Jump to content

XBOX 360 vs. PS3

patsfan1453

By patsfan1453,
in Off-Topic

Which do you prefer?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you prefer?

    • XBOX 360
      57
    • PS3
      50

Recommended Posts

Night_raven

Night_raven

Posted
Posted
And on top of that, I'd love to know what makes you think it's just a souped up PS2. Does that also mean that the 360 is just a souped up gaybox xbox?

 

They all are.

 

360, .. 3 processors, .. wow big deal.

 

PS3, .. 3 (or 4, whatever it is), .. again big deal?

 

We already have home computers than can do the same level if not better, levels of graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Titleist

Titleist

Posted
Posted

As for the comment that the PS3 looks better, do you also know it's like 20 percent BIGGER than the 360, gimme a break, it looks like a waffle iron.

 

Also the stupidest thing I've heard here is that it comes with a free online service, for those of us who have tried the PS2 online system...it's awful. Sony could care less about online gaming, the reason they're doing it is because Microsoft is doing it (and MS is doing it well, XBL is awesome). Okay so it's free from Sony, whereas MS' is 50 bucks a month (are you too cheap to NOT pay 50 bucks a month for an awesome service?).

 

Lets put this another way, herpes is free, that doesn't make it a good value!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Levi

Levi

Posted
Posted
MS' is 50 bucks a month (are you too cheap to NOT pay 50 bucks a month for an awesome service?).

 

Lets put this another way, herpes is free, that doesn't make it a good value!

 

Thought it was about $50 a year? I would be too cheap to pay $50 a month yea; I'd rather spend that on other stuff (me=not big gamer). $50 a year... well that's neither here nor there is it really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
williamhorton

williamhorton

Posted
Posted
Okay so it's free from Sony, whereas MS' is 50 bucks a month (are you too cheap to NOT pay 50 bucks a month for an awesome service?).

 

 

At first I thought you made a typo, but you said the same thing twice. The rates for Xbox 360 Live Gold (When upgraded from silver, as opposed to buying a starter pack) are: $49.99 for a year, $7.99 for one month, and $19.99 for three months. Like Sledge said, $50 a month to put up with that ######. I've played, I would have muted everyone if I could be bothered. Especially the anti-British Xbox nerds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
williamhorton

williamhorton

Posted
Posted
Oh just read on Gamespot:

You already know PS3 discs have that cool blu-ray thingy right with all that memory?

Well the game Resistance:Fall of Man is ----22 GIGS----big...WOAH!!!!

 

They still aren't using it to its potential. That's not even as big as one layer of Blu-Ray (25GB). A double sided, dual layer 12cm Blu-Ray disc can hold 100GB. Let's see them use that! And TDK is devoloping a disc which can hold 200GB across six layers. It's just going to get bigger. But on an HD-DVD, that game wouldn't even fit on a single layer (15GB).

But it brings about the question: Is a Blu-Ray drive really necessary? Sony think their machine is so amazing because it has Blu-Ray, but what's the point when they don't even fill up a single layer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Titleist

Titleist

Posted
Posted

no I'm retarded and just woke up prior to writing that comment, it's 50 dollars a year, 50 a YEAR. So sorry.

 

There's a reason why sony needs 100gb discs, it's because they have the most god awful bloated video codec possible to use for blu-ray movies. And because the PS2/PS3 has some of the most awful programming possible, have you guys read the interviews with the programmers? The PS3 is supposed to be one of the worst game developement processes known to man. Vs the 360 which programs just like PC games would, so the crossover for PC game developers to the 360 is a breeze.

 

The PS3 has more theoretical processing power with the cell processors, all 3 of them, whereas the 360 has some pretty bitching PowerPCs, three as well. Don't underestimate the 360, those PPCs are the same architecture as the Apple G5 I'm working at now, and trust me when I say that CPU can seriously crunch some numbers.

 

Ultimately it'll boil down to the developers ability to utilize the hardware, but if the development process takes longer on the PS3 then I don't see how that can be a point towards Sony.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorG

DoctorG

Posted
Posted

Okay, let's just calm down here.

 

I for one won't be touching the PS3 simply because of the price and the system architecture. Cell based systems are in their infancy and Sony's claims of massive computational power are unfounded.

 

They are currently assembling systems with processor yeilds of 10-20% of maximum (Yes the console is in production it's out in less than 2 months)

Here

 

 

So we're talking about a "Super-computer-system" to quote the tax evading Sony (I bet you fan-boys don't know about the recent lawsuit they lost here in the UK?) That's going to have an actual power-output of 10%-20% of what they quoted.

 

This is going to be a disaster, it's HUGE, it's a kraken of a system, over 2 centimeters larger in each dimension than the original Xbox and covered in more flashing lights than a chav with a Vauxhall Nova.

 

Weighing in at a price to make even my eyes water I refuse simply, to part with the kind of cash Sony want for a system that holds on to so much proprietary hardware.

 

Blu-Ray is dead, HD-DVD is king, 1080p costs an absolute fortune and to be honest isn't that much better than 1080i

 

I do own a 360, no I have no bonds to Microsoft, I'm a PC gamer at heart and to be honest I'd rather the PS3 was better than it's looking to be, we need competition in the market to keep technological advancement trundling along but Sony have gambled too much on this one.

 

I'll be interested to see how it turns out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorG

DoctorG

Posted
Posted
Everyone said the XBox was 'huge'; still smaller than any PC I've ever owned...

 

(Why am I getting involved in this?  :huh: I *fruitcage* hate new consoles :P)

 

Too right, that's what I was saying to my mate the other week when the pictures comparing the two came out, "It should be interesting to see all the Sony fanboys who said the xbox was huge"

 

The guardian ran an article the other week about the PS3 saying it was widely expected to fail as adult buyers would not buy it as it failed to "blend in" with modern home asthetics and I have to agree, the Japanese shunned the XBOX not because of it's brand but rather because of it's size, I can see the same thing happening here with them moving in favour of the Wii.

 

As I said though, I'll wait and see.

 

For the record, my PC sits in a Thermaltake Shark which is fairly HUGE in comparison to your average midi case so hey... I don't care what size the box is, just so long as it does the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
williamhorton

williamhorton

Posted
Posted
Okay, let's just calm down here.

 

I for one won't be touching the PS3 simply because of the price and the system architecture. Cell based systems are in their infancy and Sony's claims of massive computational power are unfounded.

 

They are currently assembling systems with processor yeilds of 10-20% of maximum (Yes the console is in production it's out in less than 2 months)

Here

So we're talking about a "Super-computer-system" to quote the tax evading Sony (I bet you fan-boys don't know about the recent lawsuit they lost here in the UK?) That's going to have an actual power-output of 10%-20% of what they quoted.

 

This is going to be a disaster, it's HUGE, it's a kraken of a system, over 2 centimeters larger in each dimension than the original Xbox and covered in more flashing lights than a chav with a Vauxhall Nova.

 

Weighing in at a price to make even my eyes water I refuse simply, to part with the kind of cash Sony want for a system that holds on to so much proprietary hardware.

 

Blu-Ray is dead, HD-DVD is king, 1080p costs an absolute fortune and to be honest isn't that much better than 1080i

 

I do own a 360, no I have no bonds to Microsoft, I'm a PC gamer at heart and to be honest I'd rather the PS3 was better than it's looking to be, we need competition in the market to keep technological advancement trundling along but Sony have gambled too much on this one.

 

I'll be interested to see how it turns out.

 

But even all of that isn't going to stop the chavs from selling their vast collection of hubcaps, bicycle wheels and their mum's Argos jewellry at the local pub and buying (or piking) a PS3 from the nearest electronics store (but probably from Argos), so they can say "Innit! I got PS3! S'like Playstation 2, but wiv 3 'stead of 2! Well wicked gangsta mon!" Or something to that effect.

 

I was not aware of that processor yield. I think that puts me back to my original stance of hating the PS3, as for some reason I started admiring it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
doc_newstead

doc_newstead

Posted
Posted
PS3 for MGS4, and it will have RE5

 

That right there sums it up. Originality is dead. Did you know that Silent Hill 4 was actually an original game, but then they realised it was so similar, they just did a bit of re-branding? What kind of a game market do we have, when you can probably just decide what a game's going to be about at the end :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorG

DoctorG

Posted
Posted

As always the battle will rage on :)

 

But I think they're over-estimating their return, Sony's already in a pretty bad way financially and they'll need to start watching their step as things go.

 

Honestly though, there's no such thing as "next-gen" these days, the PS3 doesn't look that fantastic I've yet to be truly wowed by it's graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.

  I accept