Going from a 360 to a PS3

Status
Not open for further replies.
orderoftheflame said:
It's free to set up a gamer profile, and even to upgrade it to a silver account... You don't have to pay money to get achievements or play games. You only have to pay for a gold subscription if you want to play online across the Xbox Live service.

You need to find out about both consoles, and what you can and can't do with them before whinging about them like a little fanboy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

wow just wow!..... uhh you dont have to pay money to get achievements or play games?.... uhh??? Why does that even get mentioned? You feeling ok?

Are you suggesting that its a nice feature of live that playing singleplayer games on your 360 is currently FREE? :D

if so...sorry but gtfo :p you absolute nutter! :D
 
Warbie said:
It's just the impression I get from using both machines online. There's always a shed load of people playing games on Live at pretty much any time.
Click to expand...

fairs does - lets say you're right :D for now...

The problem is i'm pretty sure Home will reverse that. Arent most if not all games supposed to be getting launch support from within Home. (as well as a host of other interactive features)

I just feel MS gotta offer something else to their paying customers.. with the introduction of HOME they surely can see that Sony are offering something extra to their gamers so will MS up the ante as well?
 
People complained about Xbox Live having racist/sexist/etc. and the very same thing happens with HOME. I can only imagine it will get worse as HOME is free and almost anyone can register without having to use a credit card.
I have been on home twice and the swearing and other stupid comments being made on there is unbelievable.
If Sony do not monitor HOME properly it will turn familys off even buying a PS3.
Who wants to see and hear idiots saying things like Can i play with your t*** and will you give me a blowjob.
It is worse than xbox live because you can see it as well as hear it.
Sony sure opened a can of worms.
Ok people can say well just dont go into home if you do not like that sort of thing.
HOME could end up a total waste of time and not a selling point.
 
Last edited:
Surfer said:
with the introduction of HOME they surely can see that Sony are offering something extra to their gamers so will MS up the ante as well?
Click to expand...

Massive log in times and the opportunity to spend real money on virtual foot stools?

I fail to see what Home offers the average gamer appart from being an MMO version of the Sims.

If that's what floats your boat enjoy! I'd rather be able to chat to a friend whilst we're playing different games, rather than have to sit arround a 3D environment with fa to do.

Surfer said:
wow just wow!..... uhh you dont have to pay money to get achievements or play games?.... uhh??? Why does that even get mentioned? You feeling ok?

Are you suggesting that its a nice feature of live that playing singleplayer games on your 360 is currently FREE? :D

if so...sorry but gtfo :p you absolute nutter! :D
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read my original post, just the quote of it. Nutter. :rolleyes:
 
I have both.

PS3 is the better hardware for reliability.

360 is better for gaming overall.

Turn on your TV and look how many 360 ads there are right now. Then PS3 has LBP and thats about it. Sony are losing the nextgen battle bigtime as the attach rate for number of games sold on PS3 is not as strong as 360 and they do not even have that many exclusive games worth getting.

Then developers are even starting to abandon it totally or delaying releases. Look at Destroy All Humans. Not even getting a US PS3 (PS3 release only in europe) and that was previously a very big seller on PS2. Loads of developers have talked about the problems with developing PS3 games and EA with all their resources have not even bothered in some cases.

PS3 I think is the better machine with more potential but Sony dropped the ball with it. You would think that their 10 year lifespan plan included having more than 256Mb VRam as that hurts it a lot at the moment.

Bluray was one strong early selling point but for under £70 just get a Bluray drive to put in your PC.

MS would have done so much better if RROD was not the issue it still is. Jasper should help them in this respective. Xmas 2008 MS are going to cleanup with the 360. Sony are not even putting a lot of effort into advertising as they suspect they are losing the battle right now and nothing much can help them. Consoles are all about games and MS have just done better with developer relations this time round.
 
Lead_Head said:
Hello all,

I'm thinking of making the switch and going from the 360 to a PS3, trading in the 360 or selling it privately. How much do you think I'd get for a 360 selling it or trading it in?

The reason why I'm thinking of making the switch is because all my mates have gone for the PS3 and it also has the blu-ray player which will come in handy when watching films.

Without wishing to open a can of worms, is the PS3 the better console? Is the online side of things as good as the 360? Can you chat online? Add friends etc?

I've had my 360 for a good few years and has served me well but now I think it's time to trade in the old boy for something else (better?).
Click to expand...

(quoting again as not to go off topic)

Some answers and a bit of advice, is the PS3 a better console? Well thats debatable both are pretty much equal most of the time, both have there good and bad points. The only reason you should choose one over the other is games, not what boxy thing you play them on shouldnt be an issue.
As for online, well if your friends have a PS3, then you have people to chat with online in home or ingame straight away, as long as you have headsets. These can be a fairly cheap BT headset, an USB head set or my advice get the Sony Socom headset, best one i have tried and is fairly cheap at £18 ish.
Xbox live is better in many ways in the communication/group side of things and you always know exactly what online functionality each game has as its a standard. I would say the actual online playing games is better on the PS3, all Sony games use dedicated servers which means i can play a game of resistance 2 with 59 others all over the world and have no lag at all. Home at present does not offer much of a benefit to gamers as such apart from dancing about having a chat and playing pool/bowling but when the party system and game launching is up and running we'll see how well it compares with XBL party systems.
You said earlier that you are going to keep the 360, thats the best idea TBH you will not get much for it trade in, and you will have best of both worlds. Unless there is nothing on the horizon on the 360 you fancy, but most of 09's 360 stuff we dont know much about yet, so best to keep hold off.
 
Yungstar 2006 said:
your right, LIVE does not cost much a year, but it is a cost you don't pay on PS3.

at £25 a year it would cost the family £125. it then becomes more than **** all.
Click to expand...

In the ultra rare and frankly bizarre situation that every member of your family requires there own individual online account, then the PS3 is obviously the better purchase.

However, in all other circumstances, the cost of XBL is not an issue, at all.
 
jamief said:
You DO NOT NEED 5 accounts to play online. You only need one.
Click to expand...

you do need 5 accounts to play online and get the online achievements, you don't if you have a PS3 as it's free.

jamief said:
If you choose (knowing full well the implications) to give every family member their own gold account (which frankly is absurd), then it's your choice to pay £125 a year.
Click to expand...

some would say it's absurd to pay to play a game online when you can play the same or similar game for free on another system

yes, it is a choice to pay, but with PS3 it's free, so the better choice is PS3.

jamief said:
If you care so much about achievements etc, then yes, you have to pay. Again, entirely your choice. There are alternatives. Microsoft isn't forcing you to hand over cash.
Click to expand...

and Sony don't even ask. the whole point is that one system offers it for free, the other does not
 
I have both, use 360 because I have more of my friends on and I don't need to choose thirty seven user names to play games online (MGS).
 
Yungstar 2006 said:
you do need 5 accounts to play online and get the online achievements, you don't if you have a PS3 as it's free.
Click to expand...

Anders0n said:
In the ultra rare and frankly bizarre situation that every member of your family requires there own individual online account, then the PS3 is obviously the better purchase.

However, in all other circumstances, the cost of XBL is not an issue, at all.
Click to expand...

I agree with Anders0n on this, there should be no issue to a normal user If you can afford the console and games, you can afford £25 per annum. If achievements/trophies mean that much to you/your family that it was essential that you all had to get the online ones, then I'm sure you made the right choice for you.
 
AWPC said:
I have both.

PS3 is the better hardware for reliability.

360 is better for gaming overall.
Click to expand...

For arguements sake I'm going to agree, but as of now I'd say not by much on both statements (as I've had a PS3 fail after 6 months & imo the PS3 had better games this year)

AWPC said:
Turn on your TV and look how many 360 ads there are right now. Then PS3 has LBP and thats about it. Sony are losing the nextgen battle bigtime as the attach rate for number of games sold on PS3 is not as strong as 360 and they do not even have that many exclusive games worth getting.
Click to expand...

Yeah look at all the ads!!!! What's that got to do with which console is better, or the better option for someone?? As for exclusives imo the PS3 had the better exclusives this year & it present looks to have the better exclusives in 09.

AWPC said:
Then developers are even starting to abandon it totally or delaying releases. Look at Destroy All Humans. Not even getting a US PS3 (PS3 release only in europe) and that was previously a very big seller on PS2. Loads of developers have talked about the problems with developing PS3 games and EA with all their resources have not even bothered in some cases.
Click to expand...

Destroy all humans got 3/10 from Ign so thanks but no thanks. Some games have been delayed but often the PS3 has recieved the better game for it (Dirt & Alone in the Dark). As for EA well although they struggled at first out of all the developers publishers they currently are one the better with most games now being pretty much the same as the 360 version.


AWPC said:
PS3 I think is the better machine with more potential but Sony dropped the ball with it. You would think that their 10 year lifespan plan included having more than 256Mb VRam as that hurts it a lot at the moment.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I fail to see where VRam comes into it? The only difference is the PS3 doesn't share the ram where as the Xbox does? What's the hinderence from this?

AWPC said:
Bluray was one strong early selling point but for under £70 just get a Bluray drive to put in your PC.
Click to expand...

At least reference something that is comparable like a standalone player....

AWPC said:
MS would have done so much better if RROD was not the issue it still is. Jasper should help them in this respective. Xmas 2008 MS are going to cleanup with the 360. Sony are not even putting a lot of effort into advertising as they suspect they are losing the battle right now and nothing much can help them. Consoles are all about games and MS have just done better with developer relations this time round.
Click to expand...

Yes they would have done better without the RROD, how much better is questionable? Nope don't know why Sony aren't advertising tbh that & a price drop wouldn't done them any harm.

Nothing against the 360 just your post smelt of crap tbh....
 
Last edited:
i have both and use both equally,

The thing that annoys me most is most 360 fanboys "THINK" their system is doing better than the PS3 when i do believe it isn't really. For example the PS3 has managed to shift the same amount if not slightly more than the 360 from launch within the same time frame as the 360. The PS3 has also manged to keep a higher price tag for much longer without much effect on sales where as the 360 has continued to drop its price to keep momentium along with a re-vamped dashboard to keep the customers interested and try to attract a younger audiance which TBH is never going to happen when you compare games like Singstar on PS3 to LIPS on 360 and Scene It to Buzz on PS3 - MS just seem to not be able to market for these users.

Also i think now Xbox Live should be free due to P2P gaming and amount of Ads/sponserships it has and TBH see no difference between both services if all you want is a quick game on either machine these days except that PSN is free and still allows a great online gaming expericance without the cost.

So final thoughts, keep 360 and get PS3
 
McManicMan said:
i have both and use both equally,

The thing that annoys me most is most 360 fanboys "THINK" their system is doing better than the PS3 when i do believe it isn't really. For example the PS3 has managed to shift the same amount if not slightly more than the 360 from launch within the same time frame as the 360. The PS3 has also manged to keep a higher price tag for much longer without much effect on sales where as the 360 has continued to drop its price to keep momentium along with a re-vamped dashboard to keep the customers interested and try to attract a younger audiance which TBH is never going to happen when you compare games like Singstar on PS3 to LIPS on 360 and Scene It to Buzz on PS3 - MS just seem to not be able to market for these users.

Also i think now Xbox Live should be free due to P2P gaming and amount of Ads/sponserships it has and TBH see no difference between both services if all you want is a quick game on either machine these days except that PSN is free and still allows a great online gaming expericance without the cost.

So final thoughts, keep 360 and get PS3
Click to expand...

Regarding price drops the 360 held its price much longer than the Ps3.
The PS3 had a price drop in its first year the 360 did not.
Sony had to drop the price because of the 360 and there console was not selling well at all at £425
 
Last edited:
orderoftheflame said:
I agree with Anders0n on this, there should be no issue to a normal user If you can afford the console and games, you can afford £25 per annum. If achievements/trophies mean that much to you/your family that it was essential that you all had to get the online ones, then I'm sure you made the right choice for you.
Click to expand...

if i may, my last post on the subject.

a "normal user"?

the problem is not about being able to afford LIVE, the problem is why do LIVE users have to pay for something Sony give for free.

i'm amazed at the apathy by those "normal" gamers who think it's "normal" to pay for a service (they seem to be rushing lemming like to pay MS, and they are considered normal) it's competitors give for free. "normal" is not the choice of word i'd use for them, but each to his/her own.

i pay and will continue to pay for as long as i use LIVE, but lets not kid ourselves here. we would all rather have it for free. unless your "normal" that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom