PS3 vs. XBox [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

banjo1985

2011-12-07, 09:29 AM

Okay Serpie, take this as the opinion of an X-box owner i.e. possibly biased in that direction.

Xbox 360
Pro's
Cheap-ish
Wider variety of games
Backwards compatible for most old Xbox games
Removable hard drives
More secure and generally better supported online community
Great casual/basic game availability due to Xbox Live arcade and Indie game community
Plays DVD's and can download movies from the online hub, meaning you don't have update all your stuff to Blu-Ray.
Has the generally superior motion control option, but its expensive to buy!

Cons
Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:
Graphics aren't quite up to the PS3 standard, but a lot of the time you won't tell much difference.
Accessing all the online stuff adds to what the console can do, but it's a paid for service.
You get a LOT of annoying kids playing online in most games, though if you're careful you can avoid them.

PS3
Pro's
Better graphics
The console itself is more reliable
Blu Ray movie player, which are expensive on their own. Could be a con if you haven't got Blu-Ray movies already.
Access to a massive back catologue of PsOne and PS2 games, like the old Final Fantasies and suchlike. This is the one thing I would consider buying a PS3 for!
Again you can get a hard drive, and they tend to have a bigger capacity, so can hold more movies and junk.

Cons
More expensive
Can't play your existing DVD library
Smaller games library, though this is getting better.
Online service has famously been hacked and people's financial details stolen. Online in general is not quite as developed and well supported as the Xbox's. However, it is free, so I guess it balances out.

...whereas I've heard and experienced a variety of issues with the XBox, such as disc scratching and the infamous RRoD (which does seem to be much less common nowadays).

Disc scratching is something I've never experienced I must admit. RRoD (Red Ring of Doom) was a git though, and is the reason I'm on my second console. As you say, they do seem to have put that problem right in the newer consoles, and mines been working without problems for nearly three years now. The 360 still has the stigma of that though, which will teach Microsoft for releasing crappily made consoles at launch. :smalltongue:

Dragonus45

2011-12-07, 09:33 AM

If price is no object and your Dad isn't interested in exclusives for either, the PS3 is a better choice. Free online, better hardware and a more reliable console. The only problem I've heard from PS3 owners was the big hack on Sony a while back, whereas I've heard and experienced a variety of issues with the XBox, such as disc scratching and the infamous RRoD (which does seem to be much less common nowadays).

I will sat one thing about the disc scratching problem, a lot of people that reported that were moving the console while it still had discs in it.

sucatraps

2011-12-07, 09:38 AM

PS3 has either no backwards compatibility or next to none, depending on what version you purchase, regarding using actual PS2 discs.

EDIT: PSOne seems to work on all versions of the PS3. Huh. The more you know.

Yora

2011-12-07, 09:39 AM

For me it always comes down to exclusives.

If you want Halo and Gears of War, get an Xbox. If you want Metal Gear Solid and Valkyria Chronicles, get a PS3.
Free online on the PS3 is also neat, but everything else doesn't really matter.

You can get some old games as downloads for the PS3. But if you are interested in older PS2 and 1 games in general, get yourself a second hand PS2 for 40€ or so and play away.

The Succubus

2011-12-07, 09:39 AM

Access to a massive back catologue of PsOne and PS2 games, like the old Final Fantasies and suchlike. This is the one thing I would consider buying a PS3 for!.

Woah there Skippy. Only the very, very earliest version of the PS3 supported this - new ones can only play PS3 games, which, as someone with a large collection of PS1 & PS2 games, makes me very cranky.:smallmad:

It might just be because I have eyesight that occasionally causes me to converse with store mannequins and doors but I really didn't see much of a difference when playing Blu-Ray films on my TV.

One thing the PS3 does have going for it is the Ico & Shadow Of The Colossus boxset. <3

Both systems are much of a muchness - I tend to go by title availability rather than the mechanics of the systems.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 09:40 AM

It's a bit tricky for me to answer since I only have a PS3 and never really have been that interested in the 360.

One big difference, however, is that Xbox Live is almost universally agreed to be better for multiplayer than the PSN, though of course that doesn't mean it isn't full of insecure and offensive people.

Other than that the main difference appears to be in the game lineup, where the 360 might have slightly more games but the real difference lies in the focus. The PS3 is essentially much more Japanese than the 360 with more jRPGs, and certainly more unique and experimental ones, as well as more games of indeterminate genre that follows Japanese aesthetic and design principles. The 360 is more mainstream and western in its exclusives with a definite emphasis on shooters of various kinds. However, it's not absolute, the very western Uncharted games are PS3 only for example and there are a number of fairly old school JRPGs that are 360 only. Finally, it's important to remember that most games are released for both consoles with no real pattern in which one pulls things off the best technically.

I will say that given the games he's expressed an interest in a 360 seems to fit his needs best. Uncharted seems to be the only thing catering to his existing interests he'd give up by going for that. It just seems that the somewhat greater option for shooters and earlier access to a number of western RPGs would matter more to him than most of what the PS3 has to offer.

banjo1985

2011-12-07, 09:41 AM

PS3 has either no backwards compatibility or next to none, depending on what version you purchase, regarding using actual PSOne/PS2 discs.

True, I badly worded that bit. These old games are available on download though, like the Xbox. The Xbox can play old game discs, but it's pot luck whether they'll actually work or not. Mine would play Worms 3D and Conker fine, but just looked at me suspiciously when I fed it a Quantum Redshift disc.

KillianHawkeye

2011-12-07, 09:42 AM

Access to a massive back catologue of PsOne and PS2 games, like the old Final Fantasies and suchlike. This is the one thing I would consider buying a PS3 for!

Too bad the current version of the PS3 isn't very backwards compatible. At least not compared to the first one, which had the "emotion engine" or whatever it was called.

I'm not exactly sure as to the extent, but the backwards compatibility of the PS3 has been lessened as of a couple of years ago. So if backwards compatibility is a concern for you, check to see if the game(s) you are interested in will run on the system.

EDIT: Seems I have been ninja'd! :smallsigh:

sucatraps

2011-12-07, 09:42 AM

Oh, and the PS3, according to online sources, can totally play DVDs and CDs as well as Blu-Ray discs.

Yora

2011-12-07, 09:43 AM

One thing the PS3 does have going for it is the Ico & Shadow Of The Colossus boxset. <3

There's also going to be a Metal Gear Solid boxset. Squeee...

banjo1985

2011-12-07, 09:44 AM

Oh, and the PS3, according to online sources, can totally play DVDs and CDs as well as Blu-Ray discs.

Ooo shiny. Learn something new every day I guess.

What you could really do with is someone who has both consoles Serp, I'm basing my Xbox knowledge on experience and PS3 knowledge on hearsay. :smallwink:

sucatraps

2011-12-07, 09:47 AM

Yeah, I do not own a PS3, though I do own an XBox and have used a PS3 sparingly at the houses of friends. I certainly prefer the PS3 myself, but price and all that.

Serpentine

2011-12-07, 09:48 AM

Plays DVD's and can download movies from the online hub, meaning you don't have update all your stuff to Blu-Ray.
...
Blu Ray movie player, which are expensive on their own. Could be a con if you haven't got Blu-Ray movies already.
...
Can't play your existing DVD libraryMy Boy's PS3 plays normal DVDs just fine :smallconfused:

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 10:18 AM

Now, this is not a question that I've ever had any interest in, but my dad asked me and I said I'd ask the people who know.

So yeah. My dad's trying to decide between an XBox and a PS3. So, Playground, what are the pros and cons of each console?

Here's what he said about it:

So uh... Help me Playground, you're my dad's only hope?

If you're buying a media extender/dvd player...get the PS3, on account of the bluray.

If the primary purpose is literally anything else, buy the xbox. It crushes PS3 in terms of current game availability, it's got better backward compatibility, so the game divide is much, much wider, it's network is a great deal more secure, and the menu system is less painful. The lower price is also a minor plus.

Note that I've had all three major systems at my place essentially constantly since shortly after release. The PS 3 has basically only ever been used for playing blu-rays and Uncharted.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 11:24 AM

The game availability heavily depends on what games appeal to you. For example, there are a grand total of zero 360 exclusives I'm the slightest bit interested in. That doesn't mean they suck, it simply means that they don't appeal to my taste in games. On the other hand I own, have played and love quite a few PS3 exclusives and there are a good deal more that I'm quite interested in.

Adamant statements either way are just plain wrong since there are good exclusives for both, they're just in different styles and genres.

Mando Knight

2011-12-07, 11:29 AM

Here's what he said about it:

For graphics, they're practically equal. The one that looks better for a given game pretty much depends on which console the company spent more time developing the game for.

Both have hard drives as an option... I don't understand his statement there, unless Microsoft decided not to let people down under have nice things.

Serpentine

2011-12-07, 11:31 AM

The game availability heavily depends on what games appeal to you. For example, there are a grand total of zero 360 exclusives I'm the slightest bit interested in. That doesn't mean they suck, it simply means that they don't appeal to my taste in games. On the other hand I own, have played and love quite a few PS3 exclusives and there are a good deal more that I'm quite interested in.Yeah. An overview of the sorts of games that are available on one but not the other would be handy.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 11:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_360-only_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:PlayStation_3-only_games

Note that there is a fair amount of what can reasonably be considered terrible games in both categories, but meh...someone somewhere probably likes em. All depends what you're into.

Note additionally the XBox Live and the indie games channel contain a *lot* of games that are not listed up there. As in, hundreds. Some of these are also crap, of course, but there's the occasional game of pure awesomeness, like I MAED A GAM3 WITH ZOMBIES IN IT or whatever it's called and Castle Crashers.

Edit: Also, I note that a couple games are somehow listed on both, such as Catan. This is probably an editor fail somewhere. I can confirm that Catan does exist on 360, and it's pretty solid.

Notable games I recommend for each(if you're into that type of game).

PS- Katamari(I mostly played the earlier, PS 2 version, which is addictive as all hell. I presume this is similar), Killzones(fast paced, brutal shooter), Uncharteds(action/adventure. Pretty popular).

360- DDRs, Fable 3(was not a fan of two), Halos, Gears of Wars.

I've probably missed some notable ones, but those are the ones me and my local fellow gamers seem to care about.

Also, the Kinect pretty much crushes the Move.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 12:03 PM

For the PS3 you missed a lot of rather big name titles. Valkyria Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus Collection being the most notable. Ratchet and Clank isn't exactly a small name either and Heavy Rain got a lot of attention upon release. Beyond that a lot of the more obscure titles for the PS3 at least are quite good, I really enjoyed Folklore for example and have only heard good things about Resonance of Fate. Disgaea is highly niche, but very popular and in high esteem by those who enjoy the niche.

Still the first four titles I named a pretty big oversights in significance and notability for the PS3, while the others are just games held in some amount of esteem for it.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 12:13 PM

There are a lot of big name titles in both lists. I know of only one person that was a fan of Heavy Rain, everyone else in my circle who tried it hated it. Sure, it had buzz/publicity, but that's not the same as being a well loved game. I view it as the equivalent to the 360 exclusive Alan Wake. Which, by the way, also sucked terribly.

Shadow of the Colossus is...imo, kind of weak. There's literally nothing to the game other that what's on the cover of the box, really. There are colossi(if that's the right plural), you kill them, that's really all there is. In between each of the painfully few fights, there's lots of walking. Er, yay?

Im unfamiliar with Ico and Valkyria....nobody I knew played them, so I can't reasonably judge them.

Ratchet & Clank's coming to 360, so meh on that score.

Final Fantasy Versus XIII is not out yet. So, I have no idea if it'll be good or not. Opinion of FF XIII was...not terribly great, at least in my area, so I'm not holding my breath.

Maxios

2011-12-07, 12:26 PM

PS3
Pros:
Free online
Great games
Blu-ray player
Internet
Wireless remotes charge
Cons:
More expensive
Can't play PS2 games

XBOX 360:
Pros:
Cheaper
Also has great games
Large amount of indie games
Cons:
Pay for online
Wireless remotes need batteries

Winner: PS3

Tengu_temp

2011-12-07, 12:42 PM

XBox is better if you like generic shooters. PS3 is better if you like generic jRPGs.

Shadow of the Colossus is...imo, kind of weak. There's literally nothing to the game other that what's on the cover of the box, really. There are colossi(if that's the right plural), you kill them, that's really all there is. In between each of the painfully few fights, there's lots of walking. Er, yay?

How about the atmosphere? Or the fact that since the only gameplay are boss fights, the game was able to focus on making those boss fights awesome and memorable?

Erloas

2011-12-07, 12:44 PM

One very subjective, but very important question between the two would be which controller does your dad have a preference for. Maybe its just because I've had a PS since PS1, but I like their controllers a lot more. The Xbox controllers just don't feel right to me and I don't like how they are laid out even if it is similar.

Valaqil

2011-12-07, 01:35 PM

Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:

I'm on my first Xbox 360. I've had it since sometime around the Arcade being released. (A little before, a little after? I don't remember.) It's the 360 Pro with the 20GB HDD. I _know_ I'm in the minority here (or so it seems!) but I've had no RROD or any kind of failure.

I specifically mention it just to give hope: Not all Xbox's die! :(

Cespenar

2011-12-07, 01:38 PM

Also, I'll throw in my totally unresearched and also tangential opinion that if you already own a PC which is good enough to play most games in it, a PS3 might be better choice than an XBox, because you'll cover more bases with it.

Zevox

2011-12-07, 01:55 PM

Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:
I've had my first and only one for two years now, and had no significant trouble with it.

Beyond that a lot of the more obscure titles for the PS3 at least are quite good, [...] and have only heard good things about Resonance of Fate.
Resonance of Fate is multi-platform. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to at some point, and I know I've seen the 360 version in my local rental stores.

Anyway though, if you don't any particular exclusive games you're looking at, I can't be of much help, since as far as I'm concerned the games are the only reason to get any system. I went with the 360 primarily for Bioware titles - Mass Effect is exclusive to it at the PC (and my PC could not possibly play ME), Mass Effect 2 originally was as well but did get a PS3 release about a year after its original release, and I had thought Dragon Age: Origins was going to be the same but was mistaken on that. I'm glad I did though, since another 360 exclusive (unless you live in Japan), Tales of Vesperia, has proven to be one of my favorite games of all time, and certainly my favorite of this console generation so far. I don't get the impression that you're all that interested in JRPGs though, so that one may well not matter to you.

Zevox

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 02:56 PM

XBox is better if you like generic shooters. PS3 is better if you like generic jRPGs.

Probably fair. I know I've certainly complained about the sheer quantity of generic shooters on xbox.

How about the atmosphere? Or the fact that since the only gameplay are boss fights, the game was able to focus on making those boss fights awesome and memorable?

Meh. Not enough actual gameplay for me to care.

Then again, I'm told I'm rather picky. Everyone else liked Mass Effect, but I intensely hated it. Probably should have listed that one as well, as all my friends insist I'm crazy on that one, but the menu system drove me nuts.

On the controller argument, Im just gonna toss out there not to judge the modern xbox controllers by the original xbox ones. The 360 ones are decent...the original xbox controllers were horrific. Basically everyone hated them.

JabberwockySupafly

2011-12-07, 03:10 PM

Some things that I haven't seen mentioned (I will admit, though, I have been doing a bit of a "man look" this early in the morning, pre-coffee):

PS3
-It not only plays Blu-Rays & regular DVDs, it also has the capability of upscaling standard DVDs.

-It is the better machine hardware-wise, but usually ends up getting the inferior version of most non-console exclusive games (Assassin's Creed, Bayonetta, Darksiders, Ghostbusters, and Devil May Cry 4 are all examples of the poorer version on PS3.) because it's so hard to code for the blasted thing most developers will just make the game for 360 and then port it over with a bit of cowboy coding to save time and money, because building a game twice from the ground up is a bit expensive.

-The PS3 suffers from a lesser known cousin to the RRoD which is the YLoD, or Yellow Light of Death. I have been victim to both. The YLoD is worse, because with the 360 you can still eject your disc. When the YLoD happens whatever's in the console is stuck there. I had to pull apart my (then) $900 console to get out my Blu Ray of Planet Earth.

360

-The hardware issues have pretty much been resolved down the standard rate of failure for any machine these days with the 360 Slim and with the newer 'fat' 360's , so you shouldn't worry any more about the RRoD then you would your computer not booting up.

-One of the big negatives with the 360 is how some games will just. not. boot. Clean install, no scratches on the disc, but when you click 'play game', it loads to a black screen, you hear the disc spin, and nothing happens. You have to reboot the whole console and log back into your gamertag and then hit play again and just hope. It's rare, and the game will almost always boot the 2nd time, but it's irritating as all get out (Batman: Arkham City, I'm looking at you!).

- The Pay for Online thing isn't bad, it's only about $90 a year in Australia and you tend to get better connections than with the PS3, but you also get bonus stuff like discounts and deals exclusive to Gold members, which can save you a chunk of change every now and then (160 points for the original X-Men Arcade game on Live Arcade? Okie Doke!)

-Live isn't nearly as secure as people think. Everyone's mentioning the Sony break-in, but no one's mentioned the Xbox (http://www.sportsandtechblog.com/2011/10/14/fifa-loving-hackers-breaking-into-xbox-live-accounts/) Live (http://www.winrumors.com/xbox-live-hacker-breaks-into-microsofts-chief-policy-enforcer-account/) Break-Ins (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/xbox-live-hacked-accounts-stolen/131)

The problem with asking which is better, is that's it purely subjective and will mostly lead to everyone's inner fanboy popping out. I own both, and I prefer the 360 for gaming because most of my friends own 360s and that makes it easier for multiplayer. I also quite enjoy the Disc Install option that allows me to boot games with noticeable loading time reductions and reduced wear on the discs, where as only certain games allow install on PS3 and can take forever (30 MINUTES for DMC4!), and the games still spin. That being said, they are Blu Ray and bloody hard to scratch.

I love my PS3 for all things multimedia and find it to be the better machine for watching movies or listening to music on, and as a gaming system is has got a lot of the better console-exclusives, just none of the recent ones interest me (the HD remakes coming out are changing that, though). That being said, my game system of choice always has been and will be PC.

The long & short is this:

If your dad wants a solid gaming console with a decent library backing it and some of the better console-exclusives that also happens to be an amazing multimedia player, get a PS3.

If your dad wants a monster gaming machine that may not be quite as stable, but has a much larger gaming library and some decent multimedia functions, get a 360.

Or do what I did and find someone he knows who owns both or either and try them, see which one 'feels' right to him.

Anteros

2011-12-07, 03:25 PM

I own both systems, and use both on a regular basis. As far as things like functionality and graphics go I've found them to be about the same.

The PS3 is going to be slightly more reliable, but the Xbox is going to have a slightly larger game market. Also the PS3 is slightly more expensive out the gate, but the online modes are free for it. So the Xbox is going to cost more in the long run. Also, people constantly make a big deal about how Xbox live is so much better than the PS3's online services. It really isn't true. They're fairly similar.

I don't think you can go wrong with either honestly. They're both great systems. If I had to choose just one though I would probably go with my PS3. Exclusives seem to be getting less and less common...especially for the Xbox. That, combined with the better reliability and free online services tip the balance for me.

Yora

2011-12-07, 03:26 PM

On the controller argument, Im just gonna toss out there not to judge the modern xbox controllers by the original xbox ones. The 360 ones are decent...the original xbox controllers were horrific. Basically everyone hated them.
The PS3 controller is pretty much the same as it has been since the PS1, 15 years ago. The shape and button configuation is 98% unchanged. It can't be that bad. :smallbiggrin:

Exclusives seem to be getting less and less common...especially for the Xbox. That, combined with the better reliability and free online services tip the balance for me.
but PS3 has some damn good ones.

With Xbox I only know about Halo, which I personaly have fun with, but isn't that special, and ...Gears of War. Which I'll never understand how it sold so well that it got sequels.

Airk

2011-12-07, 03:27 PM

As someone who owns both a PS3 and a 360 now (Note: The 360 is 4 years old and has never had problems. Additionally, the new Slim 360s have no reputation for hardware failure to speak of, so unless you're buying used, the whole RROD thing should be off the table.), I find that a lot of people are missing something important here:

User experience.

Simply put, PSN and the PSN store are a UI nightmare by comparison to Xbox dashboard/Xbox Live. Even setting stuff like that aside, PSN loses out in functionality, network performance, ease of finding content, and simple, everyday stuff like "Does every game available for download have a demo?" (Answer: Not on PSN.). And that's just talking about the stuff that can be done for free on both consoles. (Xbox live "silver" account.) Exploring this stuff on the PS3 after using the Xbox felt like a huge step backwards.

Additionally, you get what you pay for from the online services, and PSN is very lacking by comparison. In terms of performance, and in terms of features.

A stroke in the PS3s FAVOR, though admittedly one that doesn't come into play for a lot of people, is that it is region free for games, so if there's something you really want that didn't get a US release, you can import. No such luck on the 360.

My personal breakout looks like this:

Things which are pretty much a wash:
Graphics/performance. Some games look or perform slightly better on one platform or the other, and there's no winner here. Please erase from your Dad's head any idea that he's going to get better graphics on the PS3, because while he might in game X, he'll do worse in game Y.

Commercial game lineups. Unless your Dad happens to be a gung ho JRPG fan (and there are probably plenty of people in this very forum whose impressions of the game lineups are skewed in favor of the PS3 for this very reason.) there really isn't a clear winner in this space. Most games get released on both consoles, and the exclusives lists are fairly small in the retail space, and there are often equivalencies. Unless there's a specific game or franchise that he really wants to not miss out on, then he's unlikely to feel more pain here from one console than the other.

Wireless remotes: Honestly, I'd give this one to the Xbox, because you can use normal rechargable AA batteries and never have to worry about having to cable your controller when it runs out of juice, but at worst, this is a wash. Note: For whatever reason, the USB cable that comes with the PS3 controller is like 2.5 feet long, so good luck trying to play while you charge without buying an extension cable. x.x However, if for some inexplicable reason, you're not using rechargable batteries, the PS3 scheme is somewhat preferable.

Price: While the Xbox is "technically" cheaper, in that you can buy the Hard-drive-less 4GB model for $200, the cheapest PS3 model with a hard drive (the 160GB model) is $250, whereas the cheapest Xbox with a hard drive (250GB model) is $300.

"Community": There is a roughly equal number of morons on both systems, but most Xbox systems SHIP with a headset, which means you're more likely to to hear them cursing at you. Flipside? It's much easier to find pleasant people to chat with too, because they're more likely to have headsets.

Things which tilt clearly in favor of the Xbox:
Digital Game lineup. The number and quality of titles available on XBLA and XBLA:IG snows under the selection of similar offerings from the Sony side of the fence. Additionally, each and every one of them has a demo that you can play (for free - no need to pay for Live:Gold here.) to determine whether you like it, whereas only a seemingly random selection of titles available on PSN offer this. Though PSN -does- offer a good selection of PS1 games for download, if you want a more retro spin on things, XBLA is still the runaway winner in NEW content.

Non-gaming online functionality: While both consoles support Netflix in some way, Xbox also provides ESPN3 (where available) and has more offerings coming soon. Also Facebook, Hulu, blah, stuff.

Things which are clearly in favor of the PS3:
Blu-Ray Player: Useful, if you want to play Blu-Ray media. If all you're doing is playing DVDs and/or streaming Netflix, much less relevant. Since Blu-Ray is nominally the disc-of-the-future, this may someday be more important than it is today. Maybe.

Internet Browsing: The PS3 comes with an internet browser, so you can check gamefaqs or whathaveyou without having to hit up a PC. Not sure how well it plays with 'complicated' sites though.

Larger/Non-proprietary hard drives: Astonishingly, Sony did NOT decide to create their own proprietary hard drives for the PS3, so you can upgrade your hard drive with any laptop hard drive if you decide you need more space, whereas on the Xbox, you are stuck paying Microsoft's extremely inflated prices, or using a 16GB or smaller USB stick.

Region Free: For GAMES ONLY. So if you want to import games, this is the system to have, but it won't help you with movies.

It's mostly a wash at this point, though it's worth pointing out that Microsoft seems more interested in adding new features, while Sony seems to keep taking them away. Also, my gut is that Kinect is doing significantly better than PlayStation Move, though I don't have much in the way of numbers to back that up, Kinect still seems to be "in the news" whereas no one seems to really be talking about Move anymore.

There's no clear cut winner. I would suggest the following ideas as tiebreakers:

#1: If you have friends who have one console or the other, and you want to play with them (I know this is your Dad, but whatever, translate), buy whatever console they have. End of argument. This is more important that all the other nonsense combined.

#2: Go down to Best Buy or whatever, and fool around on both consoles. at the very least, get a feel for which controller you might like better (Though contrary to what a lot of people will tell you, they're both perfectly fine for 95% of stuff, though the D-pad on the Xbox is kinda bad.). Ideally, try to spend some time dinking around the UI too.

#3: Look for a deal. Amazon was offering a $50 credit on purchase of a PS3 not long ago, and it looks like they've got on going for the 360 now. $50 is a game, or more than a year of Xbox Live Gold (Aside: Totally. Worth. It.)

Anteros

2011-12-07, 03:28 PM

factotum

2011-12-07, 03:35 PM

Just to backpedal a bit--why does your father think only the PS3 can have a hard drive in it? Or am I misunderstanding the "Playstation has the hard drive option" line?

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 03:35 PM

-It is the better machine hardware-wise, but usually ends up getting the inferior version of most non-console exclusive games (Assassin's Creed, Bayonetta, Darksiders, Ghostbusters, and Devil May Cry 4 are all examples of the poorer version on PS3.) because it's so hard to code for the blasted thing most developers will just make the game for 360 and then port it over with a bit of cowboy coding to save time and money, because building a game twice from the ground up is a bit expensive.

One slight caveat here. The "better" hardware is extremely subjective. They're not really the same type of hardware(the cell having a lot of special purpose hardware folded in). So, depending on the measurement and what exactly you're trying to do...results will vary substantially.

After all, unless you get into very exotic coding indeed, you're looking at a single general purpose processor on the cell, and three on the 360. So, for some types of applications, the 360 might well be crushing the PS3.

Both platforms can be optimized by the use of highly specialized code...but for the PS3, this is necessary at a much lower performance bar. And, honestly, almost nobody wants to do this. Hell, most games are simply single-threaded things, making use of fairly little optimization at all at this level. And, MS helper threads automatically distribute that across the cores, while the PS non-general cores are used sub-optimally in most cases, or just sitting entirely idle.

Quantity of hardware doesn't really mean a thing unless it's usable, and in fact is being used. You're actually going to get comparable or better performance out of the CPU on the 360 most of the time. Sure, the PS has a theoretically higher top end, but theory is...of marginal use.

Video performance goes to the xbox, memory to the ps3...hard drive is basically the same. Both have easy access to a variety of hard drive sizes, and nobody is using fun stuff like SSDs, so it's not worth worrying about.

Oh, the built in wifi on the xbox uses n, while ps3 tops out at g. That's a pretty big hardware advantage as well.

I'd give the PS3 a better nod if they kept the other os/backward compatibility support, but dropping those from the later models means they're actually losing capability while the newer xboxes are gaining it.

All in all, I'd say it's remarkably close, but only because the blu-ray drive is pretty handy. If you're actually going by just gaming hardware, and don't care about blu-ray/already have a blu-ray player, xbox wins in hardware.

Oh yeah, and the load times are unfortunate. I always forget about 'em till someone mentions them(and they do seem to vary a lot by game, some games are pretty aright on load times), but it is a bit of a downer. 360 games tend to load more rapidly even if not installed to drive. This is true even if it's an exact 360 port, with the same textures and jazz. It's a limitation of the drive, not merely a consequence of larger games(though this is also an additional factor).

Mando Knight

2011-12-07, 03:58 PM

#3: Look for a deal. Amazon was offering a $50 credit on purchase of a PS3 not long ago, and it looks like they've got on going for the 360 now. $50 is a game, or more than a year of Xbox Live Gold (Aside: Totally. Worth. It.)
Microsoft is good at one thing: selling Xbox Live Gold. Let your subscription lapse (since you were only taking advantage of the trial period to play on a friend's box for a month without signing in as a guest or something), and they'll be begging you to come back. Free weekends, $1/month subscriptions, whatever it takes.

Yora

2011-12-07, 04:04 PM

Just to backpedal a bit--why does your father think only the PS3 can have a hard drive in it? Or am I misunderstanding the "Playstation has the hard drive option" line?

My understanding is, that PS3 has a lot more hard drive in it. On my 360 I can install 4 games (though the games can be played from disk as well) before I have to delete something. With the PS3, for which I have a lot more games, I never deleted anything, I believe.

Mando Knight

2011-12-07, 04:10 PM

Starwulf

2011-12-07, 04:15 PM

The controller argument is silly. Once you use either a few times you get used to them and have no trouble in the future. I use both systems on a regular basis and I don't even notice the difference in the controllers when I switch any more.

I'll be a voice of dissension on this statement. I don't own both, but I do regularly play both, and I can't stand the Xbox 360's controller. It's just far to bulky for my tastes, and the buttons feel oddly spaced to be quite honest. PS3 controller is the same as the ps2 controllers(and I"m pretty sure nearly identical to the ps1 controllers, albeit I don't fully remember them anymore, so I"m not sure if they have the extra analog stick), they are much more ergonomic, and the buttons are properly spaced(not to close, not to far).

Also, I only skimmed the thread, but I didn't see anyone mention this: The PS3 DOES have backwards compatibility with ALL PS1 games, and the older models of the PS3 have backwards compatibility with both. Depending on how many games you're dad will be playing over and over, he could go with the older system, easily found at gamestop or online on Ebay, and have access to all PS1 and PS2 games. I myself don't mind deleting certain games from my harddrive once I've reached a satisfactory conclusion to them, but I know some people like to keep save files forever. Then of course there is the issue of downloading games from the Playstation Store, obviously an 80 gig harddrive will get full much quicker then the newer models 320gig drives.

Over-all, having played both regularly, I'd give the Edge to the PS3. It does have the capability of better graphics then the 360 does(though in general, there is little to no difference, every once in a while you'll get a multi-platform game that is noticeably better looking on the PS3 then the 360), it has a nicer controller, and I actually prefer the interface compared to the 360's.

Edit: Oh, also, I have no idea if this has any bearing on your situation, but the PS3 is also going to be linked to the PSP Vita, allowing you to do various things(not sure what) by linking them together. So if you have plans on getting a Vita, that could also be a factor.

Airk

2011-12-07, 04:53 PM

My understanding is, that PS3 has a lot more hard drive in it. On my 360 I can install 4 games (though the games can be played from disk as well) before I have to delete something. With the PS3, for which I have a lot more games, I never deleted anything, I believe.

Does your Xbox date from 2006 or something? A "full game" install on the 360 is like 6GB, so... you can do the math. Even really old models like my 60GB unit have room for more than 4 games unless you've filled up the hard drive with all kinds of movies and stuff. (Note: the Xbox at least can stream video/music directly from a PC on your network using Windows Media Center. Not sure if the PS3 has equivalent functionality.)

Also: Haha to PSVita "interconnectivity". I might as well use Bing integration as a selling point for the 360. :P

Starwulf

2011-12-07, 04:59 PM

Also: Haha to PSVita "interconnectivity". I might as well use Bing integration as a selling point for the 360. :P

It may not be a big thing for your, but a close friend of mine is going to buy the PSP Vita strictly BECAUSE of the interconnectivity between it and the PS3. So, it does have some appeal to people, which is pretty obvious, or Sony would never have made a point of mentioning it, or even including it.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 05:43 PM

Airk

2011-12-07, 06:30 PM

It may not be a big thing for your, but a close friend of mine is going to buy the PSP Vita strictly BECAUSE of the interconnectivity between it and the PS3. So, it does have some appeal to people, which is pretty obvious, or Sony would never have made a point of mentioning it, or even including it.

Let me know how that works out for him. I'm not seeing any value in the feature, myself.

Airk

2011-12-07, 06:32 PM

On the graphics thing, the very top end of what the PS3 can produce is higher than the very top end of what the 360 can produce. Metal Gear Solid 4 and the PS3 version of Final Fantasy XIII are generally considered the most technically impressive graphics on either console, for example. However, it is very hard to utilize this even if coding specifically for the console leading it to be pretty random in practice, with maybe a slight lead to the 360 on multiplatform games due to it being easier to develop for and having a larger install base. Either way, it's close enough to not really be worth making the decision over.

This is all sortof irrelevant though, because at this point in modern games, how good something looks is determined far more by the aesthetic it chooses than by the processing power.

And, as you mention, the PS3 is a particularly difficult console to "get the most out of", and even when someone claims to have done so, often they do so at the expense of performance, or simply realize such marginal gains that you really have to sit still images of both versions of a game down next to one another and examine them in order to tell.

It's really not worth taking into account. Gone are the days when you could really sell a system on having better graphics. And I hope they stay gone.

Starwulf

2011-12-07, 06:45 PM

Let me know how that works out for him. I'm not seeing any value in the feature, myself.

Hmm, you edited your post just as I hit quote. To address your previous comment, just because something isn't supported at release(though I'm guessing maybe since you edited it, there are a few that will be?), doesn't mean it won't be more and more as times go on. I can think of a lot of games that would be ideal candidates for such a thing.

And, I DID say that it may or may not have bearing on the OP's situation. Just because you don't find value in it, doesn't mean others won't as well. If I had a PS3, I'd certainly be happy that the PSP Vita has interconnectivity with it, as I do plan on eventually getting a Vita(albeit, likely a year after release). Actually I WILL be happy about that, as sometime this year I plan on purchasing a PS3.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 08:25 PM

Indeed, Airk. I mostly said it because some people had claimed that there was no difference at all or that the 360 was superior in practice, which isn't really accurate either.

In any case, for aesthetics the PS3 has the prettiest game ever, Valkyria Chronicles. Just look at the prettiness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGeeMoGtH4&feature=related). Only Okami can really compete with this game in looking nice as far as I'm concerned, though I will say that Final Fantasy XIII used the graphical power really well aesthetically.

Xondoure

2011-12-07, 09:42 PM

From people who have both there seems to be a lean towards the 360. I'm unsure what that says about the consoles or what it says about people who own both.

Personally I have a 360 and it has worked pretty well for the two or so years I've had it. But I'd guess the differences are pretty minor either way.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-07, 10:08 PM

Given the sample size, it most likely says nothing. :smalltongue:

More generally, a lot of people like multiplayer and the 360 is more popular than the PS3 in the west which means that chances of them being able to play with their friends is higher on that. Also, force of habit likely plays in to a degree, if you mostly use one your most likely to buy games for that one if they're out for both. Finally, I think it shouldn't be underestimated how different the style of most of their exclusives are, with the 360 having the kind more commonly popular in the west. With some exceptions of course, Tales of Vesperia fits more in with the typical line-up of the PS3 while Uncharted more with the typical line-up of the 360.

Airk

2011-12-07, 11:33 PM

Hmm, you edited your post just as I hit quote. To address your previous comment, just because something isn't supported at release(though I'm guessing maybe since you edited it, there are a few that will be?),

Not that I know of, but I edited to try to be less abrasive, and also to allow that there might be some I've never heard of.

doesn't mean it won't be more and more as times go on. I can think of a lot of games that would be ideal candidates for such a thing.

Like....what? Truthfully, I have a hard time even understanding what the feature is supposed to be FOR, unless you want to buy the same game twice and then transfer your saves back and forth or something.

Starwulf

2011-12-08, 02:52 AM

Not that I know of, but I edited to try to be less abrasive, and also to allow that there might be some I've never heard of.

Like....what? Truthfully, I have a hard time even understanding what the feature is supposed to be FOR, unless you want to buy the same game twice and then transfer your saves back and forth or something.

From what I've read it's meant for games that have counterparts on the other system. Like, for example, the God of War series(I use this purely as an example). You have the ones for the PS3, and then you have the ones for the PSP. If you link them up, you might open up additional content to complete. Also, from what I've read, trophy sharing, which is huge for some people(I personally could care less, I don't even pay attention to 360 achievements I get when I play games).

I can see stuff like certain RPGs benefiting from this, if they allow you to share equipment or something like that back and forth. Or racing games, and able to share cars, or send money back and forth from one system to another to upgrade cars. Stuff like that, and I'm sure there are many other ways to connect games together that I'm completely missing.

Basically, I'm just arguing that you can't use a blanket statement like you did and say that "Also: Haha to PSVita "interconnectivity". I might as well use Bing integration as a selling point for the 360. :P " There are going to be people out there who will view that particular feature as a decent selling point. Granted, I doubt many people will be like my buddy(who is a trophy whore) and will buy the PSP Vita strictly for that particular feature, but it might be enough to sway some people into buying the Vita instead of the 3ds if they were on the fence between the two concerning all other options. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but don't belittle the idea just because you dislike it and see no use for it :)

The Succubus

2011-12-08, 05:39 AM

Probably fair. I know I've certainly complained about the sheer quantity of generic shooters on xbox.

Meh. Not enough actual gameplay for me to care.

Then again, I'm told I'm rather picky. Everyone else liked Mass Effect, but I intensely hated it. Probably should have listed that one as well, as all my friends insist I'm crazy on that one, but the menu system drove me nuts.

On the controller argument, Im just gonna toss out there not to judge the modern xbox controllers by the original xbox ones. The 360 ones are decent...the original xbox controllers were horrific. Basically everyone hated them.

Wait, you dislike Team Ico games and Mass Effect?! :smalleek:

Would you mind waiting there for just a second or two? I need to fetch a stake, some kindling and a restless lynch mob. :smallamused:

Fan

2011-12-08, 08:26 AM

Just as a note, with the most recent Xbox 360 software update, if you enjoy using your netflix account in more than one room, or while anyone is playing Xbox live... I'd suggest against it, because well... The New Xbox OS uses a.. well.. cloud storage moored to the Xbox's current location (http://kotaku.com/5864977/the-new-xbox-live-dashboard-will-re+invent-tv-viewing-and-game-playing-with-gesture-interface-voice-search-and-cloud-storage?autoplay), which means if you use Xbox Live to access say.. hotmail, or Netflix, or any of the other cross platform services where you have a pay to access account, it becomes moored to the Xbox until you sign out.

Not a big problem if you don't have multiple users, but if you do, well it might become a significant annoyance.

MoelVermillion

2011-12-08, 09:11 AM

A stroke in the PS3s FAVOR, though admittedly one that doesn't come into play for a lot of people, is that it is region free for games, so if there's something you really want that didn't get a US release, you can import. No such luck on the 360.

Unless I'm mistaken Serpentine you live in Australia so in the not too unlikely case that your dad is living in Australia you should probably pay attention to this one.

There are quite a lot of games I have been interested in that either launched here a few months later or never came out here at all. Most of the games I have noticed this problem with tend to be games from small to medium sized Japanese developers and this doesn't crop up as often with big name games however it can be something to keep in mind. More importantly though and something that can apply to any gamer is price differences.

I've picked 3 newish releases for PS3/Xbox 360 for the sake of price comparison:

Assassin's Creed: Revelations:
JB Hifi: $89 (AUD) for 360 and PS3.
EB Games Australia: $88 (AUD) for 360 and PS3.
Play-Asia.com: US PS3 version $61.88 (AUD) or Asian Version (With English Language) $54.01 (AUD) + $4 shipping on either of them.

Uncharted 3:
JB Hifi: $89 (AUD) for PS3.
EB Games Australia: $78 (AUD) for PS3.
Play-Asia.com: US version $61.88 (AUD) or Asian Version (With English Language) $57.95 (AUD) + $4 shipping on either of them.

Batman: Arkham City:
JB Hifi: $69 (AUD) for 360 and PS3.
EB Games Australia: $78 (AUD) for 360 and PS3.
Play-Asia.com: US version $61.88 (AUD) + $4 shipping.

Its worth noting that I'm pretty sure the EB games prices listed here are for their christmas sale and are not regular prices. The cool thing about region free games is that in the case where the game is actually cheaper here you can just buy it here, you're not locked into buying games from over seas either. I'm pretty sure that the PS3 is actually more expensive in Australia but depending on how many games you buy the difference in price for imported games can save you a lot of money in the long run. One litte warning I should add though is that DLC is region dependant (Australian PSN Store DLC does not work with a US game) and you do need to jump through a few hoops to get DLC from another region's store.

Anyway I ended up going with the PS3 purely for the ability to import games and I haven't regretted it.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 09:30 AM

The PS3 controller is pretty much the same as it has been since the PS1, 15 years ago. The shape and button configuation is 98% unchanged. It can't be that bad. :smallbiggrin:

Not bashing the PS controller...I prefer the 360 one, but the PS one isn't actually bad the way the first xbox ones were. A *lot* of people, myself included, tossed theirs and used aftermarket ones. Madcats did a solid job.

but PS3 has some damn good ones.

With Xbox I only know about Halo, which I personaly have fun with, but isn't that special, and ...Gears of War. Which I'll never understand how it sold so well that it got sequels.

Halo was fairly notable at the time. The sequels are somewhat less so, as they trend mostly toward "oh look, another halo game". All shooters tend to do that, though. Once you get something that works, keep releasing with a few changes for extra money.

GoW is a rail shooter...but a fairly good one, with some solid mechanics. Rail shooters are not my favorite games, but I do play the better ones in this category, and it's fairly solid. For those who enjoyed it(or those who almost did, but hate cover), I suggest Space Marine, since it's...basically the same thing without the cover system.

Some solid exclusives were listed earlier. If you're into RPGs, the Fable series is fairly notable. Most people tend to like either 1 and 2 or 1 and 3, not all three, but still, two out of three ain't bad.

As for the community thing....yeah. Both systems have some terrible people on them. Play with friends if possible. Some people are just horrible if given anonymity, and system isn't really going to change that.

Larger/Non-proprietary hard drives: Astonishingly, Sony did NOT decide to create their own proprietary hard drives for the PS3, so you can upgrade your hard drive with any laptop hard drive if you decide you need more space, whereas on the Xbox, you are stuck paying Microsoft's extremely inflated prices, or using a 16GB or smaller USB stick.

Meh. This is kind of marginal. The hard drive caddies have a conversion cable, so you can in fact just plug a drive in. This doesn't require any mods of the xbox, so you're not voiding your warranty or anything. You just plug in a different drive where the old drive used to be. It's not really harder than changing the batteries on something that requires a screwdriver for that.

Also, I only skimmed the thread, but I didn't see anyone mention this: The PS3 DOES have backwards compatibility with ALL PS1 games, and the older models of the PS3 have backwards compatibility with both. Depending on how many games you're dad will be playing over and over, he could go with the older system, easily found at gamestop or online on Ebay, and have access to all PS1 and PS2 games. I myself don't mind deleting certain games from my harddrive once I've reached a satisfactory conclusion to them, but I know some people like to keep save files forever. Then of course there is the issue of downloading games from the Playstation Store, obviously an 80 gig harddrive will get full much quicker then the newer models 320gig drives.

Good luck finding those older models at a reasonable price. One of my friends was complaining bitterly about being unable to find a backward compatible one for anything approaching new retail price. Plus, yknow...used, ebay, all that jazz.

My understanding is, that PS3 has a lot more hard drive in it. On my 360 I can install 4 games (though the games can be played from disk as well) before I have to delete something. With the PS3, for which I have a lot more games, I never deleted anything, I believe.

I can't imagine what four games this is. I dump everything to HD, and just don't care. I also download rather a lot. Yes, the PS3 has more HD space, but PS3 games take a TON more space. So, in actual "how many games can the HD hold", the 360 should win in general.

On the graphics thing, the very top end of what the PS3 can produce is higher than the very top end of what the 360 can produce. Metal Gear Solid 4 and the PS3 version of Final Fantasy XIII are generally considered the most technically impressive graphics on either console, for example. However, it is very hard to utilize this even if coding specifically for the console leading it to be pretty random in practice, with maybe a slight lead to the 360 on multiplatform games due to it being easier to develop for and having a larger install base. Either way, it's close enough to not really be worth making the decision over.

http://www.examiner.com/las-cruces-xbox-live-in-albuquerque/xbox-360-better-than-ps3-part-one-hardware

The 360 GPU straight up beats the PS 3s. It's close, mind you, so you won't usually see the difference visually...but that and the memory bandwidth combined means the 360 is well ahead technically.

Note the giant pile of sources and major developer quotes.

Wait, you dislike Team Ico games and Mass Effect?! :smalleek:

Would you mind waiting there for just a second or two? I need to fetch a stake, some kindling and a restless lynch mob. :smallamused:

Heh, yeah, I'm quite apparently the only person on earth who didn't love Mass Effect. Everyone always has the same reaction. I have an extremely low tolerance for what I consider bad controls, though. If it's awkward for me to get things done, Im just going to never pick the game back up.

Just as a note, with the most recent Xbox 360 software update, if you enjoy using your netflix account in more than one room, or while anyone is playing Xbox live... I'd suggest against it, because well... The New Xbox OS uses a.. well.. cloud storage moored to the Xbox's current location (http://kotaku.com/5864977/the-new-xbox-live-dashboard-will-re+invent-tv-viewing-and-game-playing-with-gesture-interface-voice-search-and-cloud-storage?autoplay), which means if you use Xbox Live to access say.. hotmail, or Netflix, or any of the other cross platform services where you have a pay to access account, it becomes moored to the Xbox until you sign out.

Not a big problem if you don't have multiple users, but if you do, well it might become a significant annoyance.

I admit I still have not gotten used to the last update(having just tried it out last night for the first time). I'm not sure I like the new netflix changes, but is this a change from the previous six device cap on netflix accounts?

I mean, it doesn't matter for *me*, since my house literally has 3 360s, a PS3, and a wii split between three TVs and three netflix accounts, but that would be really quite annoying for many netflix subscribers.

Reinboom

2011-12-08, 10:43 AM

Meh. This is kind of marginal. The hard drive caddies have a conversion cable, so you can in fact just plug a drive in. This doesn't require any mods of the xbox, so you're not voiding your warranty or anything. You just plug in a different drive where the old drive used to be. It's not really harder than changing the batteries on something that requires a screwdriver for that.
This is not true.
Although a 360 uses the same basic hard drive as most laptops, it requires the drive to be formatted in a specific manner. If you just simply replace the drive in the caddy with any drive, it won't just work.

There is a way to get a drive formatted to how you need, but it requires a bit of technical work + a PC to put the drive in while you work on it + a backup of the xbox part of the xbox 360 drive.

And then after this, you are still restricted by which size of hard drive you place in to the 360. At least, during the last time I upgraded a 360 hard drive I was (about 1.5 months ago).

I can't imagine what four games this is. I dump everything to HD, and just don't care. I also download rather a lot. Yes, the PS3 has more HD space, but PS3 games take a TON more space. So, in actual "how many games can the HD hold", the 360 should win in general.
Not relevant with most gamers, I find, with most large HDDs.
Also, due to the 360 hard drive limits caused by their formatting requirements, the PS3 is easier to get a much MUCH larger HDD for if it comes down to it.

http://www.examiner.com/las-cruces-xbox-live-in-albuquerque/xbox-360-better-than-ps3-part-one-hardware

The 360 GPU straight up beats the PS 3s. It's close, mind you, so you won't usually see the difference visually...but that and the memory bandwidth combined means the 360 is well ahead technically.

Note the giant pile of sources and major developer quotes.

And it still manages to be a biased article.
Check the dates of those references. The very first reference was from E3 2005.
The PS3 was released in November 2006.
See the problem?

Even with that, it uses distraction terms. "CPU General Purpose Performance Comparison". That's quite specific. Yes, a 360 does outperform a PS3 while working within a single computing thread and then measuring gflops. No, that is not relevant for any game with standard production quality.

Here's a counter source (note: the same source used for the tech comparison in this article you linked, just much more recent!)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown

Another problem this particular article has is that it uses only partial quotes to direct attention to exactly what it wants from its sources.
Just because you quote a source is not enough to prove information, especially when you remove context.
For example:

"the fact that Blu-ray won the format wars on there is a huge feather in Sony's cap, and then we wind up with cases like what we're seeing right now where having all the extra space on the Blu-ray may be a useful thing for us above the fact that the hardware's not quite as good in terms of what it can do with the processing."

Or a better quote there:

One thing he did want to emphasise about the systems, however, is that they're "both really good". "That's why any time that people make comments one way or the other about the consoles, it's easy to leave aside of the fact that it's the best that it's ever been in any generation in terms of support capabilities and all that."

On Yellow Light of Death (PS3) vs Red Ring of Death (360):
The RROD is MUCH MUCH more common than the YLOD. This has caused a lot of jabs and jokes about how "360 owners who are still on their first must be recent to the console."
However, to compensate for this, Microsoft has had marvelous tech support towards this issue.

Now when each of these respected problems comes to happen, more people also generally look at the 360 as "doesn't fail as hard when it fails". This is partially true, but depends on your tech savvy and ability to use a hair dryer.
The 360 WILL still be able to give you back your game. The PS3 "holds it".
However, by heating the back of the PS3 system forcibly (we use a hard dryer), you CAN remove the PS3 out the YLOD temporarily.
The reason for this is due to what the problem actually is, the flow ("cooling goo") on the PS3 processor becomes melted and displaced. When you heat it, you force it to reconnect to the heat transfer plate that sits directly above it.

Alternatively, you can also just reflow the processor. This is quite cheap (a small supply of flow usually costs about 1 USD). Just as long as the disk drive isn't opened (they're annoying to place back together).

Controllers
Controllers are a non issue I find, for either system. I prefer 360 controllers personally. Which is why I gather these PS3 controllers:
http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Elite-Wireless-Controller-Playstation-3/dp/B003V4AK8E/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1308728227&sr=1-1

Major source:
Until a few months ago, I repaired 360s and PS3s for resell as a job. (+ hard drive replacements and upgrades, + other changes).

Serpentine Specific:
The 360 is region locked. The PS3 isn't.
Due to where you live, this means it will generally be significantly more simple to get whatever PS3 games you're interested in.

Airk

2011-12-08, 12:16 PM

From what I've read it's meant for games that have counterparts on the other system. Like, for example, the God of War series(I use this purely as an example). You have the ones for the PS3, and then you have the ones for the PSP. If you link them up, you might open up additional content to complete. Also, from what I've read, trophy sharing, which is huge for some people(I personally could care less, I don't even pay attention to 360 achievements I get when I play games).

I can see stuff like certain RPGs benefiting from this, if they allow you to share equipment or something like that back and forth. Or racing games, and able to share cars, or send money back and forth from one system to another to upgrade cars. Stuff like that, and I'm sure there are many other ways to connect games together that I'm completely missing.

Basically, I'm just arguing that you can't use a blanket statement like you did and say that "Also: Haha to PSVita "interconnectivity". I might as well use Bing integration as a selling point for the 360. :P " There are going to be people out there who will view that particular feature as a decent selling point. Granted, I doubt many people will be like my buddy(who is a trophy whore) and will buy the PSP Vita strictly for that particular feature, but it might be enough to sway some people into buying the Vita instead of the 3ds if they were on the fence between the two concerning all other options. If it's not for you, it's not for you, but don't belittle the idea just because you dislike it and see no use for it :)

Please; Almost the entire first page of this thread was full of stupid generalizations, I'm allowed.

Hell, the Vita isn't even out yet, so anyone attempting to judge the so-called value of this functionality is generalizing at least as much as I am.

Anteros

2011-12-08, 12:31 PM

This is why I hate console threads. For all intents and purposes there's no real difference between the two systems. I've owned both for years. Yet people still get so worked up over it they're willing to toss around insults, and basically act rude in general to people they otherwise get along with.

Mordokai

2011-12-08, 01:22 PM

I'm going to give the opinion of why PS3 is good, seeing as this is the console I own personally.

I have so far had no problems whatsoever. I have yet to fix the online service, since I'm a lazy bastard and didn't get to it yet. One of these days.

From what I hear from people who know more than I do, PS3 has the best exclusives. God of War 3 is one of those, I believe. If daddy is into that kind of things, that can count a lot.

Thundershock controller is great for playing third person games, like aformentioned GW3, Prototype, Uncharted, Batman, Bayonetta... but is sucks when it comes to playing first person shooters. I couldn't bring myself to finish Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis 2 and they both look like an interesting games. Had I play them on PC with a mouse and keyboard, I'm sure I'd finish them twice by now. But with thundershock gamepad, I just can't see myself doing that... ever. So if your dad wants to play CoD, I'd warn him to stay away from PS3. From what I hear, many people share that opinion with me.

Yes, games can be somewhat pricey, but you gotta know how to help yourself. I buy them at zavvi (http://www.zavvi.com/home.dept), where I get them for much smaller price than here at home. Sure, you have to wait for about a week for a package to come, but I find the time waiting worth the money saved. Also, check around, maybe there's somebody who would trade games with you. It's a common practice over here and I myself have played many games that I didn't pay for and lended somebody else my game. It's a win-win situation, as far as I'm concerned.

Summa summarum, I like PS3 and would definetly suggest it as a good buy.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 01:58 PM

This is not true.
Although a 360 uses the same basic hard drive as most laptops, it requires the drive to be formatted in a specific manner. If you just simply replace the drive in the caddy with any drive, it won't just work.

There is a way to get a drive formatted to how you need, but it requires a bit of technical work + a PC to put the drive in while you work on it + a backup of the xbox part of the xbox 360 drive.

And then after this, you are still restricted by which size of hard drive you place in to the 360. At least, during the last time I upgraded a 360 hard drive I was (about 1.5 months ago).

Hard drives do need to be formatted correctly, yes. That's a basic requirement of storage media. It's pretty trivial. PC world put a six step guide to it. These include steps as difficult as "take the hard drive off your xbox". If you can operate a screwdriver, you can do this.

And it still manages to be a biased article.
Check the dates of those references. The very first reference was from E3 2005.
The PS3 was released in November 2006.
See the problem?

A *lot* of comparisons were done pre-general release. This is pretty normal. The fact that the earliest of the many references was pre-release is indicative of nothing but a fairly comprehensive survey of the available data.

Even with that, it uses distraction terms. "CPU General Purpose Performance Comparison". That's quite specific. Yes, a 360 does outperform a PS3 while working within a single computing thread and then measuring gflops. No, that is not relevant for any game with standard production quality.

This is not a distraction term. This is a vital specification that we're comparing like to like.

Comparing general cpus to specialized cpus that are not utilized by many games is pure apples and oranges. Compare like to like, and include caveats(as I have done above) for the outlier games that happen to be perfectly suited to the technical specs of one system.

Note that you're also mis-representing the data. You're confusing cores with threads. The PS3 general purpose core handles two threads. So, your statement at the end is rather misleading. Both are doing multithreading. The PS3 is doing two threads on one core(the PPE). The 360 is doing six threads on three cores. It's not surprising that the 360 wins.

Here's a counter source (note: the same source used for the tech comparison in this article you linked, just much more recent!)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown

If you consider all eight special purpose SPEs to be constantly fully utilized doing floating point math, then yes, the comparison is valid. This is the problem with comparing chips in ways that they are not actually used on the machines.

Problem 1. One of the cores is disabled in the PS3. It cannot be used by any means.

Problem 2. Another of the SPE cores is reserved for use by the OS only. It's not accessible to boost game performance.

Problem 3. Computing need of essentially all games will not perfectly match the PPE/SPE(1/6) ratio of the PS3. You're limited to whatever your bottleneck is. IE, the PPE. This is why the comparison of general computing chips is so central. Yes, the others are helpful, especially with optimization, but they are NOT directly comparable.

So, a naive comparison of chip to chip, after being chain quoted(and incorrectly attributed by the article you cited) which was valid in it's original context is not at all valid to support the claims made.

Another problem this particular article has is that it uses only partial quotes to direct attention to exactly what it wants from its sources.
Just because you quote a source is not enough to prove information, especially when you remove context.
For example:

Or a better quote there:

Yes, this generation of consoles is better than the last. This is obvious and trivial. I can entirely see why they edited it out from a comparison piece between the 360 and the PS3.

On Yellow Light of Death (PS3) vs Red Ring of Death (360):
The RROD is MUCH MUCH more common than the YLOD. This has caused a lot of jabs and jokes about how "360 owners who are still on their first must be recent to the console."
However, to compensate for this, Microsoft has had marvelous tech support towards this issue.

It was initially. It is no longer a notable concern. If you're buying a new console, the models you will actually be buying are both fairly reliable.

Now when each of these respected problems comes to happen, more people also generally look at the 360 as "doesn't fail as hard when it fails". This is partially true, but depends on your tech savvy and ability to use a hair dryer.
The 360 WILL still be able to give you back your game. The PS3 "holds it".
However, by heating the back of the PS3 system forcibly (we use a hard dryer), you CAN remove the PS3 out the YLOD temporarily.
The reason for this is due to what the problem actually is, the flow ("cooling goo") on the PS3 processor becomes melted and displaced. When you heat it, you force it to reconnect to the heat transfer plate that sits directly above it.

Alternatively, you can also just reflow the processor. This is quite cheap (a small supply of flow usually costs about 1 USD). Just as long as the disk drive isn't opened (they're annoying to place back together).

Wait...you were complaining about the hard drive thing, but now you're advocating doing this to your PS3?

Take a guess which one voids the warranty.

General info to everyone: If you ever DO intentionally modify your console in any way...for the love of all that is holy, don't tell tech support.

Reinboom

2011-12-08, 02:10 PM

Wait...you were complaining about the hard drive thing, but now you're advocating doing this to your PS3?

Take a guess which one voids the warranty.

Neither. :smallconfused:

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 02:25 PM

Neither. :smallconfused:

You don't think that will count as "tampered with" per the text of the warranty? Or "unreasonable use"?

You don't have to break the seal to void the warranty. It makes it a little bit harder to get caught if you don't, but if you are intentionally heating your console to cause internal changes in it...they probably won't be happy if they do find out.

Reinboom

2011-12-08, 02:53 PM

You don't think that will count as "tampered with" per the text of the warranty? Or "unreasonable use"?

You don't have to break the seal to void the warranty. It makes it a little bit harder to get caught if you don't, but if you are intentionally heating your console to cause internal changes in it...they probably won't be happy if they do find out.

Dry heating to recover a disk tends to fall under general use and isn't detected beyond that. I don't see the problem.

Furthermore, nothing I mentioned suggests that my post was kept in interest of "keeping your warranty".

On the 360 hard drive:
What you said was NOT TRUE. You can NOT just plug in a new hard drive and go. You must format it. Is this a relatively simple step? Yes. Is it just plugging in a new hard drive? NO. It is not.

The reformatting requires an external machine outside of the 360.

On the data survey:
Hardware specs and accurate comparisons were still in the air. The point is, the article you linked grossly exaggerated the initial comparison of what each machine is capable of. "General Purpose Performance Comparisons" IS a misleading term, as it doesn't provide an accurate descriptor of exactly what their idea of General Purpose means. From the looks of the graph, it appears as though the test was performed via a load test through a single core each. While in practice, both machines tend to test near equal.

On those quotes:
The core of those quotes is more "The difference between the 360 and PS3 is not significantly different". An emphasis meant to neutralize the stance. Which was avoided.

I apologize for not responding in more full earlier. Meetings, ahoy!

Starwulf

2011-12-08, 03:33 PM

Please; Almost the entire first page of this thread was full of stupid generalizations, I'm allowed.

Hell, the Vita isn't even out yet, so anyone attempting to judge the so-called value of this functionality is generalizing at least as much as I am.

Hmm, that's a pretty piss-poor argument for making a blanket statement that isn't applicable. It's like saying "Oh, all the cool kids are doing drugs, so it's ok if I do as well".

And no, I wasn't making any generalizations. All I said was one simple fact: There is going to be interconnectivity between the PS3 and the Vita. I even prefaced that fact with "This may or may not have any bearing on your situation OP", because I had no idea if they would care or if it was even applicable. But the fact remains that for some people it will matter, and it may make a decision between consoles or hand-helds a bit easier with that extra knowledge. Anyways, I'm done with this particular part of the thread, All I was trying to do was give extra information that hadn't yet been provided to the OP. It was unnecessary for that information to be mocked, which is the only reason I replied, and now it's settled, time to move on ^^

Balain

2011-12-08, 06:00 PM

I didn't read all the posts, but not sure if this is mentioned, or if the 360 allows this, but on the ps3, if you purchase games on the psn. you can legally install it on upto 5 other machines. So you have a ps3, your friend has one too. You each buy different games and you can share them with each other.

there is some disagreement over backwards compatibility. All ps3 can play ps1 games. The original ps3 could play both ps1 and ps2 games. Although some ps2 games can be downloaded from the psn.

My personal choice is obviously the ps3. The xbox is an okay machine, I just try not to support Microsoft when possible.

Gimliggamer

2011-12-08, 10:28 PM

Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:
I'm still on the very first 360 released, with a 15 gigabyte harddrive and a wired interweb connection. I survived the RRoD:smalltongue:

PS3
Pros:
Free online
Great games
Blu-ray player
Internet
Wireless remotes charge

Cons:
More expensive
Can't play PS2 games

XBOX 360:
Pros:
Cheaper
Also has great games
Large amount of indie games
Cons:
Pay for online
Wireless remotes need batteries
Xbox has internet too....lolwut? Also, Xbox has charged wireless remotes as well... Plus, servers are better for Xbox, cause, you know, you pay for it, leading to people getting paid to actually work on the servers.

Airk

2011-12-09, 09:53 AM

Xbox has internet too....lolwut?

He is referring to the fact that the PS3 has an integrated web browser. While calling this "Internet" is obviously a misnomer and verging on the incorrect, it is a valid point in favor of the system.

Also, thanks for the lecture, Starwulf. You'll forgive me if I don't really care. o.O

Tyndmyr

2011-12-09, 12:30 PM

Dry heating to recover a disk tends to fall under general use and isn't detected beyond that. I don't see the problem.

If it's not detected, great. But I would not consider this type of thing to be "general use". Taking a hair drier to a console is not expected, normal use of it.

So, in the event it somehow is detected, it's a problem.

Furthermore, nothing I mentioned suggests that my post was kept in interest of "keeping your warranty".

It feels like rather a double standard to complain about the minor difficulty of attaching a hard drive while advising such things.

On the 360 hard drive:
What you said was NOT TRUE. You can NOT just plug in a new hard drive and go. You must format it. Is this a relatively simple step? Yes. Is it just plugging in a new hard drive? NO. It is not.

The reformatting requires an external machine outside of the 360.

The amount of people with no access to regular computers but access to 360s and a desire to use computer components is...probably non existent. This is handy if you've got a left over pc hard drive around, though.

In short, if it's something you want to do, it is not be a difficult thing. A properly formatted hard drive is a requirement for ANY hard drive use in existence. There is no need for caveats for such basic, standard things, especially when the process to perform it is ridiculously simple and widely available.

I mean, I also did not include detailed information on how exactly to use a screwdriver to pop the screws off the hd caddy. That's general knowledge.

On the data survey:
Hardware specs and accurate comparisons were still in the air. The point is, the article you linked grossly exaggerated the initial comparison of what each machine is capable of. "General Purpose Performance Comparisons" IS a misleading term, as it doesn't provide an accurate descriptor of exactly what their idea of General Purpose means. From the looks of the graph, it appears as though the test was performed via a load test through a single core each. While in practice, both machines tend to test near equal.

If that WAS the case, it would dramatically undervalue the 360s three general purpose cores compared to the PS3's one.

I submit that it almost certainly used all general processing cores on both(1 on PS 3, 3 on 360). Thus the difference.

On those quotes:
The core of those quotes is more "The difference between the 360 and PS3 is not significantly different". An emphasis meant to neutralize the stance. Which was avoided.

No. The core of those quotes is a "wow, this generation is pretty awesome compared to the last one". And yes...it is. The difference between any current system and the last gen(ignoring the wii), is immense compared to the difference between current gen systems. This is really normal, though, and since it's not news, it's not worth focusing on.

Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:

Oh, didn't catch this one earlier. I bought a shiny new one, on account of it being black and having new goodies. However, I handed my original xbox to a friend, and I know for a fact it's still running.

Yes, the rrod was a thing initially. Some batches were shoddy. For those who care, you can google up the lots and all that sort of thing. It most certainly did not happen to every xbox, and is no longer a notable concern for the currently sold systems.

On the back and forth about the Vita...it's a reasonable point if the Vita is important to you. It's not for me personally(and I was fairly negative of the psp on release), but I suppose it might be for some. No need to dismiss it.

tetrakoiwai

2011-12-09, 04:11 PM

Anteros

2011-12-09, 04:39 PM

I'm still on the very first 360 released, with a 15 gigabyte harddrive and a wired interweb connection. I survived the RRoD:smalltongue:

Xbox has internet too....lolwut? Also, Xbox has charged wireless remotes as well... Plus, servers are better for Xbox, cause, you know, you pay for it, leading to people getting paid to actually work on the servers.

You have to buy the rechargable wireless remotes for the Xbox. The PS3 comes with one. Also, I've had the PS3 since launch and I have never, ever had a problem with the online modes. The idea that Xbox's are better is a complete myth, and given the amount that it's parroted by Xbox fanboys it's starting to border on being an outright lie. Sony and Microsoft are both huge companies. Neither of them needs you to pay a monthly fee in order to be able to afford supporting their servers. They have many other sources of income. The fact that Microsoft charges you and Sony doesn't is a very valid point in their favor.

Also, thanks for the lecture, Starwulf. You'll forgive me if I don't really care. o.O

I'm not a mod here, but your behavior is really getting inappropriate. In the space of two pages you've belittled other people, called them stupid, and now this. I'd really suggest taking a step back and calming down. This isn't the gamefaqs message board. That type of behavior tends to get punished around here.

Mando Knight

2011-12-09, 05:23 PM

The fact that Microsoft charges you and Sony doesn't is a very valid point in their favor.
Microsoft charges a fairly standard rate and gives other services besides with the subscription (and if you let it lapse long enough, they start begging you to come back). It's roughly the same as PSN+, except you need to buy the subscription in order to play online.

Serpentine

2011-12-10, 12:01 AM

Wellity. Apparently my dad was watching this thread with great interest, and on the basis of the discussion here has decided to go with the XBox. Apparently if he didn't already own a BluRay player he would've gotten a PS3 (which is also my personal preference), but he does, so the XBox won out.
He sends his sincere thanks to the forum for your help, and found the debate very interesting!

How about the wii? Just sayin, it's cheap, has tons of fun games, online is free (although some games like tatsunoko vs capcom are filled with nothin but spammers) and it's got super smash bros brawl, what else could you want?I believe he's waiting for the next gen Nintendo stuff.

Zevox

2011-12-10, 12:14 AM

I believe he's waiting for the next gen Nintendo stuff.
Probably a good idea at this point actually. The Wii U will be able to play Wii games and use the Wii's controller, so you pretty much get a two-for-one deal there. The only thing that'd recommend the Wii over waiting for its successor at this point is the Gamecube compatibility, and perhaps the Virtue Console/Wii Ware (depends on if that is going to transfer to the Wii U or not).

Zevox

late for dinner

2011-12-12, 05:00 PM

I like this question...I have both systems...My xbox, I play all the time. I hardly touch my PS3. It's not that I dont like the PS3, its just, I like playing online, and I like the controller better on the xbox. I dont mind paying for xbox live, because I know I am getting a great product. I have tried online for the PS3 and Xbox and I have less lag and more fun on the 360. Granted, I love Halo as well. I am not a fan boy. I play other games too, but the social aspect of Halo is why I like it...that and the fact that you have to earn each kill. (I am not a big fan of "one shot and dead"...like call of duty) Now, one thing I can say about PS3, Every big PS3 Exclusive game, give or take a few, Is Awesome...Heavy rain was unlike anything I have ever played before and simply fantastic. The Uncharted 2 (havent played the 3rd one but am excited to) Jumped up in to one of the greatest games I have ever played, Little Big Planet and God of War 3 are also, some great games. The Blu Ray is nice too. I Say, If your dad wants to play multiplayer, Go Xbox. If he wants to play by himself most of the time, PS3.

ObadiahtheSlim

2011-12-13, 10:58 AM

Okay my take from my buddy with both consoles. The graphics are about the same on both systems. A game that started development on PS3 will likely be able to take better advantage of the PS3 hardware. However one that started out with both or the XBox in mind will have minimal differences. This means that extra hardware in the PS3 is largely wasted.

XBox has a bigger game library including lots of great indie and casual games you can buy online. XBox also wins out a bit on the big name exclusives. XBox's online gameplay is also superior with a bigger and more robust community. Backwards compatibility can be hit or miss depending on the title.

PS3 is a superior media center. The ability to play Blu-rays is a huge plus. If you like to play online, it's free online play can bring the total cost of ownership down a bit. However it lacks backwards compatibility unless you bought an early model.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-13, 04:05 PM

How about the wii? Just sayin, it's cheap, has tons of fun games, online is free (although some games like tatsunoko vs capcom are filled with nothin but spammers) and it's got super smash bros brawl, what else could you want?

Although I'm pretty sure you might want to go with the PS3 so you don't have to pay to play online with your friends.

Wii isn't bad for what it is, but it's a rather different market from the other two, and frankly, games that come out on wii and something else...you want to buy them on something else.

I enjoy mine for the occasional party game and what not, but it's got a very different focus from xbox/PS3.

You have to buy the rechargable wireless remotes for the Xbox. The PS3 comes with one.

Er, wireless for Xbox is quite standard, including the controllers that come with the console. Rechargeable battery packs are available, and presuming you do the play and charge kits for one or two of your replacement remotes, should be no trouble. I don't see this as a notable area of difference.

Also, I've had the PS3 since launch and I have never, ever had a problem with the online modes. The idea that Xbox's are better is a complete myth, and given the amount that it's parroted by Xbox fanboys it's starting to border on being an outright lie.

The amount of content on Microsoft's network crushes Sonys. In addition, it has also not yet been hacked and had customer information compromised.

These are fairly notable quality points that I feel are worthy of consideration along with price.

Sony and Microsoft are both huge companies. Neither of them needs you to pay a monthly fee in order to be able to afford supporting their servers. They have many other sources of income. The fact that Microsoft charges you and Sony doesn't is a very valid point in their favor.

Neither company needs to charge you for anything. But, yknow, they're companies. They're both trying to make money off things.

Also note that while MS's silver online options are more limited, silver is also free. Gold is recommended...but you can still get some online stuff without paying a cent if that's your style.

I'd also point out the the 360 makes an excellent media center. My apartment has a rather sophisticated network, and a *lot* of media sharing happens between multiple computers and multiple xboxes. None of the TVs have separate DVD players, but instead, all use the 360s and/or PS 3. I find it interesting that despite the PS3 being ready to use(and indeed, used for blrays), the 360 still gets used preferentially for DVD playing.

All in all, I'd say the decisions listed were quite reasonable. PS 3 is a lot less attractive if the blu-ray is something you already have, and the wii is definitely aging. Given their decent backward compatibility so far, holding out for the wii successor is pretty logical.

Mando Knight

2011-12-13, 04:15 PM

Er, wireless for Xbox is quite standard, including the controllers that come with the console. Rechargeable battery packs are available, and presuming you do the play and charge kits for one or two of your replacement remotes, should be no trouble. I don't see this as a notable area of difference.
The point is that you need to pay $15 for the charge packs with the Xbox controllers, but don't need to do so with PS3 controllers since their rechargeable batteries are included. Considering that their prices are otherwise similar, this is actually pretty notable.

SoC175

2011-12-13, 05:51 PM

The amount of content on Microsoft's network crushes Sonys.If I buy BF3 I just want to play it MP on the EA servers. Why should I have to pay MS an additional time to play the game I bought on the console I bought with the internet connection I pay for on the server of the company that made the game. Good that the pay for "normal" online play model failed on the PCs (guess being used to two decades of free online play helped them reject it so totally)

Forbiddenwar

2011-12-13, 06:52 PM

I'm considering this debate as well, Which leads me to this question.
Is Steam on PS3? It seems so, So does that mean some or all the games I have on Steam are playable on PS3? I wouldn't have to rebuy Portal 2 or Prince of Persia?

Mando Knight

2011-12-13, 10:06 PM

Is Steam on PS3? It seems so, So does that mean some or all the games I have on Steam are playable on PS3? I wouldn't have to rebuy Portal 2 or Prince of Persia?
As I understand it, you can use your Steam key to play Portal 2 on the PS3, but it's a case-by-case basis for now.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-14, 08:58 AM

The point is that you need to pay $15 for the charge packs with the Xbox controllers, but don't need to do so with PS3 controllers since their rechargeable batteries are included. Considering that their prices are otherwise similar, this is actually pretty notable.

Current Best Buy(first place I looked) price for xbox controller: $36
Same place, PS 3 controller: $45

Note that both are on a minor sale for the holidays, but even based on regular price, the PS3 is more expensive. Prices may vary depending on sales and when you buy them, but the overall price difference with battery packs is negligible.

If I buy BF3 I just want to play it MP on the EA servers. Why should I have to pay MS an additional time to play the game I bought on the console I bought with the internet connection I pay for on the server of the company that made the game. Good that the pay for "normal" online play model failed on the PCs (guess being used to two decades of free online play helped them reject it so totally)

The #1 reason is so you can play with friends, really. Lots of people with xboxes out there.

There's also a notable quality control element to MS multiplayer. Even the indie games have to go through a microsoft review process. Having everything work reliably is worth something. I remember buying Tribes 2 for the PC. It literally did not function out of the box. I was pissed.

The network is also pretty stable. It has had far less downtime than the PSN has had. This is of notable value.

You also get things like a fairly standardized ranking system, etc. Most of these benefits are really benefits for the developers. I mean...you probably don't give a care how much work it took them to develop all the multiplayer things. But if it makes life easier on the developers, they'll develop for it, and we buy it so we can play the games.

In addition, Sony has the whole PlayStation Plus thing going now. It appears to be trending toward a more subscription based model, not away from it. I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see it go to what's essentially Microsoft's model.

Spinoza

2011-12-14, 09:34 AM

I own both systems and here are the stand out points for me.

You can argue all you want about which system is more powerful but the fact is almost all crossover and pc port games are better on the xbox 360 than on the PS3. This is a big deal and if you dont believe me go look at the eurogamer site they do a series comparing them head to head and xbox 360 comes out a head about 85% of the time.

PS3 has a blue ray player and internet browser these are very nice features the xbox 360 lacks.

Online community for big games on both systems there really isn't much difference, Its the small/medium games when it gets to be a big deal. Lets take Armored Core for an example, you can still get a decent online match reliably on the xbox 360 where as with the PS3 small to medium titles are pretty much ghost town.

PS3 online is free xbox 360 cost you 50 or less a year. That sucks B@!!s

Xbox live continues to be a better experience than PS3 online. It just seems a lot easier and it works.

If you have Netflix it always seems to work better and be easier to use on the Xbox 360. It now has full subtitle support and great support with the kinnect on the xbox

Speaking of the kinnect its a very neat device and well supported by xbox. Kinda cool sitting there watching a movie and you say 'xbox pause' the movie stops so you can go get yourself a drink.

PS3 now has a very decent free to play MMO on it called DC Univers online.

Starwulf

2011-12-14, 03:56 PM

Airk

2011-12-14, 04:51 PM

Another quick point in the PS3s favor: I've noticed that my buddy gets some pretty nice older titles to download for free with the PSN+. If you're going to pay for online, might as well get something nice out of it in return. He's gotten and downloaded at least a dozen or more older games for free, and those are just the big name titles. Also a good many indie/smaller titles as well.

Are these timed offers or something? because while I did see a few games marked as "Free for PSN+" when I was browsing the PSN shop, the number was...extremely small. And the PSN store as a whole has a lot less stuff on it than XBLA. You get plenty of nice out of XBLA, too namely, demos for all the stuff that PSN inexplicably doesn't have demos for (Even on PSN+). As best as I can tell, PSN+ is kindof a ripoff, because it doesn't really address any of the fundamental issues with PSN, so it ends up being more like "Pay us a few dollars a month for some random stuff that we choose to give you."

Regarding controllers with batteries, I -still- think the best solution is Xbox controllers with rechargeable AA batteries. This way, you never have to worry about cabling up your controller if the battery starts to run down, and since apparently the PS3 controller doesn't charge when the PS3 isn't ON, it's not actually real convenient to charge the darn things. Price of a pack of 4 recharable batteries AND a charger? $11. Probably less if you shop smart rather than taking the first hit that pops up on an Amazon search. Seriously people, buy some and stop wasting money on batteries in all the various nonsense that I know you have that uses them.

Starwulf

2011-12-14, 06:22 PM

Are these timed offers or something? because while I did see a few games marked as "Free for PSN+" when I was browsing the PSN shop, the number was...extremely small. And the PSN store as a whole has a lot less stuff on it than XBLA. You get plenty of nice out of XBLA, too namely, demos for all the stuff that PSN inexplicably doesn't have demos for (Even on PSN+). As best as I can tell, PSN+ is kindof a ripoff, because it doesn't really address any of the fundamental issues with PSN, so it ends up being more like "Pay us a few dollars a month for some random stuff that we choose to give you."

Regarding controllers with batteries, I -still- think the best solution is Xbox controllers with rechargeable AA batteries. This way, you never have to worry about cabling up your controller if the battery starts to run down, and since apparently the PS3 controller doesn't charge when the PS3 isn't ON, it's not actually real convenient to charge the darn things. Price of a pack of 4 recharable batteries AND a charger? $11. Probably less if you shop smart rather than taking the first hit that pops up on an Amazon search. Seriously people, buy some and stop wasting money on batteries in all the various nonsense that I know you have that uses them.

They seem to change once a week from what my buddy has told me. This past week he got Tomb raider: Underworld for free, I know he's gotten Resident Evil 4 for free, and a couple of other well known titles for free as well, plus some others that I didn't know about it, but he did(ooh, Golden sun was one of them). While it's nice to hear that the 360 gives you free demos(I can't connect on mine since it requires a minimum of a 56.6k connection), it is still JUST demos.

I know for me personally, my biggest issue with the 360 is the controller(God I hate that controller. I've had my 360 for several years and I still can't stand it's bulkiness) and the fact it requires a minimum of a 56.6k connection. That and the exclusives. I don't like ANY of the exclusives on the 360(I'm not an FPS fan), whereas the PS3 has ones that I do like(God of War, Infamous, etc). I also have an inherent mistrust to Microsoft for their haste in rushing to release the 360 and it having so many issues and a literally 60% failure rate for the first few years of it's existence(I myself had my original 360 go Red-Ring and had to have it replaced). If I could have afforded a PS3 when I got my 360 I'd have gotten it instead, but it was still $399.99 at the time when I got my 360.

Psyren

2011-12-14, 06:24 PM

Cons
Poor console reliability. Anyone who say's they're still on their first Xbox hasn't owned one very long. :smalltongue:

4 years and counting.

And Kinect is more expensive than a Move remote, sure, but you only have to buy one.

VanBuren

2011-12-14, 06:56 PM

I have a 360, and I haven't regretted that decision once.

That said, you may as well flip a coin. Either way you're likely going to come out fine. Are you interested in multi-player? Then get what your friends have, so you can play with them.

At the end of the day that, and whether or not the Blu-ray function is an appealing one, are the only differences that really matter.

Airk

2011-12-15, 11:34 AM

They seem to change once a week from what my buddy has told me. This past week he got Tomb raider: Underworld for free, I know he's gotten Resident Evil 4 for free, and a couple of other well known titles for free as well, plus some others that I didn't know about it, but he did(ooh, Golden sun was one of them).

That explains that. Still, based on the selection of games I saw on PSN, there aren't really any games they could give me from that selection that I would care about. Really, since the free games are all you get from PSN+, it comes down to "Do I want to pay money for random games that Sony feels like giving away?" (Until you decide to stop paying them, at which point apparently your access to that content goes away.)

While it's nice to hear that the 360 gives you free demos(I can't connect on mine since it requires a minimum of a 56.6k connection), it is still JUST demos.

Yeah. And demos that help me decide on games I might want to buy are way more valuable than free copies of games I don't care about.

That and the exclusives. I don't like ANY of the exclusives on the 360(I'm not an FPS fan), whereas the PS3 has ones that I do like(God of War, Infamous, etc).

I'm pretty sure there are some TPS/sandbox exclusives (third person shooters, ala Infamous etc.) for the 360, but I don't care for that genre, so I don't really know.

That said, as I've mentioned previously, the 360 digital library blows the PS3 one out of the water - so there are probably lots of games there that you would like (Since virtually none of them are your hated FPS games) but you are hamstrung by your bandwidth.

I also have an inherent mistrust to Microsoft for their haste in rushing to release the 360 and it having so many issues and a literally 60% failure rate for the first few years of it's existence(I myself had my original 360 go Red-Ring and had to have it replaced). If I could have afforded a PS3 when I got my 360 I'd have gotten it instead, but it was still $399.99 at the time when I got my 360.

Yeah, and I guess the alternative was to make the 360 cost as much as the PS3 and then you would have had no game systems at that point. Either way though, this is water long under the bridge for anyone considering these systems objectively at this point.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-15, 11:53 AM

The focus on the technical side of things is a bit pointless. The most relevant difference is in game library and preferences in that regard and here it is important to remember that smaller indie games and digital games are not the same as big name, conventionally distributed games and vice versa. They cater to different needs, desires and ways of playing, so you can't just say that one or the other console has more of one or the other and thus superior. It's all about what you want out of gaming.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-15, 12:47 PM

Starwulf

2011-12-15, 03:47 PM

That explains that. Still, based on the selection of games I saw on PSN, there aren't really any games they could give me from that selection that I would care about. Really, since the free games are all you get from PSN+, it comes down to "Do I want to pay money for random games that Sony feels like giving away?" (Until you decide to stop paying them, at which point apparently your access to that content goes away.

Yeah. And demos that help me decide on games I might want to buy are way more valuable than free copies of games I don't care about.

I'm pretty sure there are some TPS/sandbox exclusives (third person shooters, ala Infamous etc.) for the 360, but I don't care for that genre, so I don't really know.

That said, as I've mentioned previously, the 360 digital library blows the PS3 one out of the water - so there are probably lots of games there that you would like (Since virtually none of them are your hated FPS games) but you are hamstrung by your bandwidth.

Yeah, and I guess the alternative was to make the 360 cost as much as the PS3 and then you would have had no game systems at that point. Either way though, this is water long under the bridge for anyone considering these systems objectively at this point.

Hmm, don't get me wrong(which I think you might have), I do like the 360, it's a fine system despite it's awful release flaws. Having said that, I do prefer(even though I don't own) the PS3, and to be honest, I likely won't buy the next generation of Xbox consoles, or, at the very least, I'll wait a while after it's release to make sure it has no terrible hardware flaws like the last generation did. That and hopefully microsoft will re-design it's horrible controller, make it a bit smaller or something.

Terraoblivion

2011-12-15, 04:27 PM

Tengu_temp

2011-12-15, 04:31 PM

*shrug* Of those categories, the 360 is the clear winner all round. You need to look at other categories, like "can play blu-rays" to really see the high points of the PS3.

Clear winner? As an owner of a PS3, I'd never replace it with a 360, because the PS3 exclusives are much more appealing to me than the 360 exclusives. And there's a buttload more people for whom that's the case too.

Drascin

2011-12-15, 04:53 PM

It's really a matter of taste. When trying to choose, you may want to give a look to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_exclusives_%28seventh_generati on%29) - because the main reason to get one console over the other at the moment are exclusives, and this is a pretty good list of each machine's exclusives. Neither machine "wins handily" over the other, as they both have quite a few exclusives to their name (and no, Xbox is not all Halos and Gears).

I for example have a few games exclusive to each console I find myself interested in: 360 has actual shooters like Mushihimesama and Raiden and stuff plus (not in the list) a bunch of Arcade games that are leagues better than most "big" releases in either console, PS3 has Dark Souls and 3Dot Heroes which look really damn good. And neither has anywhere near enough exclusives that interest me to be worth a buy :smalltongue:.

Airk

2011-12-15, 05:24 PM

Except that barely anybody has presented any conventionally published exclusives for the 360 apart from Halo and Gears of War that are any good, while numerous different people have presented a fairly large number of ones for the PS3 that are generally considered to be that. This of course doesn't mean that everyone would like those specific games, but it does mean that at least a moderately large number of people do. In short, don't equate your taste and that of your friends with that of everyone Tyndmyr.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. While there aren't terribly many "big headliner" games outside of those two, the same could be said of Sony in that regard. The list of exclusives is fairly equivalent in volume and quantity, but somewhat different in style, in that the PS3 has a larger selection of JRPGs, and the accompanying splattering of REALLY BAD JRPGs. I don't believe it's accurate to declare a clear winner in this space unless you are a JRPG fan (and even then, there are a couple of titles on the 360 that are worth mentioning). Of course, these forums are full of JRPG fans, so you're going to see a lot of comments like Tengu's, but those aren't, really indicative of any objective superiority in the offerings, merely a subjective issue of taste. The Xbox exclusives are overall more diverse, in spite of how everyone tends to mock the system for being too focused on FPS games.

On the other hand, the 360 has a clear cut dominance in the digital title space, which is why I keep bringing it up.

Starwulf: Controller comments aside (I prefer the 360 controller, the PS3 one feels small. :P ) I would suggest never buying a console (Microsoft, Sony, or otherwise) less than one year into its release cycle. Not only does this mean that you are giving the system time to shake out any early release issues, but it means the system will have a much more robust library (Most release offerings tend to be shoddy products because they are rushed to the deadline). Additionally, it's during this time period that, generally, many of the very BEST games for the PREVIOUS console generation get released, where developers have time to put everything they've learned from an entire console cycle into making the best games they can. Looking very, VERY lazily at the PS2, Okami, Odin Sphere, Persona 3, Persona 4 and Tales of the Abyss (and FFXII :P) were all released in North America AFTER the launch of the 360, and I'm sure there others as well. So it's not like you're going to starve for games if you don't jump on the bandwagon right away. In fact, you'll probably be playing BETTER games if you give the console some time to bake in.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-16, 01:09 PM

Clear winner? As an owner of a PS3, I'd never replace it with a 360, because the PS3 exclusives are much more appealing to me than the 360 exclusives. And there's a buttload more people for whom that's the case too.

You were protesting the number, not the quality, sir. 360 wins both categories you presented on quantity, and this is fairly easy to verify for yourself. It is especially far ahead in digital download games.

Except that barely anybody has presented any conventionally published exclusives for the 360 apart from Halo and Gears of War that are any good, while numerous different people have presented a fairly large number of ones for the PS3 that are generally considered to be that. This of course doesn't mean that everyone would like those specific games, but it does mean that at least a moderately large number of people do. In short, don't equate your taste and that of your friends with that of everyone Tyndmyr.

The defining part here is "that are any good". In sheer number, the 360 wins on exclusives.

However, in this very forum, we have a long thread dedicated to fable, for example. This is a very popular, well rated series that is xbox exclusive. Overall quality is not lower for 360 games, and if you hold that it is, you're welcome to try to back that up with either review scores or sales numbers. Good luck.

You can always say "taste", but note that more PS3 lines have swapped over to 360 than vice versa(I believe only 1 has gone the other way). In addition, 360 has been out less time. This means that the rate of production of exclusives is notably higher for 360, and continues to increase. If there's enough quantity of enough good games, there WILL be some games that fall within a category you like, regardless of what category that is.

As for waiting after release? Yes. Definitely. I mean, I tend to dump money on consoles because I can, but I still have a PS2 around and plenty of games for it. No reason to ditch the old consoles right away...I basically always have a stack of games Ive been meaning to play.

Zevox

2011-12-16, 01:21 PM

The defining part here is "that are any good".
Considering that whether a game is any good is a matter of personal opinion, there's really no way to declare either console the winner there.

However, in this very forum, we have a long thread dedicated to fable, for example. This is a very popular, well rated series that is xbox exclusive.
Er, you mean the two-page thread currently on page 2 of this sub-forum, where most of the posts are devoted to criticizing at least one, and sometimes two or all three, of the entries in the series? :smallconfused:

Zevox

Yora

2011-12-16, 01:40 PM

To quote Private Simmons: "It sucks! I hate you, and I hate the games you like!" :smallyuk:

Tyndmyr

2011-12-16, 01:50 PM

Considering that whether a game is any good is a matter of personal opinion, there's really no way to declare either console the winner there.

You can go by ratings, or by sales. Both of these are pretty decent measures of general popularity.

I don't believe either is notably ahead by ratings, and the xbox wins on sales.

While you may or may not like any given game, you would have to be extraordinary picky to not find a variety of games you like among the sheer volume out there now, even among just the non exclusives. Comparing exclusives though, you'll find a mound of crap* and several solid title of different varieties on either side. The xbox has a larger pile of things in general. So...you'll probably find more you like, regardless of WHAT type of games you like.

Er, you mean the two-page thread currently on page 2 of this sub-forum, where most of the posts are devoted to criticizing at least one, and sometimes two or all three, of the entries in the series? :smallconfused:

Zevox

I should have rather said that there is a currently active thread about it...and there have been quite a few decently active threads about the series. Yes, any thread about a game series will have some criticism, and no, the games are not all equal in quality. That is...fairly normal.

*Ok, ok...unpopular games. I'm sure someone, somewhere saw Ape Escape! Fury! Fury! and was thrilled, but we all know some games are less loved.

Zevox

2011-12-16, 02:04 PM

You can go by ratings, or by sales. Both of these are pretty decent measures of general popularity.
And general popularity does not tell you whether you will personally find those games to be any good. Those are two different things - the opinions of others, and your own opinion. So again, both are useless for saying one console is better or worse than the other.

Zevox

Tyndmyr

2011-12-16, 02:29 PM

And general popularity does not tell you whether you will personally find those games to be any good. Those are two different things - the opinions of others, and your own opinion. So again, both are useless for saying one console is better or worse than the other.

Zevox

Ratings and sales ARE commonly used tools to find games that are more likely to be good. Scoring in gaming magazines exists for a reason.

And while for a single game, it's true that you might be in the minority that dislikes it...it's highly improbable that you will dislike all of the highly rated games for a system. There's a LOT of good games out there. If you don't find something, you're probably just not a gamer.

Zevox

2011-12-16, 02:58 PM

Scoring in gaming magazines exists for a reason.
None that I can see. Even if you ignore all of the problems such as reviewers being paid to give good reviews, or the obvious bias that sequels to popular titles get in scores, it still hits the fundamental problem that those scores are just the opinions of the reviewer. Unless you know that your opinions track closely to a particular reviewer's the vast majority of the time, whether any review applies to you is going to be a total crapshoot at best.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-12-16, 03:49 PM

In addition, 360 has been out less time. This means that the rate of production of exclusives is notably higher for 360, and continues to increase. If there's enough quantity of enough good games, there WILL be some games that fall within a category you like, regardless of what category that is.
.

You've been pretty factual up until this point, so I'll assume you're just mis-informed on this one, but the 360 has been out longer then the PS3. It released almost a full year BEFORE the PS3 actually. It was one of the biggest things critics and market analysts blamed for Sony taking so long to really achieve any sort of market share in this generation of consoles.

The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005,
The PlayStation 3 was first released in Japan on November 11, 2006

Mando Knight

2011-12-16, 06:03 PM

It was one of the biggest things critics and market analysts blamed for Sony taking so long to really achieve any sort of market share in this generation of consoles.

That, the ridiculously high initial price tag of the system, and the continued popularity of the PS2. I'm still amused that they still sold it for as long after the introduction of the PS3 as they did.

Yora

2011-12-16, 06:06 PM

I'm completely convinced that PS2 compatibility was removed from later models because they realized there's still a huge market for factory-new PS2s.
And if my PS3 could play PS2 games, I would have sold it for 10€ to a random guy who wants a cheap PS2. Now instead Sony got to sell another PS2 for retail price instead.

And if someone would come to me and say "I think I'd like to give consoles a try", I would tell him to get a PS2. It's cheap, and there are more cheap games of excelent quality than you could ever play. If you can live with not quite new graphicsm there are even much more good games for the PS2 than for any other console you can buy new.

Starwulf

2011-12-16, 06:13 PM

And if someone would come to me and say "I think I'd like to give consoles a try", I would tell him to get a PS2. It's cheap, and there are more cheap games of excelent quality than you could ever play. If you can live with not quite new graphicsm there are even much more good games for the PS2 than for any other console you can buy new.

I will agree with you on that part 100%. I think the only other console that I have ever preferred more then the Playstation 2 is the Super Nintendo, and it's actually a lot closer then I ever thought any console would ever get to the SNES. I still regularly play both of the aforementioned consoles, and get much enjoyment out of both. I would highly recommend any gamer that's capable of looking past outdated graphics to give the SNES(and, obviously, the PS2, but it's not that outdated) a try, so many great games released for it, it boggles my mind. To this day, actually, I am still finding new games for the SNES that I have never heard of and really want to play.

warty goblin

2011-12-16, 08:32 PM

Airk

2011-12-19, 09:44 AM

That's why there's Metacritic. As much as people hate on it, I find average scores can actually provide a pretty good statistic for how well I'll like a game. If the number of reviews is fairly large with an average under six or so, odds are very low I'll enjoy it unless it's in a genre or from a developer I very much like. The odds of me liking it rise until the average hits about 8.9 or so, at which point it starts dropping again. It's also usually informative to consider the spread of review scores, if there's a lot of variance or heavy skew in the distribution that can also affect the inference. I find for instance that if a game would score right in the sweetspot of 7.5-8.5 but is knocked down by a couple low reviews odds are I'll still like it if I have any interest in that genre.

It's not a sufficient statistic by any means, but fortunately it plays well with informal Bayesian style inference for updating my prior beliefs about a particular game.

This is sortof the opposite of my experience with Metacritic. I like nichey sorts of games that aren't the sorts of things that necessarily pull in the 85+ Metacritic scores that the glossy, boring as crap AAA titles do on Metacritic, and truthfully, most critics wouldn't know a good 2D fighter/JRPG/quirky indie game if it bit them on the arse, so Metacritic descends into complete uselessness for me - and, I suspect, for a lot of other people. Unless you have mainstream tastes, monitoring what a bunch of mainstream critics think about a given offering is the opposite of helpful, because it essentially masks the opinions of the few people who really know what appeals to you behind the opinions of a huge pile of people who don't.

See: TornadoGuard (http://xkcd.com/937/)

In summary: I'm glad it works for you, but recommending it to people who complain about reviews isn't really being helpful. It's not like at this point someone is going to slap their forehead and go "OH! Metacritic! I never thought of that!". Most people who are complaining about reviews being useless view Metacritic as an amalgamation of useless reviews.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-19, 10:36 AM

None that I can see. Even if you ignore all of the problems such as reviewers being paid to give good reviews, or the obvious bias that sequels to popular titles get in scores, it still hits the fundamental problem that those scores are just the opinions of the reviewer. Unless you know that your opinions track closely to a particular reviewer's the vast majority of the time, whether any review applies to you is going to be a total crapshoot at best.

Zevox

The review process *is* sketchy...and while I keep a pretty healthy level of skepticism, I do tend to pan games that scored fairly poorly in reviews. I can't try everything out. Time is finite and all that. So, while I won't agree with everything they like*, I can at least use them to filter games I'm unfamiliar with. Also, the advice about Metacritic earlier was solid. Don't put too much weight on "this game is 1 point higher" levels of detail, but on the broad scale, it's useful.

I know what genres don't interest me, and don't need scores to reflect that. But seriously, either PS 3 or 360 is going to have stuff for basically any genre. There's a lot of games out there. Most are cross-platform.

*In particular, I am usually enthused about new shooter releases in a series unless they're bringing something notably new to the table. Yes, another Modern Warfare. Great.... Also Madden. They have the best of all rackets going.

You've been pretty factual up until this point, so I'll assume you're just mis-informed on this one, but the 360 has been out longer then the PS3. It released almost a full year BEFORE the PS3 actually. It was one of the biggest things critics and market analysts blamed for Sony taking so long to really achieve any sort of market share in this generation of consoles.

The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005,
The PlayStation 3 was first released in Japan on November 11, 2006

My bad. Somehow, I reversed the two. Yeah, the later release probably *is* part of why they have less games. Playing catch-up is always rough...and let's be honest, the PS 2 won the last round. I liked my original xbox fine, but PS 2 crushed it in games.

I'm completely convinced that PS2 compatibility was removed from later models because they realized there's still a huge market for factory-new PS2s.
And if my PS3 could play PS2 games, I would have sold it for 10€ to a random guy who wants a cheap PS2. Now instead Sony got to sell another PS2 for retail price instead.

And if someone would come to me and say "I think I'd like to give consoles a try", I would tell him to get a PS2. It's cheap, and there are more cheap games of excelent quality than you could ever play. If you can live with not quite new graphicsm there are even much more good games for the PS2 than for any other console you can buy new.

If memory serves, I believe it(and the other OS option) also allowed them to remove components from the system, making it cheaper to produce. That might have also been a motivation, but cost-matching was at least part of it.