Price of the 360 vs the PS3

If you're using your PS3 for a media server of sorts, then it has a better interface.

From a purely gaming perspective I find the 360 much better.

I just don't trust the network connection on the PS3, and the way games are presented and accessed, along with the genuinely good special offers makes the 360 a clear winner.

In fact I sometimes turn my 360 on just to check out the latest offers/games, half of them seem hidden on the PS3.
 
davewhite04 said:
In fact I sometimes turn my 360 on just to check out the latest offers/games, half of them seem hidden on the PS3.
Click to expand...

If by hidden you mean right in front of you as soon as you load up the store then yes, they're very carefully hidden. The American accounts also have a ticker that goes across the top, giving you info on new arrivals and special offers. :p
 
Ps3 all the way ive got 2 of both consoles and ps3 is always better value for money and they dont break
 
Last edited:
Todge said:
I honestly don't see it being that easy to call. With no blu ray the PS3 would have come in MUCH cheaper and earlier. The delays were caused by a lack of blu ray diodes and a lack of final blu ray spec. A PS3 with just DVD capability would have quite possibly launched at the same time and at a similar price point to the 360. Since the price has always been THE major stickler for anyone wanting a console it's held the PS3 back immeasurably. Had they not pushed for their new HD format, Sony could well have trampled all over Microsoft again. Probably not Nintendo though simply because of the price.

They needed it in though and it won them and their partners the format war. For their sakes I hope it was worth the years of ridiculous losses that it cost them.

The 360 however shows that for this generation of games at least, BluRay was not essential. Perhaps on the next go around it might be more beneficial with larger textures and so on.



Couldn't agree more. Just like Sony have had their issues with the PSN hack and the linux support being pulled (though honestly I can understand it, even if it wasn't liked by a real minority), Microsoft have had issues with the RROD fiasco and Nintendo have had issues with a heavily lacking 3rd party support. Anecdotally there are 7 PS3s, 2 360s and 3 Wiis in my immediate family and friends. The Wii's days of usage in the last 12 months combined can be counted on my fingers and toes. That's not the case with the 360 and the PS3. Its something which could bite Nintendo when the Wii U finally drops and people think "Well I didn't really play the last one"

All three are out to get as much money from you as they can, It does APPEAR to a fair chunk of people however that Sony give more for your money than either Microsoft or Nintendo. Partly marketing and partly being better at disguising where they are making their money.
Click to expand...

hmmm im not sure how you can say that bluray wasn't essentially when all the cross platform games cannot fit on one xbox dvd disc and this is surely holding back the xbox game size aswell
 
Emjeadea said:
hmmm im not sure how you can say that bluray wasn't essentially when all the cross platform games cannot fit on one xbox dvd disc and this is surely holding back the xbox game size aswell
Click to expand...

es·sen·tial (-snshl)
adj.
1. Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
2. Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients. See Synonyms at indispensable.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or being a dysfunctional condition or a disease whose cause is unknown: essential hypertension.
4. Biochemistry Being a substance that is required for normal functioning but cannot be synthesized by the body and therefore must be included in the diet: essential amino acids.
n.
1. Something fundamental.
2. Something necessary or indispensable.
Click to expand...

How is a game coming on one disc essential? It didn't spoil my enjoyment of Mass Effect 2, also Doom came on 2 discs and Final Fantasy VII PS2 came on 3 and it didn't ruin the experience. The 360 was launched 6 years ago and in that time the only people we've really heard complaining are PS3 fan boys; the fact that Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV, etc. have all come out not only on par but in some respects better on DVD it pretty much validates the decision to 'just' include a DVD.
 
Last edited:
Emjeadea said:
hmmm im not sure how you can say that bluray wasn't essentially when all the cross platform games cannot fit on one xbox dvd disc and this is surely holding back the xbox game size aswell
Click to expand...

Which cross platform games have come on more than one disk? I don't follow the 360 at all but the only one I can think of was FF13. A quick google brings a handful more up but most are JRPGS which sold like ass on the 360 anyway since that audience typically doesn't want JRPG.

Almost every multiplat game is considered "better" looking on the 360 despite the extra power and storage on the PS3. Part of that is down to the complexity of the PS3 and part of it could be down to Microsoft and their novel approach to game licensing (give us day and date same content with the other console or we could well not allow your game on our machine).

I love my PS3, and I don't own nor have I any intention of owning a 360. But it has so far been abundantly clear that this generation still only needed a DVD for the games. A blu ray was nice for FF13 so that you had much less compression on the FMVs, but we didn't complain when FF7 8 and 9 were on multi disks.

Blu Ray is great, I'm glad it was in the PS3 because it helped get what I feel was the better format established which has led to a lot of great films being released in stunning quality. But for a games console it was overkill for the generation and it, in my opinion, screwed Sony over bigtime. And I doubt they'll make back the billions they lost pushing it on blu ray fees before the next format comes out.
 
in short, price wise the consoles are both much of a muchness and, imo, it is nothing more than being overly pedantic when arguing over token differences in features and costs. some games look a bit better on the 360 but again it is nominal, some look fantastic on the PS3.


I am glad the PS3 waited to ensure it had Blu-ray on board, Blu-ray is now the HD format because of it, I like this, it sounds cooler than HD DVD, never mind the technical benefits. I imagine, for many, the PS3 has been their first entry into the HD film format much like the PS2 was for DVD over VHS.

the PS3 was expensive at launch and did indeed struggle to compete against a well-established, cheaper Xbox 360. I remember the constant next gen sales figure wars (http://nexgenwars.com/) on here lol.

however, we also can’t forget that when both of these launched (especially back in 2005 for the 360), most people still had CRT TVs and maybe only HD-Ready LCDs (when a 32” HD LCD cost £599-£799 minimum for a decent brand on the high street). the Xbox catered much better for the regular person with a 20” Bush crt tv in their bedroom.

but fast forward to now, you can rent Blu-ray at blockbuster as easily as DVD (this wasn’t always the case and it had a limited range or cost more), you can buy them much cheaper, the cost of HD TVs has dropped dramatically so more people have access to them, heck stores no longer sell CRT TVs (they did at 360/PS3 launch).

I got my PS3 + Move (package rrp was £289 at the time) at Christmas with my mobile phone contract, this is the longest I have ever kept a console, having had 4 x 360s now none of which I have kept more than a couple of months. I don’t game much but it is our Blu-Ray player and TVs iPlayer. I also will game online now, albeit casually and only for 2-3 hours per week, as I never I justified a paid online subscription.
 
Honestly i'm so glad that i went and got both the PS3 and the 360. The 360 is a better gaming console in my opinion. I like the interface, the controller is fantastic and comfertable and Xboxlive is what console online gaming should be. Easy.

However in terms of a multimedia device then I love the PS3. It's simple, easy and offers a wide variety of formats. Bluray is another positive.

Can't complain really.
 
I don't think the PS3 is overpriced, and I don't think the 360 is either, as long as MS drop the price shortly, then equilibrium will be restored.

Whether people like it or not, it's all about supply/demand, not on theoretical value for money.. It's the same for lots of other electronics, where I can cite a lot of examples where cheaper but better specified product is sold cheaper then it's less specified competitors, but I never think the others are being greedy, they are able to charge more because in ways that may not apply to me, they clearly offer something people are willing to pay for over the other product..

As for Blu-ray, well, since we'd always have had a HD disc format, having Sony force it upon the PS3 just to make sure they won the race and make tons of money from that, I can't see any consumer benevolence going on there, sounds like your average cut-throat money grabby capitalist company to me...
 
Demon said:
As for Blu-ray, well, since we'd always have had a HD disc format, having Sony force it upon the PS3 just to make sure they won the race and make tons of money from that, I can't see any consumer benevolence going on there, sounds like your average cut-throat money grabby capitalist company to me...
Click to expand...

Thats not the end of the story, there's loads of evidence of Sony throwing $$$ at studio's to make sure they don't produce content on HD-DVD.
 
Todge said:
Almost every multiplat game is considered "better" looking on the 360 despite the extra power and storage on the PS3.
Click to expand...

Yet there isn't a single Xbox 360 exclusive that looks better than Uncharted 2, or MGS4, every 360 exclusive that I've seen looks like a childish blur of colours like somebody smeared the screen with a handful of crayons.
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
Yet there isn't a single Xbox 360 exclusive that looks better than Uncharted 2, or MGS4, every 360 exclusive that I've seen looks like a childish blur of colours like somebody smeared the screen with a handful of crayons.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Everything is about graphics, clearly. Thats why Crysis is GOTY for x years running right?
Regarding colour, i think you either have eye sight problems, or the screen your using is broken because the colour looks no different then any other titles i've played on other platforms.
Although there is one flaw of the PS3's use of colour which does my head in big stile - why on earth do all PS3 exclusives have what looks like a blue cooling filter applied to the final render of the game?

And then the titles you mention, for lots of people (me included) they are not as great as many Sony fanboy's would have you believe.
I never liked a MGS game after the first one, resistance.. uncharted series, they just don't appeal to me.

The attitude on here is just ..wow. "Lets try to convince someone who purchased a console for X title exclusive which they actually want to play, that in fact they are idiots who made some sort of life threatening decision!11!oneone"


-edit-
And whilst this has fallen into the usual fanboy trap.
No one can deny the 360's success. MS came into the market as a new boy in the console world and have taken a massive, massive chunk out of Sony's dominance.
 
Last edited:
Alpherah said:
:rolleyes:

Everything is about graphics, clearly. Thats why Crysis is GOTY for x years running right?
Regarding colour, i think you either have eye sight problems, or the screen your using is broken because the colour looks no different then any other titles i've played on other platforms.
Although there is one flaw of the PS3's use of colour which does my head in big stile - why on earth do all PS3 exclusives have what looks like a blue cooling filter applied to the final render of the game?

And then the titles you mention, for lots of people (me included) they are not as great as many Sony fanboy's would have you believe.
I never liked a MGS game after the first one, resistance.. uncharted series, they just don't appeal to me.

The attitude on here is just ..wow. "Lets try to convince someone who purchased a console for X title exclusive which they actually want to play, that in fact they are idiots who made some sort of life threatening decision!11!oneone"


-edit-
And whilst this has fallen into the usual fanboy trap.
No one can deny the 360's success. MS came into the market as a new boy in the console world and have taken a massive, massive chunk out of Sony's dominance.
Click to expand...

Oh no! Not the rolleyes! :D

Firstly, I'm sorry you feel the need to attack an individual purely based on their opinion, secondly it's okay for somebody to incorrectly state that virtually every multiplatform game is "better" on the 360 yet someone who owns both consoles isn't allowed to state their opinion on exclusives? Please. There is absolutely no contest when it comes to the exclusives and their visuals. Halo vs Killzone, Uncharted/God of War vs Gears of War, Heavy Rain vs Alan Wake, GT5 vs Forza... I'm sorry but the first party Xbox 360 games all have excessive amounts of motion blur, they also have a very rich and unrealistic colour palette.

Also I think you'll find most of the games that I've mentioned offer much more than their Microsoft counterparts. Let's see, Gears of War is a generic 3rd person shooter, yet another game where you have ridiculously oversized armour and guns bigger than your steroid pumped character, maybe they're trying to compensate for something? ;)

Halo, the only saving grace is Forge mode, everything else is a generic piece of crap and that includes the graphics. The story is terrible and especially with 3 and Reach they've tried to go in a more serious direction in terms of narrative but it totally falls down when they're talking about some uber serious situation yet the characters all look like they were constructed with Lego blocks and then jizzed over with the entire palette of paint. What about Forza? All I heard from people on here was "lol at least it has cockpits for every car", yeah it does but look at them, my God you'd think every single car had a tacky shiny plastic dashboard and half the instruments don't even work. Yet GT5 can have hundreds of fully detailed and realistic cockpits but it gets savaged by fanboys for being too late, despite other games taking WAY more time to produce.

I love the way you talk about fanboys when you've clearly got a seriously throbbing hard on for Microsoft. For the record I've owned several 360's and there are games I enjoy, the same with the PS3, I don't blindly love all first party games *just* because they're on the PS3, and there is no hint that I've acted like that. I think you need to chill the hell out because you've been itching to inflame this thread from the get go. :)

Alpherah said:
:rolleyes:

Everything is about graphics, clearly. Thats why Crysis is GOTY for x years running right? Although there is one flaw of the PS3's use of colour which does my head in big stile - why on earth do all PS3 exclusives have what looks like a blue cooling filter applied to the final render of the game?
Click to expand...

I think you should take your own advice in this instance:

Alpherah said:
i think you either have eye sight problems, or the screen your using is broken
Click to expand...

:p
 
Last edited:
Alpherah said:
:rolleyes:


And whilst this has fallen into the usual fanboy trap.
No one can deny the 360's success. MS came into the market as a new boy in the console world and have taken a massive, massive chunk out of Sony's dominance.
Click to expand...

Oh dear oh dear..!! Wasn't it Sony that took the console fight to SEGA and Nintendo and clearly gave SEGA a damn good run for its money when Sony was still new boys in the gaming market? Nintendo got a good beating at the time too if I recall.

MS when they were considered new boys with the x box certainly didn't do the same as what Sony did to SEGA and Nintendo with their first console. The PS1 was a huge success, x box was moderately successful when compared to, ok the technically inferior Playstation 2, the x box was a powerful console when released but didn’t come close to the market share Sony had.

It took MS another go to finally become somewhat of a dominating console market share holder.. And even now its not huge when you compare to Sony. Its marginal at best, well I guess you could argue US market its not.. But that’s another debate.

Please, don't quote fanboy comments when you clearly are showing traits of fanboyism. I've owned both PS3 and 360 and each are equally good consoles.

Forza 3 is IMO a better game then GT5 anyhow. GT5 is excellent, Forza 3 is excellent however I've only got a PS3 at the moment so play GT5.

I should add more to this, however Killswitch did a decent job already..
 
Anyone who thinks either company are decent are deluded;)
They are both money grabbing scoundrels.

I prefer my Xbox 360 to my PS3 but I think thats a matter of habit, i've had my Xbox years and my PS3 only couple of months.

What does stick out for me though is the Xbox interface is more pleasant and easy to use. Again, might be cause I cant find anything on the PS3 menus :p

Blu Ray is a big plus for PS3, but it doesnt bother me if a game on Xbox is 1 disk or 3 disks.

All in all, both consoles are great. Depends what you use it for
 
Abooie said:
How is a game coming on one disc essential? It didn't spoil my enjoyment of Mass Effect 2, also Doom came on 2 discs and Final Fantasy VII PS2 came on 3 and it didn't ruin the experience. The 360 was launched 6 years ago and in that time the only people we've really heard complaining are PS3 fan boys; the fact that Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV, etc. have all come out not only on par but in some respects better on DVD it pretty much validates the decision to 'just' include a DVD.
Click to expand...

Good point. I have Red Dead Redemption on the 360 and it amazes me more than any other game how it fits on one disk, and looks and sounds marvellous... also it's massive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom