look at RE5! {better on 360 btw http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=5454}) and there's no technology to improve enough upon the current xbox. And with Project Natal coming out, there will be new ways to play as well with the same system." so looks like microsoft is doing a 10 year cycle. OH DANG! Isn't that what sony said about the ps3! Sony also said that is why the $399 price tag is justified! or a $199 360.



So hard to rant, but you won't stop  All I got to say to this is simple, their is far better tech out there than the 360 or PS3 when it comes to videocards that could push the envelope much farther, if you buy that Microsoft says their isn't then your crazy as the 360 and PS3 are using GPU's that weren't even't current gen when they came out (at least I don't think they were) and now they are numerous generations back. OH Dang, so much for buying lies? And like I mentioned, 20GB, no Wifi, no wireless, no bluray, all those things cost money, they did choose smart areas to cut though.



psych7111 said:


> Well this would be true 5 years ago. but it's 2009 and, yes, the dreamcast died! yay! not really, i loved the dc! but current sales see a very bad turn for everything sony especially when compared to 360 and wii.  www.vgchartz.com
> this was a really bad paragraph for a reason to buy a ps3. "The console isn't going to die! yay! numbers from 5-15 years ago say this!



Recent sales are just fine, they were 14,000 behind last week in US, 5,000 ahead in Japan, 15,000 behind somewhere else, and 23,000 behind somewhere else. Most people buy the $199 system, granted not all do, but here's a comparison of the US sales figures. 360 = $9,684,932 PS3 = *$13,818,567* If I know how to count, thats 14,000 less consoles and a whopping 4 million more they made in just the US. So much for dieing, thats called efficiency. (those numbers were attained by using the lowest cost system x sales of each respective console in the US for last week)

Anyways, made my point. The guy was just informing, he was pretty much right in all respects, no need to use sarcasm, and attitude to get your personal opinions past. In the end both are great systems.


----------



## powerspec (Jul 16, 2009)

Darknova said:


> What the hell is wrong with you people? why is it so damn hard for you to accept that what works for one, doesn't work for someone else?! You fling insults and berate anybody who doesn't agree with you and your sentiments. Get over yourselves, you only need to justify your choice to ONE PERSON, yourself, and if you can't do that, well, you're a lot more insecure than you believe.



Well if you start a comparison thread, there will always be people starting flame wars or proving what the OP has wrong.  You brought this on your self.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

There doesn't need to be any of that, the guy posted good material. The facts of each consoles offerings, the issues, the prices, the fun factor (in his opinion). Most of those things are hard to be wrong on, the issues with each are well known, as are the prices, and what they offer. If you have an opinion on which is more fun, mention it, don't go and post a short story on where you work, how many people are your fans, and why you are so cool, and why this console is the PWNZORS, and why you can fly kites, and why you love kittens, and why this console will eat those kittens so stay away.


----------



## psych7111 (Jul 16, 2009)

@1Kurgan1
I aim to please 
"You are using the exact same scapegoat you just warned about, then you move onto using the 2nd most common scapegoat "you can believe me or not" "
It's not a scapegoat if you admit to it.
Admit that you like one console better than the other. Just do it. I did, take it or leave, reply why you think otherwise.
working at a gamestore is a scapegoat? 
Damn. I really do like my job though.
"He didn't boast about any system being better, he pointed out the good and the bad things of each, did a fair price comparison, you must be reading something I'm not seeing up there. His post wasn't filled with snappy remarks like yours, or him bragging about his job, and his followers, just good info."
If you would have read all of mine, no it wasnt a fair price comparison and 2, bragging?
no intention on bragging, sorry.
"And like I mentioned, 20GB, no Wifi, no wireless, no bluray, all those things cost money, they did choose smart areas to cut though."
Disagree, ps2 bc should have never gone. kill the wireless. or i don't know, options?
360 = $9,684,932 PS3 = $13,818,567
guess which one loses more money per console sold?
software and accessories = profit. not hardware.
LOL. I live for this!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

It's more of a scapegoat if you try to admit to it to sound more legitimate, it's like a double scapegoat. And I understand you like one console more, and it shows, this thread is about the good and bad things of each, if you got something say it, don't stretch it out over a 10 paragraph sarcastic post.

I read all your post, and still feel it was a fair price comparison. Like I said the 360 can be had at a lower cost out of the box console to play, but just like for cars, do you go out and buy 1 tire at a time? I payed for what I wanted and now thats done with, accesories will add up, but 4 million is a lot to make up, and almost 14 million in one week from one country, Sony or the PS3 is going no where. 

Like I said you had some good points, and if you crunched that down into a paragraph or 2 without all your personal feelings and bragging there is some valid points in there, but theres a lot of crap that is just like I said your personal feelings and explaining how awesome you think you are


----------



## powerspec (Jul 16, 2009)

I thought the point of this was to compare each console with our own opinion and he was just showing it how it really is.  psych7111 was just showing his opinion and what the OP had wrong and I added what he should add.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

The OP was mostly comparison specs of each console and cost, and covered fun factor. Psych's responses to anything negative about the 360 were "well thats what the PS3 owner would say in this situation". Yet it was him using another scapegoat. 

Each system has issues, don't see the point in trying to argue that the RROD isn't a big deal because the PS3 has no games (pretty much what he said). As those 2 subjects have nothing in common and doesn't address the main issue of the RROD. 

Just like the PS3 didn't get the out of the gate start the 360 had and still doesn't have as many titles published for it and is more expensive. The OP cover that in short sweet, unbiased info. So I'm just saying I didn't get the point of bashing the OP and calling him a fanboy when he was pretty dead on with most things and in the end said he plays the 360 more.


----------



## psych7111 (Jul 16, 2009)

i really should be sleeping now! stupid phones and email responses!
Argh! 
I wasn't bashing the op, just saying what I thought.
I like these comparison threads so you can speak you mind. I agree with some of the things he explained but found some of the things incorrect and put in my own opinion. sorry if i offended anyone cuz u know, this internet iz serious business. But I do like to vent off in these threads after a day of dealing with people who break stuff in ways that boggle my mind. (returns on guitar hero stuff was the big one today). 
But LOL, RROD and ps3 not having very many games are both very real. I didn't mean for them to coincide with each other. But at the end of the day, I go with what I like and I like my 360. I play the crap out of it and use my ps3 for the occasional blu-ray movie from netflix. My main intention was to inform people on what I thought about each game system while at the same time trying to clear some things up in a different light. That being said. I like 360 better and I said why in my comments. Now this being a comparison thread, someone who like ps3 better should say why ps3 is better. And the circle of flame will continue!


----------



## HossHuge (Jul 16, 2009)

For me it's all about the controller.  The find the X-box controller to much more comfortable than the Dual shock PS3 controller.   Different strokes for different folks.  This thread would be much different if Blu-ray had lost to HD-DVD.  It's a moot point now though I guess.


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

I enjoyed each console when I owned both a 360 and a PS3.  Now when I owned both I definitely played Xbox more because I knew more people that had it, and the games that were released were much more focused on Online play.  The community and the environment when the new Dashboard was released made communication, game finding, player finding, a helluva lot more easier than PS3's whacky system.

I believe the layout and game's available on Xbox is where it reigns superiority over the PS3.

But the PS3 having Blu-Ray support, and having a free online community could be a strong backing if they get their stuff in order.  Personally when MAG comes out, if it is as bad ass as it sound's it might put PS3 back on the charts, especially when they lower their prices.


TBO: after I sold my xbox I probably haven't put any time on any console due to the fact that there is nothing that I enjoyed playing..but I have been eying fight night 4 for the past week..


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 16, 2009)

psych7111 said:


> i really should be sleeping now! stupid phones and email responses!
> Argh!
> I wasn't bashing the op, just saying what I thought.
> I like these comparison threads so you can speak you mind. I agree with some of the things he explained but found some of the things incorrect and put in my own opinion. sorry if i offended anyone cuz u know, this internet iz serious business. But I do like to vent off in these threads after a day of dealing with people who break stuff in ways that boggle my mind. (returns on guitar hero stuff was the big one today).
> But LOL, RROD and ps3 not having very many games are both very real. I didn't mean for them to coincide with each other. But at the end of the day, I go with what I like and I like my 360. I play the crap out of it and use my ps3 for the occasional blu-ray movie from netflix. My main intention was to inform people on what I thought about each game system while at the same time trying to clear some things up in a different light. That being said. I like 360 better and I said why in my comments. Now this being a comparison thread, someone who like ps3 better should say why ps3 is better. And the circle of flame will continue!



There we go, much smaller, before was a lot to read. I like my PS3 more and put out the plus sides.

I don't buy a ton of games, I buy the good ones, and some DLC. And I have enjoyed all the games I got, Motorstorm, GTA 4, BF BC, and inFAMOUS, 2 of those being PS onlys and both are great games. 

The other thing is, love the HDD size, the free PSN, blu-ray, wi fi (granted I only use that at friends, but makes it very nice), wireless everythings (bluetooth headsets own), and how sexy it looks.

Like I said though, if I had the money I would probably get a 360, but by money I mean after buying parts for my comp and car, so that probably won't ever happen 



Mike0409 said:


> I have been eying fight night 4 for the past week..



Thats a great game.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

For those that like consoles, both the 360 and PS3 are great systems.  But at the end of the day its 'each to thier own'.  One person will say 360 is best, another woyld say PS3.  Truth be told, no system is the clear winner.  Each system has good and bad points.

I prefer the 360 for some reason.  I sold my first 360 with 250 games and got a PS3.  Within 2 weeks I had returned the PS3 and got a 360 Elite.....but thats just me, I thought the games ran/looked better on the 360...sorry.

joinmeindeath417, just to comment on what you said about 'media' being a problem for the 360 (ie the 360 uses DL whilst the PS3 uses BD)  Do you realise that no game on the PS3 has used a full BD yet and not many games even fill a full DL disc.

The discs (DL & BD) are padded out so the system recognises them better.  I bet a PS3 BD has about 20GB worth of useless data on each disc


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jul 16, 2009)

one thing i don't like about ps3 is you can't watch AVI like 360 >.> one thing for sure is the PS3 has YLOD which is same with 360 RROD lol.
Once again they both have good and bad points,nothing is a winner
The only console that was a huge success was the PS2


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

bahaha, damn MODS im sorry this is getting this blown up!!!

First off Kurosagi, you CAN watch Avi files on your ps3, PM me and i'll tell you how


Secondly, yes i "lied" i guess im in "both" clubhouses on here just to be in the cool crowd"

that is a pretty dumb thing to say if you really want i'll take a picture of my DVD racks and you can count all the games yourself

and i'll make sure to put a post it with my name on it so you don't think I'm just saying it cause i am a fanboy.

Look guys this thread was proving a point, that 360 fanboys cannot argue, look at the exclusives that's a clear ice breaker. 

part of the reason i wrote this rant was because im sick of 360 fanboys and most of them work at gamestop hahaha. So you just basically showed everyone the reason i wrote this.

Answer this if you can

where will the 360 be when DVD is obsolete (which is getting close)
where will you be when Microsoft makes there new console and decides to leave the 360 in the dust?

You can compare the exclusives for ps3 and xbox 360 and in the end i think game play/graphics and story usually are better on the ps3,

The ONLY thing that xbox has in good exclusives is Halo Series, and Gears of War oh and if you like it fable.

and by exclusives i mean they do not come out on PC's also.

Really man, it was a waist of time for you to add your snarky comments to the thread as obviously you have proven to be one of the biggest fan boys of them all,
I simply did a comparison to help ease the tension for people wanting to buy a new game console. So that includes

PRICE FACTOR
LONGEVITY (meaning the shelf life of the console)
GAMEPLAY 
EXCLUSIVES
FEATURES

i wasn't including "oh omg omg the 360 sold more than the ps3 so its better"

-_-


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 16, 2009)

I also enjoy having all current gaming platforms.

I didn't need to buy a HDMI cable for my 360.  It came with one
I did need to buy one for my PS3.

I didn't need to pay for wireless for my 360.  I used CAT6.
I was forced to pay for wireless on my PS3 even though I don't use it.

I didn't need to pay for a High Def disc format for my 360 to work
I was forced to pay for it on my PS3.

I am not complaining.  I bought my PS3 to play games and play Bluray disc.
So I had no problem paying for a blu ray player and a game console.

But the fact is with the 360 I had a choice.  I spent 399 plus 15 for a play and charge kit.

I paid 499 for the 60Gig ps3 plus 5 bucks for an HDMI cable.


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

I thought Xbox couldn't play the .AVI until the release of the patch but PS3 always could, just by renaming a folder as VIDEO and putting the AVI file in their..

Either way both consoles are great.

The one thing that I was kind of put down with was that the Xbox Media Center wouldn't support some playback types, and I used media center extensively as my main content stream.  Now I use PlayOn which BTW is FANTASTIC on PS3..

Able to stream Hulu and Amazon, etc.  Great buy for anyone that want's that option.  Even tho they jacked up the price.. =(


----------



## KainXS (Jul 16, 2009)

I actually sold my ps3 for a 360 after my first 360 died of RROD before microsoft did the warranty thing and now I kinda wish I didn't because right after I sold it alot of good rpgs started popping up for the ps3 and i like rpgs more than any other genre


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

KainXS said:


> I actually sold my ps3 for a 360 after my first 360 died of RROD before microsoft did the warranty thing and now I kinda wish I didn't because right after I sold it alot of good rpgs started popping up for the ps3 and i like rpgs more than any other genre



Eh?  Theres good RPG's for PS3?  Dude point the way..Im still playing FFVII. 




bpgt64 said:


> In think all ps3 owners can agree, the system needs an online community that works better than the current system.  The way live intergrates itself with other systems is particularly nice,  I bought mine just to watch movies from Netflix.com.  I really wish PS3 would start charging a monthly fee, if it meant there online segmentation worked better.



yeah it does.  But you can also get PlayOn for the PS3..which allows you to do much more. Although a PC has to be on in order to do that. 


I can agree 100% there.  Supposdly a rumor is going around that the entire Interface for the PS3 is changing in the next update...if this is true great. If not all well.


----------



## bpgt64 (Jul 16, 2009)

In think all ps3 owners can agree, the system needs an online community that works better than the current system.  The way live intergrates itself with other systems is particularly nice,  I bought mine just to watch movies from Netflix.com.  I really wish PS3 would start charging a monthly fee, if it meant there online segmentation worked better.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

I agree bpgt, if it weren't free it'd would obviously be a great experience but you can't complain when its free really.

But i bet you that would be an argument if they decided to have a "premium" service and you paid for it.



> Man it's so hard to not rant about this, sorry.
> "out with the old in with the new". Once they tap out of ideas, including the project natal. They will release the next Xbox and will quickly shut the doors on the remaining xbox 360 users (as they did with the original Xbox)
> All righty, so 360 will discontinue this year? wait. That's not going to happen. But according to your logic it will. xbox had a 4 year shelf life. not bad for a console that was the same price as a ps2 with a hard drive and MUCH better graphics being sold for the same price. so 4 years and its up? With the new natal coming out late next year, their shelf life will likely go on to 2014, 2015. As the project manager at microsoft has said, "There's no need for a new xbox. The graphics are fine (look at RE5! {better on 360 btw http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=5454}) and there's no technology to improve enough upon the current xbox. And with Project Natal coming out, there will be new ways to play as well with the same system." so looks like microsoft is doing a 10 year cycle. OH DANG! Isn't that what sony said about the ps3! Sony also said that is why the $399 price tag is justified! or a $199 360.



Dude, i really like how you didn't justify shit. Really it doesn't matter if the 360 went on until 2025, point is when they make a new system they will abandon it just as quickly as they did the original xbox, where as Sony has always backed there gaming consoles until the end of there life.

 i don't care that you don't want wifi and shit its not the point,i don't care that you play live every single day.

and about the system revisions I'm sorry but when i say revisions i mean the hardware revisions, the 360 has had 5 (soon to be six) motherboard revisions? the ps3 im sorry if you consider taking out a chip and leaving the layout the same i'd hardly call it a revision but lets say it is so that 1.

the fuck man? they had 6  different flavors of the sytem not revisions.

ok im just going to stop here enjoy the thread guys either way to each there own.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Just throwing this in, becasue I didn't see it mentions anywhere, and didn't feel like reading through all the other long posts:  One of the things I really loved about the PS3 was that the controller charges with a standard USB cable.  You can buy a 15Ft cable for $3.  This allows me to charge the controller while I'm using it across the room on my couch for just $3.  The play and charge kit for my Xbox360 costs $30 and doesn't reach my couch...

That really falls in the area of the PS3 that I like more than the Xbox360 in general.  A lot of the accessories are not propriatary, and not over priced.  You can use any hard drive you want, you can use any USB cable to charge the controllers, and you can use any bluetooth headset. All things that Microsoft charges outragous prices for...


----------



## KainXS (Jul 16, 2009)

the only thing im afraid of is that when the original xbox was discontinued by microsoft, it was like bam, almost no new games period(I think like 3 games came out after that), so I can only guess they will do the same with the 360.

The original Xbox was still a good console at this point, but they still killed it off, so whats gonna happen when the 360's time comes.


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Just throwing this in, becasue I didn't see it mentions anywhere, and didn't feel like reading through all the other long posts:  One of the things I really loved about the PS3 was that the controller charges with a standard USB cable.  You can buy a 15Ft cable for $3.  This allows me to charge the controller while I'm using it across the room on my couch for just $3.  The play and charge kit for my Xbox360 costs $30 and doesn't reach my couch...
> 
> That really falls in the area of the PS3 that I like more than the Xbox360 in general.  A lot of the accessories are not propriatary, and not over priced.  You can use any hard drive you want, you can use any USB cable to charge the controllers, and you can use any bluetooth headset. All things that Microsoft charges outragous prices for...



Yeah +1 to that stuff.  Anything Bluetooth can be connected as well, printers, camera's, phones, etc.

Also..but i still dont know why... you can install a 3rd party OS on the PS3...But again..i dont know why!


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

PS3

Linux compatible without modification
Blu-ray HD player
free online gaming
hard drive upgradeable to your desire
bluetooth enabled

these are reasons i like my ps3


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

Whats the point of installing linux on the PS3 anyways?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Mike0409 said:


> Yeah +1 to that stuff.  Anything Bluetooth can be connected as well, printers, camera's, phones, etc.
> 
> Also..but i still dont know why... you can install a 3rd party OS on the PS3...But again..i dont know why!



I think that was done because Sony wanted the PS3 to be the one and only electronic device people needed.  They wanted it to be a game console, a media center, and a computer.  Honestly, I think if I was still in college, I probably would just bring the PS3 and a 22"-24" LCD instead of a PC, specifically for that reason.  It would take up little space in the cramped dorm room, and do everything that I need with Linux installed.

It is a much better solution than what I actually did, with a PC+Monitor and my PS2+TV.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Jul 16, 2009)

xbox did die while ps2 is still living on,they still release games on PS2 which is great for people who aren't really bothered about next gen consoles.
There are still fantastic games being release on PS2 still only in japan and i'm sure some of you RPG fans played dot.hack GU on the PS2?? look at them graphics,amazing gameplay good story.
Ps2 is in a class of its own.
(ps2 rant here sorry)


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

Strangely enough just yesterday I tested a PS3 versus xbox360 in picture quality on my 32" 1080p screen. Now lets get this out of the way first, both consoles upscale the picture from 720p or something similar. I found that the ps3's dashboard thing was much clearer than the xbox dashboard but more importantly the PS3 did show a slightly more crisp picture. 

As far as I care they both have abysmal graphic quality, mostly due to the 1080p upscaling but I do not enjoy playing games on a console compared to my PC. 

Don't flame me.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

Mike0409 said:


> Whats the point of installing linux on the PS3 anyways?



Why not? its as simple as the ability to do it makes it awesome

i have it on mine runs great.

Oh and i like running emulators on my ps3 

the controller is good ha!


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Why not? its as simple as the ability to do it makes it awesome
> 
> i have it on mine runs great.
> 
> ...




How does that work with linux..is their still a dashboard kinda like a dual boot? or does it work to the fact like a game and I can select it to log in/and do work on it.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

you chose in the settings menu which OS to boot in it restarts in the system to get back into ps3 OS you hold down the power button until it beeps twice


----------



## Mike0409 (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> you chose in the settings menu which OS to boot in it restarts in the system to get back into ps3 OS you hold down the power button until it beeps twice



That's fucking sweet.  Trying that tonight.  Latest version of Ubuntu should install just fine I take it?  32 and 64bit work or just 32?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

You have to get the specific PS3 version as it comes with the correct drivers and stuff, i'd say go with yellow dog it has the biggest support right now and the ps3 version was optimized for the ps3.

But yea do some web searching first man theres different versions and what not to mess around with and tutorials for emulators and stuff too


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

Mike0409 said:


> That's fucking sweet.  Trying that tonight.  Latest version of Ubuntu should install just fine I take it?  32 and 64bit work or just 32?



Any PPC linux will technically work.  However, it is best to get a version specifically for the PS3.

http://psubuntu.com/

That is a very good source of info, especially if ubuntu is what you want to use.  As already stated, YellowDog is also a very good version for use on the PS3.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> The ps3, Sony has been making video game systems since the launch of the psx (also known as ps1..etc) and  they are very good at it i might add, the ps1 destroyed sales for its time, took the life of Sega's Saturn, just did everything right for its time


PSX and PS1 aren't the same.  They play the same games and have similar hardware but the PSX was gray with an expansion port on the back while the PX1 was light gray, smaller, and had no expansion port.

PSX:






PS1:


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PSX and PS1 aren't the same.  They play the same games and have similar hardware but the PSX was gray with an expansion port on the back while the PX1 was light gray, smaller, and had no expansion port.
> 
> PSX:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../250px-PlayStationConsole_bkg-transparent.png
> ...



Ment it as the first playstation, i put ps1 because sadly some people dont know what psx means. i would've expected to see someone say Playstation 10?!

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

Mike0409 said:


> That's fucking sweet.  Trying that tonight.  Latest version of Ubuntu should install just fine I take it?  32 and 64bit work or just 32?



http://gizmodo.com/5143547/how+to-install-ubuntu-on-your-ps3-for-vintage-gaming-emulation

please read this because if you don't back up your data it will get erased


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PSX and PS1 aren't the same.  They play the same games and have similar hardware but the PSX was gray with an expansion port on the back while the PX1 was light gray, smaller, and had no expansion port.
> 
> PSX:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../250px-PlayStationConsole_bkg-transparent.png
> ...



Actually, PSX was never officially a term for the original Playstation.  The originaly Playstation was referred to as the PSX by a lot of people, but the officialy abreviation for it was PS1.  The smaller version that came out towards the end of it's life cycle was called the PSOne.  Also, the larger grey versions had the expansion slot removed in the later revisions of the console, it is believe Sony did this to stop GameShark/Action Replay use, and to stop the use of plug-in mod chips which allowed people to play imported and burnt games.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> The fact that the 360 is already pushing and has pushed its limits in games is scary, why else would they concentrate on some motion control shit to keep people "entertained" there running out of options and running out fast. I solely believe that the reason that MGS4 never made its way to the 360 because the system just could NOT handle it.


Because Wii slaughtered Xbox360 and PS3 combined in sales.  Judging by the numbers alone, motion sensing is the future of gaming.  Sony and Microsoft have scambled to take a page out of the Wii's book.  All next generation consoles are expected to mirror the Wii.

MGS4 is PS3 exclusive because Sony made sure Konami wouldn't release it on any other platform.  Seeing that MGS4 is really the only great, exclusive game for the PS3, had Sony not brokered a deal with Konami, the PS3 wouldn't have sold near as much as it did.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

i don't know man i still have yet to see a game compared to MGS4 for the 360, and until them i am convinced IN MY OWN HEAD that it's because it couldn't handle it

Why would they be making an entire new engine for the next metal gear if it was possible to port MGS4 to the 360?

hm?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i don't know man i still have yet to see a game compared to MGS4 for the 360, and until them i am convinced IN MY OWN HEAD that it's because it couldn't handle it
> 
> Why would they be making an entire new engine for the next metal gear if it was possible to port MGS4 to the 360?
> 
> hm?



xbox360 and ps3 are near identical in graphical capabilities. Only main difference is the processors used in each and ram etc.


----------



## Nighshalo789 (Jul 16, 2009)

psych7111 said:


> @1Kurgan1
> I aim to please
> "You are using the exact same scapegoat you just warned about, then you move onto using the 2nd most common scapegoat "you can believe me or not" "



I totally agree. You must be completely blind that I'm posting facts and not really choosing a side. I'm with powerspec. I prefer a mouse and keyboard. I  could give two shits less about which is better.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

Who cares which is best? THE PC PWNS ALL!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, PSX was never officially a term for the original Playstation.  The originaly Playstation was referred to as the PSX by a lot of people, but the officialy abreviation for it was PS1.  The smaller version that came out towards the end of it's life cycle was called the PSOne.  Also, the larger grey versions had the expansion slot removed in the later revisions of the console, it is believe Sony did this to stop GameShark/Action Replay use, and to stop the use of plug-in mod chips which allowed people to play imported and burnt games.


PlayStation eXperimental = PS/PSX
Playstation One = PS1/PSone




joinmeindeath417 said:


> i don't know man i still have yet to see a game compared to MGS4 for the 360, and until them i am convinced IN MY OWN HEAD that it's because it couldn't handle it
> 
> Why would they be making an entire new engine for the next metal gear if it was possible to port MGS4 to the 360?
> 
> hm?


The next metal gear will probably be an exclusive title for PS4 (or whatever next console is).  Since it will inevitably include more motion sensing, the old/current MGS engine won't work out very well.  Instead of trying to patch it, they are starting from scratch (as they should).  Games made from scratch tend to be better overall but cost a lot more to develop.  MGS is a gold mine for Konami so they feel it isn't a risk to go big.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> xbox360 and ps3 are near identical in graphical capabilities. Only main difference is the processors used in each and ram etc.



yeah but CPU power? i don't want this to get into an argument but i honestly think the cell CPU is what gave them the advantage.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The next metal gear will probably be an exclusive title for PS4 (or whatever next console is).  Since it will inevitably include more motion sensing, the old/current MGS engine won't work out very well.  Instead of trying to patch it, they are starting from scratch (as they should).  Games made from scratch tend to be better overall but cost a lot more to develop.  MGS is a gold mine for Konami so they feel it isn't a risk to go big.




The next metal gear is a ps3,xbox 360 and pc release....

http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/143/14354401.html


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> yeah but CPU power? i don't want this to get into an argument but i honestly think the cell CPU is what gave them the advantage.



The cell is almost another GPU on top of the RSX. Just in it's architecture. The Cell is more powerful but MGS4 isn't remarkably demanding just looks like any other game to me.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

i don't know man i don't know if it is just me but metal gear wasn't just another game to me it was like watching a cg movie to me especially the cut scenes ha


----------



## Nighshalo789 (Jul 16, 2009)

Mike0409 said:


> Whats the point of installing linux on the PS3 anyways?



I never understood the point of it either.

But threads like this should die. Ps3 vs 360, dsl vs cable, Mac vs pc. People usually like one or the other and there are equal amount of people who have there opinions.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i don't know man i don't know if it is just me but metal gear wasn't just another game to me it was like watching a cg movie to me especially the cut scenes ha



Try running Crysis on the PS3.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> yeah but CPU power? i don't want this to get into an argument but i honestly think the cell CPU is what gave them the advantage.


IBM POWER PC in the Xbox360 is a tri-core, hex-thread processor.  PS3 has higher FlOp performance but not necessarily much more than that.  Since the GPU usually limits games more than the CPU, the GPU is more important.  The Cell processor is pretty much overkill--useless unless you fold on your console.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> The next metal gear is a ps3,xbox 360 and pc release....
> 
> http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/143/14354401.html


Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch.

Konami has said that the only way MGS4 wouldn't be PS3 exclusive is if it sold miserably.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> IBM POWER PC in the Xbox360 is a tri-core, hex-thread processor.  PS3 has higher FlOp performance but not necessarily much more than that.  Since the GPU usually limits games more than the CPU, the GPU is more important.  The Cell processor is pretty much overkill--useless unless you fold on your console.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It also doesn't matter if its more powerful or not if no one can program for it. Activision is considering dropping the PS3 all together. Not enough base to justify the development cost. That means no more Call of Duty for you!

FYI Im no 360 fan ether. I hate all "next-gen" consoles.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Try running Crysis on the PS3.



i know the pc is better than both but tell that to developers who are siding with consoles now?

i wouldn't play cod on my ps3, i'd buy it for the 360 first controller is better for that game in my opinion.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PlayStation eXperimental = PS/PSX
> Playstation One = PS1/PSone



The PSX was a DVR with PS2 hardware included.  It had nothing to do with the original Playstation, other than backwards compatibility with the original playstation games thanks to the PS2 hardware built in.  It is known for being the first public use of the XMB.

PS/PS1/PSOne are the only abbreviations that were official.  Many referred to the original Playstation as PSX because of the early Playstation eXperimental internal name, but Sony actually repleased a PSX console and never referred to the original Playstation as PSX.  It was PS at first, then PS1(for the older style)/PSOne(for the newer style).



TheMailMan78 said:


> Try running Crysis on the PS3.



There really isn't a reason that Crysis couldn't run on a PS3.  Graphically, it wouldn't be nearly as nice, but it could run.  Console users don't seem to care that the consoles provide worse graphics anyway...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The PSX was a DVR with PS2 hardware included.  It had nothing to do with the original Playstation, other than backwards compatibility with the original playstation games thanks to the PS2 hardware built in.  It is known for being the first public use of the XMB.
> 
> PS/PS1/PSOne are the only abbreviations that were official.  Many referred to the original Playstation as PSX because of the early Playstation eXperimental internal name, but Sony actually repleased a PSX console and never referred to the original Playstation as PSX.  It was PS at first, then PS1(for the older style)/PSOne(for the newer style).


The only "official" abbreviation is "PSone."  They can't trademark three letter "words" because they aren't words.  They are trademarked under "PlayStation," "PlayStation 2," and "PlayStation 3."


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

yes but if you read magazines and websites etc etc etc. people started calling playstation psx because i guess they were too lazy to say the word Playstation, i referred to it as psx because its what people are familiar with. 

Once again i do apologize for the confusion.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only "official" abbreviation is "PSone."



Actually, that was just what they called the smaller version flat out.  It even had PSOne on the boxes.  They didn't trademark the abbreviations.

I guess what is official doesn't really matter anyway.  The PSX and PS1 abbreviations, when use both refer to the original and slim consoles, at least they do to everyone I know.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

PS = post script not in use
PSX = always used to describe the first generation of PlayStation
PS1 = always used to differentiate the remake from the first generation (no parrallel port)
PlayStation = generic for both (PSX and PS1).

I've never, ever seen the gray PlayStation called a PS1.  Nor have I ever seen the light gray, smaller console called a PSX.

This is really nothing to argue over--I just need to clarify that there *is* a difference.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PS = post script not in use
> PSX = always used to describe the first generation of PlayStation
> PS1 = always used to differentiate the remake from the first generation (no parrallel port)
> PlayStation = generic for both (PSX and PS1).
> ...



No there isn't.  And there are first generation versions without the parrallel port.

PSX and PS1 referrs to both the original version and the smaller version.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

Only 9000 series which were introduced after the PS1 (100 series) and didn't sell well.  PS1 pretty much replaced it.

Anyway, I'm done with this.  I made my point.


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 16, 2009)

This is the PSX.

http://interactive.usc.edu/archives/Sony-PSX.jpg


----------



## KainXS (Jul 16, 2009)

mdbrotha03 said:


> This is the PSX.
> 
> http://interactive.usc.edu/archives/Sony-PSX.jpg



i was just a bout to say that, psx in regaurds to the original playstation i think was never even called that by sony only users


----------



## mrw1986 (Jul 16, 2009)

BrooksyX said:


> I think you mean 80gb PS3. They don't make 60gb PS3s anymore.



Are you talking to me? I got my 60gb the day PS3 came out...I mentioned that...


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i don't know man i don't know if it is just me but metal gear wasn't just another game to me it was like watching a cg movie to me especially the cut scenes ha



MGS4 was nothing special and I'm quite sure the cut scenes were pre-rendered CGI video's. Not sure on that though.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

To me, PSX and PS/PS1 meant PlayStation 1...........they then named the smaller PS1 'PSOne' 

But who gives a shit, were talking about how far superior the PS3 is compared to the 360 arent we?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> To me, PSX and PS/PS1 meant PlayStation 1...........they then named the smaller PS1 'PSOne'
> 
> But who gives a shit, were talking about how far superior the PS3 is compared to the 360 arent we?



No we are just establishing they are both inferior to the PC.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No we are just establishing they are both inferior to the PC.



Well yeah, but a console is a console and a PC is, well, a PC.....if you get what I mean


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well yeah, but a console is a console and a PC is, well, a PC.....if you get what I mean



Are we going to fight again Hookey?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well yeah, but a console is a console and a PC is, well, a PC.....if you get what I mean



Exactly consoles don't stand a chance agaist something that can get you free porn.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Are we going to fight again Hookey?



us, fight, never 

TBH you do make me miss my gaming rig


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

haha yea PC's are the shit

I'm pretty sure the Cutscenes in metal gear solid 4 were all real time.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Exactly consoles don't stand a chance agaist something that can get you free porn.



lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> us, fight, never
> 
> TBH you do make me miss my gaming rig



Come back Hookey. We will welcome you back with open arms.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Come back Hookey. We will welcome you back with open arms.



lol   maybe when I have some spare cash


----------



## DaveK (Jul 16, 2009)

Yeah, most people used PSX referring to the PlayStation even though there is a console called the PSX which is a PS2 but has a built in hard-drive and can record TV, i think lol. It flopped.

PlayStation - Original gray model.
PSOne - Slim model.
PlayStation 2 - original fat black model.
PSTwo - Slim model.
PlayStation 3 - Original model.

A smaller PS3 will most likely be called the PSThree.



DrPepper said:


> Exactly consoles don't stand a chance agaist something that can get you free porn.





Man this is a long thread, someone fill me in lol. Are we hatin on the enemy?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

Nah we're just comparing the ps3 and xbox360.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No we are just establishing they are both inferior to the PC.



As much as I love PC gaming, there are certainly types of games that just work better on consoles, IMO.  Consoles are only as inferior to PCs as PCs are inferior to Consoles, for gaming.



DrPepper said:


> Exactly consoles don't stand a chance agaist something that can get you free porn.



I get free porn on my PS3...run linux...so it kind of is a PC at that point???


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I get free porn on my PS3...run linux...so it kind of is a PC at that point???



It's not real porn unless you contract a virus  Linux is like safe sex, whereas windows its the real deal.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 16, 2009)

uh oh

you said the ps3 is kind of a pc...

HIDE


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

Consoles always were PCs, just a dumbed down, two part (motherboard and case), built-for-everyone kind.  Well, they're more like Macs (equally dumbed down, as few parts as possible, one size fits all).  PCs are like HIV--no two copies are exactly alike--they differentiate more with age (different people repaired them swaping failed parts with non-OEM parts).


Actually, consoles have more in common with a CRT monitor than a PC tower.  The power supply is usually internal, there's a few large mainboards, and something big (tube or optical drive) to get in your way.  They are very similar in design.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 16, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> It's not real porn unless you contract a virus  Linux is like safe sex, whereas windows its the real deal.



Or you could just make sure to only have sex with clean people...


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

It's better with that element of risk


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 16, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> It's better with that element of risk



You want risk? Jerk off in front of a tiger.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 16, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You want risk? Jerk off in front of a tiger.



I should do that then write it in my autobiography


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Consoles always were PCs, just a dumbed down, two part (motherboard and case), built-for-everyone kind.  Well, they're more like Macs (equally dumbed down, as few parts as possible, one size fits all).  PCs are like HIV--no two copies are exactly alike--they differentiate more with age (different people repaired them swaping failed parts with non-OEM parts).
> 
> 
> Actually, consoles have more in common with a CRT monitor than a PC tower.  The power supply is usually internal, there's a few large mainboards, and something big (tube or optical drive) to get in your way.  They are very similar in design.



Kind of strayed off the subject there lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 16, 2009)

Indeed.  My computers make Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 obsolete (neither do anything I didn't already do on my PC).  That's why I have a Wii (control a game by flailing your arms about). 

Xbox360 or PlayStation 3 makes sense for people who don't have a budget big enough for PC gaming.  It doesn't make sense to PC gamers (except for exclusive titles).


Oh, I must also point out that the Xbox360 is much older than the PS3/Wii.  As to Xbox360 vs PS3, Xbox360 wins on the game selection front while PS3 wins on the hardware front.  To most gamers, games > hardware (as proven by the Wii) which is why Xbox360 is still selling better than the PS3 (at least in USA).  Japanese love their Sony products for some reason.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Indeed.  My computers make Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 obsolete (neither do anything I didn't already do on my PC).  That's why I have a Wii (control a game by flailing your arms about).
> 
> Xbox360 or PlayStation 3 makes sense for people who don't have a budget big enough for PC gaming.  It doesn't make sense to PC gamers (except for exclusive titles).
> 
> ...



so when does the part about the wii having a lot of shit games come in? the fact it has so many movie tie ins and mini game collections, the select few good first party titles thats about it and its an EA whore machine


----------



## KainXS (Jul 17, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You want risk? Jerk off in front of a tiger.



or in front of a monkey and paint your soldier the same color as a banana


EDIT: why in the world did I post that . . . . .


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> so when does the part about the wii having a lot of shit games come in? the fact it has so many movie tie ins and mini game collections, the select few good first party titles thats about it and its an EA whore machine


This thread isn't about the Wii.

FYI, I don't have any EA Wii games (mostly Nintendo, a few Ubisoft, and one Vivendi), no "movie tie ins," and only the Rayman Raving Rabbids "mini games" (probably the best non-Nintendo games on Wii).




KainXS said:


> why in the world did I post that . . . . .


"Jerk off" + "monkey" = ...

Neural associations.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 17, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This thread isn't about the Wii.
> 
> FYI, I don't have any EA Wii games (mostly Nintendo, a few Ubisoft, and one Vivendi), no "movie tie ins," and only the Rayman Raving Rabbids "mini games" (probably the best non-Nintendo games on Wii).
> 
> ...



well what type of games do you have(pm me to stay on topic here) as thats all ive seen, it has a few good games but the fact the condiut is the best wii FPS tells you the game quality isnt great

most of the people i know have got an xbox 360, a few both machines. the xbox live user base is huge and xbox live is easy to use, it has a lot of games and its far cheaper (power usage, in terms of battery usage and the console price)

its not that i am a fanboy i just like telling people the facts about both consoles, right now i feel the xbox 360 has more value its not a technically superior console, the PS3 is a bit more advanced but its like the playstation 3 is a good console i just think the xbox 360 has more value in terms of online capability new features and accessories like Natal and adding streaming content like Sky satellite tv is coming to xbox 360.

Right now if you bought a PS3 you wouldnt be regretting it but i could recommend one.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

i own a wii also,

I have a gaming PC, a wii,360,ps3.

ever hear  the term "i want it all"

yeh i did


Oh and this is the pictures for that guy who said i was potentially lieing about owning both the ps3 and 360, and have a lot of games for the 360 not all are in the bookcase i keep all the collectors editions on a shelf.

As you can see i wasn't lieing. 
















And if you look close i know the pictures are blurry sorry camera phone you can see my ps3 and 360 in the 3rd picture.

proof enough?

And please please please do not say "i bet you live with your mom"...bullshit...which is probably going to be said.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 17, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i own a wii also,
> 
> I have a gaming PC, a wii,360,ps3.
> 
> ...



Nice little collection you got there m8 

I bet you live in your mums basement..................lol joke


----------



## Flyordie (Jul 17, 2009)

Not to be buzz kill or nitpicky on anything but there are 2 "hardware" revisions of the PS3...
Rev1= Emotion Engine "Hardware" still present...
Rev2= Emotion Engine "Hardware" removed to cut $18 from production costs.


----------



## Ammugonevil (Jul 17, 2009)

Having both consoles, I have to say that the playstation is way better, its just the controller which does it.... since the ps1.. perfection needn't need improvement.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 17, 2009)

KainXS said:


> or in front of a monkey and paint your soldier the same color as a banana
> 
> 
> EDIT: why in the world did I post that . . . . .



lol a bad banana massage


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 17, 2009)

Ammugonevil said:


> Having both consoles, I have to say that the playstation is way better, its just the controller which does it.... since the ps1.. perfection needn't need improvement.



Got to agree, love the PS controller, the 360's isn't bad at all, but the PS one is just about perfect, only change that might help, or might not is maybe moving the left analog up to the Dpad spot and making hte dpad smaller where the left analog was.


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 17, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i own a wii also,
> 
> I have a gaming PC, a wii,360,ps3.
> 
> ...



I also have it all.  I will buy a new GPU once DX 11 is out and mabye an i9 once it comes out.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 17, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Not to be buzz kill or nitpicky on anything but there are 2 "hardware" revisions of the PS3...
> Rev1= Emotion Engine "Hardware" still present...
> Rev2= Emotion Engine "Hardware" removed to cut $18 from production costs.



Actually, 3 revisions:

Rev1=Full PS2 Hardware Present
Rev2=Emotion Engine removed, graphic synthesizer left
Rev3-All PS2 Hardware Removed


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> Not to be buzz kill or nitpicky on anything but there are 2 "hardware" revisions of the PS3...
> Rev1= Emotion Engine "Hardware" still present...
> Rev2= Emotion Engine "Hardware" removed to cut $18 from production costs.



yeah i corrected myself on that a couple pages back, sorry.

My cause for Revisions were simply showing that it took 5 (and soon 6) different hardware revisions to make the 360....i guess you can say "not faulty".

Which in my eyes is honestly showing you a rushed microsoft product that should've been figured out before release.

Hm...Vista anyone..


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 17, 2009)

That is pretty much Microsoft's MO, early adopters are beta testers...


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

exactly


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

I think market trends show that consumers want a console of yesteryear, not a dumbed down computer.  The more computer-like it gets, the more computer-like problems it will have (hardware choices, overheating, unnecessary combos, increased production costs, etc.).

It will be interesting to see what the 8th generation looks like.  Will it be more like the Wii or more like the PS3?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 17, 2009)

To me the Wii is the only real console on the market.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

hey now 

remember 

PS3 and 360 are HD gaming...

wii is just...gaming 


(this was sarcasm by the way)

anyway about Nintendo there in some deep shit now that you can load iso's off an external hdd on an unmodded wii


its a matter of time it takes the same fate as the Dreamcast.

EDIT: the market doesn't want the wii they need to have it for some strange reason i see people over the age of 50 with one in there house im like "Uh do you even play it" and you can see the dust clung to it.

Most times they say "no i got it as a gift"


----------



## DaveK (Jul 17, 2009)

Sony took out the PS2 chips to save $18? $18 on a $400 console? I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend the extra $18 to get proper PS2 compatibility.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

i believe it was more upwards towards 30 dollars but either way do the math, 30 dollars a chip in lets say 100,000 consoles... 

but no worries as sony has a software emulator off the cell CPU for ps2 games in the works.

i have hope, little hope, but hope that i can play some of my ps2 games.


----------



## amd64skater (Jul 17, 2009)

i have had a 360 for about 3 years now no rrod thank god. and i play a good 5 hours a day playing cod4 on live. and i played cod4 on my bro in laws ps3 and i didnt like it as much playing it on playstation network it kept lagging. load times seem to be the same if i have cod4 loaded on the 360 hdd. and the graphics looked almost the same some better on his and some better on mine. like certain details where different on each. but the only thing i he said and i said the controllers are different we both agree the xbox controller was a little easier but the ps3 had more options. i dont know i just prefer the xbox even they are taking all my money like i just had to get the bigger 120 gig hdd because the 20 cant hold anything and putting one game on it takes almost have the size in space.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> its a matter of time it takes the same fate as the Dreamcast.


Nintendo made so much money on the Wii it ain't even funny.  All three consoles of 7th generation are established enough to not become another Dreamcast story.  In fact, the console closest to being a Dreamcast repeat (weak sales in USA, strong in Japan) is the PS3.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

i was referring to the fact that sega's dreamcast also was losing massive money cause of pirating you didn't need anything but a cd burner to get games for the DC. 

Everyone thinks its just sales that killed the dreamcast when in fact a huge portion of it was pirating.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

Pirates never kill consoles.  Greater demand for another console does.  Dreamcast died because of the PS2 hype.  No one really even heard of Dreamcast until after it was gone.

A pirated copy != sale.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 17, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pirates never kill consoles.  Greater demand for another console does.  Dreamcast died because of the PS2 hype.  No one really even heard of Dreamcast until after it was gone.
> 
> A pirated copy != sale.


lol wut? That's not true at all.  Many had a dreamcast.  The problem was pirating.  People were buying games, copying them and returning them saying they were defective, etc.  It may not have been as popular as the PS2 but it certainly wasn't do to the PS2 .  If that were the case Wii would have killed PS3 by now.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

yea im 99 percent sure that pirating may have not officially killed the dreamcast but it basically broke its legs and arms and rendered it defenseless against the ps2. Pirating doesn't kill PC's because the market doesn't buy a PC for just gaming. 

it will have an overall impact on consoles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It may not have been as popular as the PS2 but it certainly wasn't do to the PS2.


PlayStation 2 was released October 26, 2000.  The Dreamcast was discontinued in 2001.  It had everything to do with the PlayStation 2 stealing all the demand away from the Dreamcast.  The only time the Dreamcast was marginally successful was from its launch on September 9, 1999 through September 30, 2000.  The dates correlate.


I don't even remember the last time a retailer refunded money on an game with the seal broken.  I think it was the late 1990s and that was directly with the publisher, not the retailer.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 17, 2009)

This thread is awesome at how random its gotten, im just glad cause its pulling the tension off the subject at hand.

EDIT: well in some places its more popular than others (the Dreamcast). There still releasing games out for it as of this year mainly over seas but still.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 17, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> PlayStation 2 was released October 26, 2000.  The Dreamcast was discontinued in 2001.  It had everything to do with the PlayStation 2 stealing all the demand away from the Dreamcast.  The only time the Dreamcast was marginally successful was from its launch on September 9, 1999 through September 30, 2000.  The dates correlate.
> 
> 
> I don't even remember the last time a retailer refunded money on an game with the seal broken.  I think it was the late 1990s and that was directly with the publisher, not the retailer.



I think piracy killed the dreamcast, it was the only console probably ever that you could burn a game and play it with no mods, no boot discs needed in most cases, nothing, sega failed hard in that respect, the dreamcast I think changed how these companies look at piracy, + the fact it had no DVD, but the dreamcast had hands down some of the funnest games to play, sad it went the way it did, i wish sega was still making consoles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2009)

I'll leave it up to the journalists to explain it:


> http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/111822/the-10-worst-selling-consoles-of-all-time/
> 
> Released in the fall of 1998 in Japan and a year later in the US, the Dreamcast was Sega's fifth and final video game system. The much beloved console launched years ahead of the competition but ultimately struggled to shed the negative reputation it had gained during the Saturn, Sega 32X, and Sega CD days. As a result, casual gamers and jaded third-party developers doubted Sega's ability to deliver. Despite a much celebrated game library, the Dreamcast only sold 10.6 million units during its short, three-year lifespan.





> http://www.gametunnel.com/good-enough-why-graphics-arent-number-one-article.php
> 
> Following the continuing trend of 'first to market, fail to make it to the next generation' Sega released the Dreamcast ahead of the pack and though sales were above that of the Saturn, they left console business (noting the lackluster Xbox and GameCube sales, Sega may have pulled the plug on Dreamcast too quickly).



Here's the table from the second quote (updated with current numbers from Wiki):


Console|Sales (in millions)|Years Available|Millions per Year
Dreamcast|010.60|2 (1999-2001)|05.30
PS2|140.50|9 (2000-????)|15.61
Xbox|024.00|5 (2001-2006)|04.80
GameCube|021.74|6 (2001-2007)|03.62As you can see, only the PS2 did excellent in that generation.  The author may very well be correct that it was too soon to pull the plug on the Dreamcast.  Piracy isn't what did it in--there is no indication of that anywhere.  Going by those numbers alone, everyone wanted a cheap DVD player.  Out of all those, only the Xbox could also read DVDs but it required a $30 add-on.  Is it a coincidence that those two consoles sold the best?

Edit: Going by millions per year, Dreamcast was ousted only by the PS2.  I think that confirms that Sega pulled the plug too soon (except in Japan).

By most accounts, the Xbox and GameCube also failed (GameCube almost killed Nintendo and Microsoft took a big loss on Xbox in order to break into the market).


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

Yeah i know the ps2 is what took the head of the Dreamcast (as i stated in my very first post), i also don't think pirating games helped either i remember seeing people that knew nothing about modification or hacking burn games. which mean you needed little to no knowledge to do it, if Sony's ps2 was as easy to play backups as the Dreamcast was i doubt they'd be making software for it still. 

Just saying that arms and legs were pirating and the head of the Dreamcast belonged to sony.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

The point is, it didn't hurt.  Sega's decision to pull the plug less than two years after launch did.  That's barely enough time to develop a single game, let alone enough to get a cult following (leads to many user conversions to the system).

Just because people can pirate a game easily doesn't mean they do.  You'll never get a cent out of pirate copy so sales never reflect their activity.  Their activity is mostly speculation which is completely irrelevant.  If consumers aren't demanding (dollar vote) your product, it won't sell.

People waited for the PS2 because they were tired of rewinding tapes.  They effectively hit two birds with one stone by not getting a Dreamcast.  Xbox and GameCube reflect that and, had Dreamcast not been discontinued so quick, Dreamcast's numbers most likely would have matched the Xbox and GameCube.  Moral of the story is they all had good products at the wrong time--people wanted DVD and they were going to take the cheapest route to get it.  I think this list alone proves it.  It was the right system at the right time.  Xbox, GameCube, and Dreamcast were the right consoles at the wrong time.

Sega has 4 out of the 10 worst consoles of all time (40%).  The Genesis was the only Sega console met with a lot of success.


Obviously, after the first 3-4 years, PS2s library of popular games took hold and sustained good sales through sequels.


People can argue until they are blue in the face that every pirate copy means one lost sale but, there is no evidence from someone not looking to make a profit (like Sony/Sony DADC) to prove that.  Publishers these days are too scared to release games without DRM.  Frankly, I would describe publishers attitudes towards piracy as "hysteria" ("pirates are killing the X industry!") and maybe a bit of "dementia" ("if I pay Y company for DRM, maybe I will get better sales...").  It is bad for everyone in the end (except companies that sell DRM no matter how ineffective it is).


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

i wave the white flag at you my friend as you have clearly done your research, i guess im in denial about sega mainly because i was always a sega lover, even owned a nomad haha, but yeah in my heart i think that lack of sales also hindered the dreamcast but i reality the ps2 came like a bat out of hell looking for blood.

thanks for the information i enjoyed seeing the rest of the other consoles


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

There was a lot of reasons that the Dreamcast would die.
Lack of sales, Sega was going bust they had to scrap that division eventually, Sony has the cash to wait for sales to increase so did Microsoft and partly Nintendo, i think Sony really killed the Dreamcast.

The Sega CD was a flop, 32x had like 30 games and was coming out a year before the Saturn which was a brand new console not an addon so 32x died, so Sega already had a series of failures before.

Dreamcast died due to lack of games i know it had a few gems, lack of sales, previous failures in the market by sega, lack of funding, lack of developer knowledge, due to bad problems EA didnt develop for the Dreamcast, the online while innovative was expensive, lack of dvd drive and wasnt as powerful as the PS2 although PS2 came out later and was thus developed for longer so it was more powerful due to that, bad marketing killed it also

People wanted a cheap dvd player it was new and exciting and the Dreamcast didnt have one, PS2 software sales came behind dvd sales.

Practically everyone who owned a Dreamcast bought copied games for it, the coding in the Dreamcast was easily hacked within its first year. Oh and Japan was a core Sega market and it didnt like the Dreamcast so failing in your home territory is *epic fail*.

I was a hardcore Dreamcast guy i used to love Metropolitan Street Racer the original PGR, also loved the Sega games like Sonic Adventure and Street Fighter 3 and Soul Calibre.

Most games where ported to the xbox and ps2 so that is another bummer even Sonic Adventure was out on pc 

History of Dreamcast part 1 and 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3NfgF08EQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27kjhZXQqE


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

Im pretty sure it was fairly popular in japan but they were upset that sega couldn't meet demand on its release for gamers, and what steered them away from the dreamcast was the dvd function of the ps2, Another thing the dreamcast is still making games in Japan and some are offically licensed because its only still surviving there.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Im pretty sure it was fairly popular in japan but they were upset that sega couldn't meet demand on its release for gamers, and what steered them away from the dreamcast was the dvd function of the ps2, Another thing the dreamcast is still making games in Japan and some are offically licensed because its only still surviving there.



if you watch the Dreamcast history videos then the American developers say it flopped in Japan, sure it lives on but Japanese take consoles seriously, there was nothing new so they had to create Homebrew

Japan wanted the PS2


----------



## douglatins (Jul 18, 2009)

I don't see why placing a 100USD Wi-fi addon to the 360, since the PS3 does't have any, you sound like Sony.
Thus making the 360 cheaper


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

uh? what?

The add on is to show how much the 360 would cost WITH all the SAME features as the 400 dollar PS3? are you trying to tell me it doesn't have wifi?

The 20gb version didn't at launch but they got rid of that...


EDIT:

Honestly this thread should just be closed because reading post like

"i didn't want a blu ray player in my ps3"
"i didn't want wifi for my ps3"
ETC?

I mean what the hell do you think im saying?

MY MAIN POINT!

Was to show how much it would cost FOR the 360 to have the same FEATURES that the ps3 had and how much it would cost.

and yes i know you can get a god damn hdmi cable for 5 dollars the point is i was just using "Offical" add-ons for each system.?

-__-
Bruno Magli Store


----------



## Binge (Jul 18, 2009)

apples vs oranges vs computers????  wtf kind of thread is this?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

it turned into a mesh of different platforms which is pretty cool i wanted the heat away from the war but sometimes i just go back and read what people say and its like ....WHAT?!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

It hasn't been said yet but, despite the Dreamcast being discontinued in North America in 2001 and Europe in 2002, Sega continued to sell and support the Dreamcast in Japan until 2006 (the whole of the 5th generation of consoles).  Kind of odd that they abandon everyone else just for one segment of the market.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It hasn't been said yet but, despite the Dreamcast being discontinued in North America in 2001 and Europe in 2002, Sega continued to sell and support the Dreamcast in Japan until 2006 (the whole of the 5th generation of consoles).  Kind of odd that they abandon everyone else just for one segment of the market.



games were still coming out in japan for the dreamcast well after its demise, thats probably why

well . . . . maybe not


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'll leave it up to the journalists to explain it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but that information offers no insight to suggest that PS2 is what cause the dreamcast to go out of business in the context in which you posted it.  In some ways you are making a leap of faith based on the opinion of a journalist and data (if accurate).  If true it would have also applied to Xbox and game cube based on those numbers.  However, you also say that the Dreamcast was the one who actually made the discussion not Sony.  So we can leave it at that


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

it's because they were still selling games and stuff well in japan...

well enough to continue support even until now 

It's mainly puzzle games and 2-D shooters but they love them over in japan

WELL more than Any fps games


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I'm sorry but that information offers no insight to suggest that PS2 is what cause the dreamcast to go out of business in the context in which you posted it.  In some ways you are making a leap of faith based on the opinion of a journalist and data (if accurate).  If true it would have also applied to Xbox and game cube based on those numbers.  However, you also say that the Dreamcast was the one who actually made the discussion not Sony.  So we can leave it at that


Eh?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Eh?



Yeah that's what I say, Eh?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

All I know is that the Dreamcast sold very well up until the PS2 launch.  Less than a year after the PS2 launched, the Dreamcast was discontinued.

Xbox and Gamecube saw similar figures being launched after the PS2.  Nintendo and Microsoft rode it out but Sega threw the towel in early (the moment they saw their console lost sales momentum).

The PS2 simply dwarfed the rest for the same generation.  The "stars aligned" for it, as it were.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

what really hurt Dreamcast was they were sooooo excited of how great there launch was that they made TOO MANY consoles cause they were afraid that they were going to fall short of demands so they basically had so many Dreamcast in a warehouse that at one time (and i remember this distinctively) if you bought a Dreamcast you'd get one free.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

I hope that was sarcasm.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

The xbox you dont need to buy propitiatory i have an access point that cost me £20, controllers can be wired or wireless with pc compatibility loads os stuff i could list.

The power consumption is higher on the ps3 so it adds up. Blu Ray increases the power consumption but it also adds better protection from being expensive to copy and a good digital protection, also the space is a good thing.

Gamecube had Nintendo cash to get by, its games where mostly average they made enuf sale i think to not take a huge loss, the gamecube was cheap to manufacture.

Xbox had to take a hit to break into the market i think the 360 sales more than make up for the xbox original losses.


EDIT: there was so many dreamcasts in the channels like at stores and places like that, they had stockpiles in warehouses they couldnt shift due to this so they just stopped manufacturing


----------



## Binge (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> it turned into a mesh of different platforms which is pretty cool i wanted the heat away from the war but sometimes i just go back and read what people say and its like ....WHAT?!



Truely people will say really stupid stuff about consoles, but they forget that unlike computers the objective isn't to present all types of compatible hardware that could be used to fill the needs of the buyer... it's simply to turn profit in the entertainment biznuzs.  A comparison of each company should be done from their marketing strategy and NOT by the features of the console.  They don't care if the other console has something unless that gadget sells more to the average Joe Schmoe.  A niche market like user interface video media has been trying to target the masses, but always falling short because of two factors...

1) The mentality.  Video games are 4 nerds.  Go out and ride a bike.
2) It's a very young market and it takes time for new markets to succeed.

This brings us to the two classic/hardcore gamer targeting "nextgen" consoles of the past 10 years.  The PS3 and the XBOX 360 which have entirely different marketing strategies and thusly can not be compared.  I've noticed when my friends go to college, they buy the 360... when they stay at home and mooch the parents they buy PS3.  Why the heck is this?  Then eventually everyone who owns a PS3 owns an XBox 360, and usually it's because of the matured controlled online gaming environment.  I mean matured as in it's grown and people love it.  Both systems have an online market place, but the 360s online market is just... it's more.  Advertised better, shoved in your face, but it's like a really comfortable to talk to next door neighbor who just happens to sell your favorite odds and ends.  The PS3s market is like a cold catalogue from which you would order parts.  The controller of either system sucks, but I was happy with D-pad controls and I hate console shooters.  Neither console gives the kind of keyboard and mouse support I would like.  Who cares though?  The Wii has the best controller for the retards, the old, and the young.  Everyone who plays respectible arcade style games owns an arcade stick.  That leaves the ps3/xbox360 controllers to be under criticism by the players of Crash Bandicoot.  Great... I LOVE adventure games *sarcasm*.  This is a niche game type, but the 360 sells more of it and sells it better... 360 players end up using their controller for the correct kind of games more often.  The enjoyability of adventure games with console controllers is up to debate, but I'm sure most people would agree with that statement.  So the PS3 has a different media drive and wi-fi... ok great.  I still had to set up my internet, so wtf was the point of wireless?  The 360 is easier out of the box for those Crash Bandicoot loving retards.  This means Microsoft trying to capture the impact video games left on the world and use this to shape what comes next.  What is Sony doing?  They're selling me another media player that takes too much effort to learn the extra features.  What happened to the PS2?  Ohhhh yeah, the PS2 team had nothing to do with the PS3.  Nevermind that rant, but the marketing of the PS3 is targetting PS2 owners and pricks.  The 360 is playing to everyone who wants a simple gaming platform.  Cost isn't a factor in most comparisons which could evolve into a debate as to which is better, or which is superior in function.  Men/Women/Children will always want what can scratch the itch.  If they don't know it could scratch the itch then it's just another shelf product.

Did I mention the PS3 is difficult to sell to someone who's never EVER bought a gaming system before?  Take it from a former GS employee, it's not impossible, but it's not natural either.  I don't like the 360, but I also don't like any ps3 games.  I bought my ps3 60gb as a glorified ps2, and I bought my 360 to play fighting games online.  Equal opportunity descrimination here against consoles.  I threw my wii out of a window and then burnt it.  Trash.  Marketing can be two things.

1) Helpful to get whutcha need/want
2) POISONOUS DECEPTION

So how does this M$ vs Sony thing end?  Well not by the console by any means... everyone's always talking about the games, and how do consoles sell games?  They advertise them better.  Which system markets their games better than the other?  I'll give you a few hints.  This console has a friendly, easy to access, marketplace.  This console has consistant releases of action/adventure titles which fully use the console's controller without someone looking for an extra peripheral.  Lastly this console is idiot-proof customers who are new and excited about online play.  (the degree of stupidity on this scale is based on idiots being an elementry school student of moderate intelligence)


WHEEEE RANTING!!!


----------



## DaveK (Jul 18, 2009)

MSR FTW! Anyone who played MSR on the Dreamcast gets 100 win points!


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

I agree with you in almost all of what you said

My thread wasn't about the "common" gamer it was comparing system and features and what each one tried to pull off.

Comparing the network setting on the 360 and the ps3 is funny because unless you already know this if you want no restriction on the 360 you have to set your router up to configure ports to open the network up better. With the ps3 you run a network connection wizard and connect...take like 10 seconds and that's what they invented manuals for.

The ps3 automatically does it through the system with virtual ports....

Setting up the wifi for the ps3? hmmmm gotta do it if you set up the wifi for the 360 (and not all people have Ethernet cable in there room and USE wifi)

Comparing the online catalog is not even fair because one is FREE? how can you complain about anything when its absolutely  free?

look i do not work at GameStop i work at a computer store and i get a lot of customers come in and buy either ps3 or 360 and always ask me questions about both and honestly when it comes to...

Features
Longevity
Reliability

The ps3 wins...

The market for gamers who aren't really into FPS and RPGS etc etc and online gaming...is basically the wii.


EDIT:

Yeah i had MSR man i never bought it cause i couldn't find it in stored but i acquired it (well after the Dreamcast discontinued)  oh...and i still have my dreamcast...haha


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I hope that was sarcasm.



No..that wasn't sarcasm they were so backed up in sales that they were GIVING away free dreamcast systems if you bought one for the holiday season


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> No..that wasn't sarcasm they were so backed up in sales that they were GIVING away free dreamcast systems if you bought one for the holiday season


What year was that?  2000 or 2001?  In 1999, they had a shortage.  In 2001, it would make sense because PS2 had launched and stole all of Dreamcast's thunder.  They were trying to recreate thunder and failed.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

it was there final year they were just trying to sell them off by that point..

i


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

Probably 2001.  They were no longer supported by Sega and wanted to get them off the shelves to make room for PS2s.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

yea, i hope one day ( i know it probably wont happen but sega did copyright 2 names) they just surprise everyone with a new console....one can dream right.

i dunno man i had way more fun playing crazy taxi and Virtua fighter on my sega system than i did ps2.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

Just like the odds of Fable II coming to PC are next to non-existent.  The best platforms die the quietest deaths.


----------



## Binge (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> I agree with you in almost all of what you said
> 
> My thread wasn't about the "common" gamer it was comparing system and features and what each one tried to pull off.
> 
> ...



Different routers, different results.  I'm also not talking about xbox360 wi-fi.  It's not important.  wi-fi is not important.  Features... sure... logevity.  PS3 is a few years into Sony's 10 year plan.  Reliability... sure.  The market for console gamers who aren't into FPS/RPGs can include adventure/fighters which are lacking on the wii.  The wii has ridiculousness coming out the butt.  Iz so funny.  Their target audiance is years 28-45 because they are more likely to have children.  Nintendo found that parents are better sales people than they could possibly ever be. 

Having worked at GS doesn't give me some sort of authority, but I have gotten to speak with too many company reps.  That big chunk of text I laid out is what they talk about between each other because the reps are the marketing front of the company to the retailers.  It's magic.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

longevity meaning that they will support the system as they release a new one.

We know what Microsoft does ...out with the old in with the new when there xbox 720 or whatever it is comes out they'll be like "360 what?".
about the wifi that's neither here nor there its simply put that it COMES with the ps3, and doesn't with the 360 and if it did come with the 360 they'd slap a extra 100 dollars on there system...that was the point.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Just like the odds of Fable II coming to PC are next to non-existent.  The best platforms die the quietest deaths.



haha the dreamcast didn't die a quiet death it was leaked that they discontinued manufacturing and it became a huge thing..

it deserved a quiet death at least it went out with a fight..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2009)

A fight, yes, but with feathers as weapons.  The same thing is starting to happen with PC games.  Geeks that love their platform make a lot of noise but it falls on deaf ears in both cases.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Comparing the online catalog is not even fair because one is FREE? how can you complain about anything when its absolutely  free?



You ever heard the phrase "beggers cant be choosers" ?  XBOX LIVE is far better than PSN.

You say you own both the 360 and PS3, but you clearly are a PS3 fanboy, sorry, but its true.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

Just like your an xbox fanboy  

From an unbiased perspective, I prefer the ps3 because I can put linux on it and use it as a pc and I want to take it apart and see it nekkid


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 18, 2009)

i dont own a xbox360 or ps3,but i think xbox360 is better because it is cheap!ps3 s flaw is that is too expensive!,for that money you can get a gaming pc


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Just like your an xbox fanboy
> 
> From an unbiased perspective, I prefer the ps3 because I can put linux on it and use it as a pc and I want to take it apart and see it nekkid



Nah, if I could afford to own both consoles I would.  That way I would get the best of both worlds 

But for now, Im happy with the 360 

If the PS3 could me modified I would snap one up again


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Nah, if I could afford to own both consoles I would.  That way I would get the best of both worlds
> 
> But for now, Im happy with the 360
> 
> If the PS3 could me modified I would snap one up again



Lies  

I'd wouldn't mind having an ingame web browser like in steam on either of them. I probs only want a ps3 because that's the only console I don't have.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Lies



Damn, youve caught me out 



DrPepper said:


> I probs only want a ps3 because that's the only console I don't have.



I admit, the PS3 is a great console and if I could, I would own one aswell as the 360 

I did own a PS3, but I just didnt like it as much as the 360, but this is my personal preferance and I have no rights to say one is far superior to the other......nor does anyone else.

Its a LOT cheaper for me to own a 360 and the games are still good on the old thing, so Im happy to own one.  But if the PS3 started to get ahead with exclusive 'great' titles then I would have to consider getting one.

I have a standalone Blu-ray player so i dont even need a PS3 for that luxury (but TBH, if I had one, I wouldnt use the PS3 as a BD player because it would just put more wear 'n' tear on the laser)


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

I wouldn't mind all of them. Variety is the spice of life and to stick to only one console and never admit the others are equally is good is quite narrow minded.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I wouldn't mind all of them. Variety is the spice of life and to stick to only one console and never admit the others are equally is good is quite narrow minded.



Agreed!  

The only people that benefit from 'console wars' are the hardware companies.  Its a bit like nVIDIA Vs ATi really with all the 'optimization' BS.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Agreed!
> 
> The only people that benefit from 'console wars' are the hardware companies.  Its a bit like nVIDIA Vs ATi really with all the 'optimization' BS.



Indeed IBM who make all the processors for all three consoles must be laughing their asses off.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Indeed IBM who make all the processors for all three consoles must be laughing their asses off.



OH YES!!


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

tbh sony makes the cell processor itself, wii has a custom ARM chip i dont know who makes the 360 cpu tho

the grapics are nvidia for ps3 roughly equivalent to a tweaked 7000, series
xbox 360 is a custom ati chip a modified 2900
the wii is a custom ati chip just a random one

i like the 360 i wouldnt buy a ps3 now but ps3 is a good machine, if i have a pc tho media functions and linux would just be to mess with not take seriously

the xbox live was £25 on ebay so 25 divided by 12 = around £2 a month so get over the subscription charge its cheap for the quality of service


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Agreed!
> 
> The only people that benefit from 'console wars' are the hardware companies.  Its a bit like nVIDIA Vs ATi really with all the 'optimization' BS.



Was that a jab at me?


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Was that a jab at me?



ermmmmmmm, why would it be 



MilkyWay said:


> tbh sony makes the cell processor itself, wii has a custom ARM chip i dont know who makes the 360 cpu tho



I thought IBM made them all.  The 360 has the Xenon, the Wii has the Broadway and the PS3 has the Cell Broadband Engine and IBM played a part in all of them, didnt they


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 18, 2009)

IBM Designed them all.  With SONY and MS, they own the design for their processor.  MS also owns the design of their GPU too.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

mdbrotha03 said:


> IBM Designed them all.  With SONY and MS, they own the design for their processor.  MS also owns the design of their GPU too.



Yes they own the design but IBM was contracted to design them and fabbed them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Yes they own the design but IBM was contracted to design them and fabbed them.



Its a modified PowerPC CPU. Basically a modded G5.


----------



## L|NK|N (Jul 18, 2009)

I have had 3 xbox 360s since their debut. I had a ps3. To me xbox had the online nicely fine tuned and tons of games. I was more impressed with my ps3 for functionality. However I never owned either longer than a summer because nothing currently replaces my pc, even if we get piss poor console ports or not.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its a modified PowerPC CPU. Basically a modded G5.



Apparently the Xenon core's are similar to the Cells SPE's as well.


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 18, 2009)

No, the main CPU in the PS3 is similar to one of the cores in the Xenon.  It is also a Power PC CPU.  The SPE's is what makes them different.  They are made for more specialize code.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

mdbrotha03 said:


> No, the main CPU in the PS3 is similar to one of the cores in the Xenon.  It is also a Power PC CPU.  The SPU is what makes them different.  They are made for more specialize code.



Pretty much what I said 

"based on IBM's PowerPC instruction set architecture, consisting of three independent processor cores on a single die. These cores are slightly modified versions of the PPE in the Cell processor which was designed specifically for the PlayStation 3"


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 18, 2009)

The SPE isn't a part of the of the PPE in the Cell.  The PPE in the Cell is like the one of the cores in the Xenon.  The Xenon doesn't have anything like the SPE's in it.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

mdbrotha03 said:


> The SPE isn't a part of the of the PPE in the Cell.  The PPE in the Cell is like the one of the cores in the Xenon.  The Xenon doesn't have anything like the SPE's in it.



I never even mentioned SPE's at all ever. I don't even know what it is. I just read that on wikipedia.


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Apparently the Xenon core's are similar to the Cells SPE's as well.



never mention? 

From Wiki
Power Processor Element (PPE)

The PPE is the Power Architecture based, two-way multithreaded core acting as the controller for the eight SPEs, which handle most of the computational workload. The PPE will work with conventional operating systems due to its similarity to other 64-bit PowerPC processors, while the SPEs are designed for vectorized floating point code execution. The PPE contains a 32 KiB instruction and a 32 KiB data Level 1 cache and a 512 KiB Level 2 cache. The size of a cache line is 128 bytes. Additionally, IBM has included an AltiVec unit[27] which is fully pipelined for single precision floating point. (Altivec does not support double precision floating-point vectors.) Each PPU can complete two double precision operations per clock cycle using a scalar-fused multiply-add instruction, which translates to 6.4 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz; or eight single precision operations per clock cycle with a vector fused-multiply-add instruction, which translates to 25.6 GFLOPS at 3.2 GHz.[28]

[edit] Xenon in Xbox 360

The PPE was designed specifically for the Cell processor but during development, Microsoft approached IBM wanting a high performance processor core for its Xbox 360. IBM complied and made the tri-core Xenon processor, based on a slightly modified version of the PPE.[29][30].


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

I never even remember writing SPE  my bad. Must have meant to write cpu


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

This thread is like an A.D.D child in Disneyland.

In Short...No ONE developer has even come close to "unlocking" the ps3's CELL processor, its been said by numerous  developers that they have yet to find its true power blah blah because it is in fact very hard to code for.

I do think its funny though that Sony's exclusives usually look very very very good. even if its not Sony making it themselves.

Lazy ass developers


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> This thread is like an A.D.D child in Disneyland.
> 
> In Short...No ONE developer has even come close to "unlocking" the ps3's CELL processor, its been said by numerous  developers that they have yet to find its true power blah blah because it is in fact very hard to code for.
> 
> ...



Im sure I read somewhere that SONY doesnt offer very good support to the developers......which is pretty arrogant on SONYs behalf.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Im sure I read somewhere that SONY doesnt offer very good support to the developers......which is pretty arrogant on SONYs behalf.



They don't that's why valve stopped releasing game's for it. Also it's incredibly complicated to code for it in the first place.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

hey now im on your side about not being able to fully utilize the ps3's power if you read the first post i said "why would Sony make a product that is so hard to develop for"


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> hey now im on your side about not being able to fully utilize the ps3's power if you read the first post i said "why would Sony make a product that is so hard to develop for"



Hey I'm on your side  I was agree'ing with you and expanding your point


----------



## joshiers8605 (Jul 18, 2009)

I like the feel of the PS2/3 controllers, could be because i'v just used them a lot more too


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

iBM > M$SF$T

i love the 360. if anyone has seen e3 the show and seen their interactive new gen xbox. its crazy

i thought ps3 would live up to their potential by having decent games besides like sf4. i heard cod was really bad but i wouldn't know dont know dont have a ps3. its so bulky too but it was the most likely-est console to fail. rather 360 had to go through 3 generation of mixed chips and cooling till finally less people stop calling in to get it replaced.

lets see how the ps3 slim turns out.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 18, 2009)

joshiers8605 said:


> I like the feel of the PS2/3 controllers, could be because i'v just used them a lot more too



It's crazy how much lighter the new PS3 controller is compared to the PS2 one's.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

my bro tried using the joysticks from a ps3 controller to an xbox and it was horrible


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

3 generations of chips nahhhh man like 5

Xenon (v1)
Zephyr (v2)
Falcon (v3)
Opus (v3.1)
Jasper (v4)

And soon to be newest where the gpu and cpu die are all in one..(cant wait to see how that turns out)


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

k0rn_h0li0 said:


> my bro tried using the joysticks from a ps3 controller to an xbox and it was horrible


what do you mean i dont think there is a PS3 joystick there is an unofficial one for 30 but its not that great


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

wth how can i find an opus model. 

my elite was manufactured 7-15-08 those are the last of the falcons i think but i'm never knew they had an opus.

MilkyWay : my bro's friend i guess took his controller apart and gave my bro his joysticks.

the only bad thing about it it was that it was to round and the stem was just too fat.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

wii runs a custom Power Pc chip
xenon on the 360 is a power pc chip also
Cell is a microprocessor architecture jointly developed by Sony Computer Entertainment, Toshiba, and IBM. They are not just used in the PS3 anymore i think.



Wii runs a custom hollywood chip
nvidia fell out with microsoft so they run on ati graphics now Xenos it is in many ways the precursor to the R600
ps3 is the RSX which shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on G70 architecture

EDIT: dont you mean analogue sticks, joysticks are those big ass stick you use for arcade


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

The Opus model was only for the core editions (before HDMI was on all systems.) therefor it was like a falcon without the HDMI port.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

yeah analog sticks my bad. joysticks are arcade type ones. i wasn't thinkin there.

ew opus models thats like the first gen stuff


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

They were made for RRoD issues for core systems because M$ didn't want to give you an upgraded motherboard for free man! (aside from the falcon die)


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

whats next they won't give up 64mb memory cards? HAHA


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

actually nope they discontinued that and added a 256mb (and now 512mb) internal on the 360 so you cant take your data anywhere with you anymore its integrated


----------



## DaveK (Jul 18, 2009)

No doubt they're both good consoles, in the end of the day they get pretty much all the same games, both have online and media functions.

I prefer the 360 pad though it fits my hands better, it's the perfect size the PS3 control is too small lol.

But at the end of the day I have to pick the 360 simply because everyone has one, all my friends have one except 1 guy who has a PS3, so if I want to play some CoD4 all my friends are there. And the 360 isn't necessarily cheaper, people get the idea the Arcade is cheaper but you will most likely need a wireless adapter and a 60GB HDD isn't cheap so you end up paying more than what the Premium costs. Of course you don't need a wireless adapter if your router is next to your TV or your house is wired with ethernet ports like mine lol Not many houses I know have ethernet ports in all the main rooms lol.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

> And the 360 isn't necessarily cheaper, people get the idea the Arcade is cheaper but you will most likely need a wireless adapter and a 60GB HDD isn't cheap so you end up paying more than what the Premium costs. Of course you don't need a wireless adapter if your router is next to your TV or your house is wired with Ethernet ports like mine lol Not many houses I know have ethernet ports in all the main rooms lol.



THANK YOU!! that was my point man no one understood they just kept saying "well i dont want wireless and i don't want blu-ray and i don't need a lot of hard drive space"

i wasn't stressing any facts of "wanting" just if you compared the 2 to make them both have the same features etc. you wind up spending more on all the "offical" peripherals .

So thank you for posting that maybe than they'll understand


----------



## DaveK (Jul 18, 2009)

I saw it on GameTrailers, someone posted a chart of the price for the PS3, 360 and Wii. The 360 came out more expensive with the Wireless adapter and Live. The wireless adapter is extremely over priced, it's what, b/g? and you can get an N1 wireless adapter for around the same price for PC.

As for Live I don't care about €60 a year, it's what, €6.99 a month? What's €7 in a whole month? In Ireland minimum wage gets you approx €1,350 a month. You can get a year of Live on Play.com for as low as €45.

If you can afford a 360 you can afford to pay for Live, if you can't you're poor and wont be able to afford a 360.

But the hard-drive and wireless adapter are overpriced.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Jul 18, 2009)

for me xbox has a better choice of games so i would sway towards that ( i own both just waiting for gran turismo 5 and MAG to come out to make me like the ps3)


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

Metal gear, killzone, and the resistance games. was enough for me to like my ps3

Cant wait for GT5 or MAG though hope its better than socom  even though i kinda like Socom on the ps3


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

i hate how xbox fucks with us making us buy shit from them when they should've just added it on. assholes


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 18, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> It's crazy how much lighter the new PS3 controller is compared to the PS2 one's.



The SixAxis was lighter because the weights and motors were removed when vibration was removed.  The DualShock3 doesn't really seem that much lighter than the DualShock2 to me though, if anything the DualShock3 is a little heavier(probably because of the internal battery).


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

ps2 controller seems heavier to me mainly cause its thicker plastic and what not i think i am holding both right now. haha


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

simple dont buy an arcade if plan to get a 60gb drive or want some space

also i dont need wireless i have an access point wireless one that ive set up to use on the 360 which i got on ebay for £20, see you dont even need to buy the official controllers there are 3rd party ones, there are 3rd party vga cables

every time people say add it all up but they forget about power consumption

what your saying is the xbox 360 actually costs more when it kinda dosnt

on amazon.co.uk
our prices are not comparable to US ill compare UK PS3 and UK xbox 360

PS3 60GB - £259.99 http://www.amazon.co_uk/dp/B0007SV734/?tag=tec053-21


Xbox 360 60 GB Premium (*Get a selected game for just £10 when you buy this from Amazon.co.uk) - £159.96
http://www.amazon.co_uk/dp/B001DTD0WM/?tag=tec053-21

Xbox 360 Play & Charge Kit - £10.97
http://www.amazon.co_uk/dp/B000AYS8FK/?tag=tec053-21

TP Link Wireless access point - £23.68
http://www.microdirect.co.uk/home/p...reless-Access-Point-TL-WA601G?source=googleps


Xbox 360 Live 12 month Gold Membership - £25.50 spread over 12 month its £2.13 a month
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Xbox-360-Live...c0.m14&_trkparms=65:15|66:2|39:1|293:1|294:50

PS3 = £259.99
Xbox 360 = £219.15 if you buy a full 12 months

add on electricity costs and PS3 is dearer


You dont have to buy the official 360 wireless adapter you can get a cheaper alternative.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 18, 2009)

Cool I didn't know you could use 3rd party wireless adapters. How much power does the PS3 use? The latest 360 revision has a 175W PSU if I remember correctly.

EDIT: Actually the latest revision has a 150W PSU and consumes 100W.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

yeah the new models have 175 power brick and the core only takes like idk 40~100 but shit how would i know.

its funnie how xbox 360 and ps3 dropped their 20gbs, 40gbs for the ps3 and went to 60gbs. we are some stupid ass americans


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

uh thats not even compaireable im not including sales or 3rd party accessories this is all about first party accessories and it has nothing to do with what YOU want the system to do...It is about what the system CAN do..once agian..

And the power consumption is literally maybe 2-3 dollars a month extra on the electric bill for the ps3 vs 360. So there is your extra xbox live money right?

and by the way in stand by WHEN THE SYSTEM IS OFF

the 360 draws more power (.6 v to be approximate) 

herehttp://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-1.htm
is an article to justify your "consumption cost"

and do not compare 3rd party items please as if this was a honest REVIEW site they wouldn't find shortcuts to save cash its all about the official merchandise from the company's.

Proving as cheap as the 360 is for there OFFICIAL products your still burning the same if not more money to get the same features on it as the ps3.

i am seriously not going to say it again i don't know how many ways i can say it...



> yeah the new models have 175 power brick and the core only takes like idk 40~100 but shit how would i know.
> 
> its funnie how xbox 360 and ps3 dropped their 20gbs, 40gbs for the ps3 and went to 60gbs. we are some stupid ass americans



Actually it's not just Sony of America's job to decide to stop production of anything, it has to go through Sony of Japan to make the official calling for the console.


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 18, 2009)

and the 360?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

What about the 360? point is that no matter how you bend it break it mold it scold it you are paying more for a 360 than you are a ps3 to have the same EXACT features as the ps3..

OH well except for a blu-ray player.

oops that wasn't for you man i didn't know who you were talking to..

Yea they dropped the 20gb model because well in the end you have like 11gb of space and with the ablity to download regular xbox games and all that great stuff and installing games on the HDD. well they knew it'd become worthless


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 18, 2009)

DaveK said:


> How much power does the PS3 use?



My 60GB PS3 uses about 170w.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

The hard thing about comparing the 2 is simply what games do you play off the HDD, what firmware is installed etc.

But on an average you will spend between 1-3 dollars a month extra on the ps3.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

140 watts average use but up to 320watts max
the xbox is just 175w max not sure about average consumption

ps3 uses power in standby and blu ray watching increases the consumption


dosnt matter really both are good consoles i just hate when people say added up the 360 costs more than the ps3 which it dosnt really, thats fanboyism

i could say that the wii is the best due to price and contol scheme but its not its just different

yup you can use a wireless access point i know the tp link ones work fine
some are just there to give a wired router wireless functionality so it needs to have


TCP/IP, DHCP
MAC address filtering
Built-in DHCP server supporting dynamic IP address distributing
Client Mode

if its got those it can connect to your router like a wireless adapter, bonus those access points work on pcs im using it just now


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 18, 2009)

I know what your saying and i understand as an alternative you dont have to waist extra money, but microsoft wants you to waist extra money, the common customer buys the Microsoft product because its "easier to use" kinda stuff.

all i am saying is that you have to compare figures also and you spend about 50 dollars USD on xbox live a year and you spend about 20-25 dollars extra on power consumption for the ps3, considering the online gaming although sucks is free on the ps3.

The wii, we shalt not speak its name here! i just sold mine for a ps3 well traded it  well...another ps3..


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2009)

next you will say you have to buy a blu ray player to get the same features and those are at least £150 a drive for a pc is considerably less expensive tho, sorry that was just a joke to lighten the mood i dont really care

i know it has blu ray but a lot of people just want a gaming machine

i dont buy first party its more expensive if the stupid average consumer cant find third party stuff then they should own a wii and get a few stupid plastic add-ons

nobody said you have to buy first party its just there as an option its microsofts console they can give products if they want they never banned alternatives

hey i did include xbox live and i said it was £25 you just have to look for it cheap instead of RRP, its not like everywhere sells the same game at the same price


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> nobody said you have to buy first party its just there as an option its microsofts console they can give products if they want they never banned alternatives



AFAIK, there is no 3rd party Xbox360 hard drive...


----------



## DaveK (Jul 19, 2009)

There's a Hitatchi drive you can put into the 360 that's 1/3 the price of the Microsoft one but it's not 3rd party.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

yeh and you think the common user can install a harddrive and modify there system..i don't


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> next you will say you have to buy a blu ray player to get the same features and those are at least £150 a drive for a pc is considerably less expensive tho, sorry that was just a joke to lighten the mood i dont really care
> 
> i know it has blu ray but a lot of people just want a gaming machine
> 
> ...





Are you not understanding man? that this isn't you? that these people who go to the store and buy these for there kids and what not aren't you?

This is a price point for the COMMON HOME user, not you, not me, noone on this site, no guy is going to say "well i can just get a blu ray drive for my pc and watch movies that way?" no one guy is going to say "well i can make my router act as an access point" 

Honestly you can ONLY compare first party accessories because this is not about someone who is knowledgeable enough with technology that they can actually do half the shit you have to do to get it to work.

And yeah about the blu ray ? why not include it ? it is infact a feature 360 doesnt have at all?

Not including why would you want to use your PC on your TV when thats what consoles are for?


----------



## DaveK (Jul 19, 2009)

360 Power usage:

Xenon,  90nm CPU/90nm GPU, 175W Power Consumption, 203W Power Supply
Zephyr, 90nm CPU/90nm GPU, 175W Power Consumption, 203W Power Supply
Falcon,  65nm CPU/90nm GPU, 120W Power Consumption, 175W Power Supply
Opus,    65nm CPU/90nm GPU, 120W Power Consumption (replacement for Xenon motherboards which have been sent-in to repair centers (US Only)
Jasper, 65nm CPU/65nm GPU, 100W Power Consumption, 150W Power Supply



joinmeindeath417 said:


> yeh and you think the common user can install a harddrive and modify there system..i don't



I didn't say they could, but anyone who knows their way around a computer can do it.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

yeah i do think its ridiculous that it cost so much for even a 20gb HDD.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 19, 2009)

Probably because they are reverse engineered drives from a decade ago.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The SixAxis was lighter because the weights and motors were removed when vibration was removed.  The DualShock3 doesn't really seem that much lighter than the DualShock2 to me though, if anything the DualShock3 is a little heavier(probably because of the internal battery).



I require 3rd party control for Comfort, Dual Shock never fitted my hands right.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

Controllers are a matter of personal preference!
The only comment i have to add is the 360 has good triggers but a crap d pad - dualshock 3 has bad triggers but an excellent d pad.

As far as analogues go for me its about the same the 360 as far as feedback and centring go, the xbox 360 might have a better charge only slightly tho and the fact you can buy a third party charge and battery kit with even more juice looks kinda cheap the official ones look sturdy but still the 3rd party ones increase hours of play. The 360 chat pad is infinitely better come on a chat pad the goes on top WTF SONY? Microsoft have experience with those type of products tho Sony just in laptop keyboards.

Xbox 360 streams div x and proprietary Microsoft codecs fine, ps3 can store video and watch it back maybe it was from an external hard drive dosnt matter it does media a bit better

Remember all that fuss about the avatars on xbox 360 what a joke people actually thought it was turning into the wii!!!


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Are you not understanding man? that this isn't you? that these people who go to the store and buy these for there kids and what not aren't you?
> 
> This is a price point for the COMMON HOME user, not you, not me, noone on this site, no guy is going to say "well i can just get a blu ray drive for my pc and watch movies that way?" no one guy is going to say "well i can make my router act as an access point"
> 
> ...


Wait so your saying that xbox 360 is for kids? Its not its main target audience. 
I dont use my pc on my tv and if i wanted to it would be a second monitor type setup, actually tv is for watching programs the fact it can be used to display a console is an afterthought. Hell i even use my pc monitor through vga sometimes with my 360.

I use my pc for all media its fairly adequate.


Yeah okay change that £23 to a £50!
EVERYONE even like spaz consumers can go to ebay and buy a cheaper xbox live subscription im not giving you that one lol!

MS decided that since the hard drive was an easy way to hack and xbox they wouldnt let it happen again and changed it to a proprietary drive



newtekie1 said:


> AFAIK, there is no 3rd party Xbox360 hard drive...



It comes with one tho so it dosnt matter really.
The installs are optional on the 360 too.

I know that a xbox 360 is cheaper peoples networks and accessories are an afterthought, 3rd party controllers and stuff are sold everywhere its not hard for the average consumer to get stuff, to set up a wireless access point isnt difficult but ill say that a lot of people dont realise that is an option they are to dense either a lot of people just get home plugs or do a straight connection with a big as Ethernet cable to save cash.

Look im just saying that the price issue not that i think there is one, its not a factor when choosing a new console. There is no need to get all fanboy.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> Wait so your saying that xbox 360 is for kids? Its not its main target audience.
> I dont use my pc on my tv and if i wanted to it would be a second monitor type setup, actually tv is for watching programs the fact it can be used to display a console is an afterthought. Hell i even use my pc monitor through vga sometimes with my 360.
> 
> I use my pc for all media its fairly adequate.
> ...




so your arguing with yourself you said "theres cheap ways to get blu ray though a add on PC blu-ray drive? and what kind of market are you talking about where people use ebay to buy things and 3rd party parts? i sell this shit and if anything everyone wants OFFICIAL merchandise from the company? When i say common user i mean someone who knows nothing about pc's,modification, all that good stuff

Price point yes a 360 is cheaper but as far as features go it just isn't worth the hassle of "doing it the easy way" and buying ALL the stuff to equal out a 360 to the ps3's features.

1 ps3 is all you need out of the box.

no extra batteries, no extra adapters, no external hi-def drives (hd-dvd), no creditcard number to get online or (LIVE Card).

it just works..

and if anything i am a 360 "fanboy" having over 70 games vs 11? for the ps3. i just am being HONEST and looking at it HONESTLY,

what your doing is making excuses for "shortcuts" to save money on getting the same features for the 360 which is more of a fanboy statement.

Anything im posting is about OFFICIAL parts, not 3rd party not even the HDMI cable because when bob from Florida wants to go and buy a 360 hes going to buy a 360, a Microsoft hdmi cable, a Microsoft extra controller, and so on. hes not going to go to ebay and search or look for a specific router to configure for wireless. 

It's just how people are.

what your telling me is nothing but what if's and shortcuts on how to save money on the 360 that isn't reliable that is what YOU would do not what the common consumer would do.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> It comes with one tho so it dosnt matter really.
> The installs are optional on the 360 too.



Yes, a crappy 20GB, or maybe 60GB, or 120GB.  All too small.  I have a 500GB drive in my PS3, and even that is almost filled with media.  The Xbox360 is useless as a media device with only a 20/60/120GB drive.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, a crappy 20GB, or maybe 60GB, or 120GB.  All too small.  I have a 500GB drive in my PS3, and even that is almost filled with media.  The Xbox360 is useless as a media device with only a 20/60/120GB drive.



The 360 only works well as a media device if you link it up to your PC and stream media through it, have your media on disc or use an external HDD.  I think the PS3 is better in that area and the fact that it is simple to swap out a small PS3 HDD and pop in your own large one is great.  The price for official MS HDD's is pathetic thats why I have a 120GB (on my Elite) for DLC and game installations and use an external USB HDD for movies and music etc


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

How were you able to use an external HDD for the 360? i've tried before and i never had success with it for some reason?


----------



## k0rn_h0li0 (Jul 19, 2009)

i tried also how on earths name did you do it. i've done my ipod but not an external HDD!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Using an external on the Xbox360 is pretty easy to do, I've done it from time to time, but that is just another thing I have to carry around. I already have enough shit to carry around with the Xbox360 when I want to take is somewhere...

And streaming works when I'm at home, but what happens when I take it to a friends and they want to watch a movie?

Though it is still looking like I might have to move to an external drive with the PS3, as I've almost filled up the internal 500GB, and I actually have more movies to put on it.

And brings up another issue that I don't think has been addressed here.  The PS3 is so much easier to move, and take with you.  I mean my friends are always getting together at different places and we always bring our PS3s to hook up to the different TVs, but never our 360's.  Why?  Because it is so much more of a pain in the ass to unhook and carry around a 360.  The power brick that is almost as big as the console, wireless adaptor, unhooking the HDDVD drive, unhooking an external drive(if you have one).  It is just such a pain to do.  While unhooking the PS3 involves 3 cables Power, ethernet, HDMI/AV.  And everything else is contained in the system.  No need to get over to your friends house and realize you forgot the wireless adaptor(has happened to me), no need to carry a huge ass power brick, any standard PC power cord will work....


----------



## mdbrotha03 (Jul 19, 2009)

Maybe the HDD needs to be in FAT32.  Atleast thats the case with the PS3.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

mdbrotha03 said:


> Maybe the HDD needs to be in FAT32.  Atleast thats the case with the PS3.



It does.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

Oh ok well that explains why it didn't work for me!

but i can't install games and shit on it right?


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, a crappy 20GB, or maybe 60GB, or 120GB.  All too small.  I have a 500GB drive in my PS3, and even that is almost filled with media.  The Xbox360 is useless as a media device with only a 20/60/120GB drive.



yeah but you cant count that apparently as its third party anyway what is the max a standard ps3 has what like 80gb?


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Oh ok well that explains why it didn't work for me!
> 
> but i can't install games and shit on it right?



i dont think you can install games on a PS3 to a external drive either right


i know who wins the atari 7800 pro system HELL YES!


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

you don't need an external PS3 hard drive as you can install whatever you heart desires in the machine...


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> you don't need an external PS3 hard drive as you can install whatever you heart desires in the machine...



but im just saying you where talking about external drives that is something it cant do for any console

i never even mentioned internal anyway if your comparing first party it is negligible changing hard drives, if you include that im not including the wireless adapter as there are many alternatives for that easy and cost effective ones


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 19, 2009)

But in the ps3 manual it shows the common user HOW to change the drive out to expand the hard drive? VS. the 360 not mentioning it any the only way to do it is tutorials online...using an access point as a mean to alternatives is not comparable because its not MEANT to have that option its you making it have that ability to do it..

it's not even comparable...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

You can't install PSN content on an external, just like you can't install xbl content on the external.  That is what is nice about being able to put a larger drive in the PS3.  You can install PSN content to it.  I probably have 80GB of demos and game data alone...


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 19, 2009)

yes it is they tell you to use an ethernet cable in my old house i just ran a giant cable to my router went across the wall

homeplugs are acceptable too fucking retard could set them up plug into wall plug ethernet cable in presto

no one said that you HAD to use the offical adapter people allways look for a cheaper option, there are youtube videos and places you can ask on fourms i see those all the time


depends on what you think the average consumer is? id rather just show it how it is not any bull shit first party it what you CAN DO, Microsoft dont tell you how to set up your network and neither does sony

ps3 isnt even fair its like you're saying oh yeah you can use third party but first party trick

hell both have hard drives so adding one to the ps3 would be an extra cant count that and there are packages for xbox like the premium which come with one, the arcade was designed as a cheaper option to compete with wii, the arcade is cheaper than a wii they where like look at all the features 360 has over a wii, HD graphics and such

xbox live is a matter of where you purchase it you can get it cheaper than RRP

xbox 360 IS CHEAPER THAN A PS3 right so stop telling me bullshit i never wanted an argument i want to PROVE it was cheaper

ever heard of shopping around yeah me neither


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 19, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> xbox 360 IS CHEAPER THAN A PS3 right so stop telling me bullshit i never wanted an argument i want to PROVE it was cheaper



Well you have certainly failed to prove it to me, so stop telling me bullshit.

The Xbox360 is more expensive in the long run than the PS3, plain and simple.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Well you have certainly failed to prove it to me, so stop telling me bullshit.
> 
> The Xbox360 is more expensive in the long run than the PS3, plain and simple.



The Wii is cheaper than both of them.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Well you have certainly failed to prove it to me, so stop telling me bullshit.
> 
> The Xbox360 is more expensive in the long run than the PS3, plain and simple.



AMEN BROTHA!


JESUS if i had to say it one more time


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't install PSN content on an external, just like you can't install xbl content on the external.  That is what is nice about being able to put a larger drive in the PS3.  You can install PSN content to it.  I probably have 80GB of demos and game data alone...



installing anything on an external 360 HDD is not even possible to begin with since its usb ports are read only, but at least that leaves the slim possibly that sony may one day allow it on the ps3 but as for the 360 its not ever happening unless microsoft makes their own ext hdds utilizing their proprietary connection for their memory cards.

and I don't see any evidence behind your saying the 360 cost more than the PS3, going by the features and tech in both I would say the ps3 definitely costs more but even so *that means nothing* anyway.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

I'm in the UK, like MilkyWay and I would like to say that here the PS3 is the most expensive console of the three. The Wii is the cheapest followed by the 360. I'm happy to provide link evidence. I've been following this thread for a while now and its very interesting, I'm not too big on consoles but I've learned a lot.

Edit:

Any yes this also includes the respected accessories, add-ons, cost of games etc.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Are you guys actually reading all the post that matter ? or just the last few?

MilkyWay was saying that there are ways to get the same features out of the 360 that the ps3 have that do not cost more than a ps3.

MY POINT is that if you were to buy ONLY offical parts from Microsoft (wifi card $100, Xbox 360 Elite ($400) it would cost more than a ps3.

and this isn't even including the ABILITY to play blu-ray movies.

GUYS seriously there is no God damn argument here, i don't care how you look at it if you were to try and get the same features out of a 360 that a PS3 comes equipped with you are spending more money on doing it.

THE ONLY argument about it is that people have to STOP complaining about how much the PS3 cost when in actuality you are getting your moneys worth.

This is the end of the argument because in actuality and, no...not with shortcuts, price cuts, things on sale, special combo buys...etc. in the end you have to pay to get features and the price point is more than fair for all you get out of a ps3 and that was the ONLY point i was trying to make.

Once again for.

Features.
Longevity.
Exclusives.
Blu-ray 

its more than fair for the price against its biggest competitor the 360


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 20, 2009)

11th page. 5k post and replying to op

I agree with you. both are great, both have potentianl and both are user preferece. i like my xbox better. considering selling ps3 because i use it for blu ray.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

Wow, when the threadstarter creates an open debate and puts his personal opinion in the posts I start to wonder whether the debate can remain objective and non-bias.

This thread is like the SEO of AMD saying "share your opinions on the best CPU" then when you say the Intel E8400 the SEO of AMD devalues your comment and inserts his own view on the AMD range being better.

The SEO of AMD/threadstarter should be impartial and on the sidelines of the debate, not driving the debate in his own direction in order to get a response that mirrors their own personal opinion.


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> Wow, when the threadstarter creates an open debate and puts his personal opinion in the posts* I start to wonder whether the debate can remain objective and non-bias.*
> 
> This thread is like the SEO of AMD saying "share your opinions on the best CPU" then when you say the Intel E8400 the SEO of AMD devalues your comment and inserts his own view on the AMD range being better.
> 
> The SEO of AMD/threadstarter should be impartial and on the sidelines of the debate, not driving the debate in his own direction.


people are biased one way or another, no, sadly it cannot remain that way.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Uh what? anything i am post is factual? 

Nothing is opinionated?

ok maybe simpler terms...here we go


how much is a xbox 360 elite? Here in the US it is 399.99

how much is a xbox 360 wi-fi adapter (remember this is not 3rd party accessories or hacked routers)? $100.00?
is it possible to upgrade your hard drive..no 120gb as of now is the biggest you can go.

How much is the Blu-ray attachment....oh wait there isnt one?

and even with JUST the SINGLE feature to add wifi, the console still cost AS MUCH as a ps3?

How much is a PS3? 399.99

How much is a wifi...its part of it
how much is a blu ray player its part of it
is it possible to upgrade the hard drive..yes..to your hearts desire

Show me how thats bias? and show me where there is the opinion there?

it's not about what any of you want 

this is basically like saying with both systems in the spot light, having the same features. doing the same stuff (well almost)

the PS3 is not over price and the 360 is lacking too many features 

That is all this is about....that is it...nothing about what you can do with a router or how you can buy a 3rd party battery for your controller

OUT OF THE BOX the ps3 just works with all the features...the 360 doesn't you have to buy attachments extra batteries or a play and charge kit...and if you want HD movie playing even though discontinued it would still cost over 100 dollars for the add on.


Once again i ask you.. where am i being bias or opinionated?

If someone said which one is worth more money for my all around needs.

PS3..it does more..it plays new technology it just works.

360 i love my 360 but i only love it for video games and that is it.


EDIT: and when did i make this an open debate? this was NEVER an open debate i stated nothing but proven facts from the beginning...


----------



## DaveK (Jul 20, 2009)

360 Arcade: €175.49
360 60GB Premium: €207.99
Wii: €233.99
360 Elite: €285.99
80GB PS3: €363.99

360 Premium + Wireless + 1 Year Gold (€45.49) = €324.97
360 Elite + Wireless Adapter (€71.49) + 1 Month Gold Free = €357.48
80GB PS3 + Official Sony Headset (€23.49) + 120GB Seagate HDD (€47) = €434.48

Console, Wireless internet access, headset, 120GB HDD and online.

You can buy an Elite which is 120GB, an official wireless adapter and get online for less than the PS3. The Wii is not the cheapest out of the box and no real gamers here give a shit about the Wii.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417,

I'm not saying that your posts are not factual, on the contary. I'm saying that the threadstarter should be impartial if he is starting a debate i.e. has not got an opinion on the topic or remains neutral as to which piece of hardware or manufacturer is his favourite.

The fact that you attacked my post shows that you're bias, a non bias threadstarter that was interested in hearing other comments of others and would say "Darren I did not realise the PS3 was more expensive in the UK, I'm interested in hearing more" and hence giving me the opportunity to express my views more.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

i do apologize, i was talking about the USD price of all the parts, if people had just said "it cost more here for a ps3" i'd than be curious to ask those questions. but i didn't know it cost more or even how much more.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i do apologize, i was talking about the USD price of all the parts, if people had just said "it cost more here for a ps3" i'd than be curious to ask those questions. but i didn't know it cost more or even how much more.



Thank you for the apology.

Although I did say that I was from the UK in my first post so GBP would be expected currency of choice here. But perhaps you didn't see that. I look forward to contributing to the thread tomorrow morning, its 3:30 am here, bed time.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

I got the UK part my main confusion was the lack of detail as saying "the ps3 is the most expensive" as it is. i was assuming you meant a PS3 vs a standard premium 360.

Which is why i got so defensive.

I APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE IN THE UK as my only Knowledge of price is US currency...

I didn't know it was THAT much more over there, so i only ment for this to be factual in the US.

Sorry guys.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2009)

KainXS said:


> and I don't see any evidence behind your saying the 360 cost more than the PS3, going by the features and tech in both I would say the ps3 definitely costs more but even so *that means nothing* anyway.



160GB PS3: $500
Extra Controller: $55
DVD/Blu-Ray Remote: $25
2x 15Ft. USB Charging Cables: $6
Bluetooth Headset: $12

$598 Total

Xbox360 Elite: $400
Extra Wireless Controller: $50
DVD Remote: $20
2x Play and Charge Kits: $40
Wireless Headset: $60
Wireless Bridge: $54

Total: $624

You could probably shop around and get better prices on everything listed, but for the most part the Xbox360 comes out more expensive in the long run.  The system is cheaper, but when everything is said and done, you put out more money for the Xbox360.



DaveK said:


> 360 Arcade: €175.49
> 360 60GB Premium: €207.99
> Wii: €233.99
> 360 Elite: €285.99
> ...




Unlike the Xbox, you don't need the official sony headset, you also don't need to pay €47 for a 120GB HDD, I don't know any computer places in Europe, so I can't research prices, but I'm sure €47 is a little much, I mean scan has them for £30...

And what about the price for rechargable battery packs for the Xbox360 Controllers?  You forgot about those, the PS3 controllers have them, so you have to consider them for the Xbox also.  How much would those cost?  Oh, and the PS3 comes with one charging cable, how much would one of those cost for the Xbox?


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

well I made a mistake it seems, when I said the ps3 costed more than the 360 what I meant was that the ps3 in terms of parts IE, not the price the consumer would pay, costs more than the 360 but in regaurds to what newtekie is saying, he is right, the ps3 going by the price you would pay in stores is definitely going to be cheaper in the long run than a 360.

sorry for the mixup newtekie, and then theres the fact that the 360 cannot match the ps3 in terms of features since it has no option of a high definition drive since HD-DVD was run out by Blu ray, the only thing the 360 really has over the ps3 is more games, and the online service is not even comparable since PSN is free.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Thank you Newtekie and KainXS.

Like i said I was matching price points to the US currency and my mistake for anyone comparing my facts to UK currency it doesn't translate

but in the end a ps3 wins the price point.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Jul 20, 2009)

I'm still loving my 1st Gen. 20GB PS3 from January 17th, 2007. I have it up for sale, but I don't know if I'll have the heart to part with her. She's so pretty sitting on my desk and I love everything about it, even though it does have some flaws (my model). Anyways, never played an Xbox outside of a store, don't want to either. I know the advantages the PS3 has over the competition, and I hope that it may come out on top one day. Also, me renting InFamous today made me like my console a whole lot more


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

Will no one admit the Wii is the best buy?


----------



## DaveK (Jul 20, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Unlike the Xbox, you don't need the official sony headset, you also don't need to pay €47 for a 120GB HDD, I don't know any computer places in Europe, so I can't research prices, but I'm sure €47 is a little much, I mean scan has them for £30...
> 
> And what about the price for rechargable battery packs for the Xbox360 Controllers?  You forgot about those, the PS3 controllers have them, so you have to consider them for the Xbox also.  How much would those cost?  Oh, and the PS3 comes with one charging cable, how much would one of those cost for the Xbox?



I know you don't need the official Sony headset, but you also don't need to buy the official Microsoft wireless adapter for €71. joinmeindeath is saying we can't compare 3rd party stuff for prices, so instead of a cheaper Bluetooth headset I picked the Sony one, and instead of a €20 3rd party WiFi dongle I picked the €71 Mictosoft one. As for the hard-drive, €47 is the cheapest 120GB 2.5" Komplett.ie has to offer, they are Ireland's best online computer store and you won't find cheaper prices in local shops. All other prices are from Play.com, one of the most reliable online stores for games in the UK and Ireland.

A battery and charger for the 360 is €23.49 but the PS3 doesn't come with any HD cables, so that's €23.49 for the official Sony component cable.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Will no one admit the Wii is the best buy?



Because it's not unless you want something as a show piece. i just got rid of mine for another PS3!

talk about a sweet deal!


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

Well, I just want to point out a few things I've noticed that have been in error. 

1) Why bother buying a wireless headset for the X-box when it comes with a headset anyways. I'm pretty sure all do and I know mine did. It may not be wireless but its attached to your remote, I can't think of anytime I needed my headset when I wasn't around my remote. I think this is just a convenient way to boost another $60 onto the Xbox price.

2) If you aren't going to acknowledge upgrading the X-box 360 drive, which from what I can tell doesn't require any tools or opening the system then you definitely shouldn't include the ability to upgrade the PS3 under the guise that 'they provide you instructions'. You still have to bust open that PS3, which anyone who can't look up the instructions on how to change an X-box 360 drive I can guarantee you will not want to bust open a PS3. If they're technologically inept with the X-box 360, they aren't going to become tinkering tech heads under the guidance of the PS3s instructions. More than likely they'll say 'I heard you could but I never figured out how' and then request you to do it for them. I speak from experience, my friends are computer inept and no matter how easy something is, they still get me to do it. For example, resetting a router.

3) Yes, the PS3 does have more options out of the box but I disagree that its the better buy when it comes to gaming. You say the exclusives are a positive for the PS3, but compare that to how many games you can get on both systems and how many games are X-box 360 exclusive. The X-box has a much stronger game library for the sole reason that it's easier to program for. On top of that, there are many sites (lensoftruth.com for example) that frequently show that even though the PS3 is 'more powerful' the X-box consistently has just as good quality graphics if not better. I have not seen MGS4 so perhaps it really does rule the graphics, but without an X-box version, there can't be any comparison. Maybe they'd write code that'd utilize every last shader on the X-box as well. 

You're right though, the price is really even give or take a questionable purchase on the buyers behalf (I still wouldn't purchase a wireless headset for my X-box) but I disagree with the PS3 being the all around better purchase. It may well have greater longevity, but if the sucker is still a bitch to program for, then nothing is going to change that but a change in hardware. Most likely they programmer would simply program for the next generation X-box and shaft the PS3 user because it cut costs to not make a PS3 version that required more man power.

Oh, last bit. Any person who buys the play and charge kit deserves to lose that money. I spent 30 dollars (CAD even) and got 8 rechargable batteries and 2 charge stations. Yes its 3rd party but you can't honestly think someone would just buy Microsoft because its the same brand as the X-box therefore they can charge batteries better. Hell, the best buy guy even recommended me to go find 3rd party stuff when he saw me pricing out the play and charge kits. I didn't argue in the least when I saw the price of them.

Having said all that, I turn on my X-box maybe 3 times a month simply because I dislike it. I can only go for so long taking the brunt of Hispanic targeted racism due to my name. I'm not even Hispanic, I'm paler than most Caucasians! I game more on my computer, and I do that maybe 5 or 6 times a month and I don't even like doing that because it disrupts my F@H. That and I have too much yardwork and house fixes to focus on.

Oh, and Mailman, the Wii is great when there are multiple people. Playing the Wii by yourself kinda sucks. And the only thing I play on it with other people is Wii sports or another competitive type game (Mario Kart or Smash Bros are the only ones that come to mind). Other than that the Wii is probably the most gimmicky / worst buy I can think of.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Hm, 

Bust open the ps3? lol no...it actually requires a side TAB you open up and slide out the hard drive and slide the new one in to replace it.

Thats how simple it is?

you don't have to bust open anything.
Upgrading the 360 with anything more than 120gb HDD is impossible and even if it was you have to get a specific drive use some programs format the drive a certain way add the drive key..and all that to use your own drive. ps3 seriously takes like 10 minutes total including loading the OS on it (which comes with a blu ray disk with it on there if you chose to upgrade it).
And yes for some companies development is a bitch for the ps3, and what do you mean it will never change? it will change as they developed more...its the learning process for them.

i never added the headset for either console as they are not necessary to add cause yes its easy to use any headset thats blue tooth or usb for ps3 and you can use any cell phone headset on a 360 (if you don't like the one the premium and elite come with)

Like i've said before

Where will 360 fanboys be when they make the new xbox? 
They will drop support just like they did the first Xbox
Thats how microsoft does it...

Yes, my argument has remained the same


And about exclusives?

did you see e3? this year?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Hm,
> Bust open the ps3? lol no...it actually requires a side TAB you open up and slide out the hard drive and slide the new one in to replace it.
> Thats how simple it is?
> you don't have to bust open anything.
> ...



Ok, my mistake. It sounded like you had to open it right up. But at any rate, anyone who can't change the X-box drive still more than likely wouldn't change the PS3 drive. Yes it has more potential, but if no one utilizes it, then all is still the same. I think you're overestimating the customer as most people who aren't into tech more than plugging and playing simply refuse to even think about trying. It may well be easier but its the stigma they have to get past. 

It may well be a learning process to learn to program for it, but that still means they have to jump through hoops to do it. Even if they learn how to jump through hoops, they still have to jump. Last I heard people were still skipping development on the PS3 because it was cheaper and easier to not. If they never learn, then they'll not be releasing games on the PS3 in the future either.

The headset bit was a response to Newtekie's price out to KainXS. I was simply saying it wasn't really required and only served to boost the Xbox to $624 total.

I don't know where the fanboys will be, more then likely buying the new system as most don't care about longevity any more. They only want the latest and they want the latest cheap. No I did not see E3, but I doubt there will be enough titles to offset the years advantage Microsoft has already had in the gaming market. And even then, its always back and forth. It never changes and its all up to the development cycles.


----------



## Cja123 (Jul 20, 2009)

Dude I thought Sony blew balls at E3... but that's just me. That motion sensing wand was shit.

I own a 360 but I am no fanboy. I am aware of its flaws lol.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

Cja123 said:


> Dude I thought Sony blew balls at E3... but that's just me. That motion sensing wand was shit.
> 
> I own a 360 but I am no fanboy. I am aware of its flaws lol.





I personally hate all consoles. They aren't the death of computer gaming, I don't think its dying. I think developers are doing their best to get people on the consoles as it means more money for them however. Thus you get the same old Microsoft our games are released for PC 6 months later bullshit and its usually a shitty console port. Hell, they still haven't ported Halo3.

I will forever remember my brother's NES and SNES, and maybe even our old Intellivision. The Xbox I own will simply be another piece of fluff hardware that dies in due time. Whether or not I get another generation of console all depends on how bored I get. Maybe next time I'll get a Sony or perhaps if Nintendo can offer me a bit more than 'shake your fist like a 5 year old having a seizure and beat the boss!' I'll get a Nintendo.


Oh, oh, oh! And mini-games. What the hell?! Press X press Y too slow! Restart battle! Press X, Press Y, Press A, etc. Nyarrgh so infuriating.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Nobody cares about longevity? yes they do the ps2 is selling ...still... a lot...

Common customers want a platform that will outlast its generation (i.e The ps2)

Sony always makes sure to support there previous generation even after there time is up.

Microsoft doesn't.

MGS4 puts any console game to shame even resident evil 5 (which i am a die hard R.E fan but it did put R.E to shame.)

Konami is always known for pushing the envelope so it wasn't a big surprise.

And about skipping development that is only companies that are completely lost with the ps3 development
(Valve)

and even they said they want to develop for the ps3 but want a team that knows how to do it.

Thing is you can look at the power of the PS3 through there exclusives. They can push games but sadly they did screw up on support for there CPU.(which i did say on my first post)

I think the natal is going to flop because people will compare it to the Wii.
And noone plays there Wii.. (unless its a party or your drunk haha)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2009)

lmao, you forget some games are actually designed for it, others not so much, a Platformer such as sonic and mario should be played with a Gamepad, FPS and Hack n slash and some sports titles should be Wii Mote.


----------



## Cja123 (Jul 20, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I personally hate all consoles. They aren't the death of computer gaming, I don't think its dying. I think developers are doing their best to get people on the consoles as it means more money for them however. Thus you get the same old Microsoft our games are released for PC 6 months later bullshit and its usually a shitty console port. Hell, they still haven't ported Halo3.
> 
> I will forever remember my brother's NES and SNES, and maybe even our old Intellivision. The Xbox I own will simply be another piece of fluff hardware that dies in due time. Whether or not I get another generation of console all depends on how bored I get. Maybe next time I'll get a Sony or perhaps if Nintendo can offer me a bit more than 'shake your fist like a 5 year old having a seizure and beat the boss!' I'll get a Nintendo.
> 
> ...


I agree with you man. Console gaming on the whole is shit. Computer games offer such a wider variety of options, game types, and controls. It really allows for an "individual" experience whereas console gaming is the same for everyone.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

what killed the PC for me was playing online and join a game, you have to download like 2gb worth of shit to get in and its all stupid created maps and annoying mods/music, 

But certain games i still buy for PC before a console

Dead Space
Cryostatsis
Bioshock
Oblivion
and so on.


----------



## Cja123 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Nobody cares about longevity? yes they do the ps2 is selling ...still... a lot...
> 
> Common customers want a platform that will outlast its generation (i.e The ps2)
> 
> ...



Natal will most definitely flop.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Nobody cares about longevity? yes they do the ps2 is selling ...still... a lot...
> Common customers want a platform that will outlast its generation (i.e The ps2)
> Sony always makes sure to support there previous generation even after there time is up.
> Microsoft doesn't.
> ...



If those people cared about longevity, they'd wouldn't be buying old hardware. They could buy the PS3 but they stopped supporting PS2 so I guess Sony doesn't always support old stuff. Its a bad sign when developers still develop for older hardware over the newer stuff even though the new hardware is out. If they develop for both, that's obviously the best.  

If I'm not mistaken there are a bunch of Xbox titles you can play on the 360 and its done with software emulation, not hardware. So yes, Microsoft does support their older customers. 

I agree that there is more potential in the PS3 but its alot harder to unlock which some people just aren't willing to do. And yes perhaps in time, but time is hardware's enemy. The longer it takes, the closer to 'next gen' it gets.

Now I don't consider Natal to be 'next gen' for Microsoft but it most likely will be considered that by the public. I think its going to flop as well because I think 'motion sensing' is a niche market that just doesn't have the maturity yet.



eidairaman1 said:


> lmao, you forget some games are actually designed for it, others not so much, a Platformer such as sonic and mario should be played with a Gamepad, FPS and Hack n slash and some sports titles should be Wii Mote.



FPS should be played with a Wii Mote? I can't count how many times the Wii Mote wasn't aiming where I was or how many times it responded sluggish. I don't think any FPS should be played on consoles as all it does is lead to 'Auto Aim' and other easy mode type crap.



Cja123 said:


> I agree with you man. Console gaming on the whole is shit. Computer games offer such a wider variety of options, game types, and controllers. It really allows for an "individual" experience whereas console gaming is the same for everyone.



There are some things that consoles are good at, but they shouldn't have the complexity of some games they try to put on them. Consoles will always be controller hindered when it comes to higher end stuff and this leads to the mini games I mentioned and stuff like 'snap to' aiming like COD4. In my opinion, stuff like that is a tragedy.



Oh, and about having to download custom maps for the PC (response to joinmeindeath): Yea, it does kind of suck but most times that's only 1 time only and I find it does usually provide a much wider option and isn't quite so repetitive. There's only so much shotty snipes or slayer on construct or narrows I can handle before I want a bit more variety. That and team sizes. PC has as many as 32 per team (depending on game). I mean that is bloody awesome.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

By support i mean hardware support, and why  would sony not continue there last gen stuff? its a great system and still sales it'd be dumb to stop production.

Microsoft wouldn't even help technical issues with the first xbox there was a huge thing because of how they abandoned it like a red headed step child.

What im trying to say is there are people who still think ps2 looks great, and continue to purchase new games etc for it.

and when the ps4 comes out there will be people buying the ps3 thinking its a great console and knowing that the ps3 will continue support even after its generation makes them happier..


EDIT:

forgot this part

i THINK that the xbox could've kept going alil longer too but they didn't because of the 360. which this is no means a fanboy statement its simply saying Microsoft is and always has been out with the old in with the new.

And i know i know....PC Gamers love that motto because they always want the best pc's they can get

OH and about the auto aim shit on COD 4 yeah i shut it off i find it harder to use cause you can be looking at someone else and if an enemy walks in front of you it leans you towards them.

one thing i love about UT3 on the PS3 is you can actually use a mouse and keyboard, and load mods into it..


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Sorry you've had problems but I'm sorry I haven't. You ever think to make sure the batteries were charged and also the wii configuration being set properly for the distance your at.


El Fiendo said:


> If those people cared about longevity, they'd wouldn't be buying old hardware. They could buy the PS3 but they stopped supporting PS2 so I guess Sony doesn't always support old stuff. Its a bad sign when developers still develop for older hardware over the newer stuff even though the new hardware is out. If they develop for both, that's obviously the best.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken there are a bunch of Xbox titles you can play on the 360 and its done with software emulation, not hardware. So yes, Microsoft does support their older customers.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Nobody cares about longevity? yes they do the ps2 is selling ...still... a lot...
> 
> Common customers want a platform that will outlast its generation (i.e The ps2)
> 
> ...



And activision is dropping development because the PS3 is a money pit. You want longevity? Buy a Wii. It out sold the 360 and the PS3 COMBINED. Even John Carmack was impressed with the Wii. Both the 360 and the PS3 are over priced under powered PC. 

What I get a kick out of is the fact they are both equal in graphical power and yet people still claim one is more powerful than the other. Even in the end it doesn't matter. Nintendo beat ya with a rehash of the last generation  No one plays the Wii? Lets say half the people that bought a Wii don't play it. Guess what. Thats still more people than the PS3. You know how I know? Number of sales.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

Well, I just see it as bad in the console market. The whole marketing and push behind consoles is that they're the latest and greatest and better than the rest. And when you have a large segment of your user base saying 'I don't want the newest (for whatever reason) I'll go with the older model' then you're failing your market. Now its still good that they aren't going over to competition (I'm sure some did) and the only reason more didn't is because Sony kept selling older hardware.

I agree Microsoft should have kept more support going for it, but I don't think Sony should be still supplying PS2s as it says something very very bad about the PS3. The whole idea is to make something that everyone will want to switch to. Microsoft failed by forcing everyone to switch, and Sony failed in producing something that people didn't feel like switching too. Both had the right idea in having backwards compatibility though. However both failed as Microsoft doesn't support their full library with their software support and Sony stopped hardware support.

The Wii is nothing to be proud of. If I have to sit through one more tutorial of 'swing controller like this to do swirling slash, rotate controller like this to opposing swirling slash'...

It's gimmicky at best and only sold so many because it was a new concept. I know there are many people out there who hate the controller schemes. The Wii was targeted at a much younger audience though and served to alienate alot of Nintendo's older user base. And I speak out of experience knowing quite a few of Nintendo's older fan base. But in the end, they'll still only buy Nintendo.

@Eidairaman: Yes on batteries, though I was at a friends place so I'd have to trust them to have it properly configured. In the end though I find FPSes to be completely alien to consoles for the sole reason that all the controllers are too sluggish. I'm used to sniping people out of the air while jumping / falling or they are jumping / falling.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Well, I just see it as bad in the console market. The whole marketing and push behind consoles is that they're the latest and greatest and better than the rest. And when you have a large segment of your user base saying 'I don't want the newest (for whatever reason) I'll go with the older model' then you're failing your market. Now its still good that they aren't going over to competition (I'm sure some did) and the only reason more didn't is because Sony kept selling older hardware.
> 
> I agree Microsoft should have kept more support going for it, but I don't think Sony should be still supplying PS2s as it says something very very bad about the PS3. The whole idea is to make something that everyone will want to switch to. Microsoft failed by forcing everyone to switch, and Sony failed in producing something that people didn't feel like switching too. Both had the right idea in having backwards compatibility though. However both failed as Microsoft doesn't support their full library with their software support and Sony stopped hardware support.
> 
> ...



One thing ya can't deny is the fact the Wii isn't trying to be something its not. A PC. I mean at the least the Wii is a true to tradition console.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Ok because activision SAID there going to stop support IF they don't do a price drop soon doesn't mean they are until it happens it hasn't happened.  

And longevity. yeah Nintendo won the battle its a Nintendo hell i still play a snes and nes once in a while and actually own them. The wii is a mantel piece i seriously know maybe 30 people with a wii and i think maybe 5-10 actually use it as a console and not a party favor.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> One thing ya can't deny is the fact the Wii isn't trying to be something its not. A PC. I mean at the least the Wii is a true to tradition console.



Entirely true, and probably also a reason people bought so much of it (its simplicity when it comes to down to it). Simplicity isn't bad, especially when it comes to just wanting to do something (ie gaming). The fact that my Xbox can stream media and surf a 'Microsoft provided internet' (marketplace) is neato, but in the end, I can get more out of my computer and frequently do. 

I do however believe too much focus was put on the Wii Mote and believe the Wii would have done much better if it had more games focusing on using the Game Cube controllers. I know most can but far too often I see games that try to incorporate the Wii Mote with detrimental effects to the game. Most specifically in games that are released across multiple platforms.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2009)

well FYI, there are numerous games that are not meant for the Children... Madworld, No More Heroes, The Conduit, Call of Duty to name a few. Also there are more games that are for the Older User base as the newer one. Examples, Punch-Out, Super Mario Bros Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 2 just to name a few. Btw only reason Sony failed is fact they tried the same tactic they did with the Ps/2 and it got them hammered, MS is plagued with faulty hardware.

I like consoles and PCs, just that all have flaws where others dont etc, TBH if it was possible id Emulate all Consoles released thus far in 1 PC machine. PC has the best Genesis and SNES Emulation.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> I like consoles and PCs, just that all have flaws where others dont etc, TBH if it was possible id Emulate all Consoles released thus far in 1 PC machine. PC has the best Genesis and SNES Emulation.



I spend more time emulating pre N-64 consoles on my computer than playing current consoles. Mind you I believe games of that day were truly a cut above. There are far fewer memorable games today then there were in the past. And no its not nostalgia, its simply there are few games that make me go WOW I need to play that again RIGHT NOW. More often I look at the clock and go 'already? but I just spent 60 dollars on this 10 hours ago...'.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

I had a wii for the thought of parties and friends playing games and its awesome when you have a crowd going but i have to say it sucks playing when you dont have a big enough living room for 4 people haha without dangerous stuff happening.

Im going to buy a wii again when the next Resident Evil comes out. i think its halarious how there releasing "resident evil archives" for the wii...which is nothing more than the gamecube versions put on a bigger disk...seriously..

The wii may have sold more consoles... its low launch price and "innovative controller" is what sold it, but honestly most people do little with it after owning it. 

...yeah exclusives are great now a days but thats about it i mean what was the halo 3 campaign like 4-6 hours long? at most?

i was looking forward to halo, and i beat it the same night/morning i got it at midnight launch

i think it was like 5 or 6 hours on legendary.


Games truly were better back in the day.

imagine games without save points now?

haha


----------



## MN12BIRD (Jul 20, 2009)

PS3 revisions of system = none?

So when they took out the emotion engine or PS2 hardware that wasn't a revision?  Sounds like a BIG one to me!


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

i fixed that mistake already unless your just skimming through?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

Imagine games with the freaking Megaman save codes. People's heads would explode trying to put those in.

The only reason I ever thought about getting a Wii is that its great for crowds of people. Then I realized I hate crowds of people as well as hating having people in my house. Thus, I never got a Wii.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

haha,

i do like the homebrew ability on the wii, very easy to do and i have ...a lot of emulator and classics on it haha


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 20, 2009)

I love Wii boxing for Wii Sports. I will admit to that.


It still reduces me to endless giggles, whether I'm winning or not. In this case, yes I find it better than both other systems. But again its only when I'm up against other humans.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> what killed the PC for me was playing online and join a game, you have to download like 2gb worth of shit to get in and its all stupid created maps and annoying mods/music.



Mods are optional, know one forces the user to comply with mods or to get involved in the mod community. The consoles have patches and updates too for their popular game titles, but I guess an update for a console is more appealing than an update on the PC? its still requires bandwidth. I've seen very few patches @ 2 GBs but for someone with a 27.32 Mb/Sec internet connection that should download in a matter of a few minutes, such a fast connection and you're scared to download such a tiny file? Sounds like an excuse on such an exotic internet connection.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> Sony always makes sure to support there previous generation even after there time is up.
> 
> Microsoft doesn't.



Didn't Microsoft allow for backward compatibility initially for the original Xbox's games to be played on the 360? that sounds like "supporting their previous generation" to me. Even so their share holders are whom they are trying to please not us customers so we shouldn't take it personally if it isn't supported to the level you want. But the previous generation of game titles was definitely supported at least for a little while.

In regards to the Wii, I think it has the potential to be my favourite console, statistically it is the best console in terms of console sales, game sales and revenue generated. Any business man or accountant would look at revenue as the determining factor, and revenue and sales is the Wii's domain. However what puts me off slightly is the Wii's graphics, do not get me wrong I enjoy a good storyline but being primarily a PC gamer I'm spoilt for graphics so its too much of downgrade to the eyes viewing its visuals. I was also disappointed that the Wii didn't come equipped with Dolby Digital or DTS support, although I'm one of the rare few gamers that care about audio I enjoy good positional sound for my AV receiver to decode.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2009)

DaveK said:


> I know you don't need the official Sony headset, but you also don't need to buy the official Microsoft wireless adapter for €71. joinmeindeath is saying we can't compare 3rd party stuff for prices, so instead of a cheaper Bluetooth headset I picked the Sony one, and instead of a €20 3rd party WiFi dongle I picked the €71 Mictosoft one. As for the hard-drive, €47 is the cheapest 120GB 2.5" Komplett.ie has to offer, they are Ireland's best online computer store and you won't find cheaper prices in local shops. All other prices are from Play.com, one of the most reliable online stores for games in the UK and Ireland.
> 
> A battery and charger for the 360 is €23.49 but the PS3 doesn't come with any HD cables, so that's €23.49 for the official Sony component cable.



Yeah, screw HD cables, I wouldn't use Component cables.  You have to buy an HDMI cable with both systems, so the HD cable price is equal with both.  When Microsoft starts tossing in HDMI cables, we can add the price in for one with the PS3, but AFAIK they haven't.

And I really don't care about first or 3rd party, as long as it works.  Except with the controllers, I always buy first party simply because they feel better to me and always seem to be better quality.


----------



## wiak (Jul 20, 2009)

forget consoles, PC ftw


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> Mods are optional, know one forces the user to comply with mods or to get involved in the mod community. The consoles have patches and updates too for their popular game titles, but I guess an update for a console is more appealing than an update on the PC? its still requires bandwidth. I've seen very few patches @ 2 GBs but for someone with a 27.32 Mb/Sec internet connection that should download in a matter of a few minutes, such a fast connection and you're scared to download such a tiny file? Sounds like an excuse on such an exotic internet connection.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



uh? wha...

I'm not talking about the "optional" mods or the Updates man, i am talking about lets take half life 2 death match for example.

go to join a game. find a game....start to enter the server..and all the sudden your downloading the host favorite music files and stupid user made maps, and sound effects 

that have nothing to do with the game half life 2 deathmatch.

and half the time you don't know if your about to download all that information as you only find out before joining the game....


And no Microsoft doesn't support there OLD GENERATION as in, no more games, no more hardware support no more anything, yes they ported like 1/3rd there old catalog of games to 360, but that isn't supporting the system its supporting the software.  In this case im talking about hardware not software.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

wiak said:


> forget consoles, PC ftw




Dont say that, if the threadstarter said "PS3 for the way forget the other consoles or PC" I would call him a fanboy.

Edit:




joinmeindeath417 said:


> uh? wha...
> 
> I'm not talking about the "optional" mods or the Updates man, i am talking about lets take half life 2 death match for example.
> 
> go to join a game. find a game....start to enter the server..and all the sudden your downloading the host favorite music files and stupid user made maps, and sound effects .



I'm not familiar with Half Life death match, its primarily a single player game its online capabilities are suppose to be a bonus, but regardless that is Vavles fault not PCs fault. In Call of Duty series WAW in particular you can turn off downloading foreign maps or custom maps, most other decent online games have this feature, please do not blame PC if one particular game doesn't.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> And no Microsoft doesn't support there OLD GENERATION as in, no more games, no more hardware support no more anything, yes they ported like 1/3rd there old catalog of games to 360, but that isn't supporting the system its supporting the software.  In this case I'm talking about hardware not software.



Fair enough, but you can not accuse them of not providing support, they provided adequate support for a limited time. Perhaps the support should of lasted longer, but support was given.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

It's not just one game, it's almost any game i play on PC. i used half life as an example?

notice i said "thats what killed pc gaming for me"

i never said its what is killing pc gaming but i know it aggravates a lot of people and i just prefer that if i want to play a game of deathmatch on Call Of Duty, that it takes 5-10 seconds rather than sometimes up to 10 minutes with downloading random things the server host wants you to download.

I mean there isn't even an argument here considering it was an opinion based on why i don't like gaming on PC anymore.


And i never accused Microsoft of not supplying backward compatibility on there 360 so i don't see why you told me not to accuse them for providing support, as it was completely based on hardware not software


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> It's not just one game, it's almost any game i play on PC. i used half life as an example?
> 
> but i know it aggravates a lot of people and i just prefer that if i want to play a game of death match on Call Of Duty, that it takes 5-10 seconds rather than sometimes up to 10 minutes with downloading random things the server host wants you to download.



How big is a map file 1-20 MBs, that is like a 10 second download on your 27 Mb/Sec connection, no exaggeration. If anything you should be aggravated at your ISP.

In Call of Duty you can turn off custom maps or downloading foreign maps, in the options its available to turn off and hence it restricts you to playing on the official maps only. There no excuse to use custom maps if you do not wish the facilities are there to filter it out or disable it completely.


joinmeindeath417 said:


> And i never accused Microsoft of not supplying backward compatibility on there 360 so i don't see why you told me not to accuse them for providing support, as it was completely based on hardware not software



Fair enough.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> How big is a map file 1-20 MBs, that is like a 10 second download on your 27 Mb/Sec connection, no exaggeration. If anything you should be aggravated at your ISP.
> 
> In Call of Duty you can turn off custom maps or downloading foreign maps, in the options its available to turn off and hence it restricts you to playing on the official maps only. There no excuse to use custom maps if you do not wish the facilities are there to filter it out or disable it completely.




Yea i know what your saying but what im saying has nothing to do with that. Look im not attacking PC's at all i like my PC.  i am on it more than i am on my consoles (especially cause i work on them all day)

All im saying is it gets annoying downloading random crap from servers that aren't needed to play the game 

like sound mods, weapon mods, player skins, player maps etc.

if i want to download a mod where everyone is skinned as a giant teddy bear and one guy isn't i'd download a hunting game. 

i guess its just hard to explain.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

I agree with you, it does get annoying, which is why I disable it. It takes like 10 seconds to disable those types of modifications. I usually disable it the first time I launch the game after the very first installation and then forget about it 

I understand that you are a console person it shows a mile off, and you probably do not deliberately attack PC users but your reasoning to for disliking PC less as a gaming machine are faults of your own. You may as well say "I can not be bothered to turn off the unofficial mods and maps because I'm too lazy to look in the options or inept". 

When the next generation of consoles are here and mods are becoming more frequent, what are you going to say "I can not be bothered to turn off the unofficial mods for this console game" and run back to PC?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2009)

While we are on the subject of online play, I find that console online gaming seems to filled with far less mature people on average.  I actually noticed this on the original SOCOM...yes on PS2...

More often than not, the match would start and someone on my team would throw a frag grenage directly at the floor killing half the team...

I'm not saying stuff like that doesn't happen in PC games, because it does, but it just seems to happen more on consoles. And you don't tend to have screaming whiney bitches as often either.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

I'm a console person but work as a computer tech at a computer shop?

Hm, honestly you're wrong about that. 

I do not game on my PC as much as a console no, but i use my PC more than i use my consoles hands down.

and i'm sorry  but you can't just "shut them off" in most games that i play (and no i do not play call of duty on pc.)

and yes newtekie i do agree with you about the maturity mainly cause parents just dont buy there kids a $2000 alienware ha, when the console is the easier solution to them.

But i guess you can call me a console gamer vs a pc gamer but i do know my knowledge and know it well about pc's. 

Do you think maybe that has to do with 40+ hours a week i work on computers all day, and maybe don't want to play games on it when i get home? i love pc's and i love eye candy its just i prefer playing single player games on it because its just better in my opinion


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> While we are on the subject of online play, I find that console online gaming seems to filled with far less mature people on average.  I actually noticed this on the original SOCOM...yes on PS2...
> 
> More often than not, the match would start and someone on my team would throw a frag grenage directly at the flow killing half the team...
> 
> I'm not saying stuff like that doesn't happen in PC games, because it does, but it just seems to happen more on consoles. And you don't tend to have screaming whiney bitches as often either.



That's so true.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> In regards to the Wii, I think it has the potential to be my favourite console, statistically it is the best console in terms of console sales, game sales and revenue generated. Any business man or accountant would look at revenue as the determining factor, and revenue and sales is the Wii's domain. However what puts me off slightly is the Wii's graphics, do not get me wrong I enjoy a good storyline but being primarily a PC gamer I'm spoilt for graphics so its too much of downgrade to the eyes viewing its visuals. I was also disappointed that the Wii didn't come equipped with Dolby Digital or DTS support, although I'm one of the rare few gamers that care about audio I enjoy good positional sound for my AV receiver to decode.


 I believe the Wii does support Dolby Digital. I could be mistaken however. Anyway I agree with all your points here. However this is why I built a gaming rig. I mean show me one game on the market today that could kick my system in the nuts. Its a graphics monster. HOWEVER when I just need some mindless fun nothing beats the Wii. I'm like Hanna Montana. The best of both worlds.


----------



## MN12BIRD (Jul 20, 2009)

I don't think the Wii can do DD/DTS as IIRC it only has analog/stereo audio output.  Unless they have a special cable for digital coax/optical out on the multi A/V port?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

DO you own The game Hanna Montana

DO ya DO ya


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> DO you own The game Hanna Montana
> 
> DO ya DO ya



Yup. That and Disney Princess, Dora the Explorer.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

awh shit!!


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2009)

you get the odd arse who likes to team kill or ruin the game on 360 its popular because it is cheap and has a large user base, PS3 they never work as a team they always go around doing there own thing and you have to buy a headset separately so you cant talk to them unless you pay £30 for a blue tooth headset so that eliminates the abusive chatter right away

pc gaming is different its a lot for a pre built machine and you really need to know what your doing, some people are pc illiterate

i think America has more of the stereotype consumers, who buy there kids an xbox to keep em happy


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> you get the odd arse who likes to team kill or ruin the game on 360 its popular because it is cheap and has a large user base, PS3 they never work as a team they always go around doing there own thing and you have to buy a headset separately so you cant talk to them unless you pay £30 for a blue tooth headset so that eliminates the abusive chatter right away
> 
> pc gaming is different its a lot for a pre built machine and you really need to know what your doing, some people are pc illiterate
> 
> i think America has more of the stereotype consumers, who buy there kids an xbox to keep em happy



£30 for a Bluetooth headset?  Yeah right, get off your high horse: £11.95 and that is just the first one that came up with I searched Amazon...

And Warhawk comes with a free Bluetooth headset anyway...and the teams are usually very well organized.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

No here its just all about the money why buy a computer that runs someone upward of about 1000 dollars when they can just spend 399 and be done with it? know what i mean?

When people bring there shitty dell pc's etc in here to get fixed they do not actually get it fixed most the time when its hardware related

"oh 300 dollars i can go buy a new one for 600."

and than im like "uh, yeah but that's why we repair them and save you that extra 300..."

It's amazing how dumb they are sometimes/most times


EDIT:

about the unorganized team shit with ps3?

uh, i have  loads of fun playing Socom and Killzone and one i really like is MGS4, that is awesome fun online... i think the teams are greatly organized

if anything Gears of war i often get taken out from behind cause my team mates are ...no  where to be found (or trying to get out of the map) haha.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I believe the Wii does support Dolby Digital. I could be mistaken however. Anyway I agree with all your points here. However this is why I built a gaming rig. I mean show me one game on the market today that could kick my system in the nuts. Its a graphics monster. HOWEVER when I just need some mindless fun nothing beats the Wii. I'm like Hanna Montana. The best of both worlds.



your system isnt a monster its pretty high average like mine
graphics dont make a good game i mean look at the chrono trigger remake for ds its fantastic

the wii has not got a lot of proper games first party nintendo titles and the conduit which is average but looks good because its the only proper fps on the console

same story as the gamcube, but this time it has a lot of time waster games for adults and kiddies games


hell everyone i know who has a wii plays it once a month, sits there doing nothing unless they have kids who use it


----------



## MN12BIRD (Jul 20, 2009)

^I love it when someone buys their shitty Dell and takes it home and tries to play a game and gets pwnd.  They say "oh but I have a quad core" ohh wow a 2.3GHZ quad wow.  What about your video card?  I don't care if you have a 4GHZ quad core you ain't playing modern games without a decent video card.  Oh so they buy a 4870 and try and cram it in their little Dell.  It barley fits and barley breathes.  Then they are like okay there so a few hundred bucks and now it will play all the latest games still cheaper than your custom rig.  Then their 300W PSU explodes (or causes the card to overheat, games to crash left, right and center) and then they are back again as I explain to them their Dell wasn't meant to handle such a video card esp on its small power supply.  So a $50-80 PSU and now they can at least play the games.  But wait now the price is up to were they could have built something with a real motherboard.  One that actually has a better performance chipset, isn't BTX and locked up with no voltage tweeks, higher clock or low latency memory support etc.  Not to mention they could have got a case with airflow so their poor hard drives and video card isn't cooking itself to death. 

Love em1


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> your system isnt a monster its pretty high average like mine


 For gaming it's a monster. Show me a game it can't play maxed out. Benchmarks don't count. FYI my system is more powerful than yours currently. No E-peen ether. You have a 260. I have two 4850s.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

MN12BIRD said:


> ^I love it when someone buys their shitty Dell and takes it home and tries to play a game and gets pwnd.  They say "oh but I have a quad core" ohh wow a 2.3GHZ quad wow.  What about your video card?  I don't care if you have a 4GHZ quad core you ain't playing modern games without a decent video card.  Oh so they buy a 4870 and try and cram it in their little Dell.  It barley fits and barley breathes.  Then they are like okay there so a few hundred bucks and now it will play all the latest games still cheaper than your custom rig.  Then their 300W PSU explodes (or causes the card to overheat, games to crash left, right and center) and then they are back again as I explain to them their Dell wasn't meant to handle such a video card esp on its small power supply.  So a $50-80 PSU and now they can at least play the games.  But wait now the price is up to were they could have built something with a real motherboard.  One that actually has a better performance chipset, isn't BTX and locked up with no voltage tweeks, higher clock or low latency memory support etc.  Not to mention they could have got a case with airflow so their poor hard drives and video card isn't cooking itself to death.
> 
> Love em1



hey now i have a xps (that i got from work i would never buy a dell)

q6700 and a gtx 260 in that mo fucka didn't spend a dime

love working here


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> For gaming it's a monster. Show me a game it can't play maxed out. Benchmarks don't count. FYI my system is more powerful than yours currently. No E-peen ether. You have a 260. I have two 4850s.



GTAIV ? 

Cryostasis ? 

Pong ?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> GTAIV ?
> 
> Cryostasis ?
> 
> Pong ?



Cryostasis doesn't bring my system to its knees. I have a Physx card  I haven't tried GTAIV but from what I've heard its poorly optimized.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Cryostasis doesn't bring my system to its knees. I have a Physx card  I haven't tried GTAIV but from what I've heard its poorly optimized.



I tried it with my 8800GT as physx still ran like crap. GTAIV is fine optimisation wise people who can't run it just like complaining.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> No here its just all about the money why buy a computer that runs someone upward of about 1000 dollars when they can just spend 399 and be done with it? know what i mean?
> 
> When people bring there shitty dell pc's etc in here to get fixed they do not actually get it fixed most the time when its hardware related
> 
> ...



i dont like gears of war online i dont know how they can team kill in that game ive never seen it, i dont think they can chain saw team kill either unless there is a teamkill on option

if you play MGS 4 online its boring after you've played it a lot and this is based on who i know has the game, nothign to keep you going back there is no team skill involved its a free for all really
if you played rainbow 6 vegas back in the day i think before ps3 was out it was fucking uber guys working as a team telling each other where the enemy was which way to take them on ect

now why is it people say i dont play on consoles due to the 13 year olds, thats just a small segment of the players most of them will be your mates or people who actually want to play they exaggerate the whole situation like they play on consoles all the time when they probably dont even own one

the thing about using a controller is just a matter of using a mouse and being used to that style, ive grew up having at least one console along with my pc be it my own console or my brothers when he lived here, so i am used to both styles plus split screen pure sucks on pc hardly any games have it as an option


as for the headset i didnt know the price of one, my step dad was going to buy one and he said it was £30 what do you think? as he drives a van at work all the time and needs his phone and its illegal to drive while on the phone in the UK so he has to pull over all the time and i never knew they dropped that much in price from last year i know because when my mate was going to get one it was that price

right so i find that the census is ps3 is better because its cheaper and the gaming is superior and the community is more hardcore and you can for whatever reason put linux on it even tho a lot of people never use it and of course the old blu ray argument

much superior console because that is the feedback i am receiving from this thread and the odd even tho it says no flame war pc is better, the wii was just as a example you cant compare it to a 360 and ps3 its meant for a different market its got different hardware and controls


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I tried it with my 8800GT still ran like crap. GTAIV is fine optimisation wise people who can't run it just like complaining.



Cryostasis runs fine on my rig. An 8800GT is a far cry (no pun intended) from duel 4850s.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Cryostasis runs fine on my rig. An 8800GT is a far cry (no pun intended) from duel 4850s.



I meant as a physX card.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I meant as a physX card.



Driver issue maybe? Honestly that thing ran like a charm on mine.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Driver issue maybe? Honestly that thing ran like a charm on mine.



I had issue's with it. Never going to play it again anyway it was crap.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> For gaming it's a monster. Show me a game it can't play maxed out. Benchmarks don't count. FYI my system is more powerful than yours currently. No E-peen ether. You have a 260. I have two 4850s.



really thats it crossfire because nothing else is radically different
at the moment yes you can play most games max settings but it dosnt mean its the top system out there which monster would suggest

if i had a monster system it would be like 4870 x2 or a crossfire 4890 or a top end nvidia card maybe SLI too

then a i7 or a massively oc'd x4 955

EDIT: crossfire 4850 isnt a far cry from 8800gt, its like oh lemmiethink 1 8800gt is close to a 4850 and crossfire isnt directly double 1 card


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I had issue's with it. Never going to play it again anyway it was crap.



I agree. However my point was thanks to consoles my system is more than enough for anything coming out. Thats one positive to having to share libraries with inferior consoles. Games have to run on them so when they are ported over to vastly better hardware they run like butter.........OH wait no they don't. G-D I HATE CONSOLES!



MilkyWay said:


> really thats it crossfire because nothing else is radically different
> at the moment yes you can play most games max settings but it dosnt mean its the top system out there which monster would suggest
> 
> if i had a monster system it would be like 4870 x2 or a crossfire 4890 or a top end nvidia card maybe SLI too
> ...



No that would be a "Monstrosity" of a system


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I believe the Wii does support Dolby Digital. I could be mistaken however.






MN12BIRD said:


> I don't think the Wii can do DD/DTS as IIRC it only has analog/stereo audio output.  Unless they have a special cable for digital coax/optical out on the multi A/V port?



Unfortunately Nintendo didn't think it was important to equip the Wii with a sound device capable of decoding Dolby Digital or DTS and hence why there is no digital digital or coaxial output present. For this reason the game developers decided not to give their games those 5 discrete channels encoded in DD/DTS because the Wii lacked the support to decode the pre-encoded audio. 

However, the Wii does support stereo and therefore one can use their receiver to upmix the 2 channels into "Dolby Prologic 5.1 / 7.1" or "DTS Neo 5.1". It does not sound half as nice as real Dolby Digital or DTS but its the next best thing. Unfortunately even this solution is crippled because the Nintendo supports analogue audio outputs so it means that you'll have a mess of wires trailing back to your receiver opposed to one neat and tidy digital cable.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> i dont like gears of war online i dont know how they can team kill in that game ive never seen it, i dont think they can chain saw team kill either unless there is a teamkill on option
> 
> if you play MGS 4 online its boring after you've played it a lot and this is based on who i know has the game, nothign to keep you going back there is no team skill involved its a free for all really
> if you played rainbow 6 vegas back in the day i think before ps3 was out it was fucking uber guys working as a team telling each other where the enemy was which way to take them on ect
> ...



In Call of duty i pay it on my 360, i have friends i play it with and its great.

On ps3, i play socom, MGS4 etc. ( its a free for all? there are  more game modes than just deathmatch.)

you are right the way the game is played is based on who you are playing with and i totally agree but i wouldn't say that the ps3 has people who don't support each other i guess you just don't have any friends on your ps3 to help support you.

i don't think anyone here is flaming anyone if you are using factual information than there is no argument, like i said i apologized for not knowing the price of the PS3 in the Uk etc.

i just think saying things that are opinionated is what starts flame wars

example would be saying that ps3 has no team skill basically
which i think is based on who you know and who you play with.

I did play rainbow six and once in awhile me and some friends get on and have a go at it, its a great game and takes actual skill. Call of duty. the only fun to be had in it anymore is probably search and destroy but i don't play on normal cause the game favors health too unrealistically so i play hardcore and 80 percent of the time if im not playing with a full party of friends someone some 13 year old is behind us ready to blow us up with a rocket.

both systems have there flaws and i agree and i am not saying the ps3 is any better than the 360 as of now. i just think in the longer pull the ps3 will come out to surprise everyone because it has untapped potential and it has blu-ray support. 

not including DVD is phasing out and Blu ray is getting affordable, soon there will be no DVD's anymore just like the death of VHS.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> untapped potential


 Still holding a candle for that bit of marketing are we? What untapped potential? Really man what do you think that PS3 will do? Turn into Pamela Lee and have your baby? Start printing money? Seriously man?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

i think it will put out better games than it has out right now is what i think as well as developers?

why are you even in this argument all i hear out of you is "PC FTW, GOD i hate consoles" 

really?

If i put either of these machines against a PC i'd understand your rant or even against the Wii but so far any information you push is either about a PC or about the Wii.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I agree. However my point was thanks to consoles my system is more than enough for anything coming out. Thats one positive to having to share libraries with inferior consoles. Games have to run on them so when they are ported over to vastly better hardware they run like butter.........OH wait no they don't. G-D I HATE CONSOLES!
> 
> 
> 
> No that would be a "Monstrosity" of a system



okay that would overpowered but you get what i mean the system is like average for an enthusiast its like almost high end, now not the actual average coz if it was it would be like in the very top due to all the dells and shit

i like the x3 and that but i dont notice it much as i used to when i first got it, must be over time sorta thing

im just saying the consoles can keep up a bit they need to run games at 60 fps and you wonder how it manages to do that and still looks nice

on a pc they have to cater to all types of hardware on a console its the same every time developers get to know how to squeeze and code better for that single hardware

i remember the days when consoles and pc's used to be separate now to get maximum cash they make it on 360 and port it to everything lol shit they still make ps2 games 

honestly i like consoles for the pick up and play aspect and being able to play my mates its not superior or inferior its a compliment to the pc (like compliment to my gaming arsenal not compliment like how nice that dress is me dearie)

tbh ive been playing my ds more, i bought it at launch btw all those years ago lol


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

As for untapped potential to elaborate more...

Look at God of war 3, compared to some of there launch exclusives

look at resistance 2 vs resistance

look at killzone 2

look at metal gear solid 4

all of these are showing progress that they are learning more about the Cell processor and helping the fact that there is untapped potental and developers are learning more and more about it. 

This is information off of websites from developers etc.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> *thinks that his last post went ignored*



Nah I read it. I even thanked you for it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Nah I read it. I even thanked you for it.



Ditto! Thanks for the info Darren. Like I said I wasn't sure.  Maybe when the Wii 2 comes out it will be a bit more "Next-Gen". Until then Ill enjoy every Nintendo game ever played on that cute little white box 



joinmeindeath417 said:


> As for untapped potential to elaborate more...
> 
> Look at God of war 3, compared to some of there launch exclusives
> 
> ...



Show me something that my PC can't do and Ill be impressed. Hell show me something the 360 can't render other than Blu-Ray.



MilkyWay said:


> okay that would overpowered but you get what i mean the system is like average for an enthusiast its like almost high end, now not the actual average coz if it was it would be like in the very top due to all the dells and shit
> 
> i like the x3 and that but i dont notice it much as i used to when i first got it, must be over time sorta thing
> 
> ...



I get what your saying now. I think even for the average enthusiast you and I both are a tad bit above average. But yeah your right. They are not "Monsters". However for gaming we are both WAY over powered currently.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> As for untapped potential to elaborate more...
> 
> all of these are showing progress that they are learning more about the Cell processor and helping the fact that there is untapped potental and developers are learning more and more about it.
> 
> This is information off of websites from developers etc.




Indeed untapped potential is always the case, there is almost no limit to maxing out a piece of hardware if the coding is right. The PS2 and Dreamcast and all the other legacy consoles have "untapped" potential it's just up to the programmer to be more sophisticated and think if new ways to minimise rendering time to use as little resources as possible. Likewise both the PS3 and 360 have untapped potential but the coding strategies, maths/trigonometry, physics etc gets too complicated even for scientists with PHDs and it becomes a burden for the programmer to learn and implement and re-implement on a regular basis for a small frame rate increase or minor visual improvement which might negate the time, work, dedication and money involved in learning those coding strategies, maths/trigonometry, physics etc. So yes there is untapped potential, but no you will not see that untapped potential often if at all this late into the consoles life cycle for the previous mentioned reasons.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> im just saying the consoles can keep up a bit they need to run games at 60 fps and you wonder how it manages to do that and still looks nicel



The console's don't run them at 60fps. Play GoW and CoD:WaW and you will see massive lag. The fps is usually about 25-30 sadly.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Honestly i don't think that the 360 could handle running Metal Gear Solid 4, as far as fact or fiction no one will ever know.

i do find it funny that since the next MGS game is going to be multi platform, there using an entirely different engine something more "capable" of running on all 3 systems (pc,360,ps3)




> Indeed untapped potential is always the case, there is almost no limit to maxing out a piece of hardware if the coding is right. The PS2 and Dreamcast and all the other legacy consoles have "untapped" potential it's just up to the programmer to be more sophisticated and think if new ways to minimise rendering time to use as little resources as possible. Likewise both the PS3 and 360 have untapped potential but the coding strategies, maths/trigonometry, physics etc gets too complicated even for scientists with PHDs and it becomes a burden for the programmer to learn and implement and re-implement on a regular basis for a small frame rate increase or minor visual improvement which might negate the time, work, dedication and money involved in learning those coding strategies, maths/trigonometry, physics etc. So yes there is untapped potential, but no you will not see that untapped potential often if at all this late into the consoles life cycle for the previous mentioned reasons.



If this is true how come games keep looking better and better? Obviously they are putting time and dedication into developing on the  Cell CPU.

now i am no developer but these guys are.



> Brian Hastings, Insomniac
> "I think we'll see just as big a leap from our second generation engine to our third as we did from the first to second... Moving more and more code to the SPUs is an ongoing process and I think we'll continue to see major benefits from this for several more years."
> 
> Bruce Heather, EA UK
> ...



and as you said. IF they use the untapped potential is solely up to seeing what comes out but  seeing results even now is showing signs that there trying and thats good enough.

i do think the 360 at this point and time has many advantages over the ps3 in terms of what is out and what looks better where.

but do i think when it comes to the final stretch will the PS3 shine, i find it to be a good probability


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

you wanna see bad fps on a console, play need for speed undercover, sometimes I have had that game drop to like 10fps


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Show me something that my PC can't do and Ill be impressed. Hell show me something the 360 can't render other than Blu-Ray.



I see nothing in this thread about comparing a PC to PS3 or a 360. Don't turn it into one. Say on topic please.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Honestly i don't think that the 360 could handle running Metal Gear Solid 4, as far as fact or fiction no one will ever know.
> 
> i do find it funny that since the next MGS game is going to be multi platform, there using an entirely different engine something more "capable" of running on all 3 systems (pc,360,ps3)
> 
> ...



This is by Gabe Newell who is the co-founder of valve has to say about the cell processor.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173540


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> This is by Gabe Newell who is the co-founder of valve has to say about the cell processor.
> 
> http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173540



that actually makes him look like an idiot to me, who dosen't want to waste time learning to program for the cell.

kinda like saying, "I don't wanna learn how to drive a car cause its hard"


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

KainXS said:


> that actually makes him look like an idiot to me, who dosen't want to waste time learning to program for the cell.
> 
> kinda like saying, "I don't wanna learn how to drive a car cause its hard"



He does know how to program for the Cell though. He says its rediculously difficult though and that Sony didn't listen to the developers hence why there isn't that many games for the ps3 than xbox or wii.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

erocker said:


> I see nothing in this thread about comparing a PC to PS3 or a 360. Don't turn it into one. Say on topic please.



I was trying to make a point. The 360 and PS3 despite the different hardware they are identical in graphic quality. The only time you will see a true difference is with a strong PC. I admit it was roundabout but it was on topic.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

yea in 2007. and this article is from a few weeks ago..

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/03/interview-valves-doug-lombardi/


Hm he's basically admitting his team can't develop on it and they are looking to hire people cause he doesn't want his team to do it....yea not lazy hm?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> yea in 2007. and this article is from a few weeks ago..
> 
> http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/03/interview-valves-doug-lombardi/
> 
> ...



Yeah Valve is lazy.......... RIGHT.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> yea in 2007. and this article is from a few weeks ago..
> 
> http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/03/interview-valves-doug-lombardi/
> 
> ...



Exactly they need to hire people who can because their current team can't. With the xbox and the wii the dev's didn't need to hire people who could code for it. Also I wouldn't want to waste time coding for something I and the team do not like coding for. Pretty much all game dev's will admit that the PS3 is far too complicated to code for.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Exactly they need to hire people who can because their current team can't. With the xbox and the wii the dev's didn't need to hire people who could code for it. Also I wouldn't want to waste time coding for something I and the team do not like coding for. Pretty much all game dev's will admit that the PS3 is far too complicated to code for.



Agreed  it is far more complicated to code for than the PC and 360, and this is why its taking so long to come up to par and still struggling in some spots.

Valve clearly wants a PS3 team to work on the PS3 ports, and thats understandable, but going from his interview in 2007 to 2009 there is a big difference in his attitude towards the ps3.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Agreed  it is far more complicated to code for than the PC and 360, and this is why its taking so long to come up to par and still struggling in some spots.
> 
> Valve clearly wants a PS3 team to work on the PS3 ports, and thats understandable, but going from his interview in 2007 to 2009 there is a big difference in his attitude towards the ps3.



That wasn't Gabe Newell in that article it was the PR guy Doug Lombardi.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> That wasn't Gabe Newell in that article it was the PR guy Doug Lombardi.



my fault. sorry 

Yes i agree about development issues and i've said it since my first post. my argument is that every year you see the ps3 games looking better and better...less and less problems.
Although its taking so long and is a very dumb move on sonys part (should've learned from the sega saturn that they took out with there own Playstation)

and yes Mailman, the PC is far Superior to the 360 and ps3.]


Edit: and i forgot about the whole "it isn't a system the developers want to code for"

Uh when does it matter what they want, they get paid to do it.


SORRY...found this funny

http://gamereaver.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/gabe-newell-hates-everything/


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i forgot about the whole "it isn't a system the developers want to code for"
> 
> Uh when does it matter what they want, they get paid to do it.


 It matters a great deal my friend. If your heart isn't in it the end product shows. Why do you think Valve games are so damn good?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> my fault. sorry
> 
> Yes i agree about development issues and i've said it since my first post. my argument is that every year you see the ps3 games looking better and better...less and less problems.
> Although its taking so long and is a very dumb move on sonys part (should've learned from the sega saturn that they took out with there own Playstation)
> ...



It does matter. If they don't want to do it then they will make a crappy job of it. Alot of developers are in charge of the projects as well and if they are told to make a ps3 version but can't because they lack the necessary skills then they won't do it.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

yea your heart should be in it but that doesn't mean it has to, shit thats like having an option to talk back to your boss if you dont want to mop the floor right now ha

no guys i do understand with valve and there anger towards the ps3. I still bought orange box for 360 (cause i had all the other half life games and stuff for the pc)

i just don't think because one developer who is known for PC development should justify the systems potential


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> yea your heart should be in it but that doesn't mean it has to, shit thats like having an option to talk back to your boss if you dont want to mop the floor right now ha
> 
> no guys i do understand with valve and there anger towards the ps3. I still bought orange box for 360 (cause i had all the other half life games and stuff for the pc)
> 
> i just don't think because one developer who is known for PC development should justify the systems potential



I think we'd have to hear from individual dev's and not from a company PR guy. Most likely PR's hide anything bad and spew raw sunshine and goodness on anything even if it was a game about the holocaust.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 20, 2009)

Gabe Newell has never been a fan of consoles.  Valve has tried to port games to a console several times in the past and they all got scraped.  Valve just doesn't have the expertise to do it.

Basically, Newell is a bad barometer for consoles.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

i did think the half life 2 port to the xbox sucked @#$k hard (the first xbox)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 20, 2009)

Half-Life 2 was ported to Xbox360 and PS3 in late 2007.  Somewhere between 2005 and 2007, Valve most likely hired people to do the ports.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Yea im talking about the Xbox version of Half-life 2.

i think the Dreamcast version of half-life 1 was good thought.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Half-Life 2 was ported to Xbox360 and PS3 in late 2007.  Somewhere between 2005 and 2007, Valve most likely hired people to do the ports.



EA


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> my argument is that every year you see the ps3 games looking better and better...less and less problems.





joinmeindeath417 said:


> If this is true how come games keep looking better and better? Obviously they are putting time and dedication into developing on the  Cell CPU.



You are being bias again, yes the PS3 looks better and better, but the same can be said about the Xbox 360, perhaps even the Wii as well.

The truth is both the 360 and PS3's initial games (within first 1-2 years of release) will be very unoptimised, meaning that the frame rate will be poor, the visuals will not be fantastic as they attempt get to grips with the development kits, the programmers are also under immense pressure to release a working game at the launch of the console so the games are rushed and little care is taken into the visual presentation.  The developers then have 2-3 years to improve the sequel without the pressure they had previously of rushing the release for the consoles launch and they can take their time to optimise and improved the lighting, textures, frame rate etc. To a "non IT techie" it may appear that the programmers have "tapped" into the potential whereas secretly the programmer knows the predecessor game wasn't optimised well and was rushed.

The big budget titles like Metal Gear Solid 4 and GrandTourismo 5 are exception games, these are games Sony loyalists buy the console for, they'd buy a PS3 _just_ for these two games alone, Sony would have a bigger budget set aside to making sure everything is perfect, the release date willl be pushed back weeks, months, even years to perfect it in every aspect because Sony knows titles with their prestige is the difference between the PS3 selling or failing. Every other regular game for example "Motorstorm: Pacific Rift " will not get the same budget or time devoted to it. 

Yes, in the short distant future if Sony was to announce Grand Tourismo 6  on the PS3, yes the visuals will be better, e.g. better textures, lighting, frame rate etc but it will be superficial changes opposed to huge leaps and bounds, the ability crash into the track circuit barriers, drive over the spectators into the city road, get chased by the police if you speed and if you accidentally run over a pedestrian an ambulance comes to help.  I just described was a big metamorphism which is more than a mere exterior textures and lighting upgrade but into a big open world. Such an open world would require more than just "tapping into the console's inner potential".



joinmeindeath417 said:


> Edit: and i forgot about the whole "it isn't a system the developers want to code for"
> Uh when does it matter what they want, they get paid to do it.



Yes it does matter, the employees have to be motivated and its the managers or supervisor's responsibility to keep the employees motivated, its the unions job to make sure the employees are happy. If the coding is difficult the management may find it difficult to inspire the staff to work and the union gets involved if the staff are unhappy. If the employee's dislike coding for the PS3 the staff will be unhappy and the union is down the development studios necks, do you get my point?

Time is money, if staff are forced to get to grips with the PS3s development kit it costs the development team money.  Presuming that Electronic Arts pay their programmer's £20 per hour and it takes a small team of 30 programmers 6,000 hours to reach the beta revision the on the PC and Xbox 360 why would Electronic Arts spend 8,000 hours on the same game for the PS3 version? Electronic arts are a business with the sole intension of generating revenue and it isn't financially feasible to spend an _extra_ 2,000 hour on paying 30 programmers £20 each. In addition 2,000 extra hours means increased overheads such as electricity, heating, water etc.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

I agree as any games that i can get either or for which of the 2 systems i get it for 360

any games for my PS3 i get mainly for the exclusives because there great. 

And graphically with improvement i am talking a big leap (I.E resistance 1 vs 2). This isn't bias if its proven. 
I even went on to say how the 360's games look better compared to ps3 but when it comes to exclusives instead of marginal impressions of the ps3 we get big impact impressions almost complete overhauls.

i apologize for it sounding bias i was simply trying to say that visually you cant argue the exclusives of the ps3. but when it comes down to it and still even most games that aren't exclusive to each system still are in favor of the 360. 


and yes t hey have to pay them to learn the content i get it, but once they learn it its kind of like riding a bike for them so not every game are they going to have to spend that much EXTRA time and money on. Once again.

Sony fucked up with the ps3's cell, as much as it boast all its power yes it is not being utilized to its full extent cause its a bitch to code for. and its costing company's extra money just to learn how to develop with it i understand. i agree im just saying there is more to be had out of it because like most developers say it hasn't been fully utilized yet. yet...as in they are still figuring it out and pushing as much as they can out of what they know.

that was a negative about Sony this whole time

In the end each system has its ups and downs my biggest concern for the thread was the fact that people complain mainly about price

and in this case (in the US) it cost more in the long run to have a 360 than it does a ps3.

that was the point from post 1.

i love my 360 i love my ps3, i love my pc.

and each one has its own reason why i love it and for certain reasons but i favor my 360 more i have a huge library of games and the most accessories for it. i just think that in the next few years Microsoft is going to run out of things for the 360 and natal...and than the next system will yield better but until them i love them all equally.


EDIT: and wait...i never said the 360 wasn't looking better and in what thread did i say something along the lines of "well its looking better on the ps3 than the 360? that is bias...

i was replying to someone saying that they aren't going to "unlock the full potential" of the ps3 and i was just proving that they still are as we speak improving development with it. never said xbox or wii wasnt?


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

Joinmeindeath417,

I wasn't implying that everything you said is bias, I agree on the PS3 resistance 2 is graphically superior to resistance 1, its a sequel you'd expect that? Likewise on the 360 its only natural that Gears of war 2 is more visually appealing than Gears of War 1. <-- to be unbiased I said a positive for the PS3 and acknowledge that the same positive extends to the 360 as well. 

To be honest, I must admit the cell processor is an amazing piece of technology, the truth is even if the CPU was exploited 100% the PS3s weak GPU and small amount of ram means that eventually the ability to render visuals will occur eventually and negate any extra-ordinary leaps and bounds. Its like having a i7 but its running on a PC with a 7800GT or equivalent video card and only 256 MB of ram, it doesn't matter how fast the i7 or cell processor is if the GPU is weak and the ram is slow and in a small quantity leaps and bounds in performance isn't going to happen any time soon. PS3 didn't make a mistake with the cell processor, it was a good strategy the mistake was with its GPU and ram bottleneck, the GPU was outdated during the production and it was almost ancient on the consoles release. 

As for the Microsoft they already spoke about the 360s replacement around the corner, even by miracle if the PS3 taps into this "untapped potential" and it does bring leaps and bounds in improvements its going to look shallow in comparison to Microsoft's new machine with a more modern processor, video card, ram etc - PS3 has not been released long especially in the UK, so Sony would loose a lot of loyal customers and l if they stopped production for an early release of the PS4 to contend with the 360s replacement!


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Agreed, i agree 100 percent, about everyting you said, 

But the ps3 has 512mb
    * 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
    * 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

And Microsoft said 2015. if you ask me that is far from around the corner and gives Sony ample time to play catchup.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Agreed, i agree 100 percent, about everyting you said,
> 
> But the ps3 has 512mb
> * 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
> ...



Thats shared memory man. 256 dedicated.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Yea and 360 is 512mb Shared.

the benefit yea they can use more ram for either the CPU or GPU which i think was a better idea than what sony did,


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Yea and 360 is 512mb Shared.
> 
> the benefit yea they can use more ram for either the CPU or GPU which i think was a better idea than what sony did,



Honestly man if I were to buy a "next-gen" I would get a PS3. I like the whole blu-ray thing. However comparing the PS3 to the 360 is like comparing a Mustang to a Camaro. In the end they both hit the finish line at the same time no matter what the hardware difference is. It all comes down to one thing which you already know. Preference.

Shared Ram or dedicated. Same shit in the end.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

I would get both haha, both have there backbones and both have there flaws the only thing i can sayi dont like about 360 is

Failure rate (on my 3rd one)
Microsoft shafting you to use there hard drives and limiting space in a all in one solution
and no Hi Def disc format option (though i dont blame it on them cause HD DVD lost the battle with blu ray)

what i don't like  about the ps3

Online function sucks ass most of the time (i'd honestly pay the 50 dollars a year if they could fix this)
The fact that its hard to develope for the Cell. Meaning even though i own both system i'd obviously get the game that looks best in most cases 360.

But yeah, i never wanted this to get this big haha, a whole 16 pages out, i know its a console and when it involves consoles its automatically a war, and thats why i stuck to my guns about what my point was, (price point and features)

But this is why i had to buy both and honestly i own more blu ray movies than ps3 games and, i own more 360 games than blu ray and ps3 games together.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 20, 2009)

KainXS said:


> EA


EA published it.  I'm not sure if they did the conversion or not (Steam isn't available for consoles ).  I assume Valve hired a bunch of people to do ports internally to protect their IP.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

Its 512 MBs total!

256 MBs is for the main memory which is going to consists of the operating system's instructions, game instructions unrelated to rendering, and textures for when the dedicated 256MBs gets full. The other 256 MBs is the dedicated video card memory, which is for the game texture's and what not. 

But lets be realistic 512 MBs of memory which is travels through a slow bus isn't enough for ground breaking games in late 2009/2010.  This is a huge bottleneck to the cell processor or IBM tri-core, and what good is 512MBs total of stored textures if the GPU is too slow to render it, you'll end up with a slide show.

Indeed the Xbox 360 does have only 512M MBs too, which is why we are not going to see leaps and bounds in improvements period, on either console. The same argument extends both ways, it doesn't matter how powerful IBM tri-core is with only 512 MBs total and a weak video card (by today's standard) it is an instant bottleneck. <--if you were a programmer from wouldn't you hate to optimise a 512 MB system for a game? I would!

I believe Microsoft's new console is in the next 1.5-2 years.


BTW here is a demonstration of the Microsoft 720's visuals.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> BTW here is a demonstration of the Microsoft 720's visuals.


 Um Where?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren? that artical is from 2 years ago that is a lot of time 

This is from last month statement from Microsoft

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/e3-natal-not-derived-from-3dv

One thing about Consoles and hear say is it doesn't matter if its not current


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> my fault. sorry
> 
> But the ps3 has 512mb
> * 256MB XDR Main RAM *@3.2GHz*
> * 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz



Are you sure that is correct. I thought PS3's processor frequency was @ 3.2GHz not their ram frequency! or is it unified or something?

Edit:





joinmeindeath417 said:


> Darren? that artical is from 2 years ago that is a lot of time
> 
> This is from last month statement from Microsoft
> 
> ...




It says:

_"We firmly believe that the Xbox 360 has a life cycle through 2015,"  _

Its life cycle could last only 4 or 5 years. If they were to release the Xbox 720 in late 2010/211 by 2015 the life cycle is nearing an end after more than 4 years. I think it confirms what I originally said


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

that was a copy and paste from a spec site so i guess 

http://www.vgescape.com/features/84/ps3-specs

Yeah but either way its a rumor vs a Microsoft conference, i'd go with what they said at E3, i think with what there developing (natal) they aren't only going to utilize that product for 1.5 year to 3 years they'll push it as long as they can.


----------



## Darren (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> that was a copy and paste from a spec site so i guess
> 
> http://www.vgescape.com/features/84/ps3-specs



I think its a miss print, most other website have

Sony
Processor: 3.2GHz Cell with 7 SPE
Memory : 256MB XDR GDDR3 @ 700MHz 

Xbox 360
Processor: 3.2GHz G5 with 3 Cores
Memory: 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz with 10MB Embedded DRAM

Edit:

<-- There spec memory wise and CPU wise is almost the same or equivalent, it comes down to which is better 3 real cores or 7 virtual ones? Its a never ending argument and you'll never get a real answer for unless you ask AMD, and we already know their slogan?


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

probably is if so my mistake.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

Darren said:


> I think its a miss print, most other website have
> 
> Sony
> Processor: 3.2GHz Cell with 7 SPE
> ...


 10MB Embedded DRAM is the only thing dedicated. The 10MB Embedded DRAM is for buffing frames.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 20, 2009)

i cant wait til the emulation comes out for the ps3 at least that will let me play some of my ps2 games!!

haha

Agreed it is a never ending argument, arguing consoles is like arguing religion everyone has there opinions and thats what counts (to them).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i cant wait til the emulation comes out for the ps3 at least that will let me play some of my ps2 games!!
> 
> haha
> 
> Agreed it is a never ending argument, arguing consoles is like arguing religion everyone has there opinions and thats what counts (to them).



Course then you get the assholes that try to force their opinion on one another ex. religion, abortion, and politics. Just like Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD etc.

On religion, get friggin extremists that try to force it on Free Nations, wanna wipe most of us off the face of the earth because they are blind.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 20, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Course then you get the assholes that try to force their opinion on one another ex. religion, abortion, and politics. Just like Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD etc.
> 
> On religion, get friggin extremists that try to force it on Free Nations, wanna wipe most of us off the face of the earth because they are blind.



WTF did you just get another 6 months of duty or something man?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jul 20, 2009)

when i bought the PS3 well over a year ago people joked with me about how useless it was. of course i bought the PS3 before BLURAY won the HD war and was betting on Sony using its business model to push BLURAY forward. of course i was right. to put how i use the PS3 into perspective, i have owned 9 games (i only own 3 now) and i own about 25 BLURAY titles. if BLURAY had lost the war i would have sold the PS3 and bought a HD-DVD player.


----------



## theonedub (Jul 20, 2009)

The PS3's XDR memory is clocked at cpu die speed, its an evolution of the RAMBUS memory that was also used in the PS2. No typo. 

I got my 360 for GoW, which was very fun, esp online and local MP, after that it got stale. Just one FPS after another. Bought my PS3 when the price dropped to $499, used it for BluRay and to play games that had more variety. Love not paying for MP or having ads galore everywhere. Eventually my 360 was just catching dust so I gave it to my brother for the time being. My PS3 lives on.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 20, 2009)

spec wise these consoles end up about the same at the end, they both still have decent cpu's by todays standards but just fail in the gpu department now, look at resident evil 5 for pc, it gets bottlenecked by the cpu not the gpu, look at gta4, the same thing happens because the consoles they are ported from have decent cpu's and old gpu's.

in terms of graphics these consoles are pretty much done, maybe some truely expert coding can make some good advances, but in all truth will the 360 last to 2015, no, and if it does then thats sad.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2009)

It doesn't really matter if the consols are graphical power houses.  Yes, I can honestly say, if I freeze frame the game, the PS3 probably looks slightly better than the 360.  But I don't play games freeze framing every second.  While actually playing the games, and enjoying them, I can't tell the difference.  And honestly, I don't care what they look like.  I still play the original Zelda and Mario Brothers from NES!  Those games look like complete ass by todays standards, but they are still better than 90% of the crap that is released on the market today.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 21, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't really matter if the consols are graphical power houses.  Yes, I can honestly say, if I freeze frame the game, the PS3 probably looks slightly better than the 360.  But I don't play games freeze framing every second.  While actually playing the games, and enjoying them, I can't tell the difference.  And honestly, I don't care what they look like.  I still play the original Zelda and Mario Brothers from NES!  Those games look like complete ass by todays standards, but they are still better than 90% of the crap that is released on the market today.



Yeah it's not always about the graphics. Good gameplay is more important at least to the old school gamers. Newer gamers seem to care only about graphics.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 21, 2009)

YES WE ARE FINALLY AGREEING TOGETHER EVERYONE GROUP HUG!

(and please refrain from religious talk because i used it as an example of comparing consoles lol dont need another 16 pages of that )

i look at it this way...

will the 360 last til 2015? probably...why because right now the games look good enough to the customer to buy them and buy lots of them. see its not about graphics compared to the pc. its about console vs console and like everyone has said that the graphics are almost identical in most titles people see it as a moot point. why not continue it? i mean i honestly like to play games to play a game.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Newer gamers seem to care only about graphics.



Those aren't gamers.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 21, 2009)

Yea one of my favorite games to play and i still do is the mega man series for NES haha god thats when games actually challenged you


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't really matter if the consols are graphical power houses.  Yes, I can honestly say, if I freeze frame the game, the PS3 probably looks slightly better than the 360.  But I don't play games freeze framing every second.  While actually playing the games, and enjoying them, I can't tell the difference.  And honestly, I don't care what they look like.  I still play the original Zelda and Mario Brothers from NES!  Those games look like complete ass by todays standards, but they are still better than 90% of the crap that is released on the market today.



Then you should love the Wii. FYI newtekie1 I've never felt closer to you then right now. I mean you sound like an old school gamer like myself. We should spoon.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 21, 2009)

i don't know if i miss my wii, or miss the fact that i owned all 3 consoles. hm time to go buy another one i guess, i'll get one and add anyone who has one to my mii channel and we can play some mario kart together !or something


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 21, 2009)

Only one thing I don't like about the Wii: Virtual Console doesn't have DK64 available yet.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 21, 2009)

All in due time, Mario 64, LoZOoT were the first staple games.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Then you should love the Wii. FYI newtekie1 I've never felt closer to you then right now. I mean you sound like an old school gamer like myself. We should spoon.



I do love the Wii(AKA Gamecube 2.0), but only for the Virtual Console, which really I find myself playing emulators on my computer more than that anyway as the games I want aren't available, or I don't feel like purchasing them a second time.  It just feels like Nintendo is literally recycling old games to make extra money off them.  Before, at least they would repackage the games into something new, but now it is literally the same games I bought 20 years ago...

Saddly my Gamecube 2.0 sits mostely unused collecting dust.  The gimmick of motion control wore off in the first few months, and I found myself wondering why they moved away from a controller.  It became more of a pain than a "oh wow, how cool" thing.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 21, 2009)

gotta agree with you there, i look at it this way

if i wanna go box i'd probably like boxing better than wii sports.

if i want to play baseball FUCK why not just go out and play baseball

i think consoles are suppose to put you in some kind of mode/escape from reality.

i mean who doesn't want to be a blue robot saving the world.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 21, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> gotta agree with you there, i look at it this way
> 
> if i wanna go box i'd probably like boxing better than wii sports.
> 
> ...



I prefer to sit and chill while Im playing a game, not jump about like an idiot....so I do agree with you on this occasion


----------



## Ammugonevil (Jul 21, 2009)

Blue robot....


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 22, 2009)

I prefer the later red robot (not that tower shield wielding loon). Though he could use a hair cut. Bloody sword wielding hippy.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 22, 2009)

Just got the latest issue of Game Informer, and apparently there is a 5 page article about the game Rage. and it may upset PC lovers with some of the lines it says, and also the game is going to potentially ship on 3 dvds for pc and 360.

Heres a clipping, and this is pretty beat.. especially from I.D software.

In fact, the entire demo is being played with an Xbox 360 controller, plugged into a PC- a stark change for a developer with such a strong PC legacy.

and i quote John Carmack

"We don't let them use the mouse right now because the largest chunk of our market's going to be on consoles." 

"Thats' actually a pretty strict dictum around here. Tim will go around and whack your hand with a ruler if you're using a mouse playing the game. I mean, yes you can use a mouse for it, but it critical that the controller be the way we design the game"

Ouch. wow i am still like 'uh what the hell this is I.D software'.


----------



## erocker (Jul 22, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Just got the latest issue of Game Informer, and apparently there is a 5 page article about the game Rage. and it may upset PC lovers with some of the lines it says, and also the game is going to potentially ship on 3 dvds for pc and 360.
> 
> Heres a clipping, and this is pretty beat.. especially from I.D software.
> 
> ...



What is I.D.'s address? I want to throw an Xbox360 controller through their office window along with a brick and a small note that asks if they want to be friends.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 22, 2009)

And this is what I mean when I say its developers developers that are plaguing the PC game scene and not 'just consoles'. Its this kind of retarded mindset that is forcing the extra wait time for PC games and the like.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 22, 2009)

*They need to update the xbox 360 backwards compatibility it doesn't support metal gear solid 2 substance and it would be nice to play in the higher res. Honestly there is better AA + AF when you play original xbox games on the 360.*

Do you know what i find worse than people speculating about when the xbox 360 will become obsolete (Lol the ps2 isnt even dead yet) well i hate when people say pc gaming will die soon, i mean come on really?

The real reason the xbox 360 is slightly better looking than the PS3 is that, most PS3 mutilplatform titles are 360 ports; why? because its easier to port from 360 to PS3 than start on PS3. You will see that most PS3 first party titles look a lot better than the multiplatform ones. For example the 360 version of fallout has bad facial movement, a little less sharp then the pc version which is the best. Now the PS3 however is slightly worse than the 360 version darker colours more jaggies and frame rate is slightly ever so slower.
Then you look at a first party title like Killzone and the graphics blow the PS3 Fallout 3 away and you wonder why Fallout 3 isnt as sharp as the other versions? Because everyone knows it can be.

Once developers stop porting or take extra time to use the PS3 once ported its gonna look just like the 360 version if not slightly worse due to crappy porting.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 22, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> And this is what I mean when I say its developers developers that are plaguing the PC game scene and not 'just consoles'. Its this kind of retarded mindset that is forcing the extra wait time for PC games and the like.



i actually think thats correct looking back at the old days
there is hardly any pc only developers now

consoles co existed with the computer since the 70s so how can it just suddenly be a problem when it was fine before, even last gen consoles didnt create a problem for pc's its a whole new mindset

the pc used to be unique and very expensive like my first one was £1000 exactly and that was expensive now pc's are so common there is no uniqueness to it anymore

pc's are treated like a third machine just another platform to develop on
all this outsourcing by the former pc only developers is killing the pc, it means that the pc version is either not as good as it can be or that we have to wait for some other developer to make a port of a pc game

developers are also doing this making a 360 game and porting it to ps3 and pc to get more profits

the xbox itself looses a lot of exclusives becasue its so easy to port to pc
everything


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 22, 2009)

I think the main reason that PC games are being ported from console games and look/play pretty much like there counter parts is because 

well when developing on a console there is only a few types of configurations to use..with pc's they have to develop for mass amounts of hardware..


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 22, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> I think the main reason that PC games are being ported from console games and look/play pretty much like there counter parts is because
> 
> well when developing on a console there is only a few types of configurations to use..with pc's they have to develop for mass amounts of hardware..



Yep, lazy developers


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 23, 2009)

its all ecomomics back in the day pc developers didnt give a shit about consoles now they have a bigger foothold than before consoles

its easy to make a shitty port to pc and make a quick buck and its good for pc developers to get some other company to make a console version of their game so it can be on more platforms


people just dont make exclusives anymore unless you are a first party developer or microsoft or sony paid you to make it exclusive/some sort of dealio


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 23, 2009)

Back in the day, consoles and Windows were two completely different beasts.  Console developers saw Windows as (for example) baseball and Windows developers saw consoles as footballs.  The arguments always came down to which sport was better which in turn comes down to preference.

With the release of the Xbox, console and Windows developers were both arguing over baseball but two different teams (e.g. Yankees vs. Phillies).  Yankees get much higher income per ticket than Phillies so, once they realise they are virtually the same but one makes a lot more money, they go to the team that has more bang for the buck.


FYI, I hate sports--just an example.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 23, 2009)

I personally think a huge reason for the way they have been doing console ports to pc is because before this generation (especially) they could make amazing games on the computer and consoles just weren't there yet, and when they released the xbox 360 (remember this is 2005 we are talking about) it was able to not be on par but damn close enough to satisfy developers with the idea's and games they had for the PC.

If it weren't for this generation games wouldn't look as they do on consoles and you wouldn't see the ports your seeing (from console to PC, rather than the other way around).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 23, 2009)

It has nothing to do with looks.  The achilles heel of all consoles is the lack of RAM to reduce production costs.  It is easy to develop software with a small memory footprint in mind than to start with a big memory footprint and try to bring it down in size.

The only games that you will see only on PC are games with huge memory demands or cutting edge technology (e.g. Pixel Shader 4 which none of the current generation of consoles have).  Two good examples of this are Supreme Commander and Crysis.  Both engines are just too heavy for consoles to run.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 23, 2009)

well of course its not about looks you can't get that far with only a solid 256mb of vram with modern games, 720p is pretty much the limit for just about every console game and some even struggle with that although some devs will increase that to 1080 at the expense of visuals still and try to market it as 1080, so they have to try their best to increase the gameplay value istead.

look at pc gaming now though 720p is absolutely nothing now, you can pick up a crap card for like 30 bucks and game at 720p with just about no problems now.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 23, 2009)

yeah i wasn't just talking about graphics i meant the aspect of gaming bigger worlds better game play etc, it was way more limited on consoles before this current generation

they put supreme commander on 360, horrible frame rates, etc. 

i get what your saying but in comparison it's just easier to develop for 2 consoles than massive amounts of different hardware combination and get satisfying results from Console gamers, its like they don't care about PC gamers anymore there left in the dust for console gaming. Hence horribly optimized ports from Console to pc. They hardly care anymore


----------



## JC316 (Jul 23, 2009)

erocker said:


> What is I.D.'s address? I want to throw an Xbox360 controller through their office window along with a brick and a small note that asks if they want to be friends.



Mesquite Texas, I live about 20 miles from them lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 23, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Hence horribly optimized ports from Console to pc. They hardly care anymore


The console ports are playable, that's all that matters.

The problem is, they are OK with a passing grade.

There is no sense of perfection/getting everything right the first time anymore.  They release a game that works and, judging by sales in the first few weeks, decide whether or not it is worth fixing.  That problem plagues the whole industry, not just Windows.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jul 23, 2009)




----------



## Darren (Jul 23, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> i get what your saying but in comparison it's just easier to develop for 2 consoles than massive amounts of different hardware combination and get satisfying results from Console gamers




I'd disagree here, although capability issues arise less on consoles due to the standardised hardware the development of games on PC is almost the same as consoles in terms of development duration and programming difficulties. I would assume the PC would be easiest to develop for because the developers do not need to "optimise the scalability" as with consoles. For example with GTA IV on the 360 or PS3 the developers waste weeks and months in optimisation to make sure those textures run on only 512 MBs of ram whilst maintaining those 25-30 FPS, whereas on the PC optimisation less time is wasted because texture sizes are not a worry with systems coming equipped with 4 GBs of ram as standard and 1 GBs of dedicated video memory, maintaining 25-30 FPS isn't a worry because they take the view that its the PCs gamers responsibility to have the appropriate hardware so they optimise less and hence speeds up the development cycle.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 23, 2009)

also just to mention, back in the P4 and athlon days cpu's(intel to amd) and video cards(nvidia to ati) were not very similar in terms of performance, fastforward to now, AMD's phenom and X2's are pretty similar to the Core 2's now, and video cards now are also similar in performance, so the situation is not really the same as then. and darren is right, since more performance is available, when they port to pc which is much easier than doings tens of thousands of optimizations some times, they have much more room for slack now.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 24, 2009)

Darren said:


> I'd disagree here, although capability issues arise less on consoles due to the standardised hardware the development of games on PC is almost the same as consoles in terms of development duration and programming difficulties. I would assume the PC would be easiest to develop for because the developers do not need to "optimise the scalability" as with consoles. For example with GTA IV on the 360 or PS3 the developers waste weeks and months in optimisation to make sure those textures run on only 512 MBs of ram whilst maintaining those 25-30 FPS, whereas on the PC optimisation less time is wasted because texture sizes are not a worry with systems coming equipped with 4 GBs of ram as standard and 1 GBs of dedicated video memory, maintaining 25-30 FPS isn't a worry because they take the view that its the PCs gamers responsibility to have the appropriate hardware so they optimise less and hence speeds up the development cycle.



Yeah hence the fact that the games are horribly optimized when ported from console to pc? You're saying basically that the developers are not optimizing hardware cause its up to the users to buy the hardware they optimize it for? that isn't fair shouldn't it be the other way around where if they optimize it for PC first console ports would be easier to optimize ? techincally that would be the best solution but the easiest way would be to do consoles to flatten all there bugs out and than make the pc port.

So your disagreeing and than agreeing im just confused by your statement. my argument was basically saying "back in the day" they made sure to optimize games on multiple types of hardware. now a days they just do it on the beefiest system they can put together. ?

i'm just confused that you disagreed with me and than basically said the same thing...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2009)

You can upgrade computer hardware but you can't upgrade console hardware (at least not components that actually matter).  If the game runs, crash free, they rather just release it and let technology improvements for computers make it playable.  It is impossible to optimize a game for all possibilities of PC hardware.  You have gamers with 5 year old hardware that want to play it and you have gamers a year from now that want to play it hardware that hasn't even been released yet.  Console hardware is loosely setting the requirements for PC hardware in regards to gaming (e.g. Saints Row II runs like crap without a tri-core CPU--same as Xbox 360).


Consoles are much harder to develop for because of the hardware limitations (specifically, RAM).


"Back in the day" they made games run on crappy hardware and allowed DirectX to scale the game according to the available hardware.  The benchmark for game development was the average computer in your target audience, not the average console.


Up until the Xbox (2002 + approximately 2 year development lag), the console and Windows worlds of gamings were completely separate.  As demonstrated by Nightfire (2002) and Porsche Unleashed (2000), console versions of games were often developed completely separate from their PC counterparts.  They were completely different products with the same badge.  In about 2004, almost all games for Windows that were also launched on consoles were converted from the console version.


----------



## Darren (Jul 24, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> Yeah hence the fact that the games are horribly optimized when ported from console to pc?



Exactly because performance enhancing optimisations are neglected because they expect the PC users to have a midrange or better rig, most of the optimisation for PC to console ports are enhancements to the story, map, levels, weapons, mods in addition to the improved visuals at the expense of performance.

It shouldn't be like that, but unfortunately most of the time it is.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> You're saying basically that the developers are not optimizing hardware cause its up to the users to buy the hardware they optimize it for? that isn't fair shouldn't it be the other way



That is exactly what I'm saying, and in some cases there might not be optimisation for a particular hardware in particular in which case they'll rely on the fact that the average computer has the raw processing power to cope regardless.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> around where if they optimize it for PC first console ports would be easier to optimize ?



No,

Because even well performing games like COD:WAW use around 1.5 GB - 2.5 GBs of memory to run well, if they optimised it for PC first where would they get the available 1.5 GB - 2 GBs of ram on today's generation of consoles? It waste more time.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> technically that would be the best solution but the easiest way would be to do consoles to flatten all there bugs out and than make the pc port.



I agree, all the bugs unrelated to performance, just strange glitches and abnormalities should be removed by the time the port is released, for example if the PC version is released the console port should be bug free and vice versa.




joinmeindeath417 said:


> So your disagreeing and than agreeing I'm just confused by your statement.



Its called staying impartial and objective, it allows one to agree about one aspect but yet disagree with another aspect, without disagreeing overall.



joinmeindeath417 said:


> now a days they just do it on the beefiest system they can put together. ?



Less creative thinking is needed by the programmers if they cater for the beefiest rig, as the beefiest rig will run the game well regardless without the programmers tweaking for performance.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 24, 2009)

we'll said and cleared up for me thiank you,

i just think that eventually a PC would be used for basic usage and only the "hardcore" underground audience will keep it in the market.

it's sad but inevitable. i mean even developers are saying it "console is key" "consoles are the main concern" "consoles are the main market"

and so on.

ANYWAY a mod can close this thread because we aren't even debating consoles here anymore we all i guess came to the agreement that ps3 while has better features (out of the box) and has more "power" by theory (until that is seen it cant be spoken for aside from exclusives). That basically both consoles are equal in terms of gaming. 

Thanks guys it was a fun debate haha.

and i guess we'll just wait and see if this generation actually makes it to 2015. and than see what happens.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> we'll said and cleared up for me thiank you,
> 
> i just think that eventually a PC would be used for basic usage and only the "hardcore" underground audience will keep it in the market.
> 
> ...



The PC market is larger than ever my friend. Also nothing about the PS3 makes it anymore powerful than the 360.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 24, 2009)

In terms of gaming?

There are plenty of articles saying other wise one in particular that console game sales this year alone will jolt to 8 billion while pc gaming will be a mere 1 billion, now don't get really angry with me or anything im not arguing with anyone, i just stated an opinion that PC gaming is coming to a minimal priority in terms of what developers are interested in.

I mean PCs' will always be around obviously and so will gaming on them but to what extent and how far can you expect the quality to go if they are more focused on development for the consoles


----------



## Darren (Jul 24, 2009)

Joinmeindeath417, PC gaming has a far vast community than consoles.

Most of the statistics are based on physical sales, they rarely take into consideration of online distribution. Secondly, statistics do not include the free downloadable games, I'm not talking JAVA games, but here are plenty of freeware and open source games available, mostly in the RPG community, some are more successful than retail games. A few  of these popular free games would include America's Army, F.E.A.R, Perfect World, Galaxy Online, Shaiya, Silk Road etc.

Just so you get a small idea of how big PC gaming is,  here


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 24, 2009)

I agree with you im talking in terms of sales man nothing to do with a community

Like i said im not arguing more than worried back in the day i was a hardcore PC gamer and would make sure to have high end equipment for gaming etc, i am in no means saying anyone is wrong or right, just that if you hadn't noticed lately the quality of pc released games (ported from the consoles) are really ...buggy, its not the gaming im talking about more so the quality,


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2009)

joinmeindeath417 said:


> I agree with you im talking in terms of sales man nothing to do with a community
> 
> Like i said im not arguing more than worried back in the day i was a hardcore PC gamer and would make sure to have high end equipment for gaming etc, i am in no means saying anyone is wrong or right, just that if you hadn't noticed lately the quality of pc released games (ported from the consoles) are really ...buggy, its not the gaming im talking about more so the quality,



The sale of console games cannot touch PC sales. Analyst never include digital distribution. If you know PC gaming I would say most games today are bought online. Also you are talking dollar and cents. This is not a fair comparison. Do you remember the game Prey? When it was first released it cost 59.95 for the console and 49.75 for the PC. Six months later it still cost 59.95 for the console but the PC version was 4.99 on Steam! Steam isnt even included in most of the statistics that you read "PC gaming is dying." The truth of the matter is PC gaming community is far more vast than consoles could ever dream of being.

The only difference now is consoles have more lime light and PC's have less. Make no mistake the community is still gaming as much as it ever has.


----------



## joinmeindeath417 (Jul 24, 2009)

Yes i agree, but about quality? how long do you think everyone is going to watch PC games come out from there console ports, with bugs, un optimization etc.

i saw the RE5 thread on here, yeah you can get over 100 fps etc, but point is look at the scores from Nvidia to ATI, and i know some games run better on specific hardware but still the numbers I've seen are pretty bad (and not in terms of FPS but against each other) especially comparing the cards together that are pretty much even with benchmarks and i know i know companies optimize for one more than the other. When GTA IV came out that was a mess, prototype has random sound/crashing problems, i just think its ridiculous that the PC counterpart is getting treated like that. My argument was all about dollars and cents, cause that's how the "Big" developers look at it.

I know the PC gamers are and always will be high and pride about there rig/gaming experience, and i just think they deserve there own seperate lime light considering what can actually be done on a pc (ex crysis). Thats all.

i STILL play Wolf ET on my pc, and half life series and stalker series, and games i can't get on consoles because i do like playing pcs games mouse and keyboard are way better than auto aim and joystick, i was more in sighting on the way developers have been looking at the pc being the last one fed, and usually that means they get less..

EDIT: and yes i have downloaded probably 45 percent of my pc games from steam. i do like owning the disc though its a collection thing


----------

