# Playstation 3 or XBox 360?



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I have enough Airmiles to pick up either an XBox 360 or a PlayStation 3.

I have seen it mentioned here that the XBox will work with the Mac to stream video and such to your tv. Does the PS3 do this as well.

I really like the BlueRay in the PS3 and would consider getting it just for movie but extra features would be nice. The kids have a PS2 and a GameCube but the teenager is pulling for the XBox.

Anyone here have any input on this one?


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

I think they are both good systems. I bought a PS3. I have always liked the controller better then the Xboxs. There are more games though for the XBox, though I dont really notice as I am not a huge gamer. The online gaming is free on the playstation, and the blueray is nice as well. I am more then satisfied with the PS3. Its very quiet and its not an eye sore to look at like the xbox 360.


----------



## insertclevername (Apr 8, 2003)

Xbox 360 by a longshot...

I just got mine yesterday after learning that it now plays divx/xvid with a new update from microsoft......
the best thing is that if you don't have a wireless network set up yet you can play files via USB off a memory key or ipod (set up as disk)

Never have to buy -RW discs again for my dvd divx player!!!

Yesterday I was upgrading the ram in my mac mini while playing the OWC upgrade video from my memory key on the xbox 360 =)


----------



## Critty (Dec 1, 2007)

Playstation 3, especially if you have an HD TV the graphics are amazing. We love the Blueray (rent movies from zip.ca) and my sister brought over a CD of her photos from Costa Rica and the PS3 did an amazing slide show. We are now selling our XBox on eBay, it is noisy, and not as intuiative as the PS3. I am more of a Wii girl myself ...

Christie


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I hear you on the Wii. No Wii on Airmiles though. Besides, the Wii is the least expensive and I would rather pay for the cheapest system and get the more expensive ones for free. From that perspective alone I suppose I should get the PS3. Even the teen son admits that the PS3 is just plain cool and light years ahead of the other systems.

PS3 - advanced tech (awesome graphics and BluRay)
XBox - a computer in a console with mostly mature games
Wii - really fun, interactive, group play

I think I will go PS3 and get a Wii later.


----------



## James3967 (Aug 30, 2004)

It really depends on what you will be using it for. Personally, I have both.

I buy and play all of my games on xbox 360 - the games seem to run smoother, the controller is better, and xbox live is amazing. If there will be any gaming online I have to recommend the Xbox.

I use my PS3 mainly as a blu ray player. If you are looking at getting into HD movies this may be the way to go. You could buy the add on for the 360 for HD DVD - but HD DVD vs. Blu Ray is a whole other topic of discussion altogether.

In the end it comes down to movies or gaming.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The Xbox has hardware issues (not just the console, but even the accessories) plus you can't beat having a BluRay player. I've had an Xbox for over a year now (got it free from Shoppers) and it's been spotty--although I haven't gotten the full-on red ring of doom (hardware failure) I did get a red error or two lately. I've had to replace a controller that died after the warranty ran out; the DVD remote also died; and I get a am seriously considering getting a PS3. I really hate having to pay in order to play online. This grossly offsets the price difference between the two platforms over time (which is irrelevant, to a degree I suppose, if you're getting it for free.)

As far as game selection goes: The Xbox does have more than the PS3, but it's nothing to brag about (Xbox had a year or so head-start). There are only a few games that are must-haves.

A quick trip to this: Xbox 360 technical problems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia might make you reconsider.


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

If you Google your question, you will get a flood of answers as well, and this debate is one that rivals Apple vs Microsoft.

I have both but prefer the 360, just because there's more games. If you like online gaming then the XBox live community on the 360 is extremely active and there's lots of demos and downloadable content to be had. I have the 360 connected wirelessly to a media server through TVersity (TVersity » Home) The PS3 hardware is pretty nice though, especially if your TV can support the Bluray, it's actually why I bought it, but there's still a real lack of great games for it.

Unlike wonderings, I actually prefer the look of the 360. The PS3 kinda looks like my toaster oven. It all comes down to personal aesthetics, I guess.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

insertclevername said:


> Xbox 360 by a longshot...
> 
> I just got mine yesterday after learning that it now plays divx/xvid with a new update from microsoft......
> the best thing is that if you don't have a wireless network set up yet you can play files via USB off a memory key or ipod (set up as disk)
> ...


Be aware, you need a fast flash drive to play video. Otherwise, the video will stop and stutter. Also, your Xbox 360 won't read the iPod if it's formatted for Mac.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

That is odd... I got my Wii in the fall from Airmiles.

Have to say the Wii is a lot of fun.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*Xbox 360*



Macified said:


> I have enough Airmiles to pick up either an XBox 360 or a PlayStation 3.
> 
> I have seen it mentioned here that the XBox will work with the Mac to stream video and such to your tv. Does the PS3 do this as well.
> 
> ...


I have XBox 360 and I just love it online. My friend has all three consoles and prefers XBox for online. WII I find just so wimpy but PS3 does have it bonuses but you are paying a lot more. There have been hardware problems with all three units so don't assume one is worst than the other.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

in my opinion, the games are more fun on the 360, at least the ones that aren't cross platform.

LIVE is worth the $5 a month, especially if you have friends in real life that you want to play with online. it's really easy to join their games or invite them to yours.

the ability to stream video from the mac is a huge plus. why bother with an apple tv?

manny is right to point out the hardware issues. they are real - i have a friend who is on his 5th one. the 360 has some serious design flaws and frankly, i'm really disheartened microsoft hasn't come out with a revision to the hardware to address the reliability issues.

if you can put up with the risk of hardware failure then the 360 is the clear winner. just based on my own observations, i would estimate that 1 out of every 4 xbox 360 consoles will have the red ring of death within the first year. microsoft seems to have a never ending warranty though, so you can get a replacement as often as needed.


----------



## Suge (Oct 29, 2007)

The PS3 is rumored to be getting a firmware upgrade that will enable you to play divx and wmv files very soon (possibly today?). But by choosing PS3 you will be choosing sides in the format war (ahhh !!!!)

Also keep in mind that the 40Gb price dropped version might not be compatible with ps2 games (i don't think it is). 

i got an xbox b/c it's online play is really unmatched right now. altho in terms of games i would have probably gone with the ps3 but they really dropped the ball when it launched.

xbox's hardware failures i think are mostly attributed to overheating and plugging in 3rd party hardware accessories like fans and stuff directly to its power supply (ironic!). I think if you keep it cool it'll be fine. Plus it has a 3yr warranty from MS for complete hardware failures. I am not sure what sony's is. 

Most companies are getting out of distributing games exclusively for one console or the other so that is less of a factor. But even if you don't consider yourself a gamer you should check the catalog of games as there is a huge push right now for games for the non-gamer  

Hmm what else
the xbox is kind of noisy. and is also notorious for scratching discs when you stand the console up.

but if you are looking at it as a media player first Sony is really pushing it as one where as the xbox is primarily for gaming so maybe you should go with PS3. If you get something your kids really want you might not get on it at all lol


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*At my end..*



TroutMaskReplica said:


> in my opinion, the games are more fun on the 360, at least the ones that aren't cross platform.
> 
> LIVE is worth the $5 a month, especially if you have friends in real life that you want to play with online. it's really easy to join their games or invite them to yours.
> 
> ...


I know one guy at work who had his Playstation 3 replaced. Not one of my several XBox 360 friends had problems. I do keep my receipts I tell you that.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

To be honest, I don't think you can go wrong. Either way you will most likely be happy.

Personally, I have always been a big Xbox fan, so I was leaning toward the 360 for the longest time. With the recent price drop on the PS3's, I decided to pick one up and give it a shot. I've always had something against Sony, which I can't really explain. I was a big Nintendo fan growing up, so my hatred for the Sega moved to Sony once they released the PSone. However, I have to give Sony credit for the PS3. It's a marvel.

I think in the long run the PS3 brings more value (with the Blu-Ray player) but both systems bring equal quality.


----------



## krug1313 (Apr 27, 2007)

360 all the way. But there are new 360's coming out in 2008 that will include a hd player built in if you are willing to wait. Or obviously if you must have blueray the ps3 is one of the cheapest ways of getting this.


----------



## James3967 (Aug 30, 2004)

krug1313 said:


> 360 all the way. But there are new 360's coming out in 2008 that will include a hd player built in if you are willing to wait. Or obviously if you must have blueray the ps3 is one of the cheapest ways of getting this.


An Xbox with HD DVD built in is only a rumor at this point. Correct me if I am wrong (link?)

You could wait to get one, then you can pick up your iPhone at the Rogers store at the same time...


----------



## krug1313 (Apr 27, 2007)

It says rumor but if the head honcho of Toshiba is confirming I think it's more than a rumor.

G4 - The Feed - Rumor: HD-DVD Xbox


----------



## insertclevername (Apr 8, 2003)

hhk said:


> Be aware, you need a fast flash drive to play video. Otherwise, the video will stop and stutter. Also, your Xbox 360 won't read the iPod if it's formatted for Mac.


Not true...I have a macintosh formatted iPod and it shows up fine on my xbox 360.....
Any USB 2.0 USB key will work too...


----------



## Eidetic (Oct 6, 2003)

both are good, i now have a ps3, my 360 blew up, i had to go through the whole MS warranty BS.

i think the 360 currently has better media center functionality, you can plug in a mac formatted iPod for example and it also plays multi region movies.
the PS3 however has a built in web browser which is handy while on the couch.

Sony have to update the PS3 quickly for better media center capability, I am currently experimenting with getting music to stream to my ps3 using this app called twonky media (not much luck as of yet)

games wise, i think the ps3 will have better exclusives, 
ratchet and clank on ps3 is amazing, as will gran turismo 5, the user interface of the ps3 is much cleaner, where i find the 360's gui looks like it was designed for kindergarten kids.

i don't miss my 360, i just wish sony would come out with a major media center update to the OS!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I can't offer a comparative analysis, as I only have the 360, haven't played with the PS3, and the Wii? Have been trying to set one up for a friend who has no computer but does want to be online with it (it ain't DSL-friendly). Wii has a very, very user-friendly interface for novices, though.

XBOX 360 experience: have had it for a year, sent back twice for the "red rings of death". Very good service (quick pickup and return). Note that they replace your console with another refurbished unit (which helps in turnaround). Warranty extended to three years for RRoD.

Games? Halo 3. What else would you want a console for? 

M


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

Eidetic said:


> games wise, i think the ps3 will have better exclusives,
> ratchet and clank on ps3 is amazing, as will gran turismo 5, the user interface of the ps3 is much cleaner, where i find the 360's gui looks like it was designed for kindergarten kids.


That's a pretty heavy maybe though. I remember hearing this when I bought my PS3 a year and a half ago but where are those great exclusives? Ratchet and Clank is good but it's not a title that warrants buying the system in the same way Halo was. Did you play Lair? Not exactly a showstopper. I am looking forward to Metal Gear though. 

The only reason these consoles are even close is because of the recent Sony price drop. If it were still at the $500 mark this would be an easy decision. If I were making a buying decision today I would go 360 if you're buying it for games/media server and PS3 if you want a Blueray player and the games are secondary. It's weird to be saying this though as these are gaming consoles first and foremost, are they not?


----------



## ron_g (Jan 5, 2003)

*XBox*

I just went through this same process and settled on a 360. Many of my friends have 360's. Yes, some have had problems but Microsoft quielty released a new batch in the past few months that uses the newer Falcon chip and runs cooler and quieter. I made sure to get this latest model, they start with Lot Code 0739 and up. Mine is lot 0740. Got Xbox Live Gold for $48...at $4.08/mn its well worth it. 

Go Xbox!


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*When I switched from original XBox to XBox 360..*



ron_g said:


> I just went through this same process and settled on a 360. Many of my friends have 360's. Yes, some have had problems but Microsoft quielty released a new batch in the past few months that uses the newer Falcon chip and runs cooler and quieter. I made sure to get this latest model, they start with Lot Code 0739 and up. Mine is lot 0740. Got Xbox Live Gold for $48...at $4.08/mn its well worth it.
> 
> Go Xbox!


...and updated to XBox Live 360, XBox mailed me a Live card free for a whole year. Anyone get that?


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

insertclevername said:


> Not true...I have a macintosh formatted iPod and it shows up fine on my xbox 360.....
> Any USB 2.0 USB key will work too...


I have an HFS+ formatted iPod and my Xbox360 won't read it. So something else is going on I guess.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

1) If you are a gamer: the 360 takes the notch and it's really not a contest. Way more games and yes, they have some pretty good exclusive titles like Halo. If you are a gamer that can't do without Halo, Bioshock etc.. then 360 would be the logical choice. Within the next couple quarters however, the gap will be closer as there are some nice exclusive titles coming out for PS3 that have been taking forever to be released (MGS etc). Plus, major releases like Call of Duty 4 (which is by far my favorite game even after being a Halo fanatic for years) is available on both platforms. Xbox Live is much more robust but subscription based. PS3 Network is free and you don't have to hand over your credit card to anyone. 

2) Quality of hardware: the PS3 by far. Although MS will swap your unit easily, I'd rather not deal with the BS to be honest. My original release 360 actually had no problems for a couple years before I sold it and got out of gaming but I had issues with how loud the DVD drive was and how hot it ran (although I hear some of those things have been addressed with newer consoles). Another really annoying thing about the Xbox is it's ginormous power supply! I hate it! It's almost as big as the console. Some complain that the PS3 is bigger, not by a long shot if you consider the 360 brick. PS3 has no external PS, just a cord. The Elite looks nicer in black, but Sony has always had an edge in hardware design and aesthetics. All the way down to the touch sensitive buttons.

3) Overall Out of the Box Value: since the price drop, the PS3 is much better value in my eyes. For one, it includes the Blu-Ray player, built in WiFi (which is a huge feature to me), can be used as a media streamer for music (as long as you use EyeConnect), can browse the internet as it has a built in browser, software is much cleaner and more attractive for the living room/media centre savvy like me (Xbox interface is arcade like/childish to me). If you added the HD-DVD and WiFi accessory to the Elite, it would be about $200 more expensive. Yes, the Xbox may have a bigger HardDrive, but the PS3 harddrive is self upgradeable with any aftermarket drive whereas 360 is not. I don't download enough content to even come close to filling up my 60GB drive anyways. Don't forget, BluRay gives you 5 free DVD's as well when you buy a PS3 (mail in). 

So after selling my 360 a year ago, I got a PS3 after the price drops. No brainer to me. Call Of Duty 4 fulfills my small gaming needs. The Blu-Ray player (reason why I got it) is amazing on my 42inch 1080p panel (even regular DVD's look better for some reason). But again, all this means nothing if you are a hardcore gamer because if I were - I'd probably have the 360 right now. 

As well, if I were a PC user, I may opt for the 360 as well. The Media Centre integration with Vista is unbeatable. You can use your 360 as a PVR basically.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

johnnyspade said:


> That's a pretty heavy maybe though. I remember hearing this when I bought my PS3 a year and a half ago but where are those great exclusives? Ratchet and Clank is good but it's not a title that warrants buying the system in the same way Halo was. Did you play Lair? Not exactly a showstopper. I am looking forward to Metal Gear though.
> 
> The only reason these consoles are even close is because of the recent Sony price drop. If it were still at the $500 mark this would be an easy decision. If I were making a buying decision today I would go 360 if you're buying it for games/media server and PS3 if you want a Blueray player and the games are secondary. It's weird to be saying this though as these are gaming consoles first and foremost, are they not?


Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted just to name a few off the top of my head. Not to mention some pretty slick download-able games. PS3 had a rough start, but it's picking up steam in a big way. Home should be launching soon, which will be an interesting thing to see.

I can't think of any console (and I've owned many) that didn't have a slow first year. It's a bit of a harsh point of view for the PS3, pigeonholing it as a Blueray player. The games released since September have been very decent, and pretty diverse.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

First vote would be to forget the airmiles and get the Wii (or recheck to make sure you can't get the Wii with airmiles).

Second vote would be for the PS3. Fewer games, but better games (less mindlessly violent, which I know some people prefer but I'm a bit nervous of those people). Don't know about Mac compatibility, but the built-in blu-ray saves you around $500 right off the top. If you have an HDTV, PS3 is currently the way to go (behind Wii).

Finally, there's the XBox. Mindlessly violent, lots of hidden costs, noise and prone to crashing -- gosh can you tell MS designed this thing?? Sure, there are some awesome experiences you can have on XBox, let's give credit where credit is due -- but for many the minuses eventually outweigh the pluses (though I have to admit that the new DivX/XviD ability is a new plus).


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> ...(though I have to admit that the new DivX/XviD ability is a new plus).


DivX (And WMV) were both added in the 2.10 update for PS3.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

As much as I like the Wii for it's fun factor, thats all it is. The reason it is so cheap is because it's ONLY a gaming console and based on old technology. It's a gamecube in newer packaging and interactive joysticks. Not knocking it, but there is a reason why it's cheap. Would never spend my airmiles on a Wii. Because I'm an adult, multi-use consoles are more attractive. I would only get a Wii in addition to and because I'd want to entertain guests.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'll second that comment on good looking upscaled DVDs from the PS3.
Quite remarkable.


----------



## Suge (Oct 29, 2007)

i posted earlier but it's not being approved  all i can add now is
-If you get ps3 you're choosing sides in the format war (noo!!) 
-i'm not sure if the newer, price dropped 40gb PS3 is backwards compatible at all with ps1-2 games.
- I think the xbox hardware failures are due to overheating and/or adding those fans that plug into the powersupply (which is ironic). i think if kept cool the unit is fine.

but if you're looking for game system+media player then it sounds like the ps3 is for you. also if you get what your kids want you might not get to use it at all


----------



## rnolson (Oct 11, 2007)

Suge said:


> -If you get ps3 you're choosing sides in the format war (noo!!)
> -i'm not sure if the newer, price dropped 40gb PS3 is backwards compatible at all with ps1-2 games.
> - I think the xbox hardware failures are due to overheating and/or adding those fans that plug into the powersupply (which is ironic). i think if kept cool the unit is fine.


Yes, believe it or not, HD-DVD is a superior format to BluRay despite what you may interpret from current title selection. Do some research on this before you consider committing to an integrated HiDef video format that may not survive the format war - who still owns a Beta player? It would be faster and easier if you Google it yourself rather than me writing out the specs here.

Myth: PS3 graphics are better than XBox 360.....Not true. The 360 graphics components are in fact mildly superior, but in reality, to the naked eye the comparison is pretty much moot. It often comes down to the game developers effective use of the graphic engines in each. The problem with the PS3 is that Sony built a hybrid console to feature both gaming and new format video (BluRay - which is a proprietary format owned by Sony). Yes BluRay has a storage capacity of up to 50Gb, but the two main misconceptions people have is 1. Neither a BluRay or HD-DVD drive has any impact on the graphics...this is produced by the graphics processor in the console's hardware. 2. There is not a game in existence that exceeds the DVD-9 storage limit anyway. I'd rather have an inexpensive HD format OPTION rather than an integrated proprietary format that has yet to be decided. If BluRay does happen to win this format war, then the 360 can just release a BluRay add-on. It's nice to have a choice.

The dreaded "Red Ring Of Death" as they call it. The fact is that 90% of the issues are the result of poor placement. All next gen consoles are powerful computers when you break them down....computers naturally generate heat. When you cram your 360 into your entertainment unit and bury the power supply, you're essentially overheating the hardware....this is typically what happens. It is indeed true that Microsoft made some hardware design oversights, but have since made drastic corrections to the mainboard and chipset to rectify this - and also increased the warranty to 3 years (retroactively for owners as well). Customer service is generally a breeze, and whenever there has been a hassel, I generally hear that it is because someone lost their receipt, or didn't register their console....more or less user error yet again.

I own both consoles and prefer the 360. The PS3 is neat, and does excel in certain aspects, but to me the PS3 only wins in specific cosmetic areas, whereas the 360 wins in functionality. Free or not, Sony cannot hold a candle to what XBLive has to offer. I willingly pay my annual fee just to have the full XBL Gold Package that gives me my money's worth and more.

The game selection on the 360 is currently better than the PS3, but this will undoubtedly change....specifically because Sony pushes quantity over quality as a standard, and Microsoft has always maintained a higher game quality standard in general. Plus you can't beat Live Arcade, especially if you have kids.

Backwards compatibility? This is correct - the new price dropped PS3 does not include any BC capabilities....this is one way they were able to decrease the pricetag. All 360 consoles include BC capabilities with a BC list growing constantly.

Just a few pieces of insight that may help you make an educated decision. Neither are bad consoles, you just need to get all the facts so you can decide which one is best for your own situation.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

rnolson said:


> Yes, believe it or not, HD-DVD is a superior format to BluRay despite what you may interpret from current title selection. Do some research on this before you consider committing to an integrated HiDef video format that may not survive the format war - who still owns a Beta player? It would be faster and easier if you Google it yourself rather than me writing out the specs here.


Sorry, but from what I've read neither really offers anything significant over the other, aside from storage space (both current and theoretical limit.) Other than that, the quality of image between the two is so minute that it is not enough to sway anybody on that alone. Specs won't decide which format will win--they're so similar that it doesn't matter when all is said and done. It'll be a combination of price and content that will sway the consumer.

In the meantime, companies like LG who release hybrid players will be laughing all the way to the bank, methinks.

By the way, we happen to have an old Beta player and yes, it still works.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> Yes, believe it or not, HD-DVD is a superior format to BluRay


Not to start a format war, but according to who? Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.

There is no noticeable quality difference between the two. One has a a better compression algorithm (HDDVD) while the other has a higher bitrate (Bluray). In the end, there's really no difference (and I would argue that a higher bitrate extends the possibilities that the quality may get better down the line as the compression software matures). Plus, Bluray has a larger capacity, so it's better suited for data backups and other high-capacity uses.

As for the consoles... one "taboo" subject that hasn't been mentioned is modding. Not that I'm advocating piracy, but being able to mod a console means access to some awesome JAP games, and homebrew applications. The 360 can be easily and cheaply modded, and the PS3 cannot (as of yet). 

Personally, I own a Wii because I'm not into all the "razzle dazzle look at what I can do" graphics of the new consoles. 90% of the games these days feel like technical demos. I like my games to be FUN.

A7


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Do they have Bioshock and Crackdown on the PS3... these two games are just so enthralling that I can't understand why I didn't buy an Xbox 360 before. But I haven't used any other console than an Xbox 360 - I used to be a Mac gamer only.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Kosh said:


> Do they have Bioshock and Crackdown on the PS3... these two games are just so enthralling that I can't understand why I didn't buy an Xbox 360 before. But I haven't used any other console than an Xbox 360 - I used to be a Mac gamer only.


As far as I know, Bioshock will be coming to the PS3 early next year. Crackdown... well, it's up to Microsoft, but I would say no.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

If you REALLY can't decide get one on Airmiles and buy the other one (cheaper of the two). You can always sell one. It almost sounds to me like you have enough kids (including yourself) to keep both busy anyways  , and money isn't an issue.


----------



## fleecy (Feb 1, 2001)

Don't buy the console from Air Miles! 

It's more expensive to buy it direct from them than to buy HBC gift cards using Air Miles and buy the console locally using those, at Zellers for example. 

You'll have access to all versions of the consoles (even the Wii) as a bonus!


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

fleecy said:


> Don't buy the console from Air Miles!
> 
> It's more expensive to buy it direct from them than to buy HBC gift cards using Air Miles and buy the console locally using those, at Zellers for example.
> 
> You'll have access to all versions of the consoles (even the Wii) as a bonus!


Now there's an answer that makes sense.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

My brother helps to design games for the X-Box and he says that it's unreliable. He's got a whole bunch for you for FREE if you want.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

iLabmAn said:


> My brother helps to design games for the X-Box and he says that it's unreliable. He's got a whole bunch for you for FREE if you want.




Hey, if I go that route I'll take you up on that.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

rnolson said:


> 2. There is not a game in existence that exceeds the DVD-9 storage limit anyway. I'd rather have an inexpensive HD format OPTION rather than an integrated proprietary format that has yet to be decided. If BluRay does happen to win this format war, then the 360 can just release a BluRay add-on. It's nice to have a choice.


1. Blu-Ray isn't a 'Sony' format, it was developed by a consortium of tech companies including Philips, Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung and Pioneer. HD-DVD is a proprietary format as well, just so we're clear. (P.S. Apple sits on the Blu-Ray Board of Directors.)

2. Yet is the operative word. Once upon a time people thought it would be hard to fill a 40MB drive. Developers ALWAYS find a way to fill as much space as they can, given time. Assuming things will remain as they are is short sighted.

3. Sony could just as easily release an HD-DVD USB drive, should Blu-Ray fail <i>as a video format</i>. And then you have both, one integrated format and on OPTION.



rnolson said:


> I own both consoles and prefer the 360. The PS3 is neat, and does excel in certain aspects, but to me the PS3 only wins in specific cosmetic areas, whereas the 360 wins in functionality. Free or not, Sony cannot hold a candle to what XBLive has to offer. I willingly pay my annual fee just to have the full XBL Gold Package that gives me my money's worth and more.
> 
> The game selection on the 360 is currently better than the PS3, but this will undoubtedly change....specifically because Sony pushes quantity over quality as a standard, and Microsoft has always maintained a higher game quality standard in general. Plus you can't beat Live Arcade, especially if you have kids.
> 
> Backwards compatibility? This is correct - the new price dropped PS3 does not include any BC capabilities....this is one way they were able to decrease the pricetag. All 360 consoles include BC capabilities with a BC list growing constantly.


We'll get the facts straight first  The new price dropped PS3s are most certainly backwards compatible. In order to drop the price, they removed the Emotion Engine (hardware emulation by having actual PS2 hardware integrated). It does software emulation of PS2 and PS1 titles (just like the 360 does). The BC list grows constantly as well.

Sure Xbox Live is far, far better than PSN, at the moment. Keep in mind, Microsoft has been working on this for a good 6 or 7 years, this is Sony's first run, first year even. Look up 'Home' to see what's coming in the near furture for the PS3...

I completely disagree with your comment about Microsoft and quality in general... Sony first party titles have for the most part been rock solid throughout their history in the industry. You can't beat up on Sony for shabby third party titles any more than you can Microsoft, or Nintendo for that matter.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I found this decision chart:


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Rofl


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

Own a ps2? Ps3 is natrual evolution man. I have 1-3. I like em all. Not so many games for ps3, but its only been out for a year and has few games that make it worth it (folklore, warhawk, etc).

PS3 man. Worse comes to worse, you can easily linux it and make it and 8core linux workstation, kindof like a Mac Pro except better graphics.


----------



## macman_canada (May 10, 2005)

*I love my PS3*

Hey there, my 2 cents... I sold my xbox and went with the PS3! It totally rocks... the games are great (yes there is more 360 games), but the PS3 is really coming on strong and some completely amazing games! The Blue-ray is amazing, well worth it!!!! That is one of the main reasons I switched to the PS3, so it was all in one. Just so you know though, unless you can find one of the 60gig versions.. the new 40 gig and 80gig, they don;t tell you you can;t play PS2 games on it anymore. That was a nice feature of the 60... Rumor has it they may bring it back though software emulating... but just so you know up front!

PS3 absolutely rocks!!

macman_canada


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

macman_canada said:


> Hey there, my 2 cents... I sold my xbox and went with the PS3! It totally rocks... the games are great (yes there is more 360 games), but the PS3 is really coming on strong and some completely amazing games! The Blue-ray is amazing, well worth it!!!! That is one of the main reasons I switched to the PS3, so it was all in one. Just so you know though, unless you can find one of the 60gig versions.. the new 40 gig and 80gig, they don;t tell you you can;t play PS2 games on it anymore. That was a nice feature of the 60... Rumor has it they may bring it back though software emulating... but just so you know up front!
> 
> PS3 absolutely rocks!!
> 
> macman_canada


The 80gig does have the software emulation, but the 40 gig will never have it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The 40 Gb PS3 has very limited backward compatibility but the 20, 60 and 80 Gb versions play a lot of PS2 games. There's a look up page for compatibility here: PlayStation.com

HD-DVD is effectively on life-support. BluRay won (not through technical advantages but rather brute force and studio inducements). Microsoft doesn't care as its betting on the longer term which is downloads.

Both Xbox360 and PS3 are awesome gaming platforms. Can't really go wrong with either unless you have an inherent bias for or against Microsoft or Sony. Wii is pretty darn good too. In fact, I can only survive for more than 30 secs in COD4 on the PS3 if my son controls 90% of the buttons....


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

No. The 40 gig has 0 ps2 support. I own the 40 gig, if you put in a ps2 disk it says "This PS3 model does not support ps2 games.".

The 20 and 60 have full hardware support, and the 80 has limited software support, just like the European ps3's.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

From the above linked website:


> * 40GB PlayStation®3 System:
> This model of the PLAYSTATION®3 system is designed to play PLAYSTATION®3 format software and has limited backward compatibility. This system is not compatible with and will not play PlayStation®2 format software. Some PlayStation® format software may play on this system.


...So that sucks. You have to shell-out an extra $100 to run your PS2 games... and that's quite the library... oh well.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Suite Edit said:


> From the above linked website:
> 
> 
> ...So that sucks. You have to shell-out an extra $100 to run your PS2 games... and that's quite the library... oh well.


That $100 also gets you twice as many USB ports, media card support and twice as large of a hard drive. 

For myself, the 40Gig was fine. I had no PS2 library. If I want, I can expand the hard drive in the future. 

BTW, if you want a 40Gig, Dell may have the best deal going. It was better a couple weeks ago, but is still decent. For $400 you get the PS3 with Spiderman bundle, the Ratchet and Clank game and a HDMI cable. It was $370 when I bought it.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

I have a large ps1 and ps2 collection. But, I also have a ps1 and ps2. I bought the 40 gig for 350, it was the spiderman bundle and came with a free game (also spider man ). I bought that plus component cables and a second game for aroun 420 I think it was. I thought it to be a fantastic buy.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Suite Edit said:


> ...So that sucks. You have to shell-out an extra $100 to run your PS2 games... and that's quite the library... oh well.


Your missing the point entirely. It's a $100 cheaper to get a next gen gaming console and a blu-ray player. I bought the 60GB after the price drop that has full HW backwards compatibility and I have not played a single PS2 game yet. Surprisingly, many don't care for PS2 titles. I wanted the 40GB but it wasn't in stock yet. Sony more than realizes this and like any company, will look for ways to cut unnecessary manufacturing expenses if there is a market that doesn't require it as they have been loosing up to $200 per console up to this point because of subsidizing.


----------



## zmttoxics (Oct 16, 2007)

I did a quick check on my ps3 40 gig. It certainly still does not play any games, it refuses to load them.

However, I didn't know this up until a post in this thread and I thought I would try it, but ps1 games work!

How freakin bizarre is that?! It even supports sprite smoothing so the games look better! Awesome!


----------



## insertclevername (Apr 8, 2003)

polywog said:


> DivX (And WMV) were both added in the 2.10 update for PS3.


****..
I was choosing between a PS3 and Xbox 360 last month leaning towards the PS3 since Ive had two EXTREMELY loud 360s in the past....but the 360 got divx playback first so i went with it.

plus even though the 360 is better than the xbox ones ....still i love the dualshock

....and even though my new 360 is way quieter than my old ones were it seems to have gotten quite a bit louder than it was when I bought it a month ago.


----------



## dusanv (Oct 21, 2005)

Nobody seems to be bothered by the Sony rootkit fiasco. I wouldn't touch anything Sony with a 10' pole. I just don't trust them.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

dusanv said:


> Nobody seems to be bothered by the Sony rootkit fiasco. I wouldn't touch anything Sony with a 10' pole. I just don't trust them.


Don't you mean Sony BMG?


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

MACinist said:


> Your missing the point entirely. It's a $100 cheaper to get a next gen gaming console and a blu-ray player. I bought the 60GB after the price drop that has full HW backwards compatibility and I have not played a single PS2 game yet. Surprisingly, many don't care for PS2 titles. I wanted the 40GB but it wasn't in stock yet. Sony more than realizes this and like any company, will look for ways to cut unnecessary manufacturing expenses if there is a market that doesn't require it as they have been loosing up to $200 per console up to this point because of subsidizing.


No, I didn't miss the point. PS2 set a standard for modern consoles by being fully backwards compatible with the PS1... one of the smartest things they could have done, learning a lesson from Sega in the mid-90s.

Do you remember the sense of betrayal Sega fostered in consumers and developers when they brought out the half-hearted 32x right before dumping it for the Saturn platform (which, in turn, was killed-off after only 2 years for the Dreamcast)? Not to mention the confusion caused by having 4 development platforms at once: Genisis, Sega CD, 32x and the combo SegaCD-32x...

Now, this situation isn't nearly THAT bad, but when backwards compatibility is a selling point of the new consoles (even Nintendo has caught on!), it seems odd to leave one of your units out of the loop... even MORE so now that Sony has reduced costs by using software emulation instead.

Is the $100 worth it for the other features? Absolutely. But the point I was making wasn't that "it's a $100 cheaper to get a next gen gaming console and a blu-ray player"... the hardware will continue to get cheaper over time. My point is that even at $400, it would have been great of Sony to enable the *software* to emulate PS2 titles.

I mean, who wants to buy some variant of the Street Fighter series again for _another_ platform?


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Relax, I'm not knocking backwards compatibility or how important it is to some. It is definitely not as important these days as it was back then and your "betrayal" analogy of Sega is irrelevant. The 360, it is not backwards compatible and no one gives a hoot. So it's not like Sony fanboys will be jumping ship to another platform that doesn't have backwards compatibility either. Those that truly want PS2 backwards compatibility would of bought an earlier console or opt for the 80GB. Sony has for the first time since PS3's release, did their market research and made a cost effective marketing decision by releasing a cheap option. I would of bought a 40GB in a sec if it had stock at time of release and price drop.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Relax, I'm not knocking backwards compatibility or how important it is to some. It is definitely not as important these days as it was back then and your "betrayal" analogy of Sega is irrelevant. The 360, it is not backwards compatible and no one gives a hoot.


It's not?


----------



## ron_g (Jan 5, 2003)

*360*

I just purchased a XBOX 360 (new model with falcon chip). It runs fairly quiet and is a blast to play. I chose it over the PS3 mainly because of title selection and many of my friends / colleagues are on Live. No complaints.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

MACinist, I'm afraid that the betrayal analogy isn't irrelevant - Unless you buy the top-of-the-line PS3, Sony is now breaking the backwards compatibility trend a bit. As I already said, Sega was in a much worse position (and PS2 owners have gotten far more value than Saturn folks ), so it's not a repeat situation. I didn't say it was.

Everyone in the industry obviously learned lessons from that generation (including the need for model line-up simplicity). Sony is just straying a little from a couple of those principles, and I was trying to provide a little more historical context to avoid being told that I "entirely missed the point."

Sure, compatability is one piece of the larger puzzle when choosing a system... but I wouldn't say it was more important in the 90s. If anything, the reverse is true: a generation has grown up on games... they will want to re-live great oldies. The systems that can draw on the best (and biggest) library will sell better to this growing demographic. I was even just playing an old side-scrolling Ninja Turtles game on my friend's 360 last week... pretty cool (to me)

I'm not saying it's the end of the world, of Sony or even of the PS3, but it is a little odd to me that there's already 3 variations of backwards compatibility on the Playsation platform.

I agree that Sony needed a "cheap" option. I'm now thinking about buying one because it's almost within reach. It was a very smart idea on their part, no argument. But what doesn't make sense to me is that, even on the 80GB model, the emulation is now done in the software - so why not just enable it on the 40GB one?

The only reason I can see is to up-sell consumers to the high end model...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

polywog said:


> It's not?


Total oversight on my part. Had the launch console a couple years ago and at that time there were very few titles from original compatible. I guess they have been working on updates since then to the software. I see that since launch, backwards compatibility has increased to 465 titles... 

SuiteEdit, I agree with your software emulation point, however, aside from a marketing gimmick, there must be development/software load costs associated with production. In any case, if you get a chance, read this interview: SCEA breaks the silence // GamesIndustry.biz


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Suite Edit said:


> I agree that Sony needed a "cheap" option. I'm now thinking about buying one because it's almost within reach. It was a very smart idea on their part, no argument. But what doesn't make sense to me is that, even on the 80GB model, the emulation is now done in the software - so why not just enable it on the 40GB one?
> 
> The only reason I can see is to up-sell consumers to the high end model...


It's because there's hardware missing in the 40 gig model. The originals had 2 extra chips which were the old PS2 video and GPU. The 80 Gig took away one chip and emulated the other. The 40 gig took away both and there's no emulation.


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

I've had my 360 replaced 3X now under the Electronics Boutique warranty, and now since I have the 3rd one with all the apparent hardware issues fixed in the latest release by Microsoft (apparently September 2007 was the last), it works great. 

I play mostly sports games, but also racing and some role-playing...but overall having been a Playstation guy for the past 5 years or so previous, after all the hardware replacements, the 360 is definitely worth it for the games over the PS3 imo!


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

mpuk said:


> I've had my 360 replaced 3X now under the Electronics Boutique warranty, and now since I have the 3rd one with all the apparent hardware issues fixed in the latest release by Microsoft (apparently September 2007 was the last), it works great.
> 
> I play mostly sports games, but also racing and some role-playing...but overall having been a Playstation guy for the past 5 years or so previous, after all the hardware replacements, the 360 is definitely worth it for the games over the PS3 imo!


I don't understand how anyone can start with saying they've had a system replaced 3 times and end saying it's worth it... I've had my 360 replaced 6 times now and my PS3 has never crashed. PS3 is the better system hands down.


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

It's kind of like getting an iPhone, and having the unlucky experience of a few lemons the first time its released. If you want it enough, you wont give up on your iPhone, that's all. 

I was in fact very skeptical in buying an MS product for video games given Windows track record and coming from PS1/ PS2 which I never had issues with. So to explain further, sure the 360 is a finicky system; with my first 360 I had a CD tray that just wouldn't close the day I got it, and then a year later a fan issue that gave me the "ring of death". So now im on my 3rd, and no problems since (fingers crossed..!) 

Hardware issues aside, i've played both and actually liked the 360 better....there are WAY more games developed (and being developed) for 360, and there is a much larger fanbase. I don't think having built in Bluray for instance makes it "hands down" better...the games are the most important thing in the end. What's a fancy machine without any games or anyone to play or trade em with?


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> I found this decision chart:


BY FAR the stupidest photo I've ever seen!

I've got PS3. Internet Browser, Blu-Ray/DVD, online internet community (ie friends), 6 Axis controllers(soon to be rumble pack built-in),4 usb ports, upgradable Hard drive, graphics are amazing on Widescreen 40inch Sony Bravia TV... people should be let to think for themselves! I have a buddy who has XBox 360, he loves it, I love my PS3.... go out n try both systems.... FULLY try them... meaning all the features they have. Do your homework... dont rely on some dumb **** diagram!


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

Well put 7gabriel5elpher... everyone has a different opinion...!


----------



## cyberphox (Jul 11, 2007)

i think the graphic was meant to be a joke..but hey maybe my sense of humuor is just warped


----------

