Xbox 360 vs PS3

[Dyl-Dawg]

Please give your opinions im doing a speech on why you would like to purchase either one. I want to know what u think and y. Pls post.

[Mando Knight]

Please read the vs thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70661) guidelines. :smalltongue:

[The Rose Dragon]

Also, this is probably more suitable for Gaming (Other) forum.

[Axolotl]

360 vs PS3 are we back in 2008? I thought everyone had moved beyond this to be honest.

[The Rose Dragon]

360 vs PS3 are we back in 2008? I thought everyone had moved beyond this to be honest.

Well, no. If you can afford to buy only one, you need to know which one you would like better before buying one.

[Mando Knight]

360 vs PS3 are we back in 2008? I thought everyone had moved beyond this to be honest.

True.

The main differences, as it stands (as far as I can remember):

PS3 is always black.
Xbox 360 comes in a variety of case colors.

PS3's Sixaxis/DualShock 3 controllers have the same form factor as the DualShock 1 and 2.
Xbox 360's controllers have a similar (but not identical) form factor to the original's second controller design.

PS3 has Bluray, allowing it to play new hi-def movies that take up gigabytes upon gigabytes of storage space a piece.
Xbox 360 does not.

PS3 has MGS4, God of War, LittleBigPlanet, etc.
Xbox 360 has Halo, Gears of War, Mass Effect, etc.

[Flechair]

Some factors to take in would be:

Playstation Network is free.
Xbox Live is not.

Playstation 3 is more expensive than Xbox 360
(However at 5 dollars a month, I've payed for a PS3 along with my xbox.)

Playstation is better when it comes to processor, RAM, etc.
Xbox has more hit titles.

After all these things, it really is up to the user as to what appeals more. Personally, I feel like PC gaming is making a nice comeback because of Steam, and that makes me happy.

[Murkus]

InB4 ****storm.

[Axolotl]

Well, no. If you can afford to buy only one, you need to know which one you would like better before buying one.Yes but a debate about which is better is pointless. They have different titles and qualities. They cannot be directly compared, simpylook at the aray of titles and see which apppeals to you the most.

[The Rose Dragon]

Yes but a debate about which is better is pointless. They have different titles and qualities. They cannot be directly compared, simpylook at the aray of titles and see which apppeals to you the most.

I think this is less a matter of "which is better" and more a matter of "which is better for me".

[Optimystik]

Yes but a debate about which is better is pointless. They have different titles and qualities. They cannot be directly compared, simpylook at the aray of titles and see which apppeals to you the most.

Also, which one do your friends have, so you can play with them.

I love my 360, but I have to admit that the Blu-Ray Player in the PS3 is a neat feature if you have a TV that will allow you to appreciate the difference.

In general, I find the XBLA has better titles, including Magic the Gathering and Castle Crashers, which are not out on PS3 yet.

[Mystic Muse]

How do you get MTG on the Xbox?

[Mauther]

At this point the hardware is largely a bounce, both have sufficeint resources that the differences don't really matter. The cost of the PS3 is blocked by the need to buy a blu-ray player if you have an xbox. The real difference is in the exclusive games offered. And as others have pointed out, that's largey a matter of personal choice.

[Tirian]

*shrug* My next console is going to be another PS2.

[Terraoblivion]

PS3 has more Japanese titles, Xbox360 has more American.

[valadil]

Honestly there isn't that much difference between them. A majority of the games you'll be playing aren't exclusive. Some of those games look better on PS3, some on 360. It really just comes down to figuring out which one has more exclusive titles you want to play.

[Kiren]

When I got my ps3, I believe it was the same price as the first blu-ray players :smallsmile:

Anyway, the Xbox has more hit titles depending on how you look at it:

BUT: The hits of the PS3 are amazing.

Little big planet (sequal announced)
Metal gear solid 4
Uncharted 1 and 2
Resistance:Fall of man (Resistance 2 just isn't as good.)
(Not exclusive, but Fallout new vegas will be on ps3)
Final fantasy 13: Versus (Supposedly ps3 exclusive)

MORE!

Now the Xbox 360:
Fallout: New vegas (YAH!)
Halo 1-3, halo wars, halo 3 ODST, halo reach(Coming soon)
Gears of war 1-2
Call of duty series
Forza motorsport 3

More!

[Shas aia Toriia]

Playstation 3 is more expensive than Xbox 360
(However at 5 dollars a month, I've payed for a PS3 along with my xbox.)

They're the same price where I live, last time I checked.



Xbox has more hit titles.

In your opinion.

[The Rose Dragon]

In your opinion.

Being a hit does not imply quality, it just means the said title sells a lot. So, it is not really a matter of opinion. :smalltongue:

Whether it is correct or not, however, I can't really comment on.

[TheThan]

I can play super street fighter IV on both, so it doesn’t matter much to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Scaly]

I think it all comes down to games for me...I've never been overly impressed by hardware or better graphics. And I have particular tastes in games...I find shooters, sports games, and most racing games dull and uninteresting. Hard to say which of the two I would buy...doesn't matter though, since I bought a Wii instead.

[Klose_the_Sith]

For me, the choice ultimately boils down to controller. I tried the PS3 one, laughed hard and felt vindicated in having gone 360.

Nothing personal Sony-fans, but that things terrible.


BUT: The hits of the PS3 are amazing.

Little big planet (sequal announced)
Metal gear solid 4
Uncharted 1 and 2
Resistance:Fall of man (Resistance 2 just isn't as good.)
(Not exclusive, but Fallout new vegas will be on ps3)
Final fantasy 13: Versus (Supposedly ps3 exclusive)

I thought you said the hits were amazing? :smalltongue:

[Flechair]

Well, the only reason that PS3 is dropping to match xbox 360 is because Activision told Sony to do so. They said that if PS3 didn't drop price it would cause people to not want to buy the PS3 and stop people from buying their games. They threatened to stop supporting Sony's products for video games.



I think it all comes down to games for me...I've never been overly impressed by hardware or better graphics. And I have particular tastes in games...I find shooters, sports games, and most racing games dull and uninteresting. Hard to say which of the two I would buy...doesn't matter though, since I bought a Wii instead.

Living in the past is for squares, Daddy-O (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/844-Wii-Sports-Resort)

[The Rose Dragon]

Nothing personal Sony-fans, but that things terrible.

The only problem with the controller I have is that the R2 button is overly sensitive. It thinks I pressed the button as soon as the slightest pressure is applied to it, which can be problematic if it is a really bad button to press at the same.

Then again, that is only for the Dualshock 3. The other two work just fine, except for the whole lacking vibrations thingie.

((Why am I even answering this? I'm not a Sony fan. The only reason I don't have an Xbox 360 is that I lack the money and MGS 4 is a PS3 exclusive.))

[Zevox]

The only thing that mattered in my decision on this was games. Simply put, when it came down to it, he 360 had more exclusives I was very interested in - Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Tales of Vesperia. The PS3 only had Disgaea 3. Well, and Metal Gear Solid 4, but I'm much less interested in that than any of the 360 exclusives.

At this point, I probably won't get a PS3 until the next generation of consoles is out and the price has dropped to close to where the PS2 is now. Since I have a 360, the only games on the PS3 I'd actually get would be the exclusives, and the only exclusive that has come out since I got my 360 that I'm sure I'm interested in is God of War 3. Or perhaps, if I'm lucky, the PS4 will be backwards-compatible and have a better library of exclusives, and I can just get that to play the few PS3 exclusives I want to play.

Zevox

[licoot]

Nothing personal Sony-fans, but that things terrible.

I find it strange that you think that, I've never got the hang of the Xbox one and the PS3 one is so much easier to use, most my friends agree, and they chose Xbox over PS3

[Klose_the_Sith]

I find it strange that you think that, I've never got the hang of the Xbox one and the PS3 one is so much easier to use, most my friends agree, and they chose Xbox over PS3

It comes down to aiming, for me at least.

The layout of a Sony controller is pretty good (and should be, seeing as it's been the basis of all other modern yadda bla bla)

However, the thumbsticks are so loose (thus imprecise) and the d-pad so shoddy that I honestly don't see why they haven't changed it. Combine that with the overly short and stocky grips and the new marshmallow triggers and I practically wept.

I remember swearing by the PS1 controller over all comers back in it's era, cause it was the best thing back then. What I don't understand is why gaming companies are so hell-bent on constantly reliving the glory days by not changing their doctrine from past generations (see: over-reliance on old parties and a lack of actual design changes from Sony).

Microsoft took the original xbox controller and stylised it, making it small enough for you 'normal people' to handle with ease and re-tooling the buttons to better suit the gaming style people were based on (through Sony controllers).

I full understand where the roots of the 360 controller lie, it's just that the evolution is so well progressed I can't imagine ever going back.

[All IMO, obviously ...]

[Flechair]

Microsoft took the original xbox controller and stylised it, making it small enough for you 'normal people' to handle with ease and re-tooling the buttons to better suit the gaming style people were based on (through Sony controllers).

I full understand where the roots of the 360 controller lie, it's just that the evolution is so well progressed I can't imagine ever going back.

Yeah, you can see where they took from Sony with the addition of the Left and Right Bumpers. It allows you to take more easily managed control of your gamepad. Microsoft designed their controller with the players in mind.

[Gamerlord]

Please give your opinions im doing a speech on why you would like to purchase either one. I want to know what u think and y. Pls post.

I think I smell an attempt to create a flame war! :smalltongue:

Anyway, neither is better, the DOS is! [/sarcasm]

[Fan]

It comes down to aiming, for me at least.

The layout of a Sony controller is pretty good (and should be, seeing as it's been the basis of all other modern yadda bla bla)

However, the thumbsticks are so loose (thus imprecise) and the d-pad so shoddy that I honestly don't see why they haven't changed it. Combine that with the overly short and stocky grips and the new marshmallow triggers and I practically wept.

I remember swearing by the PS1 controller over all comers back in it's era, cause it was the best thing back then. What I don't understand is why gaming companies are so hell-bent on constantly reliving the glory days by not changing their doctrine from past generations (see: over-reliance on old parties and a lack of actual design changes from Sony).

Microsoft took the original xbox controller and stylised it, making it small enough for you 'normal people' to handle with ease and re-tooling the buttons to better suit the gaming style people were based on (through Sony controllers).

I full understand where the roots of the 360 controller lie, it's just that the evolution is so well progressed I can't imagine ever going back.

[All IMO, obviously ...]

Um, not to sound offensive, but there is an Aim Sensitivity option that you can dial down, and my Logitech, and regular Sony brand controllers both operate better than the S Model Xbox 360 controller I had when I bought a 360 Elite, played it for a day, and returned it to get a PS3.

I can head shot in Call of Duty pretty easily, same with Unreal Tournament, as well as use any buttons in the online realm. In fact, I'm posting from my PS3 right now with my keyboard, and mouse plugged into the PS3.

It's also capable of streaming movies, something that the Xbox 360 is.. very clearly unable to do, and with a simple OS Change from the Mac OS X that it uses as it's base (an option that the system handles all the driver changes for.), I've been able to run STEAM on my PS3.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Um, not to sound offensive, but there is an Aim Sensitivity option that you can dial down, and my Logitech, and regular Sony brand controllers both operate better than the S Model Xbox 360 controller I had when I bought a 360 Elite, played it for a day, and returned it to get a PS3.

I can head shot in Call of Duty pretty easily, same with Unreal Tournament, as well as use any buttons in the online realm. In fact, I'm posting from my PS3 right now with my keyboard, and mouse plugged into the PS3.

It's also capable of streaming movies, something that the Xbox 360 is.. very clearly unable to do, and with a simple OS Change from the Mac OS X that it uses as it's base (an option that the system handles all the driver changes for.), I've been able to run STEAM on my PS3.

Offensive? Why would I find a calm post disputing what I posted as offensive? Neither of us are talking fact here, just our opinions.

As I said, I've been playing Sony for a long time, but that hasn't made it's controllers seem any better when I got given alternatives. A lot of that's probably just how I game, but the overly loose joystics refers to the sticks themselves. I'm well aware that sensitivity can be adjusted, but the things will still just feel annoying and low quality (and we're reaching territory where it's 'if it can be good then why doesn't it start that way?').

Which pretty much answers my response to your second part. I'm well aware that the controllers can be used well, but that doesn't make them good. Nor does the addition of what I'd see as pointless gimmicks (Steam for PS3, cause it wasn't annoying me enough on PC already!) really make the sell any easier.

You can keep your PS3 and have fun with it, I hope you do. I wouldn't see the point in actively looking for things to hate, because it's much less fun. Which is why I was quite disappointed when Sony released yet another iteration of the same model they've been pushing since they started the playstation assault.

And either way, you still haven't justified the hideous marshmallow triggers :smallwink:

[Eloi]

The Wii of course, Nintendo runs in my family. But if I had to choose, I'd pick the Xbox 360. Larger online community, more 3rd party support, cheaper, probably the best bet of the two.

[Fan]

Admittedly, the triggers do begin to chaffe during long sessions of fighting games where you need to do multiple, hard, and fast movements quickly...

But marshmallow triggers?:smallconfused:

The D-Pad is actually a design I favor more, as it doesn't slide quite so much.. I have the same problem you do with the joysticks on the PS3, that their too imprecise.

I bought the PS3 based on a Cost / Benefit analysis, I got more features, and more system life ( I hear the Xbox 360 is already preparing to cycle itself out.), better features, and The Final Fantasy franchise (A major selling point for me, as I am a DIE HARD Final Fantasy Fan... Let it be known that X-2 did indeed make me weep tears of sorrow.)

The Xbox 360 had some better titles (Mass Effect, Fable.. I wasn't interested in Gears of War, and I SHUN Left 4 Dead for personal reasons.) at first, but things like White Knight Chronicles, Little Big Planet, the sheer backwards utility of having both a PS2, a Ps1, and a PS3 in one sockets worth of space on my power bar, and at half the energy use.. I'd say that the ability to play ALL your titles going back to PS1 was actually the hardest selling point for me.

With the Xbox 360, I got.. some preteen yelling profanity at me through my headset, a community with a fondness for glitches when they weren't screaming said profanities, and I had to pay for it.

[warty goblin]

Also, what the hell's the point of running Steam on a PS3? It's not like PC games - even ports of console games - are designed to run on the eensy bit of RAM a console has. I guess you could buy stuff through Steam that way, but you'd still need an actual PC with Steam on it to do anything with your purchase, which makes the entire operation seem like an exercise in pointlessness.

[Mr. Scaly]

Living in the past is for squares, Daddy-O (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/844-Wii-Sports-Resort)

It's hip to be a square! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_byVtHrGEM) :smallbiggrin:

[Mando Knight]

The layout of a Sony controller is pretty good (and should be, seeing as it's been the basis of all other modern yadda bla bla)
*cough*SNES*cough*
Sorry, my sinuses are acting up...

[Eloi]

*cough*SNES*cough*
Sorry, my sinuses are acting up...

*cough* Well actually Gunpei Yokoi developed the D-pad and diagonally arranged buttons being on the right of it on the original Game Boy, sometime before the release of the SNES. *cough*
Boy, what a horrible cold I have today.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Admittedly, the triggers do begin to chaffe during long sessions of fighting games where you need to do multiple, hard, and fast movements quickly...

But marshmallow triggers?:smallconfused:

At least the one I played with seemed to carry these strangely thick and squidgy triggers, which reminded me more of marshmallows than the actual triggers that I get from my 360. I dunno, was just my first reaction to the thing.


The D-Pad is actually a design I favor more, as it doesn't slide quite so much.. I have the same problem you do with the joysticks on the PS3, that their too imprecise.

Oooh, that's a good point about the slightly better precision ...

Now justify 4 directions instead of 8 :smalltongue:


I bought the PS3 based on a Cost / Benefit analysis, I got more features, and more system life ( I hear the Xbox 360 is already preparing to cycle itself out.), better features, and The Final Fantasy franchise (A major selling point for me, as I am a DIE HARD Final Fantasy Fan... Let it be known that X-2 did indeed make me weep tears of sorrow.)

Similarly I got my 360 based on the following cost/benefit analysis.

360 had Halo and I was 15 :smallamused:


The Xbox 360 had some better titles (Mass Effect, Fable.. I wasn't interested in Gears of War, and I SHUN Left 4 Dead for personal reasons.) at first, but things like White Knight Chronicles, Little Big Planet, the sheer backwards utility of having both a PS2, a Ps1, and a PS3 in one sockets worth of space on my power bar, and at half the energy use.. I'd say that the ability to play ALL your titles going back to PS1 was actually the hardest selling point for me.

With the Xbox 360, I got.. some preteen yelling profanity at me through my headset, a community with a fondness for glitches when they weren't screaming said profanities, and I had to pay for it.

If I had the compatibility of all 3 in one socket I'd play ... some PS1 games. Just for nostalgia purposes.

I'm not interested at all in Left 2 Die Forever, Gears of War or even Fable. I'm even less interested, however, in the PS3 exclusives.

360 gave me access to whatever games I've wanted over the years (I've never seen a PS3 exclusive and wanted it) and I only play multiplayer local, with my friends. Cause they already had 360's it made even more sense to get one too. And even though it died at one stage, Microsoft tech support really are very good (although they made me disappointed in other support lines ...) and I had a working console back in about a month.

EDIT:
*cough*SNES*cough*
Sorry, my sinuses are acting up...

*cough*communist lies*cough*

[Fan]

Oh, you got the Gamestop brand controllers, the cheapest crap on the market.

The one I use is something like this (http://gearcrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/logitech-controller1.jpg), it has those directional buttons you love, in addition to being ergonomic, and lacking any squidginess to it's joysticks.

However.. I, on the other hand, simply adore Demons Souls, White Knight Chronicles, and inFAMOUS, and the free online support simply isn't something that the Xbox 360 has.

Also, PS3 is capable of system link as well.. You just have to buy the cable for it.

Though yes, I do mainly play PS 1 games on my PS3 in the backwards compatability realm, but that's more so Legend of Dragoon, and Vagrant Story's fault than anything else's. :smalltongue:

[AstralFire]

Nah, the Sony controller sticks feel pretty flimsy to me across all of their systems. I would never hold a gamestop product against anyone. I don't think Klose mentioned having a third party controller anyway.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Oh, you got the Gamestop brand controllers, the cheapest crap on the market.

Gamestop doesn't even exist in Australia. It was an in-store demo with the Sony ones it comes with.


The one I use is something like this (http://gearcrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/logitech-controller1.jpg), it has those directional buttons you love, in addition to being ergonomic, and lacking any squidginess to it's joysticks.

That does indeed look like a major improvement. I'll keep it in mind should I ever find games I want out and exclusive to PS3 :smallsmile:


However.. I, on the other hand, simply adore Demons Souls, White Knight Chronicles, and inFAMOUS, and the free online support simply isn't something that the Xbox 360 has.

Which is something I don't contest at all. It's just that those weren't pluses for me personally.


Also, PS3 is capable of system link as well.. You just have to buy the cable for it.

When I multiplayer it's with up to three friends on the same console at one time. We don't really go in for an 'all at once' kind of thing - smaller, more relaxed scale is where it's at.


Though yes, I do mainly play PS 1 games on my PS3 in the backwards compatability realm, but that's more so Legend of Dragoon, and Vagrant Story's fault than anything else's. :smalltongue:

You're a far more mature gamer than I, clearly. I'd be using it to play Army Men: Sarge's Heroes 2, Fifa 99 and the original Harry Potter.

What? They were my first three videogames ever! :smallbiggrin:

I was ten years old, for crying out loud!

[Dyl-Dawg]

*shrug* My next console is going to be another PS2.

I would look at the new 360 first, it was just revealed and looks impressive in my mind the ps3 doesnt have much over the 360 anymore. For the 360 there are bigger name titles and now the kinect which also looks rlly impressive. I hope that sony has something big for E3 because they will need it if they want to keep selling consoles. so far the only thing ive heard besides the play station move is a 500 gig hard drive and rlly who needs tht. Sounds like a bunch of extra space tht will go unused im good with 240 gigs

[Axolotl]

I would look at the new 360 first, it was just revealed and looks impressive in my mind the ps3 doesnt have much over the 360 anymore. For the 360 there are bigger name titles and now the kinect which also looks rlly impressive. I hope that sony has something big for E3 because they will need it if they want to keep selling consoles. so far the only thing ive heard besides the play station move is a 500 gig hard drive and rlly who needs tht. Sounds like a bunch of extra space tht will go unused im good with 240 gigsJust want to point out, he said a PS2 not PS3.

[Dyl-Dawg]

It's also capable of streaming movies, something that the Xbox 360 is.. very clearly unable to do, and with a simple OS Change from the Mac OS X that it uses as it's base (an option that the system handles all the driver changes for.), I've been able to run STEAM on my PS3.

Ummm actually i stream videos from my 360 just fine i dnt know wat ur tlking about.

[Gamerlord]

Ummm actually I stream videos from my 360 just fine I don't know what your talking about.

Fixed your spelling :smalltongue: .

[Jerthanis]

I prefer the PS3 D-Pad for things like fighting games, where it's often important that a command not slip an additional radian, and the X-box D-pad is slightly more prone to do so. I like how the two joysticks are at the same place on a vertical axis, so in games where I need to use both at the same time a lot, I find it helps my coordination.

I also find both shoulder buttons easy to access on the PS3 controller, while the X-box controller feels natural to pull the shoulder triggers, but unnatural and funky to press the normal shoulder buttons. Otherwise, the X-box controller is good enough. They're really not so different that I can really understand people loving one and hating the other.

I bought a 360 because I have a passing interest in most of their exclusives and that outweighed my reasonably strong interest in the single PS3 exclusive, but don't begrudge others their decision the other way. Really, it comes down to the exclusive games, so the decision on which system is as personal as it comes.

[EleventhHour]

*cough* Well actually Gunpei Yokoi developed the D-pad and diagonally arranged buttons being on the right of it on the original Game Boy, sometime before the release of the SNES. *cough*
Boy, what a horrible cold I have today.

Some time before the release of SNES. Hmm. I think there was one before Game Boy, too. Oh, wait. Right. NES. :smallannoyed:

*shakes cane at you whipersnappers and your control sticks*

[Myatar_Panwar]

We are beyond the point of people telling other people that "their system is better because we will be getting x"

The systems already got all of their x's, and now that the price differences seems to have mostly gone away, that is all you really need to look into. Which x's you want.

[Mando Knight]

Some time before the release of SNES. Hmm. I think there was one before Game Boy, too. Oh, wait. Right. NES. :smallannoyed:

*shakes cane at you whipersnappers and your control sticks*

NES buttons were horizontally placed along the face.

[Sholos]

Ummm actually I stream videos from my 360 just fine i don't know what you're talking about.

Fixed your spelling :smalltongue: .

Fixed your fix. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

Anyways, in response to the online thing, PS3's may be free, but I've heard that it's not nearly as well supported as the 360's, and if all you care about is DLC, then the Silver membership is all you need and that's free. Also, Xbox Live Arcade has some of the best games out there. I agree with what's been said about the controllers already. Triggers on the 360 controller are much nicer.

[Drolyt]

I'm actually planning on buying one of those soon (I've already got a Wii). In my honest opinion both have good exclusives, but the non-exclusives are such a good bunch of games it hardly matters. The PS3 wins on a couple of counts though: It's the best Blu-Ray Player on the market, and The Last Guardian will be exclusive for it. So yeah, since I've finally got a high-def tv I'm going for the PS3. (As a side note, I'm not into console shooters. That's what PCs are for, so a lot of exclusives for both systems don't do anything for me).

Beyond that I still prefer the Wii. I know there's been a lack of high quality games aimed at the hardcore market, but the few available are great fun (especially Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess). Besides that it's easier to get my family involved with the Wii. Finally the The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Metroid: Other M are easily two of the most anticipated games of all time and are coming soon.

On a final note, the 3DS is going to be AWESOME.

[Eloi]

I'm actually planning on buying one of those soon (I've already got a Wii). In my honest opinion both have good exclusives, but the non-exclusives are such a good bunch of games it hardly matters. The PS3 wins on a couple of counts though: It's the best Blu-Ray Player on the market, and The Last Guardian will be exclusive for it. So yeah, since I've finally got a high-def tv I'm going for the PS3. (As a side note, I'm not into console shooters. That's what PCs are for, so a lot of exclusives for both systems don't do anything for me).

Beyond that I still prefer the Wii. I know there's been a lack of high quality games aimed at the hardcore market, but the few available are great fun (especially Super Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess). Besides that it's easier to get my family involved with the Wii. Finally the The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Metroid: Other M are easily two of the most anticipated games of all time and are coming soon.

On a final note, the 3DS is going to be AWESOME.
This.
And, yep, the 3DS will be awesome. Its everything the Virtual Boy was supposed to be and more.

[Dragosai]

For the OP; Optimystik answered your question on page one. Both systems have pros and cons; the best way to pick one for any individual is to go with whatever the majority of your friends have. Yeah there are good single player games, but nothing is as much fun as co-op with your friends.

[Ihouji]

When this question came up for me it really all boiled down to one thing, price. Both have good games, both are fairly close hardware wise though the ps3 dose come with some bonuses already mentioned in previous posts (blue ray and 1080p instead of xboxes 720p), but the thing that really got me to go with ps3 was simple math.

Both systems cost around $300, however in 3 years the ps3 with have cost me $300+games while the xbox (through xbox live) will have cost me $480+games. Its as simple as that. I had been playing games online for free long before xbox live existed even for the first xbox and I will never pay to play something that should be free as it always has been.

Microsoft is taking your money and on top of that filling your xbox live hud with advertisements; You're getting taken advantage of every month $5 at a time and the only thing you can do about it is complain to ears too stuffed full of YOUR cash to hear you, unsubscribe and have a console with no online capability A.K.A. junk, or sell your xbox and get a PC, ps3, or heck even the wii has free online (not knocking the wii, I loves me some wii sports)

[MoelVermillion]

I went with the PS3 because the lack of region lock allows me to import games when ever I want to, this was an important selling point for me. I also found that I vastly preferred the PS3 controller and actually find the sticks to be too tight on the xbox 360 though this could come from the fact that I never play console shooters (which I assume would require the enhanced precision) but often play action adventure games (where I find the looser sticks allow me to more quickly change direction in the middle of combat).

I think ultimately however which console is best falls entirely to personal preference. I will probably also pick up an Xbox 360 sometime in the future due to that multiplayer Castlevania apparentally being an XBLA exclusive.

[Leecros]

Both systems cost around $300, however in 3 years the ps3 with have cost me $300+games while the xbox (through xbox live) will have cost me $480+games. Its as simple as that. I had been playing games online for free long before xbox live existed even for the first xbox and I will never pay to play something that should be free as it always has been.

Microsoft is taking your money and on top of that filling your xbox live hud with advertisements; You're getting taken advantage of every month $5 at a time and the only thing you can do about it is complain to ears too stuffed full of YOUR cash to hear you, unsubscribe and have a console with no online capability A.K.A. junk, or sell your xbox and get a PC, ps3, or heck even the wii has free online (not knocking the wii, I loves me some wii sports)

i know this is going to sound like blasphemy to many multiplier obsessed people, but you don't NEED to get Xbox Live, you don't NEED to go online to play your games. It's not necessary, i know it's popular nowadays,but really, it's not needed at all. If you don't like it then don't pay $5 a month and go get your friends to join in. It's just as good. Hell that way you can even avoid the annoying kids who scream through the headset.

also you know playing games online on your PC isn't free either, you still have to pay a monthly fee for your internet or your provider will pull the plug, and usually its more expensive than your $5 a month.

Also a console with no online capability is not junk. I have an Xbox 360 and all of the games that i have on there i don't play online and i'm perfectly happy with it :smallsmile:

although honestly, if i had to reconsider getting a 360 i would rather get the PS3, for no other reason than that many of the Xbox games will eventually come out for PC, it may be a little later than their console counterparts, but i can buy them then.


in the end though PC > all of them, and no not because of Steam.

[Mando Knight]

Microsoft is taking your money and on top of that filling your xbox live hud with advertisements; You're getting taken advantage of every month $5 at a time and the only thing you can do about it is complain to ears too stuffed full of YOUR cash to hear you, unsubscribe and have a console with no online capability A.K.A. junk, or sell your xbox and get a PC, ps3, or heck even the wii has free online (not knocking the wii, I loves me some wii sports)

Isn't the free Xbox Live Silver all you need for getting DLC and such?

[Zevox]

unsubscribe and have a console with no online capability A.K.A. junk,
I have to agree with Leecros - unless you're obsessed with certain games' online multiplayer, no, that isn't anywhere near that important. I personally have only ever had one game series I've really wanted to play online, Super Smash Brothers, which obviously isn't affected by Microsoft. The free version of X-Box Live is sufficient to acquire demos, DLC, and XBLA games, which is all I'm interested in as far as the X-Box's online goes. So no, not having X-Box Live Gold does not make the console junk, even remotely.

Hell, most of my 360 games don't even have online multiplayer - Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Tales of Vesperia, Lost Odyssey, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3. The only games I have for the system which even have that option are Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe and Soul Calibur IV, and while I did try them online during the 1 month free trial of Live Gold that came with the console and had some fun with it, it's not anything I miss at all now that the free trial is up.

Zevox

[Jerthanis]

I have to agree with Leecros - unless you're obsessed with certain games' online multiplayer, no, that isn't anywhere near that important. I personally have only ever had one game series I've really wanted to play online, Super Smash Brothers, which obviously isn't affected by Microsoft. The free version of X-Box Live is sufficient to acquire demos, DLC, and XBLA games, which is all I'm interested in as far as the X-Box's online goes. So no, not having X-Box Live Gold does not make the console junk, even remotely.

Hell, most of my 360 games don't even have online multiplayer - Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Tales of Vesperia, Lost Odyssey, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3. The only games I have for the system which even have that option are Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe and Soul Calibur IV, and while I did try them online during the 1 month free trial of Live Gold that came with the console and had some fun with it, it's not anything I miss at all now that the free trial is up.

Zevox

Word.

I don't understand the draw of online multiplayer. To me, multiplayer is what you do with your real life friends when you all gather for a LAN party or a beat-em-up like Final Fight or Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Single player experiences are what you play at home.

Also, I hear Sony is switching to a paid model because of complaints about Sony's schizophrenic online services being each handled by the individual game's producers. The way I understand it is that Sony doesn't budget for providing services to its online customers, or maintaining its own servers, so the online capability of each game is only supported by the game company that put it out. I assume this cuts pretty deeply into the game developer's profit margins, since they can't very well charge per-game for its online services.

[Drolyt]

I've never found online to be important for a console. Split screen multiplayer is much more fun, you know playing with actual people. The only games I play online are all PC (MMOs and Stratey games mostly).

[Ihouji]

i know this is going to sound like blasphemy to many multiplier obsessed people, but you don't NEED to get Xbox Live, you don't NEED to go online to play your games. It's not necessary, i know it's popular nowadays,but really, it's not needed at all. If you don't like it then don't pay $5 a month and go get your friends to join in. It's just as good. Hell that way you can even avoid the annoying kids who scream through the headset.

I will agree I do most of my online gaming on my PC, and the console is more of a group activity, so saying junk may have been a bit harsh.


also you know playing games online on your PC isn't free either, you still have to pay a monthly fee for your internet or your provider will pull the plug, and usually its more expensive than your $5 a month.

Yes but paying for your internet isn't the same as paying a monthly fee to game. Millions of people pay for internet and don't game at all because paying for your internet comes with a host of benefits other than playing online games. Paying a monthly fee on top of that to game just seems silly to me as i have been gaming on the internet for years without paying that fee.



in the end though PC > all of them, and no not because of Steam.

On this I'll have to agree.

[Mr. Scaly]

I've never really been too into PC gaming for no reason I can really explain...I've had a long term love affair with the Baldur's Gate series and the occasional flirt with Blizzard's offerings, but the only one I still actively play is the Heroes of Might and Magic series.


Thinking on the op some more, I guess I'd go with a PS3 if I ever cared enough to get a new console. It has Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Dragon Age: Origins and soon enough the Sly Cooper series.

[Drolyt]

One thing I forgot to mention: if you care about motion control, the direction the PS3 is going (ripping off the Wii) is much better than the 360's direction, which is too gimmicky to be of any use in a real game (prove me wrong).

[factotum]

One thing I forgot to mention: if you care about motion control

The next question would be: why? Motion control is still a gimmick looking for a killer game, IMHO--as Yahtzee pointed out in one of his reviews, sword-fighting is one of the few genres where it actually makes sense to be holding a straight object in certain positions to control your character. As you move away from that the abstraction becomes more and more tenuous until you might as well be using a conventional controller.

[Drolyt]

The next question would be: why? Motion control is still a gimmick looking for a killer game, IMHO--as Yahtzee pointed out in one of his reviews, sword-fighting is one of the few genres where it actually makes sense to be holding a straight object in certain positions to control your character. As you move away from that the abstraction becomes more and more tenuous until you might as well be using a conventional controller.

It also works great for FPS games, see: Metroid Prime 3. I don't think it is a gimmick, but I have to agree it hasn't really shown it's potential quite yet, other than Prime 3 that is, which had controls that were handed down from on high. I think Skyward Sword will be the game to show motion control's true potential (as opposed to Twilight Princess, where aside from aiming a few of your gadgets it was still mostly a gimmick). It's main usefulness is in aiming and weapon control, which in addition to FPSs and Action games could be very useful in RPGs where you have to wield weapons and aim spells/bows. I do agree that trying to shoehorn it into games without any care as to whether it is actually intuitive is a bad idea.

[Mr. Scaly]

The next question would be: why? Motion control is still a gimmick looking for a killer game, IMHO--as Yahtzee pointed out in one of his reviews, sword-fighting is one of the few genres where it actually makes sense to be holding a straight object in certain positions to control your character. As you move away from that the abstraction becomes more and more tenuous until you might as well be using a conventional controller.

Mario Kart Wii, Okami and Metroid Prime 3 spring readily to mind. I've heard good things about The Conduit and Red Steel 2. And then there're the games where it plays a small but welcome part of the regular gameplay, like Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess. I've always felt that motion control is another tool to add to games, like analog sticks and shoulder buttons.

[Mando Knight]

I think Skyward Sword will be the game to show motion control's true potential (as opposed to Twilight Princess, where aside from aiming a few of your gadgets it was still mostly a gimmick).

If it works even just as well as Wii Sports Resort's Sword games, it'll probably be the best example out there. Sports Resort is the poster child for what motion control is capable of, though in the end it's just a publicly released, well-polished, and fun tech demo.

[factotum]

I've always felt that motion control is another tool
to add to games, like analog sticks and shoulder buttons.

That I would happily agree with, but the industry seem to be producing these things for their own sake without any clear idea of what to do with them.

[Mr. Scaly]

That I would happily agree with, but the industry seem to be producing these things for their own sake without any clear idea of what to do with them.

I blame the follow the leader mindset that seems to have sunken in. Someone has success with something and everyone else dives in without thinking things through.

[Drolyt]

If it works even just as well as Wii Sports Resort's Sword games, it'll probably be the best example out there. Sports Resort is the poster child for what motion control is capable of, though in the end it's just a publicly released, well-polished, and fun tech demo.

It is largely based on that (I understand the Zelda time worked on it), to the extent that the fencing game was in some ways a testing ground for future Zelda titles. Zelda, more than almost any other game, has the potential to truly benefit from motion controls due to how weapons and gadgets are so integral to gameplay.


That I would happily agree with, but the industry seem to be producing these things for their own sake without any clear idea of what to do with them.
Yeah, that's why the Wii has so much crap. Still, there are some genres it is just perfect for, such as:
RPGs
FPSs
some Action Adventures (like Zelda)
Racing Games
Simulators
Others

In addition, there are probably ways to make it useful in other genres (for example strategy games, most of which are horrible on the console because of the lack of mouse and could use a WiiMote to make up for that). The problem is using it as a stupid gimmick.

I guess when you get right down to it there are only two uses for WiiMote/PS Move type motion controllers: 1) To represent an object the character is holding (see: Zelda, Metroid) and 2) To be the console version of a Mouse, for pointing/selecting/aiming/etc. There are a lot of games that can benefit from this, but not every game can. As much as I love SMG, why the hell do you shake the controller to spin?

[warty goblin]

If it works even just as well as Wii Sports Resort's Sword games, it'll probably be the best example out there. Sports Resort is the poster child for what motion control is capable of, though in the end it's just a publicly released, well-polished, and fun tech demo.

Granted I've not played Wii Sports Resort, but I'd think a sword would be very poorly represented by any motion control I could see appearing in the near future. The reason being that what makes a sword interesting to use is not swinging it, but how it interacts with your opponent's blade, specifically things like displacements, parries, and controlling the other's weapon. With traditional controls hitting the attack button launches some sort of animation that can at least try to account for all this, but the abstraction level is very high and the attacks are very discrete entities. But if I swing a motion controller in some big chop or thrust, and my enemy stops it, I am now totally out of sync with the on-screen action.

For actions without lots of dynamic repositioning of whatever is being modeled I could see motion control working pretty well, but sword combat is essentially about something that I do not understand how motion control could account for.

[Drolyt]

Granted I've not played Wii Sports Resort, but I'd think a sword would be very poorly represented by any motion control I could see appearing in the near future. The reason being that what makes a sword interesting to use is not swinging it, but how it interacts with your opponent's blade, specifically things like displacements, parries, and controlling the other's weapon. With traditional controls hitting the attack button launches some sort of animation that can at least try to account for all this, but the abstraction level is very high and the attacks are very discrete entities. But if I swing a motion controller in some big chop or thrust, and my enemy stops it, I am now totally out of sync with the on-screen action.

For actions without lots of dynamic repositioning of whatever is being modeled I could see motion control working pretty well, but sword combat is essentially about something that I do not understand how motion control could account for.

I do fence in real life (not very good yet, just starting) and I don't see the problem. Simply require that if you are parried/blocked you have to return to en garde before the controls will be responsive again. That's the proper response in real life anyways, return to a position where you can react to the opponent.

[Ihouji]

The next question would be: why? Motion control is still a gimmick looking for a killer game, IMHO--as Yahtzee pointed out in one of his reviews, sword-fighting is one of the few genres where it actually makes sense to be holding a straight object in certain positions to control your character. As you move away from that the abstraction becomes more and more tenuous until you might as well be using a conventional controller.

I also know someone who used the wii board for physical therapy after an injury and have seen stories of it being used in nursing homes to help elderly people stay active with low impact exercise. I used to think it was gimmicky as well, but honestly, I'm starting to see it as an alternative gaming style, and even a medical tool in some cases.

The remote also converts to a gun with a $5 hunk of plastic that works great for on the rails shooters (have played house of the dead a good 8 hours of fun with a friend, if they come out with time crisis for wii I'm buying one)

[warty goblin]

I do fence in real life (not very good yet, just starting) and I don't see the problem. Simply require that if you are parried/blocked you have to return to en garde before the controls will be responsive again. That's the proper response in real life anyways, return to a position where you can react to the opponent.

Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to program the AI to never attack out of a parry, or indeed do such lovely tricks as meet the strong of your blade with the weak of its, then push your attack aside and cut to the side of your neck or thrust to the face? Maybe fencing does not allow for such moves anyway, but actual sword combat meant to kill people does.

[Oslecamo]

Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to program the AI to never attack out of a parry,

That's why you need to recover your guard by puting the control back in position as fast as possible. In a real combat someone who's slow to get his guard up again after attacking will also lose.



or indeed do such lovely tricks as meet the strong of your blade with the weak of its, then push your attack aside and cut to the side of your neck or thrust to the face? Maybe fencing does not allow for such moves anyway, but actual sword combat meant to kill people does.

Well for starters I don't really expcect to face an AI that's a master of fencing to know all those fancy tactics and when to use them. A machine can just do so much elaborate tactics. I would also like a shooter/RTS where the AI feints and seeks to cleverly sets up ambushes and flankings on their own, but I have yet to see it.

Second, I would be more than satisfied to face mob of orcs/goblins/skeletons/bandits nº459 that mindlessly try to hack at me whitout much finesse.

Third, if I'm going to a sword fight to the death, I'll make sure to bring an helmet and armor to cover my squishy parts.:smalltongue:

[Drolyt]

Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to program the AI to never attack out of a parry, or indeed do such lovely tricks as meet the strong of your blade with the weak of its, then push your attack aside and cut to the side of your neck or thrust to the face? Maybe fencing does not allow for such moves anyway, but actual sword combat meant to kill people does.

Attacking after you are parried or blocked is suicide 95% of the time in any combat style anyways. If you are the one parrying or blocking what I said doesn't apply, you are free to move while your opponent needs to get back into position. At any rate this was just one possible solution.

[Zombieboots]

Xbox. No I do not have a hate for PS3 or Nintendo.

Heres what it comes down to:
When "The Xbox" first came everyone pointed and laughed and started listing off all the flaws with it. You know what Microsoft did? They sat quitely, pulled a notepad and a pen out of their pocket, and before their started writing they asked "Oh really... What else?"
A few years later we have the Xbox 360 which is vastly superior to it's predecessor.

Sony Playstation# (and Nintendo): We North Americans, Australias, and Europeans scream at (either) Japanese company what we would like to see in systems, games, or products only for them to brush us off as faint whispers barely heard. Catering to their home front consumers- which is certainly understandable but frustrating.
Where is Mother3?

Xbox in my opinion wins simply because they are here, and listen to us. Price gouging and DLC be damned, if we ask, not even ask hard, if we simply ask. We do get what we want. Which all us needed/gimme consumers want.

Now don't get me wrong PS3 has me weeping because I want "The Last Guardian" when it comes out and I no longer own a functional PS3, my friend consoles me with "Don't worry, play some more Halo, man" and I cry harder.

My vote is still Microsoft.

[Drolyt]

Xbox. No I do not have a hate for PS3 or Nintendo.

Heres what it comes down to:
When "The Xbox" first came everyone pointed and laughed and started listing off all the flaws with it. You know what Microsoft did? They sat quitely pulled a notepad and a pen out of their pocket and before their started writing they asked "Oh really... What else?"

A few years later we have the Xbox 360 which is vastly superior to it's predecessor.

Sony Playstation# (and Nintendo): We North Americans, Australias, and Europeans scream at (either) Japanese company what we would like to see in systems, games, or products only for them to brush us off as faint whispers barely heard. Catering to their home front consumers- which is certainly understandable but frustrating.

Xbox in my opinion wins simply because they are here, and listen to us. Price gouging and DLC be damned, if we ask, not even ask hard, if we simply ask. We do get what we want. Which all us needed/gimme consumers want.

Now don't get me wrong PS3 has me weeping because I want "The Last Guardian" when it comes out and I no longer own a functional PS3, my friend consoles me with "Don't worry, play some more Halo, man" and I cry harder.

My vote is still Microsoft.

Don't know about Sony, but the issue with Nintendo isn't that they don't listen to Americans (they do, especially when it comes to Zelda and Metroid, which are bigger over here and in Europe than over there), but that they don't listen to the "hardcore" crowd. The "core" can whine about the graphics in a given Zelda game all they want, Nintendo won't listen, because they know how to make a game fun for everyone, not just the loud whiners. Nintendo heard what the casual fan wanted and they delivered.

[Zombieboots]

Don't know about Sony, but the issue with Nintendo isn't that they don't listen to Americans (they do, especially when it comes to Zelda and Metroid, which are bigger over here and in Europe than over there), but that they don't listen to the "hardcore" crowd. The "core" can whine about the graphics in a given Zelda game all they want, Nintendo won't listen, because they know how to make a game fun for everyone, not just the loud whiners. Nintendo heard what the casual fan wanted and they delivered.

Do not let anyone tell you wrong about Cell Shaded graphics of the Zelda series, fantastic series.
Well the the Metroid series is bigger here then over seas, because it is generally not liked by Japan. It was and still is a game for the hardcore crowds. The only reason there has been resurgence to the series is because Retro Studios, a company from Austin, Texas, musled it's way in, at serious risk to their business to revived the Metorid series. Which dispite still being sold by nintendo makes them in my eyes an American product. Nintendo Japan finally catching a clue after nearly a decade started producing "The Other M" I only hope it will stand up to Retro's work, but it does look promising.

Lets not get off topic. I only mentioned Nintendo in passing, main Issue is still Sony Vs Xbox.

[Drolyt]

Lets not get off topic. I only mentioned Nintendo in passing, main Issue is still Sony Vs Xbox.

True. Although I disagree there too, for the reasons I've outlined I say PS3 > 360. These include: Plays Blu-Ray movies, The Last Guardian, motion control that is more than just a stupid gimmick, and an overall better roster of exclusives. Not to mention that multiplatform games tend to be better on the PS3.

[Mando Knight]

The only reason there has been resurgence to the series is because Retro Studios, a company from Austin, Texas, musled it's way in, at serious risk to their business to revived the Metorid series. Which dispite still being sold by nintendo makes them in my eyes an American product.
Retro is owned by Nintendo, though, and it was by Nintendo's initiative that they took the project. That, and Shigeru Miyamoto was one of the lead producers, keeping in touch with the team via e-mail. He was also responsible for making Retro go 1st-person with the game. Almost anything that he touches turns to gold.

[Xondoure]

Xbox 360. Personally I find the Wii such a different experience that it isn't really a matter of competition between them but about what you expect from your games and which suits you best far more than it is between the Xbox360 and the PS3, although the same can be argued there. Personally I have a Wii and an Xbox and enjoy them both hugely. I'm sure I would have fun with a PS3 but I don't see it offering me a whole lot more than what the 360 already has to offer.

[littlebottom]

I'm sure I would have fun with a PS3 but I don't see it offering me a whole lot more than what the 360 already has to offer.

except being a blueray player, oh and free internet? and a world in which built in wifi is not the selling point of your newest model? because it had that when it was originally built and didnt think of it as anything special? i donno, just throwing ideas about :smallwink:

[Drolyt]

except being a blueray player, oh and free internet? and a world in which built in wifi is not the selling point of your newest model? because it had that when it was originally built and didnt think of it as anything special? i donno, just throwing ideas about :smallwink:

Hell, the Wii had WiFi built in.

[littlebottom]

Hell, the Wii had WiFi built in.

yes, that it did. and it didnt make a fuss about it either. i suppose the real reason they didnt include it was so that microsoft could make more sales on wireless usbs for the xbox or something. making the cost just to use the internet even higher! oh my when you think about it, you pay much more for an xbox than you do a playstation and yet everyone went around saying that playstation was too expensive :smalltongue:

[Mauther]

True. Although I disagree there too, for the reasons I've outlined I say PS3 > 360. These include: Plays Blu-Ray movies, The Last Guardian, motion control that is more than just a stupid gimmick, and an overall better roster of exclusives. Not to mention that multiplatform games tend to be better on the PS3.

I've never heard any consensus that PS3 is superior in multiplatform. In fact, most developers have stated that Microsoft has vastly superior develper support (and yes I do realize I just claimed Microsoft did something right for once) That's at least part of the reason youve been seeing so many PS exclusives popping up as multiplatform titles. In most cases multiplatform titles are functionally the same between PS3/XBOX360, but in several (for example the Orange Box debacle) PS3 performance has been notably poorer. I would consider this largely a wash, overall the titles have been largely comparable as far as performance goes, but I think your claim that Sony handles multiplatform is somewhat suspect. Your judgement on the exclusives is completely subjective, in a very real sense XBOX has cut most of Sony's exclusives away, and in the major titles they are largely a parity now. Not that Sony doesn't have some awesome titles, Uncharted almost got me to rationalize buying a second system on that title alone. But for every Uncharted or KillZone, there's a Halo or Mass Effect.

And I think dismissing Kinect out of hand is a mistake. So far, I've found all of the motion controllers to be gimicky, with titles being forced to design game effects around the controller. Once this technology matures, we may see some really good effects, but so far its largely rubbish. But the idea of a controller-less interface is pretty frigging huge. Granted they need to demonstrate just how this interface will work, I still can't see how they will get around reading only the motions intended for gameplay (without all of the fidgeting and other extraneous motions). But the idea of controling game play by gesture and voice only pretty much blows the nunchuck and the glwoing mic away.

[Yora]

The big selling point for a game console is what games you can get. There are many multi-platform releases these days, but there are still lots of really good exclusives.
BluRay, graphics, internet browser, ... I really don't care! I got a PC and a DVD player, all I do with a console is play. The superior platform is the one on which my games run.
On the XBox you have the american shoters like Halo and Gears of War. On PS3 you have stuff like MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and the last Guardian. I want that crazy artsy japanese stuff, so I buy Sony. ^^

Actually I had an Xbox 360 at first, but after having played Halo 2 and 3, Gears of War, and Jade Empire once, there wasn't much left that I would want to play. So I sold it and got a PS3 instead. Just which it would play PS2 games, so I would need only one console.

[Drolyt]

I've never heard any consensus that PS3 is superior in multiplatform. In fact, most developers have stated that Microsoft has vastly superior develper support (and yes I do realize I just claimed Microsoft did something right for once) That's at least part of the reason youve been seeing so many PS exclusives popping up as multiplatform titles. In most cases multiplatform titles are functionally the same between PS3/XBOX360, but in several (for example the Orange Box debacle) PS3 performance has been notably poorer. I would consider this largely a wash, overall the titles have been largely comparable as far as performance goes, but I think your claim that Sony handles multiplatform is somewhat suspect. Your judgement on the exclusives is completely subjective, in a very real sense XBOX has cut most of Sony's exclusives away, and in the major titles they are largely a parity now. Not that Sony doesn't have some awesome titles, Uncharted almost got me to rationalize buying a second system on that title alone. But for every Uncharted or KillZone, there's a Halo or Mass Effect.
I'll give on this. I find more interest in Sony exclusives, although just barely and mostly because of The Last Guardian, but your mileage may vary. That said I was under the impression that multiplatform titles were better for the PS3 because of the greater capacity and processing power.

And I think dismissing Kinect out of hand is a mistake. So far, I've found all of the motion controllers to be gimicky, with titles being forced to design game effects around the controller. Once this technology matures, we may see some really good effects, but so far its largely rubbish. But the idea of a controller-less interface is pretty frigging huge. Granted they need to demonstrate just how this interface will work, I still can't see how they will get around reading only the motions intended for gameplay (without all of the fidgeting and other extraneous motions). But the idea of controling game play by gesture and voice only pretty much blows the nunchuck and the glwoing mic away.

Anyone who thinks the WiiMote is gimmicky needs to play Metroid Prime 3. Seriously, best controls on an FPS ever. At any rate I really disagree here, I see lots of awesome applications for Kinect's technology, but I just don't see it being useful for gaming. I've usually been right about this too, I predicted that the PS2 would own last generation and that the Wii would own this generation. I also saw right away that the PSP couldn't beat the DS. And now I'm telling you that Kinect is pretty much worthless. If I'm wrong, it will be the first time.

[Leecros]

yes, that it did. and it didnt make a fuss about it either. i suppose the real reason they didnt include it was so that microsoft could make more sales on wireless usbs for the xbox or something. making the cost just to use the internet even higher! oh my when you think about it, you pay much more for an xbox than you do a playstation and yet everyone went around saying that playstation was too expensive :smalltongue:

PS3 was more expensive, because you don't NEED internet to play a console game.
when you think about it, saying X was more expensive than Y because of something you don't need to get is a terrible argument.
I payed less for my 360 than a PS3 when i got it. And...i still payed less for my 360 than a PS3.:smalltongue:


the internet is one of the least important things to consider when thinking about a console. IMO it detracts from the experience, not adds to it. If i wanted to play a multiplayer game i'd go abduct some of my friends and have them play with me. I KNOW they're not some screechy 12 year old or someone who thinks that the game they're playing is more important than life itself. IF i wanted to play a game online then i'd go onto my PC(which is better than all consoles) and play there.

[Drolyt]

PS3 was more expensive, because you don't NEED internet to play a console game.
when you think about it, saying X was more expensive than Y because of something you don't need to get is a terrible argument.
I payed less for my 360 than a PS3 when i got it. And...i still payed less for my 360 than a PS3.:smalltongue:


the internet is one of the least important things to consider when thinking about a console. IMO it detracts from the experience, not adds to it. If i wanted to play a multiplayer game i'd go abduct some of my friends and have them play with me. I KNOW they're not some screechy 12 year old or someone who thinks that the game they're playing is more important than life itself. IF i wanted to play a game online then i'd go onto my PC(which is better than all consoles) and play there.

All true, but with the current price drops it doesn't really matter anymore. They are comparable enough in price that that shouldn't be a selling point.

[littlebottom]

PS3 was more expensive, because you don't NEED internet to play a console game.
when you think about it, saying X was more expensive than Y because of something you don't need to get is a terrible argument.
I payed less for my 360 than a PS3 when i got it. And...i still payed less for my 360 than a PS3.:smalltongue:


the internet is one of the least important things to consider when thinking about a console. IMO it detracts from the experience, not adds to it. If i wanted to play a multiplayer game i'd go abduct some of my friends and have them play with me. I KNOW they're not some screechy 12 year old or someone who thinks that the game they're playing is more important than life itself. IF i wanted to play a game online then i'd go onto my PC(which is better than all consoles) and play there.

no, i will conceed that internet is not everything. but to me, and thousands of others, it was an important point. the ability for me to play a game with my friend online co-op was a big point for me, as you could have your full screen rather than part of a screen, sometimes less than half (Resi evil 5 im looking at you)

[Drolyt]

no, i will conceed that internet is not everything. but to me, and thousands of others, it was an important point. the ability for me to play a game with my friend online co-op was a big point for me, as you could have your full screen rather than part of a screen, sometimes less than half (Resi evil 5 im looking at you)

True enough, and in this case I think PS3 wins because you don't have to pay more. That said, your mileage may vary, and whether internet gaming is a selling point depends on the individual.

[Sholos]

With regards to Internet connectivity, I'll just say that you get what you pay for. Microsoft's support is heads over heels better than Sony's.

[shadow_archmagi]

I remember when this debate was relevant to me, back before I joined the PC gaming master race

[Tirian]

I remember when this debate was relevant to me, back before I joined the PC gaming master race

And boy, not a day goes by when I regret dropping out of THAT race. Even years ago, a PS2 cost less than a PC video card, and that video card would have been deprecated at least once in the meantime. Console gaming means never having to worry about compatibility or driver issues. And I think the only two PC games I've regretted missing out on have been the Half-Life 2 series and Oblivion, and I got over it. (Fortunately, my crappy video card was just good enough to limp through Portal.)

[Mr. Scaly]

I remember when this debate was relevant to me, back before I joined the PC gaming master race

Oh God, it's only a matter of time before someone invents computer viruses for a console too, isn't it?

[Zevox]

BluRay, graphics, internet browser, ... I really don't care! I got a PC and a DVD player, all I do with a console is play. The superior platform is the one on which my games run.
Completely agreed. The purpose of a gaming console is to play video games. All the other stuff that developers seem to insist on tossing in with it these days is peripheral at best, pointless at worst.

Though in my case, this means having a 360, not a PS3. I generally prefer Japanese games to Western ones, and don't like shooters, but Bioware + Tales of Vesperia beats the few PS3 exclusives I was really interested in (mainly Disgaea 3). Plus price is still an issue, and the basic 360 I got was $50 cheaper than the PS3 slim.

Zevox

[littlebottom]

Oh God, it's only a matter of time before someone invents computer viruses for a console too, isn't it?

microsoft made one for the xbox 360 and built it in so that it had a limited lifespan that was after the garentee/warentee wore off so people had to buy a new one, it was called the red ring of death.:smalltongue: microsoft made millions because of that red ring. and cheated lots of people out of alot of money.

of course, now you can pay for an extended warentee so that if it happens again they will cover it... but you have still paid extra for the extended warentee so what do they care?

EDIT: sorry, but i loled when i found out about the red ring of death, it was sweet sweet irony :smallamused: (as a ps3 owner of course, not as an xbox owner)

[Drolyt]

And boy, not a day goes by when I regret dropping out of THAT race. Even years ago, a PS2 cost less than a PC video card, and that video card would have been deprecated at least once in the meantime. Console gaming means never having to worry about compatibility or driver issues. And I think the only two PC games I've regretted missing out on have been the Half-Life 2 series and Oblivion, and I got over it. (Fortunately, my crappy video card was just good enough to limp through Portal.)

I suppose this also depends on whether you are a big tech guy. Although it's expensive to keep my PC up to gaming potential, I've never had trouble with drivers or anything like that, and honestly I find PC games more convenient than console games, especially if you have a desktop replacement laptop like a Falcon Northwest.

[Leecros]

microsoft made one for the xbox 360 and built it in so that it had a limited lifespan that was after the garentee/warentee wore off so people had to buy a new one, it was called the red ring of death.:smalltongue: microsoft made millions because of that red ring. and cheated lots of people out of alot of money.

of course, now you can pay for an extended warentee so that if it happens again they will cover it... but you have still paid extra for the extended warentee so what do they care?


actually they lost a lot of money on that.

To start with they extended the warranty of ALL Xbox 360's to 3 years; after that you would have to pay ~100-150$ to get an extended warranty and your RRoD fixed,but they still lost about 1 billion dollars. It was a mistake by the company and they did NOT build it to have a limited lifespan.

And now they have new models of 360's which aren't supposed to have RRoD, but still do sometimes:smallconfused:

If you're going to bash a company at least do some research first.:smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

I'll give on this. I find more interest in Sony exclusives, although just barely and mostly because of The Last Guardian, but your mileage may vary. That said I was under the impression that multiplatform titles were better for the PS3 because of the greater capacity and processing power.

The PS3 has more powerful hardware yes. The problem is that apparently the Cell is rather hard to design for due to substantially worse dev kits and so forth, and has quite different architecture than most other (read: PC and 360) CPUs, meaning that many cross-platform engines can't really take advantage of the additional power. If the PS3 had been the dominant console of this generation so that most engines were designed primarily for it, it would have given the platform quite an advantage over the competition. As it is, unfortunately for Sony, it rather goes the other way.


And boy, not a day goes by when I regret dropping out of THAT race. Even years ago, a PS2 cost less than a PC video card, and that video card would have been deprecated at least once in the meantime. Console gaming means never having to worry about compatibility or driver issues. And I think the only two PC games I've regretted missing out on have been the Half-Life 2 series and Oblivion, and I got over it. (Fortunately, my crappy video card was just good enough to limp through Portal.)

People always say this, and I really don't understand it. I've been a PC only gamer for as long as I've played electronic games, and a fairly hardcore one for the last five years or so. I'm about to buy my third graphics card/gaming rig, and its only really because of some non-gaming related software corruption. The hardware is a bit more expensive - quite a lot so if you insist on owning top end stuff - but the games are so much cheaper* that if you play a lot of different titles I suspect the savings more than offset the difference. Also, as a student who moves every nine months or so, only having one box to haul around is a major advantage.

*Particularly if you follow the quite frequently insane digital distribution sales. I got Space Rangers 2 for $2.00

[Mando Knight]

The PS3 has more powerful hardware yes. The problem is that apparently the Cell is rather hard to design for due to substantially worse dev kits and so forth, and has quite different architecture than most other (read: PC and 360) CPUs, meaning that many cross-platform engines can't really take advantage of the additional power. If the PS3 had been the dominant console of this generation so that most engines were designed primarily for it, it would have given the platform quite an advantage over the competition. As it is, unfortunately for Sony, it rather goes the other way.
In short, Sony's learning one of the lessons that Nintendo was forced to back with the N64. (No, not the storage size problem. Nintendo still hasn't quite learned that one, but they're getting better...) The N64 was rarely significantly more impressive than the PS1 due to its unique and difficult architecture. Sure, Nintendo and a handful of other companies figured out how to make it look rather impressive for 1995, but most couldn't manage to pull off anything that looked much better than what the PS1 could do, and for higher cost than the PS1.

[Leecros]

see, the thing i like about PC is that i can play every PC game that i've ever bought EVER on it. I have one of the newer PC operating systems, and while that alone can't play some of the older games; Slap on a Vdrive and install Windows 98 on it and i can play every single game on it with no extra cost. The compatibility of older games on the PC greatly overpowers the compatibility of older games on the consoles, for that very reason alone i have a much much larger archive of games for my PC than any console. It's saved me from throwing away hundreds of dollars of games which i've had to do with consoles past since the games tend to outlive the console...if you take proper care of them:smallamused:

and i include selling old games at yard sales as throwing them away 5$(if that) sale on a 20$ game...blah:smallfrown:

[Drolyt]

In short, Sony's learning one of the lessons that Nintendo was forced to back with the N64. (No, not the storage size problem. Nintendo still hasn't quite learned that one, but they're getting better...) The N64 was rarely significantly more impressive than the PS1 due to its unique and difficult architecture. Sure, Nintendo and a handful of other companies figured out how to make it look rather impressive for 1995, but most couldn't manage to pull off anything that looked much better than what the PS1 could do, and for higher cost than the PS1.

Actually it was mostly the cost. Both the PS1 and the N64 were stupid to program for compared to a PC (actually, except for the XBox and the 360 all consoles have been stupid to program for) but since most of the good third parties left for the PS1 only Nintendo and it's second parties every managed to utilized the N64's true power, which was graphically about twice as powerful as the PS1. Actually the real question is why Sony went for a ridiculously expensive graphical powerhouse for this generation. In both of the previous generations the Playstation was cheaper, both for consumers and developers than the competition while being less technically powerful, but they won out on other factors, such as DVD playback and third party support.

[warty goblin]

In short, Sony's learning one of the lessons that Nintendo was forced to back with the N64. (No, not the storage size problem. Nintendo still hasn't quite learned that one, but they're getting better...) The N64 was rarely significantly more impressive than the PS1 due to its unique and difficult architecture. Sure, Nintendo and a handful of other companies figured out how to make it look rather impressive for 1995, but most couldn't manage to pull off anything that looked much better than what the PS1 could do, and for higher cost than the PS1.

It actually ends up being a bit worse than that though. Since the 360 is easier to develop for and is ahead of the PS3 in terms of popularity, a lot of engines seem to be written for Microsoft's console first, and then ported over - and remember the PS3 is hard to develop for if you start working there from the ground up. Hence the same game not infrequently ends up looking worse on the PS3 than the 360, despite the later's much beefier hardware.

Although to be fair, this does seem to be happening somewhat less often now, as developers have gained experience with both platforms, and engines have had a chance to mature.

[Tirian]

Actually the real question is why Sony went for a ridiculously expensive graphical powerhouse for this generation.

That seems like the easiest question. Sony was more interested in winning the next-generation movie format contest, and therefore needed a console that justified Blu-Ray quality media so they could stick a free player in every powergamer's living room. I'm sure they'd rather have dominated both markets, but I'd be surprised if they truly regretted winning only the much larger one.

[Drolyt]

That seems like the easiest question. Sony was more interested in winning the next-generation movie format contest, and therefore needed a console that justified Blu-Ray quality media so they could stick a free player in every powergamer's living room. I'm sure they'd rather have dominated both markets, but I'd be surprised if they truly regretted winning only the much larger one.

Of course, the PS3 is still the best Blu-Ray player at it's price, so if anyone actually cared the PS3 would be selling much better. I've actually tried and failed to convince my non-gamer friends to get PS3s rather than stand alone Blu-Ray players since the PS3 is usually more full featured, and hey if you ever want to play games or something it would be there. People just don't listen.

[factotum]

but I'd be surprised if they truly regretted winning only the much larger one.

That seems to imply that the market for high-def movies is much larger than for games--do you have numbers to back that up? It's just that I thought the video game market was actually larger these days than the film market!

[Drolyt]

That seems to imply that the market for high-def movies is much larger than for games--do you have numbers to back that up? It's just that I thought the video game market was actually larger these days than the film market!

It is not, not by a long shot. Nintendo's net income was 2.5 billion last year, less than Avatar's box office gross. That said I would not be surprised, in fact I'm almost sure of it, if video games bring in more money annually than Blu-Ray disc and device sales. Sony is actually losing money in general, not just in the gaming market, whereas Nintendo has proved more recession resilient.

Edit: I've looked a little more into it, and apparently if you look at gross instead of net income/profit the video game industry is close to the movie industry, while not yet surpassing it. However the profit margin appears to be far greater for movies than games, with the aforementioned Avatar having a profit margin of about 1000%.

[Jerthanis]

no, i will conceed that internet is not everything. but to me, and thousands of others, it was an important point. the ability for me to play a game with my friend online co-op was a big point for me, as you could have your full screen rather than part of a screen, sometimes less than half (Resi evil 5 im looking at you)

I played RE5 on a splitscreen, and I will honestly say it genuinely improved the experience over being in separate places with full screens. It allowed me to see through my partner's eyes whenever I needed to, which was immensely helpful in the caves, on the boats, and any time my partner was in danger. When I needed to walk my partner through his role in beating Endboss Wesker, being able to point at his screen and say, "See this boulder here? Push it." was the difference between three tries and likely an infinite number of tries.

You will never convince me that not being in the same physical space as my partner will ever be a benefit to a game experience.


I remember when this debate was relevant to me, back before I joined the PC gaming master race

Yeah, I was a part of that until I switched to Linux. Now only, like... 20% of games work for me, and only after hours of figuring out how to make them work.

Totally. Worth. It.

[valadil]

but the games are so much cheaper* that if you play a lot of different titles I suspect the savings more than offset the difference.

*Particularly if you follow the quite frequently insane digital distribution sales. I got Space Rangers 2 for $2.00

The problem with PC games though is that you have to buy them all. Console games have built in DRM - the disc. As long as you need the disc to play you can rent the game, buy it used, or borrow it from a friend. PC games are becoming more expectant on selling a copy of the game to everyone who wants to play it. And I expect DRM to only get more stringent.

Note that I haven't done any math on this. Depending on your gaming habits it may be cheaper to buy 100% of the PC games you want to play or it may be cheaper to buy 50% of the console games while borrowing the other 50%. After years of PC use, I'm finding the console's reliance on physical media to be refreshing.


see, the thing i like about PC is that i can play every PC game that i've ever bought EVER on it.

My Xbox plays Atari 2600*, Nintendo*, Genesis*, SNES*, Sega CD*, N64*, MAME*, Gameboy*, GBA*, Game Gear*, PS1, DosBox, Stepmania, and of course, Xbox games. Probably a few others too. For the systems with an asterisk, I have a full collection of games.

My PC can't play every game I've ever bought. Unreal was so heavily optimized for a Pentium 2 with a voodoo video card that it barely runs on a modern machine. Rocket Jockey requires direct x 3 and won't detect a newer direct x. I've only gotten it to install by using a hacked version. I'm sure there are others, but those are the examples that come to mind right now.

Seriously though, I used to be a hardcore PC gamer. I switched because of carpal tunnel syndrome. The mouse hurts my wrists. The controller doesn't. I need my wrists if I'm going to remain a coder. Since switching I've seen that consoles do have some benefits. I thought this thread was supposed to be about PS3 vs 360 anyway and not about consoles vs PC?

[warty goblin]

The problem with PC games though is that you have to buy them all. Console games have built in DRM - the disc. As long as you need the disc to play you can rent the game, buy it used, or borrow it from a friend. PC games are becoming more expectant on selling a copy of the game to everyone who wants to play it. And I expect DRM to only get more stringent.

Note that I haven't done any math on this. Depending on your gaming habits it may be cheaper to buy 100% of the PC games you want to play or it may be cheaper to buy 50% of the console games while borrowing the other 50%. After years of PC use, I'm finding the console's reliance on physical media to be refreshing.



Since I don't actually have any friends - console gamers or otherwise - loanability is unfortunately irrelevant to me. If I did, that would certainly be an advantage. Beyond that though, I absolutely love not having physical disks. It means I don't have to worry about them getting damaged, lost or simply have my game disk in location A when I'm in location B. For the dozens of games I purchased digitally, the only thing I need to play them is the hard drive I installed them to. For an essentially solitary gamer, it's a real convenience.

[factotum]

Unreal was so heavily optimized for a Pentium 2 with a voodoo video card that it barely runs on a modern machine.

Eh? I played Unreal less than a year ago, on a Vista 64-bit machine with an nVidia graphics card, and had no problems whatsoever.

[Mauther]

...Edit: I've looked a little more into it, and apparently if you look at gross instead of net income/profit the video game industry is close to the movie industry, while not yet surpassing it. However the profit margin appears to be far greater for movies than games, with the aforementioned Avatar having a profit margin of about 1000%.

Is it though? I'm not contradicting you, I just rarely see any numbers on the production cost for video games. I've seen a few listed, and they're not cheap, but with the exception of massive boondoggles like Duke Nukem Forever game companies are usually pretty good at keeping prices down. Of course I do recall hearing stories that Modern Warfare cost around $200 million for production and advertising, and I heard similar numbers for GTA4. According to this site (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/), there are at least 10 games that cost over $45 million to make (not necessarily counting advertising). It would be interesting to see the $$$ side of the video game given more attention. Considering the number of movies that are considerred failures despite their box office (Superman Returns - $391 million), it would be interesting to see how the big games stack up.

[Leecros]

The problem with PC games though is that you have to buy them all. Console games have built in DRM - the disc. As long as you need the disc to play you can rent the game, buy it used, or borrow it from a friend. PC games are becoming more expectant on selling a copy of the game to everyone who wants to play it. And I expect DRM to only get more stringent.

i let my friends borrow my PC games all the time, it's not that difficult to do.


Note that I haven't done any math on this. Depending on your gaming habits it may be cheaper to buy 100% of the PC games you want to play or it may be cheaper to buy 50% of the console games while borrowing the other 50%. After years of PC use, I'm finding the console's reliance on physical media to be refreshing.
I never understood the usefulness of renting or borrowing. If i want a game then chances are good that i want to play it for more than a night or a week. I don't have a game in my house that i haven't wanted to play sometime in the future. If i'm going to dish out money for a game then i'm going to keep it, there's no sense in giving it back, it'd be a waste of money.

My Xbox plays Atari 2600*, Nintendo*, Genesis*, SNES*, Sega CD*, N64*, MAME*, Gameboy*, GBA*, Game Gear*, PS1, DosBox, Stepmania, and of course, Xbox games. Probably a few others too. For the systems with an asterisk, I have a full collection of games.
Modded i presume?

My PC can't play every game I've ever bought. Unreal was so heavily optimized for a Pentium 2 with a voodoo video card that it barely runs on a modern machine. Rocket Jockey requires direct x 3 and won't detect a newer direct x. I've only gotten it to install by using a hacked version. I'm sure there are others, but those are the examples that come to mind right now.
I'll admit that not all games will work on the newer machines and/or a V-drive, i have a game "Corsiars" that will play for ~ a minute before crashing. but other than that...


Seriously though, I used to be a hardcore PC gamer. I switched because of carpal tunnel syndrome. The mouse hurts my wrists. The controller doesn't. I need my wrists if I'm going to remain a coder. Since switching I've seen that consoles do have some benefits.
there are accessories you can buy for your computer that help with CTS on top of the fact that you can plug a controller right into your computer to play some games with little effort.

Whatever happened to joysticks?


I thought this thread was supposed to be about PS3 vs 360 anyway and not about consoles vs PC?

well PC gaming is a part of gaming i know many people who would prefer to play on a PC than a console. There's other consoles out there other than PS3 and the 360 it's not surprising that the topic has broadened since it's original post. PC's the way to go for me because all of the consoles out there right now pales in comparison to what i can do with my computer.



Is it though? I'm not contradicting you, I just rarely see any numbers on the production cost for video games. I've seen a few listed, and they're not cheap, but with the exception of massive boondoggles like Duke Nukem Forever game companies are usually pretty good at keeping prices down. Of course I do recall hearing stories that Modern Warfare cost around $200 million for production and advertising, and I heard similar numbers for GTA4. According to this site (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/), there are at least 10 games that cost over $45 million to make (not necessarily counting advertising). It would be interesting to see the $$$ side of the video game given more attention. Considering the number of movies that are considerred failures despite their box office (Superman Returns - $391 million), it would be interesting to see how the big games stack up.
it's not really surprising. Back when gaming first started out a handful of people came together in a room and made one(and some REALLY good ones at that). Nowadays though there can be hundreds of people involved over 2-5 years or more. So i'm not really surprised that they're getting pretty expensive to make.

[factotum]

It's probably quite true that video games don't have the same budget as blockbuster movies just yet, but on the other hand, there are probably more games being produced than there are movies!

[warty goblin]

it's not really surprising. Back when gaming first started out a handful of people came together in a room and made one(and some REALLY good ones at that). Nowadays though there can be hundreds of people involved over 2-5 years or more. So i'm not really surprised that they're getting pretty expensive to make.

It's to the point that even smaller, fairly indie games are getting ridiculously expensive. Most of the estimates of Torchlight's budget that I've read put it at about $2 million, and that was working from an existing engine on a small title very far from the cutting edge.

[Zevox]

I never understood the usefulness of renting or borrowing. If i want a game then chances are good that i want to play it for more than a night or a week. I don't have a game in my house that i haven't wanted to play sometime in the future. If i'm going to dish out money for a game then i'm going to keep it, there's no sense in giving it back, it'd be a waste of money.
It allows you to try games you're not sure you want or which you expect won't be worth the full purchase price. For instance, I recently rented Prototype for my 360. It was a 6 day rental for $7, and I took it back a couple of days early. It was a fun action game for a while, but once I maxed out the main character's abilities and beat the story - which was pretty short - the rest of it got boring and repetitive awfully fast, so I didn't even feel the desire to keep it the full 6 days. Dropping $30-40 or whatever it costs used at Gamestop these days on it would have been a waste of money, as it was unable to hold my interest past those first few days, even though it was pretty fun while those first few days lasted. I can say much the same thing about Dante's Inferno, too, which I beat twice in the space of the 6-day rental due to how short it was.

In contrast, one game that I rented and then decided I wanted to buy was Jade Empire on the original X-Box. I actually had never heard of it before it caught my eye at the rental store, and I tried it on impulse, and loved it.

Zevox

[Drolyt]

Is it though? I'm not contradicting you, I just rarely see any numbers on the production cost for video games. I've seen a few listed, and they're not cheap, but with the exception of massive boondoggles like Duke Nukem Forever game companies are usually pretty good at keeping prices down. Of course I do recall hearing stories that Modern Warfare cost around $200 million for production and advertising, and I heard similar numbers for GTA4. According to this site (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2010/02/20/top-10-most-expensive-video-games-budgets-ever/), there are at least 10 games that cost over $45 million to make (not necessarily counting advertising). It would be interesting to see the $$$ side of the video game given more attention. Considering the number of movies that are considerred failures despite their box office (Superman Returns - $391 million), it would be interesting to see how the big games stack up.

I'm not quite sure where to find numbers myself. I had always heard that Video Games were a hit driven medium, only the really popular million sellers actually make any cash. That's true for the big Hollywood movies too, the big thing for the first few weeks is trying to recoup their losses, but that's discounting all the companies that produce $300,000 direct to video movies or made for tv movies and then pull in 1-2 million in profits (and yes I know for a fact that this happens all the time). I guess it really depends on what you consider part of a given industry, if we are only talking Hollywood movies that go to theater into account the Video Game industry is probably comparable, but not if you take into account all forms of film. Also should we include Hollywood television in our comparisons, and if not why the hell not, it is the same companies after all.

[Oslecamo]

Of course, the PS3 is still the best Blu-Ray player at it's price, so if anyone actually cared the PS3 would be selling much better. I've actually tried and failed to convince my non-gamer friends to get PS3s rather than stand alone Blu-Ray players since the PS3 is usually more full featured, and hey if you ever want to play games or something it would be there. People just don't listen.

Actually, that's a common marketing trick to get people to spend more money. You're right that the PS3 indeed comes cheaper when you take in acount all the extra features...

...However, if you never use those extra features, they may as well not be there. Your friends certainly have other tools to surf the net. And they aren't interested in games. The PS3 then costs twice as much as the Blu-Ray player for no pratical advantage.

Plus, Blu-Ray is just a very small part of the movie industry. A lot of people still use DVDs (movies in computer yay!) or plainly dich physical support and buy directly trough the net. Also theaters make for a fat part of the movie profit.

Blu-Ray isn't very widespread at all, as it's much more expensive than geting your movie trough other means. Sony had however betted heavily on it, making them lose more money. I remember watching commercials everywhere for it, but really, it's not worth if you don't have a big powerfull TV to back it up.

Actualy, if Sony could cut 200 bucks from the PS3 price by ditching the fancy blu-ray player, I bet their sales would go up. Much better to have a console+3 games than a console that can play expensive movies. If you buy them.:smalltongue:

[The Rose Dragon]

Actualy, if Sony could cut 200 bucks from the PS3 price by ditching the fancy blu-ray player, I bet their sales would go up. Much better to have a console+3 games than a console that can play expensive movies. If you buy them.:smalltongue:

Their own games come in Blu-Ray format, though. Removing the blu-ray player would be like removing the monitor of a desktop computer.

[Drolyt]

Actually, that's a common marketing trick to get people to spend more money. You're right that the PS3 indeed comes cheaper when you take in acount all the extra features...

...However, if you never use those extra features, they may as well not be there. Your friends certainly have other tools to surf the net. And they aren't interested in games. The PS3 then costs twice as much as the Blu-Ray player for no pratical advantage.

Plus, Blu-Ray is just a very small part of the movie industry. A lot of people still use DVDs (movies in computer yay!) or plainly dich physical support and buy directly trough the net. Also theaters make for a fat part of the movie profit.

Blu-Ray isn't very widespread at all, as it's much more expensive than geting your movie trough other means. Sony had however betted heavily on it, making them lose more money. I remember watching commercials everywhere for it, but really, it's not worth if you don't have a big powerfull TV to back it up.

Actualy, if Sony could cut 200 bucks from the PS3 price by ditching the fancy blu-ray player, I bet their sales would go up. Much better to have a console+3 games than a console that can play expensive movies. If you buy them.:smalltongue:

I should point out my friends were looking at a $250 player. Fact remains that the PS3 was the first Blu-Ray player to actually support all of Blu-Ray's features and is supposed to give you excellent picture and sound compared to most other players, even much more expensive ones, at least according to the reviews I've read, so even if you are only into movies it is still the best for it's price from a technology perspective.

[Tirian]

Blu-Ray isn't very widespread at all, as it's much more expensive than geting your movie trough other means. Sony had however betted heavily on it, making them lose more money. I remember watching commercials everywhere for it, but really, it's not worth if you don't have a big powerfull TV to back it up.

It's a rational long-range position to take, though. As the years go on, televisions will become more powerful and therefore the market for high-definition movies will improve. And their format is entrenched as the standard ... for physical storage, at least.

The one cloud on their horizon is that everyone could just switch to storing their movies in the cloud and using streamed internet to watch them, which would eat Sony's lunch.

[Oslecamo]

I should point out my friends were looking at a $250 player.

Eerrr, a quick google search for PS3 prices shows the cheapest at 479 bucks, and most at 499 bucks. Double of the price of the blu ray players your friends are looking at.



Fact remains that the PS3 was the first Blu-Ray player to actually support all of Blu-Ray's features and is supposed to give you excellent picture and sound compared to most other players, even much more expensive ones, at least according to the reviews I've read, so even if you are only into movies it is still the best for it's price from a technology perspective.

Even assuming those reviews are true(I myself heard some that the PS3 makes background noises when playing movies) and that all of Sony's competition aparently sucks at making Blu-Ray players, I guess most people would still be willing for a "just" amazing quality with a 250$ machines. I've seen some of those working on the tech shops, they're quite amazing. If PS3 provides even better, I doubt I could notice the diference.

[Drolyt]

Eerrr, a quick google search for PS3 prices shows the cheapest at 479 bucks, and most at 499 bucks. Double of the price of the blu ray players your friends are looking at.

Err, I thought new PS3s were down to $299.99. At any rate Gamestop has refurbished ones at $250, exactly the price of the player they were looking at.

As for whether you are right about it not being as good a Blu-Ray player as I thought, I can't say.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Blu-Ray isn't very widespread at all, as it's much more expensive than geting your movie trough other means. Sony had however betted heavily on it, making them lose more money. I remember watching commercials everywhere for it, but really, it's not worth if you don't have a big powerfull TV to back it up.

My mum bought an uber HD Tv and a Blu-Ray player. The TV has nice resolution, but the blu-ray output looks no different to the standard output it gets from free to air.

When I pointed this out to her she waved me away with

"Oh but it is and it's beauty and look, it glows!"

I currently don't believe in Blu-Ray. Waste of time.

[Oslecamo]

Err, I thought new PS3s were down to $299.99. At any rate Gamestop has refurbished ones at $250, exactly the price of the player they were looking at.


Well, refurbished PS3 vs brand new player isn't exactly fair game. If you're willing to risk refurbished stuff I bet you could find even cheaper players out there.:smalltongue:

Perhaps that's why your friends didn't consider it. Refurbished means a small but not zero chance that something may go wrong, nevermind the smaller warranty.

[Joran]

My mum bought an uber HD Tv and a Blu-Ray player. The TV has nice resolution, but the blu-ray output looks no different to the standard output it gets from free to air.

When I pointed this out to her she waved me away with

"Oh but it is and it's beauty and look, it glows!"

I currently don't believe in Blu-Ray. Waste of time.

Well, digital TV over the air should be HD. I find the difference between Blu-Ray and upscaled regular DVD to be mostly unnoticeable, but I have crappy eyes.

I would buy a PS3 so I could install Linux on it... Then buy another 15 PS3s, install Linux on them and then network them together to simulate gravity...

http://gravity.phy.umassd.edu/ps3.html

Wait, someone already did that. I love it when people use items in ways for which they were never intended. Oh and the U.S. Air Force just bought 1700 PS3s to network together in a cluster. Apparently, for supercomputing functions (and crypto), PS3s clusters are much more inexpensive than actual supercomputers.

[Mando Knight]

Eerrr, a quick google search for PS3 prices shows the cheapest at 479 bucks, and most at 499 bucks. Double of the price of the blu ray players your friends are looking at.

I'd like to know what kind of Google you're using, or where you are. Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-3-120-GB/dp/B002I0J4VQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1277246823&sr=8-1) lists the 120 GB model for $299.99. Google has a price range for the Slim models at around $300 or less (http://www.google.com/products?q=PlayStation+3&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_en___US361&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=xj0hTIucF8P38AbH6qCBAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CEgQrQQwAg), and I can almost guarantee you that the old models with the relatively tiny HD aren't going to sell for the hundreds of dollars more that they're listed.

[Oslecamo]

I would buy a PS3 so I could install Linux on it... Then buy another 15 PS3s, install Linux on them and then network them together to simulate gravity...


Too late. Sony newest machines don't allow you to install Linux anymore. (http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html)

So, yeah, Sony is actualy cuting off the nicest features of it's machine.:smallyuk:

[Joran]

Too late. Sony newest machines don't allow you to install Linux anymore. (http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html)

So, yeah, Sony is actualy cuting off the nicest features of it's machine.:smallyuk:

The worst part of it is that they're retroactively taking away that functionality from already sold PS3s with a firmware update. There's a class action lawsuit that's trying to get that reversed, which probably has a good chance of succeeding.

It makes sense though. Supposedly, Sony was selling the consoles at a loss, hoping to make up for it with Blu-Ray and software sales. I wonder if they reached the break even point yet.

[Drolyt]

Too late. Sony newest machines don't allow you to install Linux anymore. (http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html)

So, yeah, Sony is actualy cuting off the nicest features of it's machine.:smallyuk:

If he had the money to buy 15 PS3s, link them together in a supercluster, and build gravity simulation software, he would have the money to hack his PS3 and put Linux on it. At any rate he doesn't need that kind of money, Sony just dropped OtherOS support, anyone with a little tech knowhow can get Linux on pretty much any machine they want.

[Drolyt]

The worst part of it is that they're retroactively taking away that functionality from already sold PS3s with a firmware update. There's a class action lawsuit that's trying to get that reversed, which probably has a good chance of succeeding.

It makes sense though. Supposedly, Sony was selling the consoles at a loss, hoping to make up for it with Blu-Ray and software sales. I wonder if they reached the break even point yet.

The reason they are dropping OtherOS support is believed to be related to a security hack that relies on it. It doesn't cost them anything to have OtherOS support, and it certainly saves them nothing to remove it from old machines, so there isn't really any other explanation.

[factotum]

The one cloud on their horizon is that everyone could just switch to storing their movies in the cloud and using streamed internet to watch them, which would eat Sony's lunch.

I don't believe that's a likely scenario, for two reasons:

1) People like owning a physical, solid object. They don't like owning virtual goods out in the cloud somewhere.

2) For "movies in the cloud" to work, you would need a world where everybody has a minimum 10Mbit connection to said cloud, and we're a long way off that at the moment. My home ADSL connection is 3Mbit, and that's the fastest I can get at my location!

[Drolyt]

I don't believe that's a likely scenario, for two reasons:

1) People like owning a physical, solid object. They don't like owning virtual goods out in the cloud somewhere.

2) For "movies in the cloud" to work, you would need a world where everybody has a minimum 10Mbit connection to said cloud, and we're a long way off that at the moment. My home ADSL connection is 3Mbit, and that's the fastest I can get at my location!

ADSL rarely goes over 6 Mbits and is the most common broadband available. I only have 1 Mbit right now, but I'm looking to upgrade to 25 Mbit cable, the highest offered in my area without a dedicated line. That is less then half of Blu-Ray's 54 Mbit data transfer rate.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Well, digital TV over the air should be HD. I find the difference between Blu-Ray and upscaled regular DVD to be mostly unnoticeable, but I have crappy eyes.

It isn't in Australia though, so there's always that. Some channels are in HD, but most aren't.

It's not that there's no difference whatsoever, it's just that the difference is so negligible.

[valadil]

there are accessories you can buy for your computer that help with CTS on top of the fact that you can plug a controller right into your computer to play some games with little effort.


Yes, but they're suboptimal. Especially in FPSes, the mouse is considered superior to the joystick. I don't want to gimp myself by being the only player on the server with a non-mouse controller. On a console this doesn't bother me because we're all evenly gimped. Additionally, quite a few PC games expect you to have a mouse and keyboard. My last PC addiction was DDO. I had 100 icons on the screen to click on. I had keyboard bindings for 40 of them (0-9 plus shift, alt, and/or control). That wouldn't have worked on a gamepad. If I'm going to end up playing on a gamepad, I'd rather play games that are conducive to it.

[warty goblin]

I don't believe that's a likely scenario, for two reasons:

1) People like owning a physical, solid object. They don't like owning virtual goods out in the cloud somewhere.

2) For "movies in the cloud" to work, you would need a world where everybody has a minimum 10Mbit connection to said cloud, and we're a long way off that at the moment. My home ADSL connection is 3Mbit, and that's the fastest I can get at my location!

For HD quality sure, but things are plenty watchable in much lower resolution. It doesn't take that great of internet to stream a movie via Netflix or similar, and its a whole hell of a lot cheaper than buying the movies even on DVD.

As to people liking to own a physical thing, well that depends on the person. I have zero interest in owning most of the things I watch, because then I'd have to store and move yet another piece of junk that I watch once every blue moon. It makes neither economic or practical sense.

[factotum]

For HD quality sure, but things are plenty watchable in much lower resolution. It doesn't take that great of internet to stream a movie via Netflix or similar, and its a whole hell of a lot cheaper than buying the movies even on DVD.


You seem to have missed that the big selling point of Blu-Ray compared to DVD is the higher definition. And, similarly, one of the big selling points of DVD was that it's better quality than VHS. I really don't see most people returning to VHS quality video anytime soon.

[warty goblin]

You seem to have missed that the big selling point of Blu-Ray compared to DVD is the higher definition. And, similarly, one of the big selling points of DVD was that it's better quality than VHS. I really don't see most people returning to VHS quality video anytime soon.

The difficulty here is that while that's the selling point of Blu-Ray, it comes with an enormous price tag and no particular increase in actual usability. Streaming video, for a bit of a quality hit, is both cheaper and for a lot of people much more convenient than physical media as well.

Look at it this way. I could spend what, $800+ on a Blu-Ray player and HD-TV, plus $20+ per movie, and at any time be able to watch whatever movies I've coughed up the price of a good dinner for. Or I could use a streaming service for much less, and have a vastly larger selection of movies available to watch at the drop of a hat. For me, and I suspect I'm far from the only one, the increase in convenience and large monetary savings more than offsets the decrease in quality.

[Tirian]

You seem to have missed that the big selling point of Blu-Ray compared to DVD is the higher definition. And, similarly, one of the big selling points of DVD was that it's better quality than VHS. I really don't see most people returning to VHS quality video anytime soon.

DVD had several big selling points over VHS, and higher quality doesn't score high on that list. The big ones were denser capacity, greater permanence, and the ability to easily skip around. Blu-Ray does offer denser storage yet and better quality, but those are largely solutions in search of a problem because I don't see a hear of a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the virtues of DVD. Speaking for myself, neither my current nor my next television (in all likelihood) will be a high enough quality that I would notice the difference in Blu-Ray, and so I'm hardly going to shell out hundreds of dollars for a player that would then give me the privilege of paying more for the media than DVDs. Maybe I will in ten years, but then maybe Blu-Ray will turn out to be like laserdiscs in that the population never felt like they needed the solutions.

My brother has Netflix video streaming, and he's a big fan. I can see why -- the load time is less than walking over to the shelves and finding the disc and then walking over to the player, and he doesn't have to be hassled with handling and maintaining a physical object. If proof that he owned movies were in the cloud, then they'd never be stolen or scratched, and the format would never become obsolete.

[Drolyt]

Well, I guess a lot of people are in to this whole cloud thing. Personally I would prefer a collection of Blu-Ray discs to a cloud collection. Besides that my eyes are good enough to see the difference (oddly enough I wear glasses, so everyone assumes I have bad eyesight, but the eye doctor has explained that although I need glasses to correct my astigmatism, my eyes are good enough that when adding prescription lenses I see significantly better than average). (As a side note, certain sites whose legality varies from area to area offer downloads, but not streaming, in Blu-Ray quality. I'm not saying to use those sites, just that if they can offer it it is certainly possible for more legitimate sites to offer it, and yet I find most streaming solutions, legal or not, offer horrendous video quality.)

[Joran]

I don't believe that's a likely scenario, for two reasons:

1) People like owning a physical, solid object. They don't like owning virtual goods out in the cloud somewhere.

2) For "movies in the cloud" to work, you would need a world where everybody has a minimum 10Mbit connection to said cloud, and we're a long way off that at the moment. My home ADSL connection is 3Mbit, and that's the fastest I can get at my location!

The same could have been said about 10-15 years ago with CDs vs. MP3s. I've already moved from disc-based PC games to Steam. I already watch a few movies on Netflix streaming, but I do admit the tech is not quite there just yet.

With better broadband and better compression, the technological hurdles are easily overcome. The only issue is if people are willing to forgo a physical library for a virtual one. Digital download is also an option, except the movie studios seem absolutely petrified by that idea.

[Drolyt]

The same could have been said about 10-15 years ago with CDs vs. MP3s. I've already moved from disc-based PC games to Steam. I already watch a few movies on Netflix streaming, but I do admit the tech is not quite there just yet.

With better broadband and better compression, the technological hurdles are easily overcome. The only issue is if people are willing to forgo a physical library for a virtual one. Digital download is also an option, except the movie studios seem absolutely petrified by that idea.

Download is the only real option for 1080p 60+ Hz right now, unless you have a T4 or better connection.

[Mauther]

Download is the only real option for 1080p 60+ Hz right now, unless you have a T4 or better connection.

Download really is where its at. The studios need to get over themselves and lower the cost of downloads, keeping them at comparable prices to physical media is the main issue holding them back. Consumers have a hard time getting over the psychological hurdle of paying the same for a disc and for virtual property. But decreasing costs for media storage and increased efficiency in compression are helping downloads. The problem with Blu-Ray is that the technology that will supercede it is already available and well on its way towards being a mature technology. Its like asking people to upgrade from 8 track to cassettes right after the first CD player is made available. People are going to be weary of spending a bunch of money building up a BluRay library is they see the replacement tech already obsoleting their investment. For me one of the big reasons I bought a stand alone BluRay player instead of the PS3 was the upgrade feature that plays standard DVD's at near BluRay standards.

That being said I think we've strayed abit from the original XBOX v PS3 arguement.

[Shas aia Toriia]

Well, I have a question about the PS3.
Why does it need to install everything before you can use it? Why not just play stuff straight off the disc like the 360 or Wii?

[Zukhramm]

Well, I have a question about the PS3.
Why does it need to install everything before you can use it? Why not just play stuff straight off the disc like the 360 or Wii?

First of all, it doesn't need to install everything. Some games require installs, and some offer optional isntalls to reduce loading.

As for why, I think it was something about the blueray discs, the way they're read and the speeds they are rotated with.

[Darklord Xavez]

Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii Wii WII WII WII WII!!!!!!!!!!
-Xavez
P.S. Xbox 360 over PS3 though.

[Drolyt]

Well, I have a question about the PS3.
Why does it need to install everything before you can use it? Why not just play stuff straight off the disc like the 360 or Wii?

Same reason PC games have you install, it's faster when you are playing the game and reduces loading time. Blu-Ray has a ton more capacity than DVD, but it isn't much faster at reading, so getting all that info onto your machine takes a while. Hard Drives are much faster. Both the PS3 and the 360 have unprecedented loading times compared to previous generations, with the PS3 being the worse; the Wii has avoided this.

[Sholos]

Both the PS3 and the 360 have unprecedented loading times compared to previous generations, with the PS3 being the worse; the Wii has avoided this.

Of course, this is coupled with the fact that the 360 and the PS3 have unprecedented graphics as well (not to mention that a lot of the time what's being loaded is a lot bigger than previous games).

[Mr. Scaly]

Of course, this is coupled with the fact that the 360 and the PS3 have unprecedented graphics as well (not to mention that a lot of the time what's being loaded is a lot bigger than previous games).

Eh, I wouldn't say that the Wii utterly escapes all loading times... I'm looking at you Super Smash Bros: Brawl! :smallbiggrin: But for me at least graphics have never been a big issue. And the 360 at least tends towards having games I find...well boring.

[Trazoi]

The impression I get (purely anecdotal from first hand experience) is that Nintendo as a software developer is extremely fussy about fast loading times. I think that's one of the reasons they stuck with cartridges for the N64, and they tend to use clever tricks on their disc based games. Third-party games on the Wii and Gamecube tended to have comparable annoying load screens to that on other consoles, which is why I think it's more a developer thing.

[Drolyt]

The impression I get (purely anecdotal from first hand experience) is that Nintendo as a software developer is extremely fussy about fast loading times. I think that's one of the reasons they stuck with cartridges for the N64, and they tend to use clever tricks on their disc based games. Third-party games on the Wii and Gamecube tended to have comparable annoying load screens to that on other consoles, which is why I think it's more a developer thing.

Nintendo has an issue with actually sharing their development techniques with 3rd party developers. The N64 could actually make much better graphics than the PS1, but only Nintendo and Rare games ever took advantage of that. The Gamecube was comparable to the Xbox and yet only Nintendo made games that didn't look like crap. To this day the only Wii games with good controls are 1st party. It took years before 3rd party games that weren't gimmicks came out for the DS. And so on and so forth.

[Trazoi]

To this day the only Wii games with good controls are 1st party.
Yes, that's the one that surprises me the most. I'd have thought Nintendo would have done their most to give easy-to-use control code to their developers to make the most out of the Wii's new controller, and in fact I thought that was the point of the Wii Sports series.

My view on the consoles strengths and weaknesses is they tend to reflect the purpose of the company behind them. Nintendo is a game company first and foremost, and they tend to release solid and innovative hardware with top-notch first party titles. But they seem to develop mostly for themselves, so third party developers are left in the cold.

Microsoft are at heart a software development company, so their console has really great developer support which leads in general to shorter development times and a solid range of titles. The double-edge of their ease of development is the ease of cross-porting to the PC (so less exclusive, less of a must-buy), and their hardware feels more off-the-rack.

Sony is a media and hardware company, so their console supports the latest thing in media and tricked out with enough custom electronic gizmos to make an engineer go wild. But that tends to max out the price, and the degree of difficulty developing for such a machine means it takes the better part of a decade for the game makers to figure it out.

[Drascin]

To this day the only Wii games with good controls are 1st party

I dunno, Successor of the Skies controls like a dream and much as I'd like it, Treasure isn't really a part of Ninty :smallwink:. And even in the more popular-type games side of the coin, there's quite a few things like BoomBlox, which control plenty well.

[Oslecamo]

My view on the consoles strengths and weaknesses is they tend to reflect the purpose of the company behind them.

You seem to be forgeting the resources behind the company.

Nintendo has very original developers and incentive them to go wild... And little else. They have the lowest cash reserves, wich means they probably just can't afford to make easy to understand code for other companies. I've studied coding quite a bit, and one thing is making code, another all togheter is making that code easily understandable by others. Nintendo's resources are much more limited than the other main gaming companies.

Microsoft on the other hand is filthy rich. They can by all means afford to pay people just to translate code for third parties. And buy third party developers. Oh so Rare is making great games for the N64? Well you work for Microsoft now!

[Drolyt]

You seem to be forgeting the resources behind the company.

Nintendo has very original developers and incentive them to go wild... And little else. They have the lowest cash reserves, wich means they probably just can't afford to make easy to understand code for other companies. I've studied coding quite a bit, and one thing is making code, another all togheter is making that code easily understandable by others. Nintendo's resources are much more limited than the other main gaming companies.

Microsoft on the other hand is filthy rich. They can by all means afford to pay people just to translate code for third parties. And buy third party developers. Oh so Rare is making great games for the N64? Well you work for Microsoft now!

Microsoft's revenue last year was 58 billion, Sony 79 billion, Nintendo 15 billion. That's not a large enough difference for either Microsoft or Sony to overpower Nintendo with money, particularly when they have other products and services to spend their money on. Moreover that's just income, how do profits compare? Microsoft 14 billion, Nintendo 2 billion, Sony -400 million. Even if Microsoft could leverage some of that 14 billion to edge out Nintendo it probably wouldn't be profitable, Microsoft is just fine in second place as long as they profit (see: MP3 players, Web Development Software, etc.). If Microsoft has an advantage in making it's code accessible, it's not because it has more money, it is because it is a software company to begin with and the Xbox/360 are just glorified Windows PCs.

[Trazoi]

Nintendo has very original developers and incentive them to go wild... And little else. They have the lowest cash reserves
Nintendo traditionally has had very large cash reserves, on the order of many times more than other large game companies such as EA. They prefer to keep a large amount of assets liquid. It's not as if they were strapped for cash when they released the Wii.

[Delta]

Just stumbled over this...


Eerrr, a quick google search for PS3 prices shows the cheapest at 479 bucks, and most at 499 bucks. Double of the price of the blu ray players your friends are looking at.

er, what? :smallconfused: I bought a brand new PS3 Slim just a couple weeks ago and paid around 230 Euros, which is less than 280 bucks if I got the current exchange rates right.

[Drolyt]

Just stumbled over this...



er, what? :smallconfused: I bought a brand new PS3 Slim just a couple weeks ago and paid around 230 Euros, which is less than 280 bucks if I got the current exchange rates right.

Yeah we weren't quite sure where he got his info. It's currently selling at 299 US Dollars (looking at exchange rates you might get the idea that consoles actually sell for different amounts in different regions, and you'd be right).