Xbox 360 vs Wii vs PS3 - what'd you get ?

[Cylian]

There we are, there's the Xbox 360 with it's pretty graphics and PC like games, the Wii with its neat controls and up on the horizon, the PS3 with ... Final Fantasy!

Which one would you get (and why) ?

 

[eksdee]

if i had to have just one, i'd stick with a pc. however i am in the luxurious position of being able to have two and ordered my 360 today.

the reasoning for me, more than anything is that the 360 seems to just have far better games (for me at least) than any other console around atm (and definitely better than the shite we're being served on the pc atm) . i've tried a wii and thought it was great fun with friends, but none of the games, bar zelda, really make me wanna buy it.

on the other hand, the 360 has gears of war, fear, nba2k7, nhl2k7, pro evo 6, call of duty, dead or alive 4, etc. etc.

it also means i can sell my dvd player for a little extra cash in my pocket

 

[Chronictank]

toss up between xbox 360 because of halo 2,
or the ps3 because it doubles up as a media center and has final fantasy and splinter cell

Already have a nice pc which will last me a year or so

 

[Raven]

been playing on a wii today, just the sports freebies, a great laugh but can see that the novelty would soon wear off, the only reason i can see to get one is zelda, i bought an N64 to play just 2 games (goldeneye and zelda) wont do it again

ps3, over priced and doesnt really bring anything new (except nice graphics)

xbox is the only one out of them that really appeals to me i wont be buyong one though, instead i will be getting a nice DX10 PC in 6 months-1 years time.

 

[cHodAX]

I have a 360, don't regret buying it for one second. I have spent hundreds of hours having a blast playing games like Project Gotham 3 both online and offline, now we also have games like Gears of War that deliver a stunning singleplayer and multiplayer as well. Wii is great, not my cup of tea but I can see the attraction.

 

[Solo]

wii by far shows some innovation.

Don't give a shit about graphics rather something involving with good gameplay for a console, than the same stuff we had years ago but on a higher spec system- just get a pc.

Wii is so simple even your dad can play, and its great when you have a few mates over which is what consoles are all about; party/multiplayer.

 

[Chronictank]

been playing on a wii today, just the sports freebies, a great laugh but can see that the novelty would soon wear off, the only reason i can see to get one is zelda, i bought an N64 to play just 2 games (goldeneye and zelda) wont do it again

ps3, over priced and doesnt really bring anything new (except nice graphics)

xbox is the only one out of them that really appeals to me i wont be buyong one though, instead i will be getting a nice DX10 PC in 6 months-1 years time.

360 when you add up all the doo-dads to make it the same as a ps3 (which you will eventually) costs approx the same
Unless microsoft force you to buy the add-ons there will only be crippled games tbh, all that and it doesnt have the additional feature of being a media pc.
You do however get a hd-dvd drive for your pc for free i guess,
but bang for buck the ps3 is better value if your willing to pay the initial higher cost.
that said either way you wont be dissapointed i just think if i am going to spend that much i would want a ps3... but then there is halo 3.. but then there is final fantasy..
Gears of war will be scaled to the ps3 evnetually i dont see any point putting that into the equation
choices choices

 

[Gibbo]

I got a Wii. Basically it's different, the games are fun and I like Nintendo.

 

[cHodAX]

360 when you add up all the doo-dads to make it the same as a ps3 (which you will eventually) costs approx the same
Unless microsoft force you to buy the add-ons there will only be crippled games tbh, all that and it doesnt have the additional feature of being a media pc.
You do however get a hd-dvd drive for your pc for free i guess,
but bang for buck the ps3 is better value if your willing to pay the initial higher cost.
that said either way you wont be dissapointed i just think if i am going to spend that much i would want a ps3... but then there is halo 3.. but then there is final fantasy..
Gears of war will be scaled to the ps3 evnetually i dont see any point putting that into the equation
choices choices

Bollocks, there is nothing else I can say to that post. It is so one sided and misinformed I am lost for words.

 

[Ctuchik]

would never lower myself to getting a console just to have it be useless after a year so i'd have to spend twice of what the last console costed to get a better one.

sure PC's might not be the best of things but from my experience they are one HELL of alot cheaper to run then having to buy a new console every fucking year to be able to play all the newest games. i mean, i could get me a pretty damn good PC for the price of a PS3, and that PC would most likly overlast a PS3 by many years. same goes for xbox360 and wii ofc.

none of the stuff in my PC is by any means good, think the best thing in my PC is a 6800 GT, wich says alot about the rest of it. but it have no problem running oblivion or any of the other so called "system eaters" (after a tad of tweaking i admit). but the point of it all is, a PC will always outlast a console making it cheaper in the long run to have a PC rather then having to get a ton of new consoles every year or 2 if u wanna play all the games for the consoles... u only have to buy 1 PC to play all the PC games, but u have to buye 3 consoles to play all those games.....

 

[Fana]

would never lower myself to getting a console just to have it be useless after a year so i'd have to spend twice of what the last console costed to get a better one.

sure PC's might not be the best of things but from my experience they are one HELL of alot cheaper to run then having to buy a new console every fucking year to be able to play all the newest games. i mean, i could get me a pretty damn good PC for the price of a PS3, and that PC would most likly overlast a PS3 by many years. same goes for xbox360 and wii ofc.

none of the stuff in my PC is by any means good, think the best thing in my PC is a 6800 GT, wich says alot about the rest of it. but it have no problem running oblivion or any of the other so called "system eaters" (after a tad of tweaking i admit). but the point of it all is, a PC will always outlast a console making it cheaper in the long run to have a PC rather then having to get a ton of new consoles every year or 2 if u wanna play all the games for the consoles... u only have to buy 1 PC to play all the PC games, but u have to buye 3 consoles to play all those games.....

:worthy:

 

[Chronictank]

Bollocks, there is nothing else I can say to that post. It is so one sided and misinformed I am lost for words.

this was covered in the original ps3 vs wii vs 360 post i cba to dig up links again so search it etc..
the above post was directed at the comment that the ps3 is alot more expensive, when in reality it is not alot more expensive when you add the extras to equal the ps3 (again in the original post)

one sided? no
2 sided however? yes, as i think the wii novelty will end pretty quickly on me so i dont even consider buying it

if you have any argument against what i posted feel free to proove me wrong instead of pointless one liners that everyone just ignores anyway

 

[psyco]

ill probably end up with all 3, though my priority is Wii, PS3, X-Box 360, and i already have the 360

though, PC is way more flexible imo... still i dont think you can compare a PC with console's

 

[cHodAX]

this was covered in the original ps3 vs wii vs 360 post i cba to dig up links again so search it etc..
the above post was directed at the comment that the ps3 is alot more expensive, when in reality it is not alot more expensive when you add the extras to equal the ps3 (again in the original post)

one sided? no
2 sided however? yes, as i think the wii novelty will end pretty quickly on me so i dont even consider buying it

if you have any argument against what i posted feel free to proove me wrong instead of pointless one liners that everyone just ignores anyway

Ok then, here we go.

Do you need the HD-DVD to play 360 games?

No!

Do you need the Hard Drive to play games?

No!

Are the games crippled by being released on DVD?

NO!

Case in point, Gears of War. The leading game released for any console this year. Is it crippled because it isn't on a 'next generation' media format?

NO!

Gears of War is infact only 4.3gb of data, the rest of the disc is taken up by dummy files as per Microsoft's security requirement. So is Gears of War the most visually impressive console game ever made?

HELL YES!

Is Gears of War one of the greatest singleplayer console shooters ever released?

HELL YES!

Would Gears of War have fitted on a single layer DVD?

OH YES!

So Chronictank can you name me one game that has been crippled by the lack larger discs on Xbox 360?

You can't because it doesn't exist, you see it goes like this. You don't need a 25gb disc to make a stunning looking game, you don't even need 1/4 of that, a fact proven many times on the PC recently. You give 25gb to a developer and say 'make a game' then 9 times of of 10 they are going to fill the disc with a ton of uncompressed video that adds little or nothing to the game, Gears of War used the game engine for it's cutscenes and it didn't compromise the game in anyway, infact it added to the game because you weren't constantly loading between videos and gameplay.

Any argument has fallen flat on it's arse but it gets worse, Gears of War isn't going anywhere near the PS3. Microsoft have an exclusivity agreement with Epic for Gears of War plus parts 2 and 3 but the game will be ported to the PC after 12 months as Microsoft are more than happy for a PC version to exist after the 360 version has reached it's sales peak.

The 360 offers something the PS3 can't, choice. High definition movies aren't for everyone, Microsoft aren't forcing a drive on people that they don't 'need' but have given the option to buy one at a rock bottom price if they 'want' one. Sony have forced an expensive format on it's loyal customers, a format that has driven the costs wildly upwards and when you think about it a high definition movie player that means absolutely shit to a 12 year old kid who wants to play PS3 games. That 25gb of space means very little to gamers, you see it will and is already being used for movie cutscenes in games and little else. Even the flagship launch title 'Resistance' is only using 6-7gb or so for data and the rest is being taken up by pre-rendered video plus about 2gb of dummy files used for padding, remove the padding and the game weighs in at 15gb, over 7gb of that is for pre-rendered cutscenes. So please, don't overplay the advantages of Blu-Ray for gaming because you are on shakey ground, pre-rendered video does not make great games it just adds to the polish and there are other ways to add that polish without using all that space.

Now understand this, I am not saying the PS3 isn't good, infact I am sure it is pretty damn great or at least it will be once the platform matures. Infact the only thing I don't like about PS3 is the price because Sony forced a format on me that I neither want or need. Sony got one very important thing right and kudos to them for it, they built a hard drive in as standard, if exploited properly that can give PS3 a bit of an edge. I expect Microsoft to kill the core version to counter that next year when they further drive down manufacturing costs after the shift to 65nm CPU/GPU production, most likely they will then make the 20gb hard available as a sub $50 addon (which they will subsidise) and make it a requirement for all 'future' games. Alot of game developers including Epic have been nagging Microsoft about this for 18 months now, they really need that hard drive to use as a higher speed cache area for game data. If Microsoft don't make the harddrive standard in the next year I honestly think they have made what may turnout to be a fatal mistake.

I might come across as a 360 fanboy at times because I really like the console and I am not afraid to defend it but I am also not afraid to point out it's problems either. I am very fair when I talk about either the PS3 or the Wii and I don't make any comments that I can't back up, I try to give a fair balanced opinion. You see I just can't take anyone seriously who praises one console and slams the other two or makes statements that have no basis in fact, that is the problem I have with your original post Chronictank because you made statements that were factually incorrect and based your assumptions on them. Of course you are entitled to you opinion and I respect that but I can't respect factual errors that mislead people.

 

[Bugz]

Consoles now-a-days don't impress me with their fancy graphics and harddrives etc.

Wii looks the most interesting because of the control. Looks like a lot of fun

I always enjoyed the Nintendo 64 and Playstation 1 before they set a TOTALY new dawn for gaming. The dawn of big, colourful worlds. However, adding more variations of a colour and more pixels on an animated face doesn't impress me enough to buy a console.

The console-world really does need an entirely new breakthrough with a new idea and framework etc. Nintendo Wii has tried to touch on that so i hope they do better than the 360 and the PS3 - which, simply put, are more up-to-date versions of the xbox and PS2.

 

[cHodAX]

the above post was directed at the comment that the ps3 is alot more expensive, when in reality it is not alot more expensive when you add the extras to equal the ps3 (again in the original post)

They are only extras if you 'must' have them. Not one single game (MMO apart) requires either the HD-DVD drive or the Hard Drive. They don't even require a memory card although you will need one if you want to play online. The 360 is primarily a gaming console, it has alot of media centre features but they aren't being forced on the gamer as standard. First and foremost it is for games, if you want more then you buy more, a very fair system when you think about it. Sony on the other hand have forced Blu-Ray upon us and in the process added $200+ to the cost of the console, the point I am trying to make is how many PS3 gamers are going to be using the cosole for regular movie watching? Alot yes but all? Not even close, yet they are forced into buying a Blu-Ray drive they don't really need. Sony will try justify by saying thier games will take advantage of the extra capacity, the truth is that 90%+ of the games will either pad the space out or fill it will pre-rendered footage. It happened when we moved to DVD from CD, it is happening again now. The truth is that you can make some incedible games and fit them into 9gb, hell even in 3-4 years time they will always have the option of shipping games that span 2 discs, it isn't a major hassle on a console to swap discs anyway. Sticking with DVD for games was a smart move by Microsoft, it kept costs low for themselves and for the developers, right now any lack of space is a non-issue and frankly it will never be more than a small issue in the future if games need 2 DVD's anyway.

 

[Naffets]

Currently, the 360 is the better of the 3 consoles (Taking into account functionality, the games available, the graphics, sound and gameplay) I don't care about the price.

The 360 has decent power behind it, can function as a media centre, has a great backbone for online gaming (the dashboard functions as media player, communications & downloads hub). It has an option (Read: OPTION) for a hdd and HD-DVD drive which also works with your pc.

The Wii is fun, but as per another post on the forum, this fun is short lived until the novelty wears off and you realise that you don't need to stand there swinging the remote like a prat towards the screen to hit the ball - The gyro picks up movement in any direction. You can play golf looking the other direction, tennis appears to be the one that picks up different directions and that is only to diferentiate between left and right (I spelt differentiate wrong I know)

The PS3 is too young as of yet. The power behind the beast IS amazing. I don't care what anyone says, that thing is more powerful than the 360 and can produce better looking games. I'm by no means a sony fanboi (Currently I own a 360)

Look at http://www.granturismo-hd.com/screenshots/viewshot/p82a.jpg and http://www.granturismo-hd.com/screenshots/ for more screenshots.

Those are ingame screenshots. That is far superior to any 360 or pc game out or available and its out now. Oh and GTHD is FREE for those that have ps3's at the mo.

So for now, 360 > all. Soon the Ps3 should (read: Only if Sony pull their finger out) do better than the 360. Only obstacle at the moment is CliffyB and the epic crew who doubled xbox live subscriptions and sold like 2 million consoles lol.

 

[cHodAX]

The PS3 is too young as of yet. The power behind the beast IS amazing. I don't care what anyone says, that thing is more powerful than the 360 and can produce better looking games. I'm by no means a sony fanboi (Currently I own a 360)

Look at http://www.granturismo-hd.com/screenshots/viewshot/p82a.jpg and http://www.granturismo-hd.com/screenshots/ for more screenshots.

Those are ingame screenshots. That is far superior to any 360 or pc game out or available and its out now. Oh and GTHD is FREE for those that have ps3's at the mo.

So for now, 360 > all. Soon the Ps3 should (read: Only if Sony pull their finger out) do better than the 360. Only obstacle at the moment is CliffyB and the epic crew who doubled xbox live subscriptions and sold like 2 million consoles lol.

Ok, I agree with alot of what you posted but I have a few things to point out. As far as power goes, the GPU in the PS3 is not as good as the 360, it lacks the essentially free AA that the 360's GPU offers and the raw pixel shading power. The unified shader approach was a very smart move by Microsoft and ATi, it is a much more elegant approach than that used by the Nvidia chip in the 360.

As far as CPU goes, in theory the CELL is a beast, the problem is that it only excels with certain types of code. For running general game code it is less than ideal, the PPC part of the CELL is the only part that is good for running generalised code, the SPE portions (the real power of CELL) are much harder to code for and do not really suit running generalised code, however some stuff can be handcoded to run on the SPE's and if done properly it theoretically should be very very very fast. The SPE's really shine with media streaming though, nothing can touch them in that regard. That said CELL isn't really an ideal CPU for running game code on though, it requires a mammoth amount of optimisation to achieve good performance. The CPU on the 360 consists of 3 PPC CPU running on a single die, code still needs to be highly multithreaded to achieve good performance but in general for game development it is much easier to get a game up and running on this CPU because of the of the ease of which it can run generalised game code. Yes theoretically CELL has more power, the thing is the PS2 had more theoretical power than the original Xbox but by the end of each consoles lifespan the Xbox had the more technically impressive games, mainly due to the fact that PS2 was a bitch to develop for due to it's highly paralell nature. It remains to be seen if history will repeat itself this generation but alot of developers have already gone on record to say that CELL is a much harder CPU to get the best of. The development tools Microsoft have put in place are also widely recognised as being vastly superior than those currently being offered by Sony for CELL.

If CELL gets near what it is capable of then no question it has the performance edge but don't discount the CPU in the CPU, the relative ease of developent and tools provided by Microsoft do somewhat even the equation.

Oh and you GT pics, alot of jaggies in some of them and if you think no 360 games can match that then you really need to check out Forza 2 which is due early next year and is bloody impressive no matter what you compare it to.

 

[Chosen]

I'm gonna buy myself a PS3 and Wii. It's true that Xbox360 have gotten more games out, but thats also because it was realeased like a year before PS3.
But the main reason I'm gonna get a PS3 is because of Final Fantasy, my favourite game serie.

And I don't care about the price PS3 has, just imagine a PC with the same specs as a PS3, that would cost shitloads of money, so it is only natural they can't have it cost any lower, if they want to make a profit on it(duh).

As of Wii, I played it at Davidhs place, and I just loved it! It was so fun and entertaining, that I can't afford not to get one

 

[confused]

Consoles are trying to be PC's these days anyways, I need a PC for work, and I'd much rather have a better pc than have both

+ rts games/fps pc > console

 

[Naffets]

Ok, I agree with alot of what you posted but I have a few things to point out. As far as power goes, the GPU in the PS3 is not as good as the 360, it lacks the essentially free AA that the 360's GPU offers and the raw pixel shading power. The unified shader approach was a very smart move by Microsoft and ATi, it is a much more elegant approach than that used by the Nvidia chip in the 360.

As far as CPU goes, in theory the CELL is a beast, the problem is that it only excels with certain types of code. For running general game code it is less than ideal, the PPC part of the CELL is the only part that is good for running generalised code, the SPE portions (the real power of CELL) are much harder to code for and do not really suit running generalised code, however some stuff can be handcoded to run on the SPE's and if done properly it theoretically should be very very very fast. The SPE's really shine with media streaming though, nothing can touch them in that regard. That said CELL isn't really an ideal CPU for running game code on though, it requires a mammoth amount of optimisation to achieve good performance. The CPU on the 360 consists of 3 PPC CPU running on a single die, code still needs to be highly multithreaded to achieve good performance but in general for game development it is much easier to get a game up and running on this CPU because of the of the ease of which it can run generalised game code. Yes theoretically CELL has more power, the thing is the PS2 had more theoretical power than the original Xbox but by the end of each consoles lifespan the Xbox had the more technically impressive games, mainly due to the fact that PS2 was a bitch to develop for due to it's highly paralell nature. It remains to be seen if history will repeat itself this generation but alot of developers have already gone on record to say that CELL is a much harder CPU to get the best of. The development tools Microsoft have put in place are also widely recognised as being vastly superior than those currently being offered by Sony for CELL.

If CELL gets near what it is capable of then no question it has the performance edge but don't discount the CPU in the CPU, the relative ease of developent and tools provided by Microsoft do somewhat even the equation.

Oh and you GT pics, alot of jaggies in some of them and if you think no 360 games can match that then you really need to check out Forza 2 which is due early next year and is bloody impressive no matter what you compare it to.

Yep as said, Sony need to work hard to win, but if they do; they will.

Valve and a few other companies have commented on how hard the cell is to code for as the cores are only good at performing certain tasks and are not symmetrical like the 360 (The 360 has 6 hardware threads that are all equal - Of which im sure you are aware(as you make mention of this))

If sony work as well with game designers as Microsoft do (Microsoft share a lot of code with the game studios and help out quite a bit with the good games, the little crappy games just pretty much get left to their own resources from what I understand) then Sony should win. When I made mention to the power of the console I should have specified i meant the processor lol. The R600 based gpu in the 360 is stunning, and I'm actually less aware of the gpu in the ps3, but it can kick out very nice graphics at launch imo.

I'd like for the 360 to win, i really would (as i own one and get free games - Certain ones) yet I don't think that is going to happen

 

[Chronictank]

They are only extras if you 'must' have them. Not one single game (MMO apart) requires either the HD-DVD drive or the Hard Drive. They don't even require a memory card although you will need one if you want to play online. The 360 is primarily a gaming console, it has alot of media centre features but they aren't being forced on the gamer as standard.

Which is essentially what i said, they are crippling its potential by default by coding to the lowest common form.
As a media centre, the 360 is dire.. i do have one so i am not a sony fanboi but it is quite simply horrible in comparison (from the various tech demo's, so i cant comment about the final release ps3)
I also didnt say you needed all the stuff, i said if you wanted to make them both have the same features they would cost a similar ammount

First and foremost it is for games, if you want more then you buy more, a very fair system when you think about it. Sony on the other hand have forced Blu-Ray upon us and in the process added $200+ to the cost of the console, the point I am trying to make is how many PS3 gamers are going to be using the cosole for regular movie watching? Alot yes but all? Not even close, yet they are forced into buying a Blu-Ray drive they don't really need. Sony will try justify by saying thier games will take advantage of the extra capacity, the truth is that 90%+ of the games will either pad the space out or fill it will pre-rendered footage. It happened when we moved to DVD from CD, it is happening again now. The truth is that you can make some incedible games and fit them into 9gb, hell even in 3-4 years time they will always have the option of shipping games that span 2 discs, it isn't a major hassle on a console to swap discs anyway. Sticking with DVD for games was a smart move by Microsoft, it kept costs low for themselves and for the developers, right now any lack of space is a non-issue and frankly it will never be more than a small issue in the future if games need 2 DVD's anyway.

very true not everyone will, but im not talking about everyone i was talking about people like me (which is why i said it doubles up as a media center which is why i think its worth the money).
As for blu ray, i agree with you sony have created their own problem in this respect, but at the same time as you know the bigger the disc the more you can put in the game, and with the raw power the ps3 has it has a very real chance of utilising it. I am not saying it is better, i am saying it has the potential to be, but again only time will tell.
Also if blu ray wins the format war then the blu-ray argument is irrelevant

That aside you still havent said why my post is misinformed bs as everything you said so far doesnt disproove anything i said in that post

Having played on a ps3 (ableit it being a box they have in a show-room) the difference in gfx was significantly noticable, but again this was in a enviroment controlled by them it may have just been a tweaked demo to make it look good

 

[cHodAX]

That aside you still havent said why my post is misinformed bs as everything you said so far doesnt disproove anything i said in that post

Ok, you said that the games will crippled without the addons. That is just not true and I will explain why. DVD is just fine for games, HD-DVD will only be used for movies and never games on the 360, Microsoft have promised that. So, games not crippled for not having the HD-DVD. Now for the hard drive, Gears of War and every other game on the 360 runs exactly the same if you have a hard drive or not. You see the 360 is different from the original Xbox, all games are required to run without hard drive caching as default and most games don't even use it even if the hard drive is there, of course having hard drive and caching as default would be nice but it isn't crippling the games. The only noticeable difference is an extra 5 seconds loading time on games like Oblivion and alot less than 5 seconds and 95% of other 360 games. Having access to both a core and premium plus 32 games I know this be true, the lack of hard drive isn't crippling the core and it hasn't crippled the games. Gears of War looks and runs every bit as good on the core as it does on the premium. Yes it is sad that the default config is for no hard drive but let us not overplay the significance, hard drive caching is the icing on the cake not the cake itself. Not having the hard drive as a cache is a chink in the armour but far from crippling, that was my first gripe, it isn't factually correct to say the lack of hard drive is crippling the games as it has not proven to be the case so far.

My second gripe was your mention of Gears of War on PS3, that just isn't going be happening bud. Of course techincally Gears of War could be ported to PS3 but it isn't going to happen, well not unless Microsoft seriously piss off Epic which I just don't see happening given how much money and support they have given to Epic for Gears of War and it's marketing. Epic are delighed with how well Gears of War has done, they have already recouped the develoment costs and are many millions of dollars in the black after just 6 weeks on sale. It is also highly likely that Gears of War will be the free game that ships with the console for Christmas 2007 further boosting sales. Basically, Gears of War is too important for Microsoft to lose, I am certain they have that franchise locked up to PC and 360 for at least a couple of years.

Last gripe, the media features. Hmm, yes the media isn't what it should be, you are currently forced into using transcoding software if you want to stream DivX to your 360, it isn't as straightforward to do as it should be but it does work just fine. There is very little that you can't transcode and then stream to the 360, it works even if it is long winded. Then you have the XBL Video Marketplace, a joy to use and already a big hit for Microsoft, there are some great HD great films and TV available to rent off that service and it will only get better over the next few months. It plays MP3 just fine, you can plug your iPod in or any USB device and play your audio collection, you can rip your CD's to the hard drive and use them as custom soundtracks in pretty much every game. I just don't see where your big problem is with when it comes to the media functionality. Yes we would all like DivX and Xvid playback but there is a work around, it could be better but it is far from broken.

 

[cHodAX]

Having played on a ps3 (ableit it being a box they have in a show-room) the difference in gfx was significantly noticable, but again this was in a enviroment controlled by them it may have just been a tweaked demo to make it look good

I would love to know what you were watching that had 'significantly noticable' better graphics than 360, it certainly wasn't 'Resistance' or any of the other launch titles. If it was some technical demo well we all know they rarely translate to actual games anyway, there is nothing that Nvidia's PS3 GPU can do that the ATi GPU in 360 cannot but there are quite a few tricks that the ATi can pull out that Nvidia cannot. As far as pixel pushing power goes they are very evenly matched so your 'significantly noticable' better graphics just aren't going to happen, this will be borne out over the long term when we start to see alot of true next generation games for both systems, right now 90% of games on both platforms are nothing special and not even testing the hardware.

Anyway, enough of this. My point stands, your post was inaccurate, I am not accusing you of lying or being a fanboy but some of your post was inaccurate and hopefully you can see that. The tone of my reply was a bit harsh but it gets bloody annoying when I keep reading about how the 360 is inferior when the truth is that both consoles are VERY evenly matched, the quality of games will be what truely sets them apart and none of us know how that is going to turn out.

 

[Naffets]

On another note.

Sony's 25-50GB BD discs are fine and dandy. However, the read speed of the drive is slower than that of the 360 12x dvdrom drive.

So your games load slower... Thus why some games give the option of loading 5GB of data onto your hdd to play. Oh and don't confuse me with an idiot who thinks that 12x automatically > 2x. Instead, factor into account that the 2x blu ray drive put in the ps3 has a theoretical transfer rate of 7mbps which is slightly less than that of a 12x dvd rom drive.

Fun, ay?

I think anyone is yet to prove this theory, but in practice i'm sure the truth isn't far from the theory.

edit: Repped Chodax and Chron. I love techy discussions

 

[Chronictank]

My second gripe was your mention of Gears of War on PS3, that just isn't going be happening bud.

At E3 on g4 they said it "wasnt a 360 exclusive" and it would "be out on other consoles", i dont think the wii can run it so leaves only the ps3 really (unless a pc counts as a "console"?)
(its on the big interviews thing on the g4 website i cant remember which link but i think the title was Gears of War: The Race to E3), but on there Cliffy B said that Microsoft doesnt own the IP to GoW, Epic Games does.
But then it is published by microsoft games who probably paid for exclusivity, so i guess your probably right.

I understand your point about converting the formats, but i have all my dvd's compiled as xvid and saved on a server so that i dont have to disc swap a xbox would mean i need to recompile my entire library.
Again you have a fair point it is doable, but out of the box it cant was what i was getting at.

The xbox is by no means leaps and bounds behind the ps3 (which is why i said you wont be dissapointed either way), but for the money i would spend to get what i wanted out of it i would much prefer the plug and play of the ps3
But i think we should agree to disagree , the fact we have to shows that there is little between the 2 so people reading this should go with whatever is more important to them

 

[Wonk]

I'm with Chodax on this one. It's not because i've got anything against Sony at all (I've got a ps2 after all), however you seem to be very missinformed Chronic. Half of your points doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Naffets]

Gears of War will never be released on the ps3, I'm quite confident of that. Other Unreal based games might, but Microsoft would be retarded to let Sony have the game on their console.

Exclusivity deals have been broken before tho. Look at the GTA contract. GTA 4 will be out on ps3 and 360 simultaneously where as other games have been initially exclusive to sony.

 

[crispy]

Any argument has fallen flat on it's arse but it gets worse, Gears of War isn't going anywhere near the PS3. Microsoft have an exclusivity agreement with Epic for Gears of War plus parts 2 and 3 but the game will be ported to the PC after 12 months as Microsoft are more than happy for a PC version to exist after the 360 version has reached it's sales peak.

Theres goes my one reason to even consider 360

 

[Overdriven]

PS3 by far.