Xbox 360 vs. PS3.

[TheEschaton]

I'm thinking of picking up a new console this Christmas, haven't had one since college. What're your opinions on these two?

My preferences, gaming wise, are single player WTF-fests. Assassin's Creed or MGS would be a good example.

[Fallen]

Most good games are cross-console. I would say PS3 for Blu-ray playing. X-box 360 is a better gaming system IMO, but if you're only going to get one, might as well get something with a bit more utility. I can say this with a clear conscious as PS3 either has now, or will have streaming netflix, eliminating the edge Xbox had in that department.

[Jarvan]

I would have to agree with Fallen. Allot of good games are cross-console now. Xbox is the better pure gaming system, while PS3 has the edge in utility.

If you have a blue-ray player already though, makes PS3 less useful. I'd prob take some time looking at the games out there and upcoming releases then decide.

[Keller]

I have a 360 and love it.

Most of my friends either have a 360. My friends that have a PS3, bought a 360 after they realized that the online community was far superior on the 360.

If you like watching DVDs and/or own a lot of blue-ray, maybe pick up a PS3. If you just want to play games, then the 360 is the only choice to make.

[BigWorm]

Most good games are cross-console. I would say PS3 for Blu-ray playing. X-box 360 is a better gaming system IMO, but if you're only going to get one, might as well get something with a bit more utility. I can say this with a clear conscious as PS3 either has now, or will have streaming netflix, eliminating the edge Xbox had in that department.

What in your opinion makes the Xbox 360 a better gaming system?

Also, Netflix streaming for the PS3 is already out, the difference is that the PS3 version requires a (free) disk while the Xbox version does not. Apparently this is some licensing issue and not a technical issue. :shrug:

[kookiegod]

Xbox is also getting facebook, twitter, and last.fm in a couple days on a software upgrade.

Both systems have exclusives, but the cross-content stuff is usually enough unless you got a like for a specific title (Halo for example).

I've had an xbox since the original debuted, been on LIVE since then, and moved to the 360 as soon as I could. Still got my old box too for a few games I didn't want to give up.

~Paul

[Fallen]

X-box has a better achievement system. The games seem to run much more smoothly. The system requires far less updates, and loads faster. I once waiting Effing 45 minutes to play Devil May Cry. Ridiculous. I have some problems with playing games at 1080P on my PS3, due to complications between the system and my equipment. This is a fairly common problem.

Granted, PS3 has made some excellent progress in a few departments. For a while, Xbox was killing it in terms of game selection. Now it seems to be evening up, though there are still a few Xbox exclusive titles which stand out. Online capability, though PS3 is easier to work with (out of the box wireless versus paying 100 bucks for Xbox360 adapter), X-box live was far superior to what PS3 was offering, ableit as a pay service. I believe the Playstation Network is coming back up to par, but basically, PS3 has been playing catchup to Xbox in a bunch of ways for a while.

[Sean]

I hate the 360 controller. Dual Shock all the way. I have a PS3 but I use it more as a bluray player than a gaming console.

[Stunseed]

I own a 360. I have kids, and I've red-ringed multiple times. I don't see nearly as many issues with the PS3, so that's an appeal. Xbox live is also a pay service, while PS3's is not.

360's online support seems superior, it also have the achievement system which is pretty neat. I like the 360 controller over a PS3, as well.

[Fallen]

I prefer the x-box controller as well, but that is definitely subjective. The achievement system is more of an objective thing. X-box's point system gives the games more depth than just the trophy system IMO. It drives you to try to complete more of the games you play.

[TheEschaton]

What're the exclusive titles on each system? What's the point of Live, just to play against other ppl?

I sucked at GOldeneye back in the day, not sure I really care to be playing multiplayer against ppl who have years of experience behind them at sniping noobs. ;)

[Stunseed]

You say that, but playing CoD online is some fun, addicting shit. Gears of War was another multi-player that locked me up for hours.

[Keller]

Gears of War (one) is still the best game on the 360.

Too bad Epic blew elephant-with-testicular-elephantitis balls with GoW2.

[Clove]

Polls. UR doing it wrong.

[Celephais]

Xbox is also getting facebook, twitter, and last.fm in a couple days on a software upgrade.
That sounds like a reason to not get an xbox...


I hate the 360 controller. Dual Shock all the way. I have a PS3 but I use it more as a bluray player than a gaming console.
I'm with you there, the 360 controller is not nearly as comfortable as the PS3 controller.

As was already said, you'll probably want to look at the exclusives and see if any appeal to you, I think the XBox's strengths come in FPS titles (due to good online play), but I hate FPS on a console controller.

You could look into buying one of the ebay'd modded xbox live banned consoles dirt cheap, since you said you prefer single player gaming.

[BigWorm]

That sounds like a reason to not get an xbox...

Yeah I am a big last.fm user and could definitely see the usefulness of streaming through my console, but I have no desire to get Facebook or Twitter on my gaming system


I'm with you there, the 360 controller is not nearly as comfortable as the PS3 controller.

As was already said, you'll probably want to look at the exclusives and see if any appeal to you, I think the XBox's strengths come in FPS titles (due to good online play), but I hate FPS on a console controller.

You could look into buying one of the ebay'd modded xbox live banned consoles dirt cheap, since you said you prefer single player gaming.

Agreed. FPS titles on console always seemed pointless to me since the experience is almost always a lot better on PC, which is not to say I didn't enjoy Halo LAN matches in the dorm on my original Xbox ;).

[Celephais]

Oh certainly, I mean, it's no question that goldeneye is the greatest fps to ever have existed, and I have fun playing halo w/ my friends, but I do find playing online w/o my friends with halo/killzone/etc to get boring fast, I would rather play on a computer.

I don't play a whole lot of console games, because if I have the choice I go for it on the computer (short of maybe a racing game, GT5 is literally the reason I got a PS3 ... over a year ago). I only have a handful of PS3 games, but a ton of blu-rays ... MGS, NFS-Shift, Demon's Souls, Uncharted 1 & 2, Hawx, every one of those were well worth their money again and again. The only games I've regretted not having access to have been things like castle crashers, quick little arcady games from XBox's store (but my friends have them and they're better to play w/ other people anyway).

[Nilandia]

I've been pondering which one to pick up myself. What would you guys recommend for someone who enjoys traditional RPGs?

Gretchen

[septus]

the 360 is better if you do any kind of online play. PS3 also tends to have buggier games. However having bluray is nice if you have an HD tv and are willing to shell out the money to buy/rent bluray releases.

I had both at one point and decided the PS3 didn't have enough good games and I didn't want to spend $30 on a movie so I sold it.

Of course, since you mention metal gear solid..that is only on the PS3. So is uncharted and uncharted 2.

On a related note, my 360 got the banhammer :(

Edit:

forgot to mention both have some great downloadable content. 360 has Shadow Complex. PS3 has fat princess (of course that's mostly an online game) and some great shmups. I'd give PS3 the edge for downloadable content.

[Clove]

I've been pondering which one to pick up myself. What would you guys recommend for someone who enjoys traditional RPGs?

Gretchenhttp://www.palladiumbooks.com/

Clove

[Stretch]

What are you, broke? Buy both.

[Methais]

PS controller > XBox controller.

BluRay > DVD

Metal Gear Solid > Halo (imho)


What're the exclusive titles on each system? What's the point of Live, just to play against other ppl?

I sucked at GOldeneye back in the day, not sure I really care to be playing multiplayer against ppl who have years of experience behind them at sniping noobs. ;)

That won't matter, because if you're going to play a FPS you should be playing on PC anyway. Analog controls on FPS games = epic fail.


forgot to mention both have some great downloadable content. 360 has Shadow Complex. PS3 has fat princess (of course that's mostly an online game) and some great shmups. I'd give PS3 the edge for downloadable content.

One thing I like about XBox Live over PSN is every downloadable game on XBL offers a free demo, while a lot of games on PSN do not, which is retarded. I think XBL also has some free games too.

Overall XBox Live has a better online community, and I think a lot of that is due to the system including a headset. PS3 doesn't come with one, which was stupid on Sony's part.

I have both systems but I haven't turned my XBox on in forever. I think the last game I played for it in the past year was Castle Crashers, which is a simple little XB Arcade game. Don't even remember what the last "real" game was I played on it.

I think PS3 is the better system overall, but XBox has a much better online community.

Bottom line is you can't really go wrong with either one though. It mostly just depends which system has the exclusives you want to play.

[AnticorRifling]

What are you, broke? Buy both.

Not all of us get good jobs because we look good on a demographic sampling!

[TheEschaton]

Hmm, I could buy both, but why? That might cut into my WoW time. :/

[AnticorRifling]

Exactly. One crack at a time....just like being married.

[Stretch]

Not all of us get good jobs because we look good on a demographic sampling!

But he fits that profile, so my comment stands.

Also, I am pretty sure you can buy both now for significantly less than what the PS3 originally cost.

[LMingrone]

I have both and a Wii. I rarely touch the PS3 or Wii. I don't feel like rebuying all my movies in Bluray just yet. If you want traditional RPGs, yeah PS is probably better, since you can play all the OLD ones.

Every cross console game I buy is for XBox though.

[AnticorRifling]

But he fits that profile, so my comment stands.

Also, I am pretty sure you can buy both now for significantly less than what the PS3 originally cost.
Shit you're right.

And yeah they are much mo cheaper now.

I still don't need a console, not until my boys get a bit older. And then they are going to cut their teeth on a Nintendo and a stack of games like Contra, Bionic Commander, Dodge Ball, etc.

[Androidpk]

Shit you're right.

And yeah they are much mo cheaper now.

I still don't need a console, not until my boys get a bit older. And then they are going to cut their teeth on a Nintendo and a stack of games like Contra, Bionic Commander, Dodge Ball, etc.

Looks like you're going to train them properly in case the president is ever kidnapped by ninjas. Good job.

[Guarrin]

Buy a 360. Hands down. Community is better, xbox live is a superior service, AND they are heading in the right direction with new releases/services. Paul mentioned twitter/facebook, but really, that's just the tip of the iceberg of what is coming down the line for 360 online. There is a reason they are shipping 250gig 360s, and, I believe Sony announced they are doing the same now. If you buy an elite, it is very, very unlikely to hit a red ring, since they changed the chip/board that was causing the issue.

Unless you really like one of the PS3 'exclusives' , like God of War or MGS. But, really, the exclusive title is a thing of past generations. There is very little incentive not to publish on both platforms on this generation.

Also, I like supporting the console that supports developers. PS3 dev tools are NOT friendly compared to 360, and, the devkits run hot as hell.

[Androidpk]

I hate console exclusives. I don't want to buy a ps3 just so I can play 2 games. :(

[Guarrin]

I hate console exclusives. I don't want to buy a ps3 just so I can play 2 games. :(

I'm just going to borrow a PS3 to play God of War III.

[Androidpk]

I'm just going to borrow a PS3 to play God of War III.

I'm going to have to get someone to buy me the console for xmas or something. Now that I think of it there's a couple games for the ps3 out now and coming out that I would like to play.

Both Resistance games, Killzone, MGS4, God of War, and Heavy Rain.

[Guarrin]

Both Resistance games, Killzone, MGS4, God of War, and Heavy Rain.

Really? I've heard Resistance 2 was terrible. I haven't heard anything great about Killzone2 either. Isn't that the series that Cliffy B ganked the duck'n'cover system from for Gears?

However, I've heard great things about Uncharted 2 and Heavy Rain does look interesting.

Since the OP is trying to decide on what console to buy, here are some 360 exclusives for comparison:

Halo 3
Gears
Crackdown
Fable 2
Mass Effect
Left 4 Dead 2

[septus]

. If you want traditional RPGs, yeah PS is probably better, since you can play all the OLD ones.

If you're talking about backwards compatibility the PS3 Slim it not backwards compatible with either PSX or PS2 games. You would need to get an old PS3 with the emotion chip if you want good backwards compatibility.

Of course you can also just grab a PS2 if you don't already have one.. and if you do then backwards compatibility isn't an issue.

[LMingrone]

Also, don't forget 1 vs. 100 is starting back up this week. Love that game.

I wish Chris Cashman would die though...all he talks about is The Goonies every episode.

[Methais]

God of War Collection (God of War 1&2 with HD graphics on 1 disc for $40) comes out tomorrow btw.

Also if you preorder God of War 3 at Gamestop, you'll get a free demo of the game. It rocks the house.

[Fallen]

I've been pondering which one to pick up myself. What would you guys recommend for someone who enjoys traditional RPGs?

Gretchen

I actually think the X-box has the better RPGs. I don't much bother with the (new) Final Fantasy series, but I have gone through stuff like Tales of Vesperia on the 360. "Traditional" RPGs are kinda bleh, though. Don't be afraid to branch out and find some great stuff. Mass Effect immediately comes to mind as a fantastic RPG, but definitely not traditional.

There is Lost Odyssey, which was an X-box exclusive, which was a VERY traditional RPG. But hell, if you want REAL traditional RPG games, you should pick up a gameboy DS. Owning one is basically like playing SNES, and they put a lot of the old RPGs like Chrono Trigger and all the old Final Fantasy's out for the system.

[LMingrone]

XBox does have the Phntasy Star series on the Sonic collection. And Phantasy Star is awesome.

[Fallen]

Phantasy Star is awesome. This is true. My guess is that she owns a PS1-2? So she could likely play them there, though. I was just reading about Phantasy Star 0 for the DS, heh.

[Latrinsorm]

There is Lost Odyssey, which was an X-box exclusive, which was a VERY traditional RPG. But hell, if you want REAL traditional RPG games, you should pick up a gameboy DS. Owning one is basically like playing SNES, and they put a lot of the old RPGs like Chrono Trigger and all the old Final Fantasy's out for the system.The Nintendo DS is not a Game Boy! This is a very important distinction that Nintendo felt it had to make, because everyone hates Game Boys, the best and most popular portable system line of all time!

[Guarrin]

Phantasy Star is awesome. This is true. My guess is that she owns a PS1-2? So she could likely play them there, though. I was just reading about Phantasy Star 0 for the DS, heh.

Magna Carta 2 has been pretty good too. I really enjoyed the combat system, which is a bit more active than say FFXII. Hyung-Tae Kim is the artist/art designer, so if you like his work, then I'd check it out.

[LMingrone]

This thread got me thinking, I'm going to fire up Nethack. That game makes you never want to play an RPG ever again. Not cause it's bad, but because it's torture.

[Nilandia]

Phantasy Star is awesome. This is true. My guess is that she owns a PS1-2? So she could likely play them there, though. I was just reading about Phantasy Star 0 for the DS, heh.
I have a PS2, yes.

For better or worse, I rather enjoyed the Kingdom Hearts games, though Chain of Memories less than the others because I can't get into the card system of combat so much.

I'm not much for FPS or sports games, so those won't have much of an appeal for me. I have an HDtv for the moment so the Blu-Ray player is something of an attraction since I can rent the movies I need, though I don't know if I'll have an HDtv after I move once I graduate in May.

I've never really done online console gaming so I don't know what all is possible with it, or whether it suits my playing style. I just like playing games to have fun, not to beat them or get the highest score.

Hope that helps!

Gretchen

[LMingrone]

It's hard to find a good "traditional" RPG. I've spent over 500 hours on Oblivion, replayed the KotOR games a bunch of times, still haven't gotten around to Mass Effect. They're not traditional sword/magic RPGs, but are still very engrossing.

[LMingrone]

Speaking of RPGs, I need some Farmville friends. I don't wanna spend real cash to make my farm bigger.

[Stunseed]

360 has decent RPG's off the top of my head...

Lost Odyssey
Blue Dragon
The Last Remnant
Infinite Undiscovery
Oblivion

[Paradii]

xbox is also getting the new Vandal Hearts if you are into turn-based rpgs like this guy.

<---

[TheEschaton]

I like RPGs but always found the combat by round games like FF to be mind-numbingly boring, I prefer more fluid combat and things that require quicker reaction times.

[Guarrin]

I like RPGs but always found the combat by round games like FF to be mind-numbingly boring, I prefer more fluid combat and things that require quicker reaction times.

I'd definitely suggest checking out magna carta 2 then. You control 3 party members, with different abilities are mapped to the face buttons, and there is a rather in depth chain system that allows you to combine attacks between characters based on timing/character status.

[Methais]

I wish they'd make a non-massively multiplayer FF game :(

[Deathravin]

11 - MMO
12 - RPG - with a wierd MMO style...
13 - RPG - yet to be released, looks good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H21k9NPWdQ0) (spring 2010)
14 - MMO

[Paradii]

11 - MMO
12 - RPG - with a wierd MMO style...
13 - RPG - yet to be released, looks good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H21k9NPWdQ0)
14 - MMO


I think 13 looks pretty lame.

[Fallen]

I like RPGs but always found the combat by round games like FF to be mind-numbingly boring, I prefer more fluid combat and things that require quicker reaction times.

Have you tried Demon's Souls? All the combat goodness, and still an RPG. Very tough.

[Geijon Khyree]

This really shouldn't require any debate anymore. PS3 is the superior system. Almost every game is cross-platform now.

PS3 is for everyone. It will have a much broader title selection, probably. Xbox 360 has some exclusives, fanboys, and is a good general gaming system.

The Wii is a party console you play with guests.

I own them all. I had a 360 first since I got tired of waiting for the PS3 release and couldn't find a Wii due to being sold out, even when I worked at the retail locations.

I've only bought exclusives primarily for 360, which includes basically Ninja Gaiden (Sigma comes way too late on PS3), and the Gears of War games. Other than that I've always bought the PS3 versions. DLC content has been superior on the Xbox for games like Fallout 3 and GTAIV, but that seems to be because microsoft paid the developers for those rights.

[Paradii]

This really shouldn't require any debate anymore. PS3 is the superior system. Almost every game is cross-platform now.

PS3 is for everyone. It will have a much broader title selection, probably. Xbox 360 has some exclusives, fanboys, and is a good general gaming system.

The Wii is a party console you play with guests.

I own them all. I had a 360 first since I got tired of waiting for the PS3 release and couldn't find a Wii due to being sold out, even when I worked at the retail locations.

I've only bought exclusives primarily for 360, which includes basically Ninja Gaiden (Sigma comes way too late on PS3), and the Gears of War games. Other than that I've always bought the PS3 versions. DLC content has been superior on the Xbox for games like Fallout 3 and GTAIV, but that seems to be because microsoft paid the developers for those rights.

How is ps3 the superior system? Everyone I know that has both only uses the xbox. And in my opinion, it handles better and the online support is vastly better.

[AnticorRifling]

This really shouldn't require any debate anymore.

But didn't someone say...

PS3 is for everyone. It will have a much broader title selection, probably.


and...

I've only bought exclusives primarily for 360, which includes basically Ninja Gaiden (Sigma comes way too late on PS3), and the Gears of War games.

and...

DLC content has been superior on the Xbox for games like Fallout 3 and GTAIV, but that seems to be because microsoft paid the developers for those rights.


Wait who's side are you on?

[Methais]

Everyone I know that has both only uses the xbox.

Everyone I know that has both uses PS3.

[Paradii]

Everyone I know that has both uses PS3.


We must arrange a get together involving everyone we know and fight to the death. December looks good for me.

[Fallen]

I have all three systems. When something comes out cross-platform, I will always go for the X-box. Even if the sound/graphics are better on the PS3, games will consistently play better on the Xbox. Don't let fanboy crap bog down a perfectly healthy debate. Both systems of their merits. The graphics/sound used to sway me towards the PS3 once I did a system to system comparison of some games, but then I upgraded my PC. If I want to play something with the best possible settings, I just buy it for the PC.

[Ashliana]

I personally have both, but I bought my 360 as a gaming system and I only bought PS3 to play Blu-rays (and found some games to play with it as time went on).

If you're an online gamer, the 360 is undoubtedly the better system. The 360's online community is an order of magnitude better than the PS3's: since the PS3 doesn't come with a microphone, no one talks, even in games that are meant to be cooperative. And those that do, often have some shitty third party Bluetooth piece of junk that cost $5 and sounds tinny or super-low volume. The trophy system is underdeveloped compared to the achievement system, the XMB is awkward and clunky (you couldn't even access the XMB while in-game until fairly recently), and forced game installs are really annoying.

Metal Gear Solid 4, which was supposed to showcase the power of the PS3, failed pretty spectacularly (even putting its plot aside): Sony imposes a limit on how much each game can install to the hard disk, even if you have a bajillion gigabytes free, so as a result--every chapter (there are 4) in the game, forces you to undergo a 5-10 minute install, despite the entire game being on the one disc. And guess what? If you load a save game from an earlier chapter? You're doing another forced install. They did it, supposedly, because the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 can hold more than a DVD, but can't load data off of it as quickly as one. So they needed hard drive access to make up for it.

Granted, Sony didn't have much of an online presence with the PS2 while Microsoft did with the original Xbox, they're far behind Microsoft on the whole "online integration" thing. Another huge thing that makes Live > PSN is Party Chat. The ability to talk to your friends, in a group, even when you're playing different games, at the dashboard, or whatever. Cross-game invites are nice, too.

Sony's attempt at online integration was making "Home," which fell really flat. It came off as very "Microsoft Bob"-ish, impractical and unwieldy.

Anyway, I've played a lot of the same games on both the PS3 and 360, whether at my place or my friends', but the 360 usually has the advantage in graphics (check out GameSpot's 3 or 4 installment series addressing that issue), but combined with the XBL features I mentioned above, there's really no question that I'll get all multiplats for the 360.

PS3 has some awesome games.. Valkyria Chronicles is my favorite JRPG this generation, Dragon's Souls was a lot of fun, but other than that the only exclusive (disc) game I've enjoyed has been Uncharted (haven't played #2 yet).

There are a lot of PSN downloadable games I've loved, though.. Pixeljunk:Eden is fun, Flower/flOw are awesome, Fat Princess is amusing, Stardust HD is addictive.

Overall, though--I end up using my 360 for everything but Blu-ray playing and the occasional PS3 exclusive. Netflix on the 360 also allows people on your friends list to watch movies/TV synced up, and chat over XBL. "Virtual living room." I don't think the PS3 version has that feature, and if it did, the above "no one has a microphone" applies. /shrug

[Paradii]

I personally have both, but I bought my 360 as a gaming system and I only bought PS3 to play Blu-rays (and found some games to play with it as time went on).

If you're an online gamer, the 360 is undoubtedly the better system. The 360's online community is an order of magnitude better than the PS3's: since the PS3 doesn't come with a microphone, no one talks, even in games that are meant to be cooperative. And those that do, often have some shitty third party Bluetooth piece of junk that cost $5 and sounds tinny or super-low volume. The trophy system is underdeveloped compared to the achievement system, the XMB is awkward and clunky (you couldn't even access the XMB while in-game until fairly recently), and forced game installs are really annoying.

Metal Gear Solid 4, which was supposed to showcase the power of the PS3, failed pretty spectacularly (even putting its plot aside): Sony imposes a limit on how much each game can install to the hard disk, even if you have a bajillion gigabytes free, so as a result--every chapter (there are 4) in the game, forces you to undergo a 5-10 minute install, despite the entire game being on the one disc. And guess what? If you load a save game from an earlier chapter? You're doing another forced install. They did it, supposedly, because the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 can hold more than a DVD, but can't load data off of it as quickly as one. So they needed hard drive access to make up for it.

Granted, Sony didn't have much of an online presence with the PS2 while Microsoft did with the original Xbox, they're far behind Microsoft on the whole "online integration" thing. Another huge thing that makes Live > PSN is Party Chat. The ability to talk to your friends, in a group, even when you're playing different games, at the dashboard, or whatever. Cross-game invites are nice, too.

Sony's attempt at online integration was making "Home," which fell really flat. It came off as very "Microsoft Bob"-ish, impractical and unwieldy.

Anyway, I've played a lot of the same games on both the PS3 and 360, whether at my place or my friends', but the 360 usually has the advantage in graphics (check out GameSpot's 3 or 4 installment series addressing that issue), but combined with the XBL features I mentioned above, there's really no question that I'll get all multiplats for the 360.

PS3 has some awesome games.. Valkyria Chronicles is my favorite JRPG this generation, Dragon's Souls was a lot of fun, but other than that the only exclusive (disc) game I've enjoyed has been Uncharted (haven't played #2 yet).

There are a lot of PSN downloadable games I've loved, though.. Pixeljunk:Eden is fun, Flower/flOw are awesome, Fat Princess is amusing, Stardust HD is addictive.

Overall, though--I end up using my 360 for everything but Blu-ray playing and the occasional PS3 exclusive. Netflix on the 360 also allows people on your friends list to watch movies/TV synced up, and chat over XBL. "Virtual living room." I don't think the PS3 version has that feature, and if it did, the above "no one has a microphone" applies. /shrug


Party chat is pretty awesome. My brother, a few friends, and myself often join one on thursdays for 30 rock and the office. Pretty lame, but so are you!!!

[Reawing]

Ok, this topic has been coming up for several days and while I have no desire to discuss the merits of my argument, I'd like to cast my vote for PS3. Can't beat the fact that it also serves as my bluray player.

-Reawing

[Guarrin]

This really shouldn't require any debate anymore. PS3 is the superior system. Almost every game is cross-platform now.

PS3 is for everyone. It will have a much broader title selection, probably. Xbox 360 has some exclusives, fanboys, and is a good general gaming system.

The Wii is a party console you play with guests.

I own them all. I had a 360 first since I got tired of waiting for the PS3 release and couldn't find a Wii due to being sold out, even when I worked at the retail locations.

I've only bought exclusives primarily for 360, which includes basically Ninja Gaiden (Sigma comes way too late on PS3), and the Gears of War games. Other than that I've always bought the PS3 versions. DLC content has been superior on the Xbox for games like Fallout 3 and GTAIV, but that seems to be because microsoft paid the developers for those rights.

Most games are cross-platform, so then why will PS3 have a broader title selection? Both have their exclusives.

Really, blu-ray is the only category that I think the PS3 is superior to 360. However, I don't think that blu-ray will completely replace DVDs the way DVDs replaced VHS. Online distribution of HD content is where the industry is heading. Between the two, MS has a far better setup for handling that transition than Sony does on the PS3.

Also, we're not going to see 'gen 4' any time soon, even though it is in development. Both MS and Sony, and all third party developers want to have much longer console cycles. So the next 'gen' will be the add ons that were announced at the last E3 (Natal and PS3 Wand). While I really don't care for either, I think Natal will be far more successful commercially.

[Bobmuhthol]

People always use the bluray argument for PS3 over 360, but do that many people really watch bluray movies? I've never even seen a bluray disc irl.

[Celephais]

I'm kind of with Fallen here... I've found a PC/PS3 combo to be the best bang for the buck. I could probably do it w/ PC/360 but I feel they overlap strong points... and bluray prices have finally become reasonable, and worth the upsell in quality (I'm not replacing my DVD collection, other than some titles that are musts; black hawk down in bluray is an experience that will convert you if you don't think there is a difference).

I don't play a whole lot of games, so I don't finish titles fast enough to not have a good one available to me, I like my FPS on my computer (L4D2 on 360 has to SUCK hardcore compared to PC)... L4D2, Modern warfare. I like racing games on a console, hopefully GT5 will release soon, but Grid, and NFS:Shift held me over. Action adventure games are generally console oriented, Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2, kept me busy there. And RPGs I like on a computer (defining RPGs as more of stop action adventure), so Fallout and Dragon age I played on my computer. I'm not normally a flight sim game guy, but both my roommate and I have PS3s and we played the shit out of hawx together, I don't think it would have been as good on a PC at least without a joystick.

That's been my recent lineup of games, and like I said I probably could have found parity w/ PC/360, but this has worked for me, and bluray just puts icing on it (Nilindia, I think you mentioned Wall-E in the movie thread, it's a fantastic blu-ray title, I've watched it a ton on my PS3, looks beautiful).

Oh, and if you're worried about a high res TV, it'll affect PS3 just as much as 360, but in both cases you may be able to skirt around it if your monitor supports HD resolutions, you can get an HDMI->DVI cord for a few bucks and play on your monitor.

[Back]

PS3 is HDMI.

We’re done here.

[Bobmuhthol]

360 has been using HDMI for years, but good try.

[Celephais]

People always use the bluray argument for PS3 over 360, but do that many people really watch bluray movies? I've never even seen a bluray disc irl.
I didn't see this post before my last but I'll address it directly. I'm 100% converted to blu-ray. There are some titles that it won't matter for (like I'm not going to buy office space in bluray), but other titles take full advantage of it.

Black Hawk Down is my goto movie of showing people blu-ray, and it's not just the visuals (going from a source that is 153,600 pixels per frame to a source that's 2,073,600 pixels per frame), the audio difference is particuarly stunning. I don't know a whole lot about the mechanics of audio compression, and never thought myself an audiophile, but the impact of the uncompressed 5.1 surround sound of BHD in blu-ray is remarkable, and that's not even the best format supported.

If you have a 1080p TV, go into the settings of your xbox and change it's resolution back to standard def and play halo 3, you'll notice the difference. Some older movies haven't converted to blu-ray very well (I don't have it, but apparently spiderman 1 looks horrible, because the extra clarity of the actual film makes anything CGI stick out), but any newer movie that comes out that's an action film I get in bluray over DVD.

[Back]

360 has been using HDMI for years, but good try.

I do not believe that is true. At least real HDMI.

[Back]

I didn't see this post before my last but I'll address it directly. I'm 100% converted to blu-ray. There are some titles that it won't matter for (like I'm not going to buy office space in bluray), but other titles take full advantage of it.

Black Hawk Down is my goto movie of showing people blu-ray, and it's not just the visuals (going from a source that is 153,600 pixels per frame to a source that's 2,073,600 pixels per frame), the audio difference is particuarly stunning. I don't know a whole lot about the mechanics of audio compression, and never thought myself an audiophile, but the impact of the uncompressed 5.1 surround sound of BHD in blu-ray is remarkable, and that's not even the best format supported.

If you have a 1080p TV, go into the settings of your xbox and change it's resolution back to standard def and play halo 3, you'll notice the difference. Some older movies haven't converted to blu-ray very well (I don't have it, but apparently spiderman 1 looks horrible, because the extra clarity of the actual film makes anything CGI stick out), but any newer movie that comes out that's an action film I get in bluray over DVD.

Wall•E for life.

[Celephais]

I do not believe that is true. At least real HDMI.
They've got HDMI, and more importantly they have 1080p resolution, in both cases on 360 and PS3 there are some games that do not support 1080p resolution. I know that Halo3 does, which is why I offered that as the example for bob to test.

Wall•E for life.
Yeah that's a blu-ray that takes advantage of the format, I haven't seen the DVD of it for comparison though, but that's a visually stunning movie that I'm glad I got in bluray instead of DVD.

[Guarrin]

I didn't see this post before my last but I'll address it directly. I'm 100% converted to blu-ray. There are some titles that it won't matter for (like I'm not going to buy office space in bluray), but other titles take full advantage of it.

Black Hawk Down is my goto movie of showing people blu-ray, and it's not just the visuals (going from a source that is 153,600 pixels per frame to a source that's 2,073,600 pixels per frame), the audio difference is particuarly stunning. I don't know a whole lot about the mechanics of audio compression, and never thought myself an audiophile, but the impact of the uncompressed 5.1 surround sound of BHD in blu-ray is remarkable, and that's not even the best format supported.

If you have a 1080p TV, go into the settings of your xbox and change it's resolution back to standard def and play halo 3, you'll notice the difference. Some older movies haven't converted to blu-ray very well (I don't have it, but apparently spiderman 1 looks horrible, because the extra clarity of the actual film makes anything CGI stick out), but any newer movie that comes out that's an action film I get in bluray over DVD.

I totally agree that it does look better (although I'm not 100% sure on audio quality, perhaps my friends that have PS3's just don't have great systems), but, long term, I see digital distribution being a far superior source of HD content than blu-ray.

And most people I know that have blu-ray, are doing exactly what you are, buying 'new' titles in blu-ray. I remember for DVDs there were people that went out and replaced their entire collection of VHS with dvds. I've yet to hear of anyone doing that on blu-ray, largely because of their $30+ price point during their initial release.

I definitely see the draw for the bluray player, I guess I'm just not sold on it being a 'console selling' feature.

[Celephais]

I totally agree that it does look better (although I'm not 100% sure on audio quality, perhaps my friends that have PS3's just don't have great systems), but, long term, I see digital distribution being a far superior source of HD content than blu-ray.
Having a system that can take advantage of it is important, and not all titles have great soundtracks anyway, again with black hawk down, the difference was perceptable to me, and I'm no audiophile...

As far as digital distribution, the bandwidth isn't there, again not knowing enough about the codecs/compression formats, the movies I have watched on an HD channel or HD on demand have not had the same impact I get when using an actual blu-ray disc, and the infrastructure for all consumers to be downloading ~30 GB movies doesn't exist. I don't really know how OnDemand keeps up bandwidth wise (although I've noticed if I connect to the cable outlet directly instead of through a cable box there are channels that randomly have movies, other people's on demands, that don't exist through the cable box, so I'm guessing there is a set number of dedicated channels to on demand, and if that became a main distribution method they'd run out of dedicated channels).


And most people I know that have blu-ray, are doing exactly what you are, buying 'new' titles in blu-ray. I remember for DVDs there were people that went out and replaced their entire collection of VHS with dvds. I've yet to hear of anyone doing that on blu-ray, largely because of their $30+ price point during their initial release.
I've only replaced a few titles, mostly because I find myself watching less movies than when I built my collection (living w/ my parents I'd buy a new DVD almost every night on my way home from work). The difference isn't there for some titles, and I'm okay w/ that, I'm not such a bluray fanboy as to need the format to be exclusive like DVDs became.


I definitely see the draw for the bluray player, I guess I'm just not sold on it being a 'console selling' feature.
That's fine, especially since you could easily get a 360 and a blu-ray player, but one thing I've noticed is that even though I bought my PS3 as a console, I have found the blu-ray player to be an amazingly nice surprise.

[Stanley Burrell]

Xbox 360 'cause The Master fuggin' Chief. That's why.

[Ashliana]

As far as digital distribution, the bandwidth isn't there, again not knowing enough about the codecs/compression formats, the movies I have watched on an HD channel or HD on demand have not had the same impact I get when using an actual blu-ray disc, and the infrastructure for all consumers to be downloading ~30 GB movies doesn't exist.

I don't find this to be the case. Netflix HD and ABC.com's 1080p Lost streaming start almost immediately, with excellent quality, and even on a relatively large (52") LCD, I see no artifacting. The biggest difference is the sound--it's good, but not fantastic. Although, unless you've got a nice system to begin with, you wouldn't notice the difference.

Pretty sure the 360 development requirements demand that all games support at least 5.1--I don't know if Sony does the same, but I think every game I have has.

I was especially impressed with Uncharted--they support pretty much every small variation of sound standard in existence, including DTS (my personal favorite). Never seen another DTS supporting game, even MGS4.

Pretty sure most Blu-rays support the two next-gen codecs, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD. No games yet. My digital decoder doesn't support them, anyway.


That's fine, especially since you could easily get a 360 and a blu-ray player, but one thing I've noticed is that even though I bought my PS3 as a console, I have found the blu-ray player to be an amazingly nice surprise.

I would buy more movies in Blu-ray if they didn't insist on charging outrageous premiums for them, or bundle them up. The "Up" Blu-ray, for instance, comes at a MSRP of $45.99 (Thanks, Disney!) because they're including the DVD, a digital copy and a "bonus disc" even though one Blu-ray should've been big enough. They did the same thing for WALL-E.

Thankfully, Amazon/Wal-Mart/etc are selling them for $19.99 because of the heavy competition, which is a much more reasonable price. When Blu-rays come out new, they're often at an exorbitant premium over the DVD because the movie studios are still viewing the format as "enthusiast" and think they can charge whatever they want. You'd think they would be discounting them heavily in order to spur Blu-ray adoption in a recession, not milking the so-called "enthusiast base."

[Back]

They've got HDMI, and more importantly they have 1080p resolution, in both cases on 360 and PS3 there are some games that do not support 1080p resolution. I know that Halo3 does, which is why I offered that as the example for bob to test.

I’m 99% sure 360 did not have HDMI on release... and I do not mean cable hook ups.

PS3, please correct me if I am wrong, is the only system to fully embrace HD from its release.

Not to mention Sony cornered the market on Blu Ray. ;)

[Stunseed]

360 Elite model did from day 1, or so I thinks.

[Ashliana]

I’m 99% sure 360 did not have HDMI on release... and I do not mean cable hook ups.

PS3, please correct me if I am wrong, is the only system to fully embrace HD from its release.

Not to mention Sony cornered the market on Blu Ray. ;)

They didn't have HDMI on release. HDMI was introduced with the Elite, and now every Xbox sold, even the Arcade, has an HDMI port.

The Xbox "fully embraced" HD--every game has, mandatory, a minimum of 720p resolution and 5.1 sound. Several multiplats that have been released (GTA4 being a prime example) run at a higher resolution on the 360 than the PS3, most being the same. See the numerous graphics comparisons GameSpot has done.

Lastly, if you want to say something as vague as "the PS3 embraced HD from release," then it's worth mentioning that the main Xbox model, the Pro (the $400 one), came with the cables actually necessary for HD use whereas even the top, $600 model for the PS3 only came with RCA cables.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm very familiar with how awesome HD content is, I meant bluray discs specifically. I have watched more movies in HD than the above average person and none of them have been bluray (the source probably was, but they're all H.264 video). I haven't used a DVD player in years and I've never used bluray, so I just don't see the necessity for it.

The reason HD channels don't give you the same effect is that they are either 720p or 1080i. Cable doesn't support 1080p. It's also being broadcast over a considerable difference, which doesn't create tons of loss, but it's enough that using a local source is certainly better (not to mention the hops from fiber to cable to your box to your TV).

I bought my TV when it wasn't the standard so I paid the same price for 26" that buys 40" today, so I have no need for 1080p -- I do just fine with 4-10 GB HD movies.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah, the 360 not being released with HDMI means fuck all now. HDMI is not the only means of delivering HD content either. Fucking coax does it.

[Back]

They didn't have HDMI on release. HDMI was introduced with the Elite, and now every Xbox sold, even the Arcade, has an HDMI port.

The Xbox "fully embraced" HD--every game has, mandatory, a minimum of 720p resolution and 5.1 sound. Several multiplats that have been released (GTA4 being a prime example) run at a higher resolution on the 360 than the PS3, most being the same. See the numerous graphics comparisons GameSpot has done.

Lastly, if you want to say something as vague as "the PS3 embraced HD from release," then it's worth mentioning that the main Xbox model, the Pro (the $400 one), came with the cables actually necessary for HD use whereas even the top, $600 model for the PS3 only came with RCA cables.

Now I am 100%. Thanks.

And yes, Sony made us pay for HDMI cables.

[Ashliana]

The reason HD channels don't give you the same effect is that they are either 720p or 1080i. Cable doesn't support 1080p. It's also being broadcast over a considerable difference, which doesn't create tons of loss, but it's enough that using a local source is certainly better (not to mention the hops from fiber to cable to your box to your TV).

Also consider that cable HD content is compressed, whereas video on Blu-ray is only lightly compressed (and while efficient, still lossy). The content companies give the source to the cable/etc companies already compressed, and the various cable companies do an even worse job of transmitting it, where Verizon claims that they send (their source) uncompressed.

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAVTCAk9pmg

[Barundar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAVTCAk9pmg

Why are they presenting the game to me like I'm buying a time share?

[CrystalTears]

Now I am 100%. Thanks.

And yes, Sony made us pay for HDMI cables.
I don't see what difference it makes who had it first since they both have HD capabilities now.

[Ashliana]

I haven't liked any of the FF series since Tactics/7 came out--13 actually looks pretty good, though. But I likely won't be buying it, since I can't stand dubbed games/movies, and Square Enix apparently Americans don't care about it. "Space limitations" might have been a concern for the 360 version, but there's very little excuse to not include it for the PS3 release. If they don't include it, Squeenix isn't getting a penny of my money. Playing through Star Ocean 4's dub was one of the most painful video game experiences I can remember.

[Bobmuhthol]

In before argument ensues: 360 never didn't have HD capabilities.

[Celephais]

In before argument ensues: 360 never didn't have HD capabilities.
"HD" is such a shitty term... the non-HDMI cable'd ones would not play 1080p on most TVs, 720p and 1080i are indeed "HD", I believe the marketting statement is "Full HD" for 1080p. They even have stupid marketting terms for 2160p as "Quad HD".

But like CT said, who gives a shit what they used to support... that's like saying you don't like the PS3 because the PS1 didn't have HDMI.

[ElvenFury]

That's it, all of Celephais' opinions are moot until Deadlight is back up.

[Paradii]

PS3 has never admitted to not having raped and murdered a young woman in 1990.

[Geijon Khyree]

Really? I've heard Resistance 2 was terrible. I haven't heard anything great about Killzone2 either. Isn't that the series that Cliffy B ganked the duck'n'cover system from for Gears?

However, I've heard great things about Uncharted 2 and Heavy Rain does look interesting.

Since the OP is trying to decide on what console to buy, here are some 360 exclusives for comparison:

You heard wrong. Killzone 2 in particular is very good. I'll give credit that Overlord and Rising Dead or whatever in the mall was kickass in the early days of Xbox.

Xbox Live? Are you kidding me? I already pay for the internet and netflix, but they want to charge me 8-10 bucks per month to go online on my own wireless network?

That pay to play crap is retarded. Straight up.

[Paradii]

You heard wrong. Killzone 2 in particular is very good. I'll give credit that Overlord and Rising Dead or whatever in the mall was kickass in the early days of Xbox.

Xbox Live? Are you kidding me? I already pay for the internet and netflix, but they want to charge me 8-10 bucks per month to go online on my own wireless network?

That pay to play crap is retarded. Straight up.


You are paying for a superior service. As mentioned a few times already in this thread, there is no comparison between the two in terms of overall quality.

And you are posting in a gemstone forum, meaning at one point in time in your life you were paying at least 15 bucks for a text-based game with absolute shit costumer service.

Your 8-10 bucks argument holds no water.

[Geijon Khyree]

I have all three systems. When something comes out cross-platform, I will always go for the X-box. Even if the sound/graphics are better on the PS3, games will consistently play better on the Xbox. Don't let fanboy crap bog down a perfectly healthy debate. Both systems of their merits. The graphics/sound used to sway me towards the PS3 once I did a system to system comparison of some games, but then I upgraded my PC. If I want to play something with the best possible settings, I just buy it for the PC.

This is pretty much the case. These conversations always turn into some versus contest between a husband and wife where it should be a team thing i.e, gamers, but it's truly driven by people who don't own both systems. If one thing on the internet is true, it's "Haters will hate."

I've always preferred the PS3 controller and I think the Xbox runs hot and it's disk drive is obnoxiously loud. I've stated I do play Ninja Gaiden, Gears of War, Overlord, Rising Dead, and some other games. Also when the first two madden iterations came out they were smoother on the Xbox.

I am not a fan of the Xbox live pay model since it's just another 8 buck withdrawl from my bank, which seems silly. Paradii stated it's superior. I don't see it. Wanna talk about Live points? I want to buy a game that costs 800 points, but I gotta buy 1000 points. It's the same on the Wii. When I bought Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy tactics, Fat Princess, or Castlevania:SON I paid 10.95 and it took that off my card. I wasn't left holding the bag with 200 extra points that when I spend 4000 points, as an example, I'll finally be able to use the extra 200x4 points on a 5th game I may not have wanted in the first place.

I write this as I probably am going to go buy Assassins Creed II, for the PS3, and Borderlands for the Xbox since some friends got it on that system. I also must say I have a large group of friends who own PS3s and Street Fighter IV was WAAYYY better on that system, due to the controller. If it's on Xbox only, has some special exclusives like Soul Caliber had for Darth Vader vs. Yoda I might lean that way, or if some friends have it I'll buy it, but my overall preference leans on the PS3 side and that seems to be the case for most, leaning towards one system.

To throw a wrench in the engine the Wii is usually more "Fun" than the other two, but it collects dust more also.

[Methais]

And you are posting in a gemstone forum, meaning at one point in time in your life you were paying at least 15 bucks for a text-based game with absolute shit costumer service.

I agree. I've seen some pretty horrible costumes in Simucon pictures.

[Ashliana]

You heard wrong. Killzone 2 in particular is very good. I'll give credit that Overlord and Rising Dead or whatever in the mall was kickass in the early days of Xbox.

I didn't think Killzone 2 innovated in any regard except technically proficient graphics.. The art design was mediocre, the story was uninteresting and the controls felt laggy (even post-patch). Resistance was far better than KZ2, IMO. Never cared much for Overlord, but Dead Rising is an amazing game.


Xbox Live? Are you kidding me? I already pay for the internet and netflix, but they want to charge me 8-10 bucks per month to go online on my own wireless network?

That pay to play crap is retarded. Straight up.

Meh. I don't mind paying for it. If you pay for a year ahead of time, with a card from the store--it's $49.99 for 12+1 months, which translates to $3.80 a month. I find it more than worth it.

[Guarrin]

This is pretty much the case. These conversations always turn into some versus contest between a husband and wife where it should be a team thing i.e, gamers, but it's truly driven by people who don't own both systems. If one thing on the internet is true, it's "Haters will hate."

I have more than enough exposure to both consoles. As much as my opinion may be skewed by sub-par tools and tech Sony has provided, I try to remain objective when comparing the consoles. As I said before, if you want a cheap blu-ray player, that can also play video games, then a PS3 is an excellent buy.


I've always preferred the PS3 controller and I think the Xbox runs hot and it's disk drive is obnoxiously loud. I've stated I do play Ninja Gaiden, Gears of War, Overlord, Rising Dead, and some other games. Also when the first two madden iterations came out they were smoother on the Xbox.

I preferred the PS2 controller over the xbox. Unfortunately, PS3 was released without dual shock, and, I did not care for the six-axis controller at all until dual shock was implemented. Regarding running hot and loud, I'd suspect that is because you have one of the first releases of 360's, before there was a change in chip/board (whatever they did to reduce the frequency of red rings).


I am not a fan of the Xbox live pay model since it's just another 8 buck withdrawl from my bank, which seems silly. Paradii stated it's superior. I don't see it. Wanna talk about Live points? I want to buy a game that costs 800 points, but I gotta buy 1000 points. It's the same on the Wii. When I bought Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy tactics, Fat Princess, or Castlevania:SON I paid 10.95 and it took that off my card. I wasn't left holding the bag with 200 extra points that when I spend 4000 points, as an example, I'll finally be able to use the extra 200x4 points on a 5th game I may not have wanted in the first place.

Xbox live will continue to grow and expand to new features, and, most likely implement them better than Sony. Is party chat available on PS3? What about the indie game development that occurs on 360? I don't think games like Braid would have been developed without that market. I'm not even certain if that is available for PS3. I can't disagree with the comments about the price points for xbox live games, however, I've always found a good game to purchase with the left over points.


I write this as I probably am going to go buy Assassins Creed II, for the PS3, and Borderlands for the Xbox since some friends got it on that system. I also must say I have a large group of friends who own PS3s and Street Fighter IV was WAAYYY better on that system, due to the controller. If it's on Xbox only, has some special exclusives like Soul Caliber had for Darth Vader vs. Yoda I might lean that way, or if some friends have it I'll buy it, but my overall preference leans on the PS3 side and that seems to be the case for most, leaning towards one system.

These "exclusives" aren't really exclusive. Just wait a month and you can purchase both via PDLC on either platform. It's really just a promotion from the third party developer, MS or Sony, and retail. Regarding the controllers, if you're playing a fighting game, you need an arcade pad. Far superior than either PS3/360 controllers for that genre. Aside from the D-Pad not being sensitive enough on the 360, the two are very comparable.

Oh, and if you want a more sensitive D-Pad controller, you can import from japan. For whatever reason, they released a series of 360 controllers that have better sensitivity.


To throw a wrench in the engine the Wii is usually more "Fun" than the other two, but it collects dust more also.

The Wii is great, but, exceptionally difficult to compare to PS3/360. It has a completely different target audience for the most part.

[Geijon Khyree]

Guarrin pretty much owned me. Punk. I do have an early generation Xbox. Thankfully I don't overheat it due to long usage so it hasn't Red Ring of Deathed on me.

I have a Series 1 or 2 Playstation 2 that still works too. Got the PS3 with the emotion chip in it also.

[Back]

I don't see what difference it makes who had it first since they both have HD capabilities now.

Just saying. That was the deal breaker for me when they came out. That and blu ray.

[Back]

Xbox Live? Are you kidding me? I already pay for the internet and netflix, but they want to charge me 8-10 bucks per month to go online on my own wireless network?

That pay to play crap is retarded. Straight up.

Really? You can’t play other people on your own wireless unless you pay a subscription fee?

[RichardCranium]

XBox Live is like $50 a year. Not exactly a deal breaker.

[Back]

PS3 is free.

From a consumer POV I do not like the idea of paying more than my cable bill to access the internet.

From a corporate POV good for XBOX. The whole micro-transaction thing is a huge money maker.

[Bobmuhthol]

Xbox Live? Are you kidding me? I already pay for the internet and netflix, but they want to charge me 8-10 bucks per month to go online on my own wireless network?

Don't know if anyone addressed this, but it's $4.17 per month.

Edited to reiterate arguments of "you pay to play GemStone" and every other subscription service ever. Why would they offer something so badass for free? Microsoft loves throwing away money?


Really? You can’t play other people on your own wireless unless you pay a subscription fee?

There was absolutely no reason to use the phrase wireless network and it was just confusing. There is no fee involved with LAN play.

[RichardCranium]

PS3 is free.

From a consumer POV I do not like the idea of paying more than my cable bill to access the internet.

From a corporate POV good for XBOX. The whole micro-transaction thing is a huge money maker.


Yeah but XBox Live offers a lot more than does PS3's online environment.

[Back]

There was absolutely no reason to use the phrase wireless network and it was just confusing. There is no fee involved with LAN play.

What would have been the better way to put it? And why the fuck are you so angry about this?

As a consumer I hate fucking nickel/dime/$2 credit card/bank/phone minutes/text fees.

As a business man I can fully embrace it. I’ll sell you X for a dollar if it gets you and 1 million other people to buy Y at two.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think Halo is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.

[Bobmuhthol]

Not you. The guy who complained about paying to play on "his wireless network."

[Back]

Yeah but XBox Live offers a lot more than does PS3's online environment.

Like what?

[Back]

I think Halo is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.

YAh he shots u wit laser beans.

[LMingrone]

I think Halo is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.


lol Stanley, you always come through. Reminded me to buy my uncle, who's a Master Chief, a remote control Warthog.

[Methais]

From a consumer POV I do not like the idea of paying more than my cable bill to access the internet.

Where do you get cable for $4.17 a month so I can sign up?

[Celephais]

Where do you get cable for $4.17 a month so I can sign up?
Hate to defend him but... he means he hates the idea of paying more than ~$100 a month to access the game... more being ~$104.17

[Warriorbird]

About the only PS3 edge (besides the BlueRay) I can point to is a lack of horrible unfortunate flaming deaths.