Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Games & gear: Objective Thoughts: 360 v. PS3 (Year 2)
Objective Thoughts: 360 v. PS3 (Year 2)
by KDRGibby - 4/19/08 4:12 PMHere is the deal. Some of us have waited for next gens to drop in price more (to the more traditional below $200 mark of past consoles) its not going to happen. With the US facing inflation and a falling dollar worldwide I don't expect another price drop anytime soon. With a hot summer (120 degrees coming) its time to buy the next generation console.
Which one shall I get? PS3 or 360?
We've all read reviews about the PS3 vs. 360 for the last 3 years. We've all heard that the PS3 has better theoretical computational power but the 360 looks better because of its simple design. Shortly afterwards, we're reminded that at any moment designers will figure out how to write code for the PS3. 2 years later, I’m still waiting. We've also heard about the 360s massive power block, noisy fans, and failure rates (I went through 3 lasers on my original xbox). Neither seems to blow the other out of the water.
I've got no brand loyalty (Nintendo to Sega G to PSX to Xbox) and I have no tolerance for fanboys. Don't post.
Help us gamers who are interested in multiplatform games like Fallout 3, GTA 4, NCAA 09 (to name a few). The only single platform must-haves for me are Fable 2 and Grand Turismo…and they are on different platforms. HD is out but I’m not paying $40 to buy a DVD so who cares about BlueRay right now. Buying both isn’t an option.
Which system will provide long-term enjoyment and not fade fast? Anyone have proof that the PS3 is showing signs of new life or is it just a fancy 360 that will cost me $50 more?
It all depends
by At The Opera - 4/19/08 6:45 PM In reply to: Objective Thoughts: 360 v. PS3 (Year 2) by KDRGibbyAs has been pointed out several times on these forums, it depends on what kind of games you like to play.
Sony, being a Japanese company, tends to have the console that is home to role-playing games like the Final Fantasy series.
Microsoft, being an American company, will tend to have more action-adventure type games, like Halo and Gears of War.
So, I would say it depends on what sort of gamer you are. If you're more into RPGs, go with the PS3, because sooner or later Final Fantasy XIII will be out, which will likely set the bar for all RPGs this generation, just like Final Fantasy X did for the previous generation.
If you're more into action-adventure type games, like Halo 3, Gears of War, and the World War 2 ad nauseam spinoffs, go with the 360. Most of the major hardware defects seem to have been ironed out, so it's probably reasonably safe to buy one now.
Don't waste time worrying about which one looks better now or in the future, go with the one that has the games you're going to want to play more. If it's RPGs, get a PS3, if it's action-adventure get a 360, and if it's more simple fun games that don't require a lot of commitment, get a Wii if you can find one. Let the people with bankrupt lives sit around debating which console is better. The rest of us have better things to be doing, like PLAYING games on that console.
Good advice but...
by KDRGibby - 4/19/08 7:43 PM In reply to: It all depends by At The OperaGreat points, thank you. I'm most interested in several of the multi-p games, which is why I'm interested in the comparison.
Shooting/acting games are fun, but way too short. Multiplayer is fun but not a dealbreaker for me, so when I look at a game I only want to pay full price if the single player story line takes me at least 20 hours to complete...most shooters now seem to be 10 hours. Really good RPGs are nice, long, have good stories, but are hard to find ones that are worth your time. I did buy the PSX to get FF7, and I suppose the new FF could become another must have too. Still, Fable 2 looks very promising.
When it comes to the must have single-platform games I'm on the fence. My only basis for comparison is the multi-platform games like NCAA09 Madden09, GTA4, Fallout 3 (which I can't wait for!). Is the difference negligble between the systems?
Looking
by KDRGibby - 4/19/08 7:55 PM In reply to: Good advice but... by KDRGibbyI'm looking at the 20 Gig 360 and the 40 Gig PS3 (price difference $50).
What do I get for the money? How fast to the hard drives fill up? No interest in downloading movies, just playing games. Does the 20gig 360 have HDMI support?
Which brings me to another question...does anyone see a difference between 720p and 1080p on a 37-42 inch LCD?
Well
by At The Opera - 4/19/08 8:19 PM In reply to: Good advice but... by KDRGibbyIf you ask me, the PS3 probably has the greater longevity. It won't happen tomorrow, but gradually, over time, developers will get better and better at making use of the PS3's capabilities and the games will show it.
From what I've heard, the 360's very simple and PC-like design has been a double edged sword. It worked very well for the 360 early on to build a good early library of games, but from what I understand, the limits of the system have already been hit for the most part. I'm sure over time clever developers will find ways to squeeze out a little more performance from the 360, but it sounds to me like you shouldn't expect games to get too much better than they already are.
The PS3 still has a lot of untapped potential, and over time, that potential will likely be tapped little by little. So by the end of the console's life, you will have some pretty impressive titles coming out for it.
One other important factor to consider, is history. Sony has a history of supporting their consoles long after their successor has arrived. While the supply of PS2 games has slowed significantly, there are still new PS2 games being released. Just like there were still PSX games being released well after the PS2 was out. Microsoft, on the other hand, dropped support for the original Xbox the same day the 360 launched. I think about the only post-360 launch game to be released was the last Madden NFL game, and that was only because Microsoft signed a multi-year deal. What's to say Microsoft won't do the same thing with the 360? The Wii is still selling out very quickly due to high demand, and outside of the US and Western Europe, the 360 is a very tough sell. So what's to say Microsoft won't just rush its successor onto the market to try and get a jump start on the next generation of consoles, just like they did with the 360? If you buy a 360 now, expecting a steady stream of games to be released for it over the next 2-3 years, you could find yourself left in the lurch.
There's also the fact that Microsoft seems quite fine with improving the base hardware specs for the 360. The people who bought the original Core units without a hard drive are likely soon going to find they're being abandoned by developers. They also can't take advantage of some of the big Xbox Live features like downloadable content. The people who bought the unit with the 20GB HDD then got shafted when Microsoft announced the Elite model with a 120GB HDD. It also came with HDMI support, something that was lacking in BOTH of the original models. So far they haven't bumped up the clock speed on the CPU or GPU, or added more RAM, but what's to say they won't? Then what? You're left with a situation that's really no better than the mess that is the PC gaming world. You buy consoles to get a constant gaming platform that is (supposedly) guaranteed for a certain number of years. For 3-5 years, any title you buy with the logo of that console on it, is guaranteed to run. Maybe not run well, since these days its all about rushing to be the first one to market with some new game, who cares if it's even playable, but it will run. Presumably, someone at Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft verified that the game met certain minimum standards. If Microsoft starts tinkering with the core hardware of the 360, which they seem to have shown they're not against doing in other areas of the console, then you might wind up with a second rate system that no one wants to write games for. Or if they do, it's a severely diminished experience. You have to start paying attention to whether a game is for the old 360s or the "refreshed" 360s. Sony and Nintendo console owners can just walk into a store, point to a game, and walk out, confident that they need only get home, pop the disc into the console, and start playing.
So, if you like RPGs, and games that will tend to take more than an afternoon to finish, I'd probably suggest the PS3. Of course there's no rule saying you can't own both a PS3 and a 360, but I might consider putting off buying the 360 until later.
One other thing to consider... Save for the 40GB PS3 model, all other PS3 models have more or less full backwards compatibility with the PS2 and PSX. Really only the original 20GB and 60GB models with the EmotionEngine chip in them have full backwards compatibility, but the software emulation the rest of them use I understand is still quite good, and can always be improved as time passes. So, if you decide you want to yield to nostalgia and play through FF7 again, maybe because you just played Crisis Core, you can do so. The 360 has rather limited backwards compatibility in comparison, and the original Xbox never had all that big of a software library to begin with.
Though, while multi-player isn't really my thing, virtually everyone sings the praises of Xbox Live. So, if the idea of multi-player gaming is a big concern, that isn't something to be dismissed lightly. I just don't know if it would really be enough on its own. It wouldn't for me, but only you know whether or not it would for you.
Games
by not2worried - 4/22/08 9:45 AM In reply to: Good advice but... by KDRGibbyIt really does come down to games.
I think games like Mass Effect for the 360 is a good RPG.
Also Oblivion ( multi) ( there 50 + hours ( up to 200 hrs)
The graphics are pretty close.
I like my 360.But I mainly play online too.
I think both systems are good.
But games make the system.
I may pick up a PS3 in time, but the games just aren't there yet.
PS3 Vs Xbox
by spuk87 - 5/2/08 5:23 AM In reply to: Games by not2worriedI personally have an xbox 360 elite, but it is really difficult to pick one or the other at the moment and often I wish I had PS3 instead. Here's a few simple comparisons:
For the following the left answer is for Xbox 360 and right answer for PS3:
(360|PS3)
Price: (less)| (more) (sorry I'm from UK so don't know $$)
Online Play: Live=better| FREE but not as good (apparently)
Web Browser: No | Yes
Wireless: No | Yes
BluRay: (dead)HDDVD | Yes
GPU: better | not as good
CPU: slower | faster (but currently harder to program for)
Exclusives: Halo, Mass Effect, Ace Combat, Forza Motorsport, GoW, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, Saints Row, Dead or Alive | PS3: Final Fantasy, MGS4, Gran Turismo, Resistance, SOCOM, Tekken, Wipeout.
Extra: many PS3 games can be 'installed' to the HDD where 360 cannot. This reduces loading times in games (such as GTA IV which reportedly has no load times between cutscenes etc due to this installation).
Those are a few details but you said Blu Ray does not interest you so that's pretty irrelevant. It appears to me that the PS3 is better value for money as an overall unit, but as everyone has said the games choice is better on 360. Generally speaking it is said that the cross platform games look better on 360 due to it's better graphics processor. For instance in GTA IV the textures and framerate is better (but the PS3 has less pop-in, so the difference is pretty much cancelled out). An article here shows the differences between some games: http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6162742/ .
I think that the choice of exclusives is more attractive on xbox, but that's personal preferance. I prefer Forza to Gran Turismo myself, but many other people would swing the other way so there's no clear winner.
I also agree that in time the PS3 will probably age better due to it having a better processor and developers will learn how to program for it better and beyond xbox's capabilities.
Hope this helps, even though I've just realised I don't know which one I prefer lol.
In response to your earlier questions: yes 360 has HDMI (with 1080p), and I personally feel as though 1080p is visibly better than 720p on my 37" LCD. The HDD will only get filled up if you download game demos which vary at 200-2000mb roughly. I have pretty much every single demo available including the xbox Live Arcade demos (so ~ 200 demos?) and still have 25GB free on my 120GB elite drive. I wouldn't worry about running out of space though personally.
Si
Get both, no seriously!
by gretzkyv99 - 5/2/08 7:53 AM In reply to: PS3 Vs Xbox by spuk87I have both and I simply put it like this. My stack of 360 games is about 25. My stack of PS3 games is 2 (RSv2+Army of 2). Most of the games that come out for both consoles I'll be more likely to get for the ps3 because of the free online capabilities and built in wireless networking. For me personally Xbox has better titles but PS3 is getting better. Ps3 gets more play right now in my house as a wireless media extender and blueray player than a game console.
only xbox360
by Myjota - 5/4/08 3:52 PM In reply to: PS3 Vs Xbox by spuk87i have xbox360, pirated xbox 360, now i pay for game only 10 dollars. before xbox , i had ps3 60gig, but how long can i wait wile they will pirate ps3? i have not so much money to buy 2 or 3 games in month. you say ps3 have web browser:D not web browser better name- Sony browser, and not comfortible. next blueray.. yes is best but if i will be need to share move with friend. how can i do it?? to send by email 50 gigas or burn i dvd??
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
