PS3 or XBOX 360? Which one is better?

[glen421]

Here is an interesting look at which console is better. Please read the III part (hardware, software, and online) article and let me know what you think. He brings up some intresting views but I think that it is all it is just views. I think alot of the facts refrenced are either old data or taken out of context. Please post some PS3 facts as well.

http://www.examiner.com/x-16887-Las-Cruces-Xbox-Live-Examiner~y2009m8d30-Xbox-360-better-than-PS3-Part-one-hardware

[glen421]

I guess nobody like this thread?

[Dustin S.]

Its just alot of reading, must say on any other forum you would get alot of bias hate with this haha. Ill just play devils advocate and take PS3's side to get the convo going.

He starts off with hardware. Stating "games must install due to slow load times" the only thing i have to say in reply to that is Killzone 2 and Madden. Madden had a slight install but overall it loaded faster on PS3 if im not mistaken, Killzone 2 had no install at all and ive never heard a single complaint about its load times. Not only that but he uses RFOM as an example, yet Insomniac is the best example of quality games. Maybe they loaded it 12 times for differnt reason?

He also only quoted one guy, one guy thats against PS3. Your using the guy that made GH for something like this? GH? So ill play the opposite side and quote one guy for Sony's Side, Kojima.

Kojima: For us, we're not still not satisfied with the quality we can do. You know, there's not capacity space.
Interviewer: Wait, wait a sec. Saying there's not enough capacity, are you talking about Blu-ray?

Kojima: That's correct. There's not enough space at all. (laughs) ...There's not enough space. We always talked about where to cut and what to compress.

Lets not forget it also had long huge installs too. So they were using the capacity of both, thus he wasnt layering the game 12 times. The article then goes on the bash every comparison between the console directly, like fact a against single fact A. He doesnt note how a PS3 runs differntly, so while the RAM or something like that may be smaller, it can spread the RAM between the RAM and 7 processors.

For example Ill use the same exact quote he used in the opposite light

What you can say really quite clearly and not get into too much argument about it is that the 360 is much easier to develop for, it's easier to get the performance out of it that it can deliver, and the rasterizer, the GPU side is generally faster than what the PS3 has.
Thats what im saying, if you take the time to learn PS3 then it becomes better. MS purely did the usual "graphics card with processor equal good graphics" while Sony did "sure graphics are good, but how can we make it perform better."

Then Valves comment...now you know why i put them on the bottom of my list. Again like i said, MS went for the basic, if you can program for a PC you can program for Xbox. I understand that, but Sony is taking another route and decided to get better performance. To me that means down the road Sony will have the better console, better technology, and eventually that will rub off into gamin PC's etc...

And if you dont believe me, why have we not seen Resistance 2, MAG, Killzone 2, Uncharted and so many others on other consoles? R2 and MAG made it possible to have over 60 people online, Xbox max i believe is 20? Killzone 2 and Uncharted are the most beautiful, fascinating, high in detail games i have ever seen...and its literlly impossible on anything else that isnt a 3 grand PC.


Now the gaming side is where your going to get a TON of hate from any side. He lists that third party support is a must to have exclusive, to me its just MS creating more fanboys and flame wars. Sony is correct, its NOT needed at all. As long as the game is on your console, thats all that matters, Sony doesnt NEED to make it exclusive, they just NEED to offer it nothing more. I dont see why MS doesnt think that way and continues to hate a whole third of gamers.

Still half his list of "stolen exclusives" are wrong. For example Metal Gear Solid, the only "intended exclusive" w as MGS4 at which remains an exclusive. 99 percent of all MGS fans, no matter the console they use, agree that Rising should NOT have Solid in its name. Kojima isn't apart of it, it has nothin to do with the Solid story, and we still get Peace Walker. Resident Evil was a PS exclusive? No Capcom is a third party...GTA sure ill give you that one, you give us Agent and the fact Rockstar said they have a long standing relationship with Sony. (similar to Valve humping MS legs everyday.)

Then i checked the list of 360 exclusives. Your counting first parties...really really crappy games (uno? thats your thunder?). You really want to throw in Sony's 7 studios? Also some of them are due to the fact they came out before PS3 development, for example Call of Jaurez, the sequal came out on PS3 because the first came before they had PS3 development team. There are several games like this, but half of them suck so i dont bother listing. Then he lists the amount of games Xbox 360 lost, correction go here to see the full list of Xbox 360 exclusives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_exclusives

Notice how not a single one of those are big names? Excluding first party titles or ones like Gears. All im saying, MS paid out MILLIONS just to get these games to be on their system. They didn't pay for anything more than to say "ha we got your game Sony!!!" yet Sony sits back, does nothing at all, and Rockstar comes to E3 to say "Agent is Exclusive to PS3" or "FF14 is only PS3" I wonder why that is? Why do all this games end up on PS3 without Sony paying a dime to get them?

Sony's exclusive games are primarily single player, whereas Xbox's are multiplayer. Single player games are becoming a thing of the past, as you can see with the Wii. Multiplayer, and cooperative play is where it's all at. The 360 has the PS3 beat here.
Right off the top of my head. MGS4 (MGO), Killzone 2, Socom Confrontation (online Only), Warhawk (Online ONLY), Resistance, Resistance 2, Uncharted 2, MAG (The biggest online game ever made)....need i go on? Sure games like Ratchet are single player, but they are not a thing of the past because over here on PS3 they are actually quality campeigns that last more than 6 hours.

[Dustin S.]

Finally online, its 50 dollars not 40, so right off the bat your trying to squeeze out every detail. And to answer the question, yes it is too expensive. I have to pay a cable/internet bill on top of it, i have to buy games, i have to buy online stuff, and I can barely afford that. Then its not just one year, ill pay for it this year, next year, and according to Sony ill be paying for 10 years of service if their system lasts 10 years...thats 500 dollars.

They're maintained by money that Sony keeps pouring into them. It's another way that they're losing money.
For one, if its not your wallet they are taking money out of why do you care? Lastly correction to what he said, its funded by things like HOME where Sony nickel and dimes people everyday. Its funded by developers helping pay for their servers and getting content on the store. Dont worry MS does this too, but they like taking that money for themselves. Sony will be expanded online games here soon with DC Universe and Free Realms, which again will be nickel and diming people instead of subscription based content. Dont believe it works? Then why has free online games on PC lasted so long?

You get exclusive content, a chance to "Game with Fame",exclusive demos, insider news and tips, Games on Demand, and of course it's selection of Video Content.
And what do you get for free on PS3? Its "exclusive demo's" for the few days before Thursday? Let alone you don't get all of that for 40 bucks, you get ACCESS to all of that for 40 bucks, then you need to buy it to actually have it.

Not only that, but the $40.00 a year helps fund updates, like bringing Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm to Xbox Live. Granted, if you're an Xbox Live Family, it could be kind of expensive. A family plan subscription would be really nice of Microsoft to provide, but is it necessary?
Yet Sony has all those features already thanks to a web browser, just gave us a decent upgrade with firmware 3.0, is offering a fully functioning video service, just added things like the bigest music video service around (for free none the less) and iBBC in UK, created HOME instead of some crappy avatars like Wii, and continues to do these things free of charge. Sony allows an entire family to sign up for PSN for free and a family doesnt have to worry about a 500 dollar PER PERSON fee over ten years.

Like Sony states...It Only Does Everything (for free!). Thats just my devils advocate reply to this post, and let it be known pretty much all of it is facts mixed in with my own opinion.

[trediddy]

great post


EDIT: u mightve already stated this Dustin but ur post had a lot to read so i culdnt remember this guy didnt say anything that the ps3 has all he did was bashing it and saying the stuff xbox has but not telling us that PS3 has the same stuff (online for example)

[Dipchit02]

yeah agreed he just showed the positives of the 360 and not the PS3 i didnt really think he was bashing the PS3 just only showing the positives of one and not the PS3 at all like a point counter point there was only point in this one

EDIT:

yeah Dustin i posted alot of the things you said in ur second post in the comments on the site and thought it was just a poorly written article with alot of 360 bias in it. but also in the quote you have in ur first post GPU is GENERALLY faster than the PS3 meaning that if they take time to work on the PS3 more it will be faster and better on the PS3 but they dont wanna work with it and like you said with exclusives i doubt that L4D was supposed to be PS3 exclusive i mean where did he get that info from? and if you look at Sony first and second party games then you will see that the PS3 IS more powerful you just have to work it the right way becuase Uncharted 2 and GoW III and MAG are just more amazing than NE thing on the 360 to date and the 360 is a year older and like you said about exclusive like Full auto came out on the 360 exclusive and then Full Auto 2 was on the PS3 exclusive and how many of the 360 "exclusives" that came out in that first year are on the PS2? and they just say exclusive cuz it isnt on PS3?

[Dustin S.]

@trediddy Like Dipchit said, he wasnt really "comparing them" but the titile says "which is better." So it didnt make sense to me. All he did was basically advertise the 360, stating all the features it had yatta yatta and used that to say Xbox is Better, I did the same by taking what he said and replying with what the PS3 has to offer, thus imo PS3 wins. Its really just an opinion battle, nothing really more. All though IMO both sides (mine and his) bring up facts that back up each opinion. I support his as he probably would support mine.

The thing is though he started out by comparing it straight on. Case by Case as dipchit said, however the PS3 will lose Case by Case, i think thats known. It takes a quality developer to actually take time with the PS3 and learn how it works to learn that every case leads to the other, at which creates one GIANT case in the end making the PS3 better. Does the PS3 have less RAM offered? Yes, does the PS3 offer RAM and processing power dedicated to the game elsewhere? Yes and total it adds up to double that of 360. The only true area the PS3 suffers is anti aliasing at which first parties have found ways around.

[trediddy]

lol i dont really know all bout that Ram stuff and ati aliasing but i think i get wut ur saying

[glen421]

Dustin great posts!!! Yeah this guy really doesn't back up his opinion well (it seems he conveniently has forgot to tell the full PS3 story). Sony's 1st pary developers blow the 360's 1st party and 3rd party out of the water. Also as you said Sony has taken a completely different path for development than Microsoft and we can see the benefits of Sony's decision.

The reason I posted this thread is I am constantly seeing a media bias twards XBOX. Most multiplatform game reviews are always the 360 version. I hardly ever see some game journalist giving Sony props.

[Dipchit02]

yeah i agree with you on that Glen you almost never see the gaming media give anything to the PS3 but they are doing a great job and i think is the best system but you also have to ask how many of them are in Microsofts back pockets?

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

I know I could take a lot of heat on this site for saying this but, I think it just leads down to personal preference.

Honestly, I don't really care about what the 360 has to offer, I think its unreliable and I don't want to payfor live.

But, I've met a lot of people with 360s who don't mind paying like $60 dollars a year for live and don't really care about the fact that the 360 has a higher risk of it breaking down. A lot of those people don't care for what the PS3 has to offer.

Honestly I don't know how they can choose the 360 over the PS3, it confuses me a lot but what can u do?
I don't think anyone is better really

[Dustin S.]

Thats one thing i never got. Some people i know i was saying get ps3, get ps3, get ps3, then one day " i got a 360" and he never had a xbox before or anything. Everyone, not just me was saying PS3. Maybe MS just has a brainwash thing in bestbuy or something.

[bharat4ever]

in india it's slightly different. You can easily mod a xbox, and get games for $2 or so. So wahtever you tell them, this is the major reason everybody buys a xbox and becomes a "fanboy" beecause they have their personal egos, and they have to defend their decision...

[AuFordFalcon]

no one cares , everyone has different opinions, both are great consoles in their own right,threads like this are pointless.

[SDiMera]

I know I could take a lot of heat on this site for saying this but, I think it just leads down to personal preference.

Honestly, I don't really care about what the 360 has to offer, I think its unreliable and I don't want to payfor live.

But, I've met a lot of people with 360s who don't mind paying like $60 dollars a year for live and don't really care about the fact that the 360 has a higher risk of it breaking down. A lot of those people don't care for what the PS3 has to offer.

Honestly I don't know how they can choose the 360 over the PS3, it confuses me a lot but what can u do?

The Xbox 360 is unreliable I had in total 3 of them, first one I bought broke down after three months. Got a new second that one broke even faster like say 2 months, and number three was end of the line for me with again three months life span.


Second I forgot to say I agree with AuFordFalcon, everyone has a personal feeling and these threads are just pointless indeed.

[m0tl3sl4y3r]

no one cares , everyone has different opinions, both are great consoles in their own right,threads like this are pointless.

exactly what I think, arguments over which is better are pretty annoying after a while
Thats one thing i never got. Some people i know i was saying get ps3, get ps3, get ps3, then one day " i got a 360" and he never had a xbox before or anything. Everyone, not just me was saying PS3. Maybe MS just has a brainwash thing in bestbuy or something.

maybe they do, that's why people with 360's keep going back to it after a while
The Xbox 360 is unreliable I had in total 3 of them, first one I bought broke down after three months. Got a new second that one broke even faster like say 2 months, and number three was end of the line for me with again three months life span.


Second I forgot to say I agree with AuFordFalcon, everyone has a personal feeling and these threads are just pointless indeed.

I know that but most people with 360's don't seem to care that it breaks down a lot because they like it.
I think that it would be ridiculous to go ack to something that breaks but they probably don't see anything wrong with it breaking down a lot if they like it

so like I said before and what u said it is just personal feeling