# PS3 vs. Xbox 360



## emalen (Oct 10, 2004)

curious as to people's opinions on this. If money and availability weren't an option, what would get today. PS3 or Xbox 360?


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

Wii


----------



## audiodan (Sep 26, 2005)

Wii for All!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5cPVP_llfo


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

Xbox 360

1) Cheaper
2) Using Proven Technology
3) *Many* Games Available
4) User _Option_ To Upgrade to a High Definition Movie Source
5) Has Rumble in controller
6) Most Bugs Have Been Ironed Out
7) Music/Photo/Video Streaming to 360 from PC or Mac (using connect 360)
8) Overall System Performance (considering Bus Speeds, Memory Bandwidth, GPU) On Par with PS3
9) Games generally geared toward a more mature audience (if you have kids, the Wii will be a good option) 
10) You have heard from at least one first hand experience (ME) that the Xbox 360 Games are a Tonne of Fun! (Gears of War, Ghost Recon, Project Gotham 3, Call of Duty 2 and Oblivion all get 5/5 from me)
11) Xbox Live works *very* well
12) Xbox Live Arcade to get your retro fix (Pac-Man, Defender, Joust, Robotron and some great new games)
13) Keep your hard earned money in North America

A few things I could think of off the top of my head.  

<iframe src="http://gamercard.xbox.com/Zoiks.card" scrolling="no" frameBorder="0" height="140" width="204">Zoiks</iframe>


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

keep money in North America? I guess Mexico is part of it, since that's where they make the XBoxes, or is it XBoxi.
Ironically, all the equipment in your sig is made in China


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I'd probably get an Xbox 360 for both the games and to interface with my Windows XP MCE system.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

PS3 Benefits:

1) FREE On-line gaming (Xbox goes up to $60 USD per year-12 month subscription)
2) CD-ROM, BD-ROM and DVD-ROM capatible (without paying extra $200 for an external drive)
3) Larger HD capacity
4) More USB ports; better 3rd party peripheral compatability
5) Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 Channels
6) Better backwards compatability (more games)
7) Supported: 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p; HDMI x 2
8) TWO teraflops of System Floating Point Performance
9) Bluetooth and WiFi
10) Memory sticks ubiquitous, not proprietary
10) *NOT MICROSOFT!*


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

rondini said:


> Ironically, all the equipment in your sig is made in China


LOL Got me there! I have a hiearchial list of where I try to buy my products.

#1 = Canada
#2 = North America (yes, including Mexico)
#3 = Rest of the world

That being said, the list is not just if the product in question is made in Canada/North America I'd blindly buy it. For example, automobiles. I will not purchase an American automobile, (at least at this time) because the quality that you are buying is far inferior to some European and Japanese automobile manufactuers.

I follow my list where the quality remains more or less equal. As for buying an iBook and an iPod which were manufactured in China, 
#1 = Much of the money I spent on those _does_ remain in North America
#2 = The Quality of these products is superior to most/all other brands



« MannyP Design » said:


> *NOT MICROSOFT*


Manny, IMHO, between Microsoft and Sony. Sony is the bigger Evil. IMHO Sony is using the popularity of the PS3 brand, and the public's blind faith in them to strong arm another propritary product (Blu-Ray) into their homes. 
Let's not forget Sony's root-kit fiasco. Creating and Placing a WinXP virus onto their music CDs that create security backdoors on the computers of users who actually *purchase* their music so they can *spy* on them? Whoah! That's got to be an all-time low!

I'd rahter not give my money to Sony thanks!

Cheers!


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

Zoiks, you said the 360 has proven technology? The guy I talked to at EB Games said at least 5 out of 10 360's that they sell end up coming back broken. There is no way the 360 is using proven technology. My brother is now on his 7th replacement system. and the last one that broke he got charged for the repairs as the warranty seal melted off the console. This is why i refuse to pay money for anything that comes out of Microsoft. On the other hand I would never pay that much for a PS3 and will not be surpirsed if it suffers from similar failures. If I was forced to choose one I'd personally go with the PS3 because MGS4 will be on it.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

Mrsam said:


> Zoiks, you said the 360 has proven technology? The guy I talked to at EB Games said at least 5 out of 10 360's that they sell end up coming back broken.


MrSam, You're brother is on his 7th replacement? That's NUTS! You're brother shouldn't be wasting his time playing games; he should be harnessing that power of patience as a Monk in Tibet!

As for that "Guy At EB..." sigh. I think anyone who's ever been into EB Games knows that many of these guys talk like cowboys used to shoot. "From the Hip" - without any stats to back them up.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, and I won't insult you by saying 7 console replacements sounds ridiculous.

I have an Xbox 360 that I bought in May, (and I love it); and 5 of my good buddies have one as well (two of them have launch consoles). None of us have ever had a problem with them (except the occasional [not daily] lock up). That's my personal experience.

However, if you want to buy a PS3, go ahead. The more PS3s that people buy, the more competition there will be to create more pressure on MicroSoft to make even better games! Just thought I'd offer my two cents to help more ehmac.ca users make the (IMHO) right choice.

p.s. - As for the 'proven technology', what I meant was the the Xbox 360 is running on a chip based on Apple's Power PC processor manufactured by IBM. Sony's machine is running on their CELL processor (also created by IBM) but is a brand new, _unproven_ configuration.

Cheers!


----------



## Jeremy Banks (Nov 13, 2006)

Wii. =P

Between the PS3 and the 360? There is no way in hell that I'm getting a PS3. If it were free, I'd install Linux on it and shove it in the basement. Sony seems determined to shoot themselves in the foot as many times as possible with this product, and I'm not going to be rewarding them for it.

I had a 360 on loan from Microsoft for a few months, and it wasn't bad, but it wasn't that great either. If I didn't already have an XBOX it might have appealed to me more, but as it is it just doesn't offer me enough of an improvement to be worth the money. To be sure, it looked pretty, but the gameplay was the same.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

.....bout right.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> .....bout right.


Here's one auction I think does some actual good.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

ignoring the issue of cost as per the original poster's request, here are a few thoughts:

i'm a 360 owner, and while i am generally happy with it, i am continually annoyed by the cheapness of its construction. the dvd tray is flimsy and doesn't always open the first time the eject button is pushed, and it is EXTREMELY LOUD, LIKE A HAIR DRYER. this is the single biggest negative for the platform, as it seriously interferes with the gaming experience.

on the plus side, xbox live is worth the small subscription fee, and the social networking features of xbox live are generally well thought out.

i've always preferred xbox controllers over sony's or nintendo's, and the 360's wireless controller is the best i've ever used, and is very nearly perfect in my opinion.

that said, all the PS3 has to be able to do is operate quietly for me to score it higher than the 360.


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

PS3 for me. It's a much better value than the 360. People who say the 360 is cheaper are getting fleeced. After you add the HD DVD and the annual cost of online play, it will cost you a lot more in the long run.

On top of that, the PS3 is better is pretty much every respect. More powerful processor. Bigger hard drive and hard drive standard on both configurations (which means it will be better supported by games). Built-in wifi. Gigabit ethernet. Blu-Ray drive built-in, not a stupid USB add-on. Free online play. BlueTooth for wireless peripherals, not proprietary like the 360. HDMI standard. Built-in power supply, no ugly huge cinder block AC adapter like the 360. Gyroscopic controller which can charge with a standard USB cable--360 uses AA batteries, rechargeable batteries and charger cost extra. Slot load optical drive, no crappy tray like the 360. The ability to install Linux on it and use it as a completely open computer, vs. the 360's completely locked down design.

There is absolutely nothing better about the 360. More games don't count because the PS3 will catch up soon enough. Anyone who buys the 360 primarily because it's cheaper is getting exactly what they pay for and will end up paying more in the long run for a vastly inferior product. Don't get me wrong, the 360 is a decent gaming machine, but the PS3 seems to be the only console that deserves the 'next generation' moniker, and the price Sony is charging for all that technology is one heck of a great deal for consumers.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Very convincing post madgunde, I agree that the PS3 is an impressive machine at a good price, considering everything it is.

Can anyone guess when a person will be able to just walk in off the street and buy a PS3? January, February?


----------



## UnleashedLive (Aug 9, 2004)

Wii $280
PS3 $2500ish
360 $100us at Amazon next Thursday.


----------



## emalen (Oct 10, 2004)

I think the one reason that I wouldn't by an Xbox 360 is the subscription fee for online play. Is it not enough that we have to spend 500 on the system.... numerous games.... extra controls.... yet they still want 89 per year for online play. pretty wrong if you ask me. At least with ps3 and wii it's free online.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

emalen said:


> At least with ps3 and wii it's free online.


You get what you pay for. Once the dust settles, see how the reviews of Sony's online service stack up against Xbox Live.

5 bucks a month, for a great unified experience. One unified friends list, (not one list per game), that allows you to chat with a buddy while he's playing the same game, or a different one altogher. I can invite my buddy Brad to a game of Gears of War while he's playing Call of Duty 3. 
Can't do that with a Playstation because it's up to the game developers to create their own segregated online code and servers. Xbox Live, Microsoft (which has a lot on the line to keep the service running well) orchestrates all online traffic smoothly, *and* because they run Xbox Live, they ban people for abusive language, screaming (nothing more annoying online through the headset) and cheating. Can't do that on the playstation network. 

So if you're one of those twerps who likes to scream into a headset with any number of unvirtuous intentions, you're better off with the Playstation 3.

Otherwise, leave the dark side, and come to the light... Xbox 360


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

madgunde said:


> After you add the HD DVD


I don't want to add an HD-DVD drive, I don't have an HDTV. Microsoft gave us a choice instead of throwing propritary hardware down our throats.


madgunde said:


> the annual cost of online play


See my last post on online cost.



> More powerful processor.


Remains to be seen. As a Mac fan, you should know that the CPU speed is not everything. There are many other factors that differ between the 360 and the PS3. PS3 is stronger in one area (Teraflop performance of CPU) but the 360 is stronger in others (faster memory bandwidth, faster GPU, 3 symetrical cores vs Sony's 1 strong core with 7 asymetrical daughter cores, much easier to program for developers)


madgunde said:


> [HDD]which means it will be better supported by games


This makes no sense. Any Xbox 360 game can be played on any Xbox 360 console, HDD or not. The 360 with a hard-drive is still $50 cheaper than the lower priced PS3.


madgunde said:


> BlueTooth for wireless peripherals, not proprietary like the 360.


Yet they are still having trouble with their bluetooth such as headsets not working.


> Built-in power supply, no ugly huge cinder block AC adapter like the 360.


Again, we'll see if this causes a problem for them such as over heating. 360 had a big over heating issue without the power supply being built in, and no blue laser! If PS3 has no over heating issues, seriously, Kudos to them!


> Gyroscopic controller which can charge with a standard USB cable--360 uses AA batteries, rechargeable batteries and charger cost extra.


Gyroscopic controller with no rumble feature! Can't imagine playing a FPS or racing game without it! AND the batteries are removable on the 360, which means when the battery is toast, your controller is not. Can't say the same for the PS3 there, when the battery is pooched, so is the controller.


> Slot load optical drive, no crappy tray like the 360.


Hmmm, that's a real system seller there, "Look how it takes in the disc. Wow! That makes me enjoy the game more!" :clap: 


> The ability to install Linux on it and use it as a completely open computer, vs. the 360's completely locked down design.


Yup, you got me there. No Chance of a virus for the Xbox 360. Hmmm, I wonder if there's a market for PS3 condoms!


> There is absolutely nothing better about the 360.


I think I've obliterated that statement!


> More games don't count because the PS3 will catch up soon enough.


They won't catch up if developer keep dropping the PS3 as a platform to code on because of the difficulty it's proving to program for the CELL.
PS3 games = 9
XBOX 360 games = > 130


> [T]he price Sony is charging for all that technology is one heck of a great deal for consumers.


This is a great deal if I wanted to buy a Blu-ray disc player, but as can be seen from my response in a thread here... http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=46923 the reviews of HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray have consistently been in favour of HD-DVD. Now I don't have an HDTV, and won't be buying one in the forseeable future, (student) but if I were, I'd be making sure I've got an HD-DVD, not a Blu-Ray player, so in reality, Sony's Console offers me nothing more than the Xbox 360 does for _me_ at a much higher price.

Cheers!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well - for my part, the decision was made for me. No PS3 or Wii anywhere to be found down here in Mexico. So - my roommate and I splurged and split the Xbox 360 50/50.

General observations: interesting hardware design. Menus are a little odd. Wireless controllers are great (once you decipher the manual's instruction for adding a 2nd one. It says "press the connect button on the Wireless controller" which in fact means press <i>and hold</i> the damn button. That took us a good half-hour to figure out.

The biggest issue I have arises simply from my background as a casual gamer on the Mac platform: I'm a keyboard-and-mouse shooter. How the hell do you use these things? Two pivoting joystick buttons? Four coloured buttons? Four more "triggers"? A "start" and "back" button? An old Nintendo-style four-arrow rocker pad?

Holy frak!

Let's just say, my Halo scores are going to take a major hit until I've trained my thumbs on this thing.

One other issue: I have to agree with TMR: I was scared I'd break the 360's CD tray just by looking at it. Will need to be verrrrry careful....

M


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

New York Times just penned an article about the PS3 anyone should read before they decide to pick one up... In short, they were quite unimpressed with it.

New York Times - A Weekend Full of Quality Time With PlayStation 3





> Ever since Mr. Stringer took the helm last year at Sony, the struggling if still formidable electronics giant, the world has been hearing about how the coming PlayStation 3 would save the company, or at least revitalize it. Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.
> 
> Put bluntly, Sony has failed to deliver on that promise.





> And so it is a bit of a shock to realize that on the video game front Microsoft and Sony are moving in exactly the opposite directions one might expect given their roots. Microsoft, the prototypical PC company, has made the Xbox 360 into a powerful but intuitive, welcoming, people-friendly system. Sony’s PlayStation 3, on the other hand, often feels like a brawny but somewhat recalcitrant specialized computer. (Sony is even telling users to wait for future software patches to fix some of the PS3’s deficiencies.) The thing is, if people want to use a computer, they’ll use a computer.



Sorry Sony... That's too bad. 

:clap:


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

While the NYT article has some valid complaints, some of the points are weak and the article comes off sounding somewhat biased. I'll cover some of the points I disagree with:



> Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.


This is outright false. Sony still sells more Playstation 2's than Microsoft does XBox 360s. Microsoft hasn't won anything, other than to bring their 'next generation' console to market a year before Sony did, but that just makes it year older technology in a market where technology changes rapidly.



> Measured in megaflops, gigabytes and other technical benchmarks, the PlayStation 3 is certainly the world’s most powerful game console. It falls far short, however, of providing the world’s most engaging overall entertainment experience. There is a big difference, and Sony seems to have confused one for the other.


It's a little premature to say Sony has failed in it's promise. The console launched just 3 days ago, and no doubt Sony will improve on the PS3's capabilities via software updates, much as they have on the PSP. Isn't the fun measured by the games? The PS3's launch line-up is no doubt a bit skimpy, but that will be remedied in no time at all as new games get released on an almost weekly basis. There is nothing inherent in the XBox 360 that makes games more fun than on the PS3, but the PS3's sixaxis controller does give it an edge over the 360 in this respect.



> The PS3, which was introduced in North America on Friday with a hefty $599 price tag for the top version, certainly delivers gorgeous graphics. But they are not discernibly prettier than the Xbox 360’s.


Then why do I see reviews of 360 games mentioning how at certain points in games there is a noticeable frame-rate drop? Haven't heard that once about the PS3.



> More important, the whole PlayStation 3 system is surprisingly clunky to use and simply does not provide many basic functions that users have come to expect, especially online.
> 
> I have spent more than 30 hours using the PlayStation 3 over the last week or so and may have played more different games on the system — 13 — than probably anyone outside of Sony itself. Sony did not activate the PS3’s online service until just before the Friday debut. Over the weekend a clear sense of disappointment with the PlayStation 3 emerged from many gamers.


Really? I've been following a lot of PS3 blogs and tech news articles about the PS3, and I haven't heard a single one mention that players were disappointed in the least. I'd like to know where the writer gets that from.



> Sadly for Sony, the best way to explain how the PlayStation 3 falls short is to explain how different it is to use than its main competition, Xbox 360. When I reviewed the 360 last year, I wrote: “Twelve minutes after opening the box, I had created my nickname, was in a game of Quake 4 and thought, ‘This can’t be this easy.’ ”
> 
> I never felt that way using the PlayStation 3. With the PS3, 12 minutes after opening the box I realized that Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television. Keep in mind that one of Sony’s main selling points has been that the PS3 plays Blu-Ray high-definition movie discs. But high-definiton cables? Sold separately. The Xbox 360, by contrast, ships with one cable that can connect to either a standard or high-definition set.


This guy is reaching if he wastes ink in his article complaining about the lack of cables for his TV. Which cables does he want? HDMI or component? If Sony included both, then that would raise the price of the unit and people would be forced to pay for cables they don't use/need. One can just as easily complain that Microsoft makes you pay extra for an HD optical drive, or for rechargeable batteries to use in the 360, or a hard drive in the entry level 360, or built-in wifi, all of which are included with the PS3 (wifi only in 60GB model). At least the PS3 HAS HDMI ports on it. Can't say as much about the 360.



> Then, before you are even using the PS3, you have to connect the “wireless” controller to the base unit with a USB cable so they can recognize each other. If you bring your PS3 controller to a friend’s house, you’ll have to plug back in again. The 360’s wireless controllers are always just that, wireless.


This is the point where it becomes obvious that the writer is a Microsoft shill. The PS3's controller charges via a USB cable. Duh. Once it's charged, you can unplug it and play untethered for 30 hours. Only in this guys pathetic world can he even conceive that the XBox 360's solution of using AA batteries, or having to pay extra for a rechargeable battery kit, is an advantage over the PS3s elegant solution. When your PS3's battery dies, just plug in the standard USB cable and keep playing. while it charges. This is exactly how it should be designed, and exactly how Microsoft SHOULD have designed their controller, if they weren't cutting corners and nickel and diming their customers.



> If there is one thing one would expect Sony to get perfect, though, it would be music. Wrong. Sure, you can plug in your digital music player and the PS3 will play the tunes. But as soon as you go into a game, the music stops. By contrast, one of the things I’ve always enjoyed most on the Xbox 360 is being able to listen to my own music while playing Pebble Beach or driving my virtual Ferrari. Doesn’t seem too complicated, but the PS3 can’t do it.


I guess I'm different. I want to hear the music and sound effects from the game as the designers intend it, but I can understand that others may feel differently. I don't see it as a major point though. Certainly shouldn't be a deal breaker.



> In that sense it often feels as if the PlayStation 3 can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. In the PS3’s online store (which feels like a slow Web page) you can access movie trailers and trial versions of new games, but when you actually download the 600-megabyte files, you’ll be stuck watching a progress bar crawl across the screen for 20 or 40 minutes. Astonishingly, you can’t download in the background while you go do something that’s more fun (like play a game). On the Xbox 360, not only are files downloaded seamlessly in the background, but you can also shut off the machine, turn it on later, and the download will resume automatically.


This is a fair point, however, what impact will downloading in the background have on the performance of games? Any serious gamer who's playing a high end game like Gears of War, is not going to want to sacrifice even one once of performance to download a movie trailer in the background. But certainly, with it's more powerful specs, if any system can handle that without a big negative impact on the game, the PS3 can. Hopefully Sony will add this in a future software update.



> The PS3’s whole online experience feels tacked-on and unpolished. On the Xbox 360 each user has a single unified friends list, so you can track your friends and communicate with them easily, no matter what game you are in. On the PlayStation 3 most games have their own separate friends list and some have no friends function at all. There is a master list as well, but in order to communicate with anyone on it, you have to quit the game you are playing.


Here's the second point where it is obvious that the writer is a MS shill. He fails to mention that Microsoft charges $59.99 CDN PER YEAR for the privilege of playing online games on the XBox 360. Seems like an important point if you're going to criticize Sony's FREE online capabilities, doesn't it? Again, the console just came out and there is plenty of time for Sony to improve their online experience.



> There are some high points. The multi-player battles in Resistance: Fall of Man are excellent. The arcade-style action in the downloadable Blast Factor is suitably frantic.


Hmmm, reading that, you'd almost think the writer actually had FUN! Strange, since if you had given up reading the article before reaching this point, you'd be convinced that the writer considers the PS3 to be not fun at all.



> But the list of the PS3’s disappointments remains, from its undersupported voice chat to its maddening cellphone-like text messaging system. (In frustration I ended up plugging in a USB keyboard.)


I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that trying to text chat with a game controller is going to be frustrating no matter what console you're doing it on. That's why the PS3 has support out of the box for any standard USB keyboard, or use a wireless BlueTooth keyboard, something the XBox 360 doesn't support.



> Overall, Sony seems to have put a lot of effort into cramming as much silicon horsepower under the hood as possible but to have forgotten that all the transistors in the world can’t make someone smile.


No, but when game developers write games that take advantage of all that power, it's going to make some gamers VERY happy.



> And so it is a bit of a shock to realize that on the video game front Microsoft and Sony are moving in exactly the opposite directions one might expect given their roots. Microsoft, the prototypical PC company, has made the Xbox 360 into a powerful but intuitive, welcoming, people-friendly system. Sony’s PlayStation 3, on the other hand, often feels like a brawny but somewhat recalcitrant specialized computer. (Sony is even telling users to wait for future software patches to fix some of the PS3’s deficiencies.) The thing is, if people want to use a computer, they’ll use a computer.


Isn't it a good thing for a system to be more open to doing other things? The XBox 360, with it's more limiting specs/features and Microsoft's totalitarian policies is not nearly as up to the task of being used for a broader range of tasks than the PS3, which is surprisingly open and customizable. If you only want to play games, you can do that with the PS3, but if you want to get more use out of your investment, the PS3 will give owners near unlimited capabilities beyond gaming and media.

If you want to get a fair view of how good the PS3 is at launch time, look back a year and see what bloggers and tech writers were saying about the XBox 360. So far there hasn't been a single major technical issue reported, and the PS3 has been in consumers hands for more than a week (in Japan). At that age, the 360 was marred by stories of systems crashing due to overheating. In fact, just a week or two ago, there were reports of a 360 firmware update causing permanent damage to customers systems, requiring them to replace them, many out of warranty. The PS3 isn't perfect, but it's damn good out of the gate, and with Sony's reputation for providing timely and feature packed updates, I'm confident that the bigger oversights will get remedied in due course. In the meantime, I'll be happily playing Resistance: Fall of Man online against 39 other players online while XBox 360 owners are stuck playing Gears of War with only 7 other players. Obviously the NYT writer finds listening to their mp3s while gaming more fun than playing with 5 times as many online players simultaneously.

Now I've wasted enough time writing this. I'm going back to playing games on my PS3.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

hey Zoiks, I added you to my friends list on xbox live from the live webpage. i've got chealion as well.

we should play Gears of War sometime.

i check our profiles, and i see all three of us have it. (it shows chealion has finished the game on two difficulty settings, i've gone about 2/3rds of the way through on casual, and you're just starting out with the game).

try putting all that together with PS3.

http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=Chealion
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=TroutMaskZ
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/profile/profile.aspx?pp=0&GamerTag=Zoiks


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> If you want to get a fair view of how good the PS3 is at launch time, look back a year and see what bloggers and tech writers were saying about the XBox 360. So far there hasn't been a single major technical issue reported, and the PS3 has been in consumers hands for more than a week (in Japan). At that age, the 360 was marred by stories of systems crashing due to overheating.


i can't believe you are making this argument, when sony is currently entangled with the largest consumer electronics recall in the history of the world, while the 360 defects only affected a small number of consoles.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that trying to text chat with a game controller is going to be frustrating no matter what console you're doing it on. That's why the PS3 has support out of the box for any standard USB keyboard, or use a wireless BlueTooth keyboard, something the XBox 360 doesn't support.


that's why 360 uses VOIP. if you really need to text someone or a group of people (instead of leaving a voice message) and don't want to use the controller to type it out, you can send an email from live.xbox.com and everyone will get it on their console.



> This is a fair point, however, what impact will downloading in the background have on the performance of games? Any serious gamer who's playing a high end game like Gears of War, is not going to want to sacrifice even one once of performance to download a movie trailer in the background.


i download demos in the background all the time, and have not noticed any lag or drop frames because of it.



> I'll be happily playing Resistance: Fall of Man online against 39 other players online while XBox 360 owners are stuck playing Gears of War with only 7 other players.


this is ridiculous. gears of war is based around the idea of small fireteams. there are other games with many more players can join. battlefield2 being one of them. i think the limit was somewhere around 32.

okay, i can't do this anymore. i've read though all of your points and all i can say is you are arguing from the perspective of someone loyal to the PS3 brand. it sounds like you have not used Live (one of the 360s strong points) and do not understand it. the 360 experience is built around Live.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What's ridiculous is the efforts people are making to put down the PS3, Xbox or Wii console.

I'm beginning to suspect Zoiks is getting paid by Microsoft by the amount of effort (s)he is writing anti-Sony posts.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

and madgunde and yourself are getting paid by Sony?

i wish i could get paid for the time i waste on ehmac.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

madgunde, MannyP Design, The console wars seems to have been designed such that the users can fling mud in the faces of each other... The Point-Counterpoint game is fun for a while, then it gets tiredsome. (No, I'm not admitting defeat. I still think the 360 is a far superior product, and I will eat my hat if my mind changes. Call me a steadfast fan boy if you will.)

That being said, I don't think I'm going to continue arguing these points. However, I ask you guys to seriously look at the 360 before you buy a PS3. If I'm right, you'll just be the happier. And I will seriously look at the PS3... and if I'm wrong, It will be Too Late For Me! (cue violins) For I have already purchased by console... oh what shall I ever do?

MannyP Design, thanks for the compliment. I must have written very distinctly with well thought-out arguments and counter-arguments to garner such praise.
Nope, I'm just an average joe, and average Xbox 360 user... 

LOL

TroutMaskReplica... I got your message that you added me to your friends list. Thanks to XBOX's Live Anywhere, I was able to log on to the site with my Mac, and accept your friend request and send you a message that you can read and respond to either from your mac, a pc, your cell phone or heck, even your Xbox 360. I also sent a friend's request to Chealion via xbox.com. Thanks for the tip, I checked out his acheivements! Wow! He's done some crazy gaming. I wonder how he was able to do the "Zen and the Art Part 2" acheivement in Gear of War. I'm going to have to ask him.

Anyway, I'd love to do some online gaming with you, but it will have to wait for me. I'm studying right now, and exams are fast approaching. I gave the power brick of my Xbox 360 to my girlfriend to hold for me until exams are done. The ultimate addictiveness of my 360's game play was way too much, and I found it so damend distracting. I'm sure my marks will improve now... 

Ahhh, an example of how much FUN the xbox 360 really is... 

p.s. - magunde, you're counterpoints to that article: many of them were already addressed by a response I made to you in this thread previously.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> and madgunde and yourself are getting paid by Sony?
> 
> i wish i could get paid for the time i waste on ehmac.


All I offered was MY personal reason for wanting to go to Sony. I haven't spammed the board with articles.

And I post on my own personal time.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

manny, i wasn't insinuating anything.

i regret that i will never get to use the gears of war chainsaw bayonet (sp?) on you.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> manny, i wasn't insinuating anything.
> 
> i regret that i will never get to use the gears of war chainsaw bayonet (sp?) on you.


Never say never. I've owned multiple brands of consoles before. 

Like I also said in another thread, I'm also waiting until the bugs are ironed out--never buy 1st generation of any product if you're not willing to deal with headaches.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> i check our profiles, and i see all three of us have it. (it shows chealion has finished the game on two difficulty settings, i've gone about 2/3rds of the way through on casual, and you're just starting out with the game).


FWIW, if you beat the game on Hardcore you get the Casual achievements if you hadn't got them.

Personally I'm a fan on the 360, I've found the system a nice step up from the Xbox. The PS3 as a launch I'm really not impressed with - most of the advantages either aren't advantages or they won't be leveraged for a while now. (Eg. The 360 now a year later is a much better console than it was when it launched.) IMNSHO, Sony has botched the launch, pushing back the European launch, launching with fewer and fewer consoles (They launched with ~260,000 consoles for North America, while they had said 400,000 down from previous promises of 2 and 1 million).

I figured Sony would have waited to try and not repeat the mistakes that Microsoft made when they only launched with roughly 2 million consoles. I'm really looking forward to trying out the Wii.

That said, each to their own console.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I agree with the botched launch sentiment. It seems abundantly apparent that Sony should have launched the PS3 in the spring so they would have actually had some consoles to sell. I find as time has gone on it seems that the upper management at Sony feels they can do no wrong and they are unassailable in their position as market leader. I'm sure it's much the same way Nintendo worked when they were king of the heap after the SNES and faced increased competition with the N64. I think Sony will be in for a rude awakening, as the saying goes, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The part I find most galling about their launch is the fact that they claimed up until the last minute that the PS3 would come out in the spring, when in reality this was just a bald-faced lie. The only reason they jammed it out the door even this soon was to keep people from buying an Xbox360 this Christmas and amassing an even larger lead in the console wars.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

Just to fan the flames a bit again... this came from IGNS3, arguably one of the most PS3 Biased sites on the net:



IGN: PS3 said:


> But what does all that technical jargon mean for you, the every day consumer? Unless you're the type of person that sits around imagining hypothetical scenarios about how developers can squeeze every last bit of power from their favorite console, it doesn't mean much. Microsoft's Xbox 360 is totally comparable to the PS3 in terms of its specifications, and some developers swear that the 360 even has an edge in certain categories.



Link to IGN's Review of the PS3, not too good.

Still think PS3 is #1?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yup. The review offers nothing substantial.


----------



## madlingo (Jan 21, 2008)

Zoiks said:


> Xbox 360
> ...
> 13) Keep your hard earned money in North America...
> 
> <iframe src="http://gamercard.xbox.com/Zoiks.card" scrolling="no" frameBorder="0" height="140" width="204">Zoiks</iframe>


I do not think you can honestly say that anything electronic assembled in America is 100% american made come on. I know you are trying to come off as a smart consumer but I hate to break it to you the only thing 100% made in america is Texas Beef lol.


----------

