|
I've always erred on the Sony side of the fence - had a 360 from launch and I've not regretted it. A couple of lads I work with are both saving for PS3's - I'm trying to persuade them to get 360's basically due to the amount of games and the online side of things.
I'm after a PS3, but mainly for the blu-ray - dont think I'd use it for games until MGS4, Wipeout & GT5 come out. |
I own both and at the moment i play the 360 more due to the mass of titles available compared to sonys poor excuse. In time though i do think the PS3 will be far superior considering the 360 has been out for well over a year and a half, and graphically the PS3 is already an even match. The only area the PS3 lacks in at the moment is the poor amount of titles available. I doubt that will be the case in a years time
|
xbox 360 - triple core CPU, ps3 - I lost count, but think it is 6 SPEs around the cell, , which one has the better potential for games, hmmmm :P
And I am known as Mr Microsoft at work, so hardly a Sony fanboy - it's just better hardware IMHO. Hands down. OK so the XBOX has more games, hardly surprising given the amount of time it's been out, but which one has the staying power, and the blu-ray and the streaming and the upscaling. Case rested, going to bed :D |
Different people have different values.
I don't need any blueray player for at least another year and a half. Maybe by then I will buy a standalone player of higher quality than the PS3 integrated one or if HD-DVD makes the race (which I strongly believe), one of those standalone players. At the moment this whole BR/HD-DVD topic has no value to me. I also believe that both systems (360 & PS3) have definitely the staying power by now and will both be around in the future together with the (excellent) Wii console which still sells like crazy. At the moment, I would get another 360 anytime. The only grief with the 360 is the huge amount of broken consoles. This should be at the top of Microsofts priority task list. Heck, after having my 3rd console (360) I am quite afraid to actually turn it on everytime. ;) The 360 had more quality games out when it was as old as the PS3 is now and xbox live had started to really keep people playing between big game releases (endless geometric war sessions). I am not a games developer but what's the benefit of having great multi core processors, when the developers have not the knowledge of using the console power (I read somewere that there are currently only about 5 developers who really know how to use the PS3 potential, but surely this will change sometime). Time will tell but I am living now. |
Originally Posted by Jeff Stryker
(Post 7021980)
I own both and at the moment i play the 360 more due to the mass of titles available compared to sonys poor excuse. In time though i do think the PS3 will be far superior considering the 360 has been out for well over a year and a half, and graphically the PS3 is already an even match. The only area the PS3 lacks in at the moment is the poor amount of titles available. I doubt that will be the case in a years time
motorstorm is good though :) |
LOL anyone wanna buy a PS3 ??
2 controllers and 5 games ill sell it for 350 quid !! i play the 360 too much the PS3 is an ornament !! |
couple of interesting articles for the debate...
It's been more than six months since we published our first Xbox 360 versus PlayStation 3 graphics comparison feature. Games on both systems looked great, but the Xbox 360 games had more polish. We found that the Xbox 360 edged out the PlayStation 3 with higher-resolution textures and better lighting. The result of the first comparison wasn't surprising--the Xbox 360 had been available for a year and developers were already cranking out second-generation games, while the PlayStation 3 had just arrived in retail with its first-generation games. We decided to check on a few games released in recent months to see if the PlayStation 3 has caught up to or overtaken the Xbox 360. Our quick seven-game tour has shown that the PlayStation 3's game graphics are getting closer to the Xbox 360's. The Xbox 360 had an edge in texture quality and antialiasing in many of the games, but we didn't see any nasty lighting deficiencies like the ones we found in Fight Night Round 3 in the original comparison feature. Additionally, in what may be a hint of things to come, Bethesda's Oblivion proved that there can be a PS3 game port with better textures than the Xbox 360 version. The PS3's graphics win in Oblivion gives us hope that game developers will be able to produce competitive graphics if given enough time to work with the hardware. We can't wait to see how the games compare this holiday season! A report by Dr. Dobb's long-running software journal confirms what many suspected -- that the PS3 is immensely powerful but difficult to work with. When comparing next-gen architectures, the journal found that Cell development can be more costly than the PC-inspired innards of the Xbox 360. "It's difficult to program for," say the authors when speaking of the PS3. "Software that exploits the Cell's potential requires a development effort significantly greater than traditional platforms." Greater effort requires greater costs, and that could leave publishers wary when undertaking new PS3 projects. Even Sony acknowledges the PS3's complexity while admitting to its development challenges. "There is a trade-off between performance and versatility," said Sony's product development group in an email to GamePro. But what if a game doesn't start life on the PS3? What about ported games? According to Dr. Dobb's, applications must be "radically redesigned" for porting due to the Cell's finicky architecture, limited support, and scrupulous compiler. Translation: Developers can't just recompile their existing 360 builds as ports for the PS3 without first making significant development changes. |
Reading that it doesn't tell us much more than we already know. As I see it the PS3 has the potential to be the more powerful console but a few things will stop that ever being showcased in games. The first is purely down to ££. If a developer is looking to make and sell a game they will want it to be as easy to do as possible and be able to get it to market in a reasonable time. In that case you'd engineer the game for the 360. If the game is going cross platform like most do then again you'll make it for the 360 and look to put it on the PS3 later.
I think you may see the very odd game showcase what the PS3 can do in time to come but these will come from Sony sponsored game houses who can afford to spend the extra time and employ the manpower to work with the cell possessor. What does that mean with regards to the original question? Well if you want to play great games now and have an excellent choice of games then it has to be a 360 currently. |
Originally Posted by abbott
(Post 7022703)
LOL anyone wanna buy a PS3 ??
2 controllers and 5 games ill sell it for 350 quid !! i play the 360 too much the PS3 is an ornament !! |
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
(Post 7023185)
If you're serious, I'll pay cash today.
im 101% serious buddy !! only thing is i live in inverness scotland !! :brickwall |
Regardless of which one is technically better or what games they have, I think the PS3 will ultimately win the battle simply because alot of the people paying for these things are parents, and to them Sony will win every time. They will see it as a piece of home electronics that you can play games on, and Microsoft don't do those.........
I may be proven wrong, but I think it will take along time before MS can shift Sony out of a market like this. I see all sorts of people on here extoling the virtues of 360, and I'm sure it's very good, it certainly has more games, and for a year or more, there simply was no choice. But your average Joe ain't tech savvy. I think we will see a building tide of PS3 that will swamp 360. I hope not, because I thinkk Sony need a bloody nose to return to the edgniess that made the PS such a great thing, and competition is always great for the consumers. Geezer |
Saw some sales figures the other day that said the PS3 already had half the total number of 360's. The Wii is still ahead of both by a country mile...although oddly, I dont know of a single person who owns one.
|
Originally Posted by messiah
(Post 7027164)
Saw some sales figures the other day that said the PS3 already had half the total number of 360's.
|
Originally Posted by Iain Young
(Post 7027280)
Must be Japan that accounts for that. In the USA / Europe, the 360 is easily outselling the PS3 every month....
|
Thought about a Nintendo Wii?
I've owned an original Playstation in the past and have an XBox and PS2. I've also got a PSP. I bought a Wii back in March and think its a clever piece of kit, imo its what the old VR machines would be like today. At the moment I have Wii Sports, which came with the console and Red Steel, first person shooter that includes sword play as well as firing guns. I've currently got on order Resident Evil 4, which has been reworked for the Wii's controls and can't wait to give it a go. For me, although theres no doubting the 360 and PS3 are great machines they don't really offer anything new where as the Wii does. Which is why I went for it over them. |
Weird, because all of the sales figures week on week since the launch suggest the PS3 is selling around half of the 360. I suspect some fiddling of the figures is going on somewhere ;)
|
Originally Posted by 16vmarc
(Post 7027445)
For me, although theres no doubting the 360 and PS3 are great machines they don't really offer anything new where as the Wii does. Which is why I went for it over them.
|
Anyone got the Chart Track figures for hardware sales ?
|
Originally Posted by Iain Young
(Post 7027453)
What does the Wii off that's new? As far as I can see it offers...
Nintendo also gives you the option of Mario (if you like platform), which the other two has thus far failed to challenge. Either way, its worth considering with the other two imo. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands