360 vs PS3

[TwistedMetal]

Ok, I'm going to get into this now...

 

360 is going to be on top. Why? PS3 keeps pushing it's dates back, plus all the 360 blockbuster hits are going to be released this thanksgiving and christmas holiday. About the time PS3 releases, it better release some blockbuster hits when it's released or it will fall hard.

 

The price, is another hit. I would think Microsoft will either lower the price of the 360 or come out with a special edition during the PS3 release. Microsoft has the edge, because they started the market early, they knew there would be some problems by rushing the release of the 360, but would have them ironed out in time.

 

Alot of developers are going to the 360 and now there are more and more Xbox only releases. Metal Gear Solid and KillZone is the only thing going for Sony right now. I just wish Metroid would go to Microsoft platform!

[PS3]

And so far the PS3 hasn't shown any graphics that are better then the 360.

thats really determined by ones opinion. i think the PS3 has better graphics so im getting it.

 

GT Vision (not GT HD) is the best graphics i have ever seen and yet in the demo, they said it is only a glimpse of whats really to come. if i thought the demo looked friggin awsome, imagine what the full game would look like.

[XGuNn3rX]

thats really determined by ones opinion. i think the PS3 has better graphics so im getting it.

 

GT Vision (not GT HD) is the best graphics i have ever seen and yet in the demo, they said it is only a glimpse of whats really to come. if i thought the demo looked friggin awsome, imagine what the full game would look like.

 

Honestly, I don't understand you. You're paying $1,000+ for a system only for the graphics? Sorry, but graphics don't make the game. Where's the gameplay? And where is this video/screenshot of GT Vision?

 

Ok, I'm going to get into this now...

 

360 is going to be on top. Why? PS3 keeps pushing it's dates back, plus all the 360 blockbuster hits are going to be released this thanksgiving and christmas holiday. About the time PS3 releases, it better release some blockbuster hits when it's released or it will fall hard.

 

The price, is another hit. I would think Microsoft will either lower the price of the 360 or come out with a special edition during the PS3 release. Microsoft has the edge, because they started the market early, they knew there would be some problems by rushing the release of the 360, but would have them ironed out in time.

 

Alot of developers are going to the 360 and now there are more and more Xbox only releases. Metal Gear Solid and KillZone is the only thing going for Sony right now. I just wish Metroid would go to Microsoft platform!

 

Blockbuster hits? Can't happen. All the PS3 has is a bunch of EA games (yuck!) and a mediocre FPS that looks no better then Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360.

[PS3]

Honestly, I don't understand you. You're paying $1,000+ for a system only for the graphics? Sorry, but graphics don't make the game. Where's the gameplay? And where is this video/screenshot of GT Vision?

 

no, im paying AU$900 for the graphics and BD player. a console without realistic graphics will not attract people like me. and there are many graphics nut out there, i can assure you. getting the PS3 is cheaper than getting the state of the art computer and its cheaper than any other high class console.

 

heres some videos of GT Vision. go to the last video. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=GT...p;search=Search

[XGuNn3rX]

no, im paying AU$900 for the graphics and BD player. a console without realistic graphics will not attract people like me. and there are many graphics nut out there, i can assure you. getting the PS3 is cheaper than getting the state of the art computer and its cheaper than any other high class console.

 

heres some videos of GT Vision. go to the last video. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=GT...p;search=Search

 

So what you're telling me is you like being fed crap as long as the game has good graphics? Man, I seriously don't know what to say. I cannot believe the stupidity in what you just said.

 

And I'll say it again; the console is $1,000 for the 60 GB version. Even then, the 30 GB is still very pricey and is still more then the 360.

 

Maybe it's because I'm already playing in the 'next-gen', but that video didn't impress me one bit.

 

Here's some shots for Project Gotham Racing 3 and a few other games taken from a HDTV...

 

 

 

 

 

[YoKenny]

EULAlyzer? 1.1

 

Analyze license agreements for interesting words and phrases.

 

License agreements - a pain?

 

End user license agreements (EULAs) are the bane of most computer users.

No one wants to read through pages and pages of boring text before installing a program. And many programs put their license agreements in small windows that require lots of scrolling. So many people either skim them or skip reading them altogether.

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html

[Andavari]

Here's some shots for Project Gotham Racing 3 and a few other games taken from a HDTV...

 

Nice pics, but next time you decide to post so damned many can you at least use the option to display a thumbnail versus the full size image? Remember there's people still on dial-up, and those images make the thread load rather slow.

[lokoike]

Microsoft have said it is a 3% defect rate. You can choose not to believe that, but it's the only thing close to fact that you're going to get.

 

You claim that 3 of your friends got defects, which what I think, IMHO, is BS. I could probably name 10 people that I know of that got 360's on launch day. Out of all ten, one was defective, and it was as simple as taking the console back to the store and getting a new one. My friend was still able to keep his hardrive aswell, so he hadn't lost game saves or anything.

Due to the fact that hazelnut makes an important point (agree to disagree), and due to the fact that it is late and I am tired, I will try to keep my post concise.

 

First off, MS saying that they have a 3% defect rate isn't true by either your or my calculations. You said 1 out of 10 of your friends had a defective system. That is still a 10% defect rate in your case, over 3 times MS's calculation. And since 3 out of 4 (75%) of my friends ran into hardware troubles of some form, that means that the combination of your friends and my friends XBOX360 troubles ends up being a 29% defect rate. So in all three examples (including your own), MS has far more defective systems than they admit to. And BTW, I don't particularly appreciate you saying that my figure was "BS". Making obnoxious, uncalled for, and untrue statements does not win an argument. I don't recall ever lying to you, and I don't recall ever doing anything to intentionally offend you, or cause you to make crude statements. Keep your rudeness and bias to yourself.

 

Second, I never stated that PS3 would win the console war. I realize it is a more expensive system, and apparently the games won't be as good (although that is obviously a matter of opinion). But I am perfectly confident in stating that it is a better, more powerful system. As mentioned before, it has more processing power, a larger hard drive, and supports DVDs with far more capacity than standard DVDs and HD-DVDs. As you stated, all of this power may never be put to use, but regardless of whether or not it is used, it is still there, and it still has that much more potential than the 360. Neither of us knows the future. Perhaps in 3 years, games will have an explosion in size and processing requirements. And if that is the case, obviously the PS3 will shine while the 360 falls short. Or perhaps games will never need that much power, and the 360 will dominate. Who knows? Not you, and not I. The future is always a mystery, no matter how many algorithms you use to predict it. Whatever route games choose to take, we do not know. But we do know that the PS3 has more raw power, and could potentially make run a game that looks better than anything the 360 can muster.

[XGuNn3rX]

Due to the fact that hazelnut makes an important point (agree to disagree), and due to the fact that it is late and I am tired, I will try to keep my post concise.

 

First off, MS saying that they have a 3% defect rate isn't true by either your or my calculations. You said 1 out of 10 of your friends had a defective system. That is still a 10% defect rate in your case, over 3 times MS's calculation. And since 3 out of 4 (75%) of my friends ran into hardware troubles of some form, that means that the combination of your friends and my friends XBOX360 troubles ends up being a 29% defect rate. So in all three examples (including your own), MS has far more defective systems than they admit to. And BTW, I don't particularly appreciate you saying that my figure was "BS". Making obnoxious, uncalled for, and untrue statements does not win an argument. I don't recall ever lying to you, and I don't recall ever doing anything to intentionally offend you, or cause you to make crude statements. Keep your rudeness and bias to yourself.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm telling you the truth - I simply cannot believe that 3 out of 4 friends got a defect.

 

And how the hell can you say MS is wrong because of a few people? If none of my friends got a defect would that mean that there are no defects? No. The friend who also got a defect also got a defect PS2 years back. Out of all my friends, he only got a defect PS2. Does that mean that there were only a small percentage of defect PS2's? No, it was alot more. You can't make accurate percentages off of a few people.

 

Nice pics, but next time you decide to post so damned many can you at least use the option to display a thumbnail versus the full size image? Remember there's people still on dial-up, and those images make the thread load rather slow.

 

Yeah, sorry. How would I make it so they are thumbnails?

[lokoike]

I'm sorry, but I'm telling you the truth - I simply cannot believe that 3 out of 4 friends got a defect.

 

And how the hell can you say MS is wrong because of a few people? If none of my friends got a defect would that mean that there are no defects? No. The friend who also got a defect also got a defect PS2 years back. Out of all my friends, he only got a defect PS2. Does that mean that there were only a small percentage of defect PS2's? No, it was alot more. You can't make accurate percentages off of a few people.

No, I can't make accurate percentages from only a few people. But, being that in both of our cases the percentage was higher than the one quoted by MS, you have MORE reason to disbelieve MS's figures than you do to believe them. I for one don't believe them at all, because they are probably deriving their figures by units returned, instead of units that actually fail. None of my friends returned their units; they simply moved them out into the open to keep them cooler, or coped with the periodic crashings. So according to MS, 100% of those units were in perfect working condition. What a joke.

 

I finally got around to reading the article where the PS3 specs are compared to that of a "supercomputer". That is the most foolish thing I've ever seen. Of course it's not a "supercomputer"; the damn thing only costs $500-600! Let's see you build a computer with 9 processing cores, 512 MB RAM (256 of that is expensive GDDR3, BTW), a 60 GB notebook hard drive (2.5" drives are much more costly than 3.5"), and a Blu-Ray DVD drive. Just the Blu-Ray alone is worth more than the whole system. Now what does the XBOX360 offer for $400?

 

Let's see: 3 cores running at 3.2 GHz. Hmm... three cores... nine cores... 512 MB GDDR3; okay, good, that's a lot of fast video RAM, but that means that there is no actual system RAM, which is what that article was making fun of about the PS3. Kinda stupid (on the article's end, not on the XBOX's end). But either way, both system's have the same amount of RAM. With the optional 20 GB HD, the XBOX still trails behind the PS3's 60 GB. The highest video offered by the XBOX360 is 1080i (basically 540 lines of resolution, since that is all that is on the screen at any given time). The PS3 is 1080p, so that means a full 1,080 lines of detail on your hi-def screen at all times. And of course, the PS3 plays Blu-Ray disks out of the box, while the XBOX 360 doesn't. The XBOX 360 won't even play your old XBOX games! (I've heard you can download a software emulator that will play some of them, but still, no backwards compatibility is a very bad idea). The PS3 on the other hand can play games from 2 generations ago! So you don't have to keep you old system, or throw out your old games (and yes, many people still like to play their old games; I still play Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis ).

 

So yes, for what you pay, the PS3 is financially a better bargain, because you get over $1200 worth of hardware for $600. The XBOX, on the other hand, offers nothing revolutionary. 3 core processor? Nothing mind blowing; my PC's dual-core is almost identical in power. Standard DVD drive? Valued at 40 bucks, big deal. Backwards compatibility with the dozens of expensive games you bought before? Oh sorry, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

Sure you save $200 with the 360, but it literally offers NOTHING that I can't get in my standard gamer computer. And at least I can still play old games on my PC. Sony is practically giving away a Blu-Ray drive, they offer significantly more processing power than the 360, they offer the best hi-def video quality you can get (1080p), and they continue to support games you bought 10 years ago. You can say these features are overlookable, but any fool can easily pick out that with the PS3, you get more bang for your buck. Period.

 

Like I said before, we can't compare games until they come out. But as far as hardware goes, the PS3 is where it's at. I could build an overclocked computer for $400 that rivals the XBOX 360. But to build something with the power and features of the PS3, I would have to spend over a grand, easily.

[Andavari]

Yeah, sorry. How would I make it so they are thumbnails?

 

Sorry I was rude, it seems like that now after I re-read my post.

 

To display a thumbnail to the full sized image you just use the links that ImageShack give's which state it displays a thumbnail that links to the full sized image.

[XGuNn3rX]

No, I can't make accurate percentages from only a few people. But, being that in both of our cases the percentage was higher than the one quoted by MS, you have MORE reason to disbelieve MS's figures than you do to believe them. I for one don't believe them at all, because they are probably deriving their figures by units returned, instead of units that actually fail. None of my friends returned their units; they simply moved them out into the open to keep them cooler, or coped with the periodic crashings. So according to MS, 100% of those units were in perfect working condition. What a joke.

 

So MS is supposed to read minds now? And do you agree with my previous statement saying that Sony's console will be no better since it has new technologies?

 

You all can suck my jagon!

 

That was appropriate, wasn't it?

 

Sorry I was rude, it seems like that now after I re-read my post.

 

To display a thumbnail to the full sized image you just use the links that ImageShack give's which state it displays a thumbnail that links to the full sized image.

 

They weren't my pics, so I never got the links.

[New_Age]

Sony and Microsoft suck! If it weren't for the PS2 the*Sega Dreamcast would of lived on and Sega probably by now would of developed a new system.

[PS3]

man, how many times do i have to tell you?!? i paid AU$900 for the 60GB version. i dont care if you dont believe it. what you dont believe doesnt change the fact that the price of what i paid is what i paid!

 

nice screenshots. why dont you post a few of C.O.D 2? theres been reports on team.xbox.forums that theres no difference played from the 360 and a computer.

 

thats in your opinion to think what i posted was stupid. and this is my opinion thinking you are stupid for saying PS3 wont kick butt once its released. and how can you say the PS3 is expensive. i would like to see if you could get a BD player for less price than the PS3. BD players are far more advanced than the HD-DVD players, how can you not understand that?

 

this discussion/argument is going to get even more interesting when the PS3 is released.

[XGuNn3rX]

Sony and Microsoft suck! If it weren't for the PS2 the*Sega Dreamcast would of lived on and Sega probably by now would of developed a new system.

 

Sega had no money left to support the Dreamcast. They were heading for death anyway. It's not Sony's fault.

 

man, how many times do i have to tell you?!? i paid AU$900 for the 60GB version. i dont care if you dont believe it. what you dont believe doesnt change the fact that the price of what i paid is what i paid!

 

nice screenshots. why dont you post a few of C.O.D 2? theres been reports on team.xbox.forums that theres no difference played from the 360 and a computer.

 

thats in your opinion to think what i posted was stupid. and this is my opinion thinking you are stupid for saying PS3 wont kick butt once its released. and how can you say the PS3 is expensive. i would like to see if you could get a BD player for less price than the PS3. BD players are far more advanced than the HD-DVD players, how can you not understand that?

 

this discussion/argument is going to get even more interesting when the PS3 is released.

 

Are you telling me that you got a deal or that EVERY single PS3 is AU$900?

 

How is CoD2 supposed to look better on 360? It's the same engine and everything, it couldn't look better. The fact that it looks the same as the PC is a good thing.

 

It doesn't matter what you get in the PS3. It's Sony's stupid fault for having that huge price and putting Blu-Ray in it in the first place.

 

And yes, this discussion will be good when the PS3 launches (which will probably be next year now since Sony haven't even started manufacturing PS3's and it's supposed to launch in November).

If the PS3 breaks the 360's sales record, I will be impressed. Too bad it's a small chance of happening.

[lokoike]

It doesn't matter what you get in the PS3. It's Sony's stupid fault for having that huge price and putting Blu-Ray in it in the first place.

What the hell. Why do you keep saying that the inclusion of a high capacity portable storage device is a bad thing? Are you blind? Do you not see that you getting powerful new technology for far less than what it is worth is a GOOD thing?! In case you were curious, here is the price for a Blu-Ray DVD drive:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16827131034

 

Yeah, that's right. $700. And that is an OEM drive, and it is sold on Newegg, which means it's actual retail / non-bulk price is quite a bit higher than that. Let's see here... a > $700 drive + $XXX 9-core processor + $100 60 GB notebook HD + $XXX high-speed RAM for $600. Any ignorant businessman could tell you this is a fantastic deal. Games aside, the PS3 is the best. It is the most powerful. It is the fastest. It offers the highest resolution and best picture quality. It has new, nearly-impossible-to-get technology. It costs less for you than it does for them. As far as the system itself goes, PS3 wins.

 

Which system ends up winning the sales battle, nobody can say. But this isn't about which system has the most marketing muscle behind it. It is about raw power and features. PS3 has them. XBOX 360 doesn't. Nuff said.

[XGuNn3rX]

What the hell. Why do you keep saying that the inclusion of a high capacity portable storage device is a bad thing? Are you blind? Do you not see that you getting powerful new technology for far less than what it is worth is a GOOD thing?! In case you were curious, here is the price for a Blu-Ray DVD drive:

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16827131034

 

Yeah, that's right. $700. And that is an OEM drive, and it is sold on Newegg, which means it's actual retail / non-bulk price is quite a bit higher than that. Let's see here... a > $700 drive + $XXX 9-core processor + $100 60 GB notebook HD + $XXX high-speed RAM for $600. Any ignorant businessman could tell you this is a fantastic deal. Games aside, the PS3 is the best. It is the most powerful. It is the fastest. It offers the highest resolution and best picture quality. It has new, nearly-impossible-to-get technology. It costs less for you than it does for them. As far as the system itself goes, PS3 wins.

 

Which system ends up winning the sales battle, nobody can say. But this isn't about which system has the most marketing muscle behind it. It is about raw power and features. PS3 has them. XBOX 360 doesn't. Nuff said.

 

There is not a single game on the 360 that is 2 DVD's. Why is Blu-Ray player needed in the PS3? Because it plays movies? Well guess what, Microsoft has an alternative. If I want to watch HD-DVD movies, I can buy the 360 HD-DVD addon for HALF-PRICE (YOU GET A GOOD DEAL! ). If I have no use for HD-DVD's, then I simply don't buy the addon. No money wasted.

 

Anyway who cares if you get a good deal? Sony is shoving an unproven format down your throat.

 

Answer me this (I think I already asked this), if I owned NO HDTV, what purpose would Blu-Ray serve me? Nah, I can answer that - Absolutely nothing.

 

And are you trying to say that you don't care what Sony puts in the PS3 (even if you have no use for it), as long as you get a good deal?

 

 

Oh, and having a more powerful console (one that isn't far from the 360's power) doesn't mean anything.

What Console had all the games last gen? What Console sold the most? And most importantly, what console was the weakest? Simple; the PS2. The 360 is in the same position that the PS2 was in last gen.

 

And raw power means nothing. And what features (other then Blu-Ray) does the PS3 have over Xbox 360?

 

 

-Edit-

 

Almost forgot.

 

PS3 (the person), if graphics only matter, where were you last gen with the Xbox (the most powerful system)? How come graphics matter all of a sudden?

[XGuNn3rX]

More bad news for Sony, one less exclusive for the PS3, and one less reason to get a PS3.

 

Assassin's Creed confirmed for 360

Admitting to one of the worst-kept secret in recent memory, Ubisoft has finally confirmed Assassin's Creed for Xbox 360 by both Electronic Gaming Monthly and 360 Magazine.

 

Unfortunately, not much else is revealed, such as a release date or platform-specific content. Most of all, we want to know why they waited to confirm the Xbox 360 version, even though we all knew it was coming. As a developer and publisher, it would be the smartest decision to promote all iterations of the title. Was it to instigate hype, as 1UP's Luke Smith conjectures, or were there even more sinister deals being made behind the scenes?

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/01/finally-...firmed-for-360/

------

 

Want to know what's even worse? It looks the same on the 360 as it does on the PS3.

[PS3]

which will probably be next year now since Sony haven't even started manufacturing PS3's and it's supposed to launch in November.

what are you talking about? PS3 productions commenced a while ago.

 

Taiwanese Manufacturing Giant Asustek Computer, one of the world?s largest producers of computer components, has reportedly begun shipping Sony PlayStation 3 game consoles to Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

 

The fact that the consoles are being manufactured and shipped indicates that the hardware specifications have been finalized and the launch will take place on schedule in mid-November.

 

The Chinese-language Apple Daily and Commercial Times newspaper reported late on Tuesday that Asustek Computer started shipments of PlayStation 3 (PS3) game consoles in small volume in the beginning of July, according to DigiTimes web-site.

 

According to a report, about 200 thousand component sets were shipped to Asus in June, which means that the company is set to manufacture 200 thousand game consoles. It is also said that in July the Taiwanese manufacturer will receive higher amount of component sets for the PS3, while in September and October the company will get "more than one million [component] sets.

 

Sony promised to have 2 million PlayStation 3 consoles available during the launch window (Mid November ?06) and ship 4 million PS3s worldwide by the end of 2006. By March 2007 the company plans to supply 6 million game consoles to the market.

 

Foxconn Electronics, the largest manufacturer of connectors for use in PCs in Taiwan, and a leading manufacturer of connectors and cable assemblies in the world, is also projected to build the next-generation game consoles for Sony. However, the news-paper did not unveil any shipment schedules for the company, claiming that the company will start assembly operations "when demand rises", perhaps indicating the company as a stand-by manufacturer of Sony?s.

 

The two versions of the PlayStation 3 game consoles ? for $499 and $599 ? will be launched on 11th of November in Japan and on the 17th of November in Australia, Europe, U.S. and other regions.

 

source from - http://www.ps3portal.com/ps3/article/460.html

[XGuNn3rX]

what are you talking about? PS3 productions commenced a while ago.

 

Taiwanese Manufacturing Giant Asustek Computer, one of the world?s largest producers of computer components, has reportedly begun shipping Sony PlayStation 3 game consoles to Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

 

The fact that the consoles are being manufactured and shipped indicates that the hardware specifications have been finalized and the launch will take place on schedule in mid-November.

 

The Chinese-language Apple Daily and Commercial Times newspaper reported late on Tuesday that Asustek Computer started shipments of PlayStation 3 (PS3) game consoles in small volume in the beginning of July, according to DigiTimes web-site.

 

According to a report, about 200 thousand component sets were shipped to Asus in June, which means that the company is set to manufacture 200 thousand game consoles. It is also said that in July the Taiwanese manufacturer will receive higher amount of component sets for the PS3, while in September and October the company will get "more than one million [component] sets.

 

Sony promised to have 2 million PlayStation 3 consoles available during the launch window (Mid November ?06) and ship 4 million PS3s worldwide by the end of 2006. By March 2007 the company plans to supply 6 million game consoles to the market.

 

Foxconn Electronics, the largest manufacturer of connectors for use in PCs in Taiwan, and a leading manufacturer of connectors and cable assemblies in the world, is also projected to build the next-generation game consoles for Sony. However, the news-paper did not unveil any shipment schedules for the company, claiming that the company will start assembly operations "when demand rises", perhaps indicating the company as a stand-by manufacturer of Sony?s.

 

The two versions of the PlayStation 3 game consoles ? for $499 and $599 ? will be launched on 11th of November in Japan and on the 17th of November in Australia, Europe, U.S. and other regions.

 

source from - http://www.ps3portal.com/ps3/article/460.html

 

 

I knew you'd bring that up, too bad the article is BS.

 

GameSpot very recently interviewed Kaz Hirai (President/CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment) whether or not the PS3 was in production, he said no. I'd give you a link, but GameSpot is down at the moment.

[PS3]

ok, i will wait till you get the link.

 

when i pre-ordered my PS3, the guy said i will be getting it on 17th of November.

[XGuNn3rX]

ok, i will wait till you get the link.

 

when i pre-ordered my PS3, the guy said i will be getting it on 17th of November.

 

 

S: So is the PS3 already being manufactured?

 

KH: We haven't started manufacturing yet. Some of our ops guys were actually just in China, and also in Japan just reviewing the [production] lines and everything else. But they are, again, preparing as we speak to get the manufacturing going. We've not announced and we haven't set really a specific date to say, "As of this day we're going to start manufacturing."

 

http://au.gamespot.com/news/6156046.html?sid=6156046

 

--

 

It doesn't matter what the guy told you, if Sony can't get the PS3 out on that date, you can't get your PS3. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony launched in the US and UK first and delayed the Aus release.

 

---

 

In other news. if you want to get the most out of your PS3 and use HDMI cables, you have to buy them separately, so that's more added cost onto the PS3.

 

http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/no-hdmi-cabl...-ps3-198348.php

[par0x]

to the guy who said sega was the best or sotmhing in the lines of it, ud rather 2d gaming insteead of 3d it sounds like

[PS3]

that report was posted in august but the guy that may have spoken to that jap was earlier than July 19th.

 

im still going to go with the November 17th release.

[lokoike]

There is not a single game on the 360 that is 2 DVD's.

Yet.

 

Well guess what, Microsoft has an alternative. If I want to watch HD-DVD movies, I can buy the 360 HD-DVD addon for HALF-PRICE (YOU GET A GOOD DEAL! ).

Well, with Sony including the Blu-Ray DVD drive into the PS3, you pay FAR LESS THAN HALF PRICE (YOU GET A MUCH BETTER DEAL! ).

 

Anyway who cares if you get a good deal? Sony is shoving an unproven format down your throat.

Hmm... but yet it doesn't bother you that Microsoft is shoving brand new unproven hardware down your throat every time you buy an XBOX 360 (think the 3-core 3.2 GHz processor). At least Sony's Blu-Ray drive isn't notorious for overheating and crashing. So it would a appear that Sony's "unproven" product (Blu-Ray) is more stable than MS's product (a hot-running multi-core processor).

 

Answer me this (I think I already asked this), if I owned NO HDTV, what purpose would Blu-Ray serve me? Nah, I can answer that - Absolutely nothing.

If you don't own an HDTV, both the PS3 and the XBOX 360 themselves don't really serve any point, because on a standard lo-res television, you won't see much improvement over the PS2 and XBOX. That is just like saying "what good is a surround sound DVD on my mono-speaker system?" You can still watch a Blu-Ray video on a regular old TV; it just won't look as nice. You can still play your shiny new XBOX 360 games on an older TV; but once again, it wouldn't look so hot. If you are buying either of the new systems, it is assumed that you already own an HDTV. If not, you are kind of wasting your money, since you can't use your new system to it's full potential. So yeah, having a hi-def disk player built-in to a hi-def gaming console makes plenty of sense (or at least it should ).

 

And are you trying to say that you don't care what Sony puts in the PS3 (even if you have no use for it), as long as you get a good deal?

Of course not. If Sony integrated a blender into their PS3 for a few bucks more, I would probably not be particularly fond of that feature. But being that the PS3 is designed for MULTIMEDIA, it makes sense to have built-in support for as many formats as possible, especially those which are hi-def (since, as previously stated, this is a true hi-def console). In my opinion, Sony has included the right number of features for the right price.

 

Oh, and having a more powerful console (one that isn't far from the 360's power) doesn't mean anything.

What Console had all the games last gen? What Console sold the most? And most importantly, what console was the weakest? Simple; the PS2. The 360 is in the same position that the PS2 was in last gen.

One that isn't far from the 360's power? Pardon me, but last time I checked, the PS3 having twice as much power as the 360 is a pretty substantial difference. And to your other comments, once again I state, this isn't about which system has the prettiest advertisements. There have been many great products in the past that have failed simply because they weren't advertised well enough, or because their features weren't understood by the public. That doesn't mean that they weren't good products; it just means they didn't sell as many. I don't care if Sony only sells 4 PS3s while MS sells millions of 360s. All I care about for the sake of this thread (the title of which is 360 vs PS3, in case you forgot), is which SYSTEM IS THE BEST. Not which system ends up with the best games (since that can't be determined yet). Not which system has the best advertisements, or the most bigwig corporations backing it up. I only care about which gaming console has the MOST POTENTIAL. And once again, that is the PS3.

 

And raw power means nothing. And what features (other then Blu-Ray) does the PS3 have over Xbox 360?

http://forum.ccleaner.com/index.php?s=&amp...ost&p=47398

 

PS3 (the person), if graphics only matter, where were you last gen with the Xbox (the most powerful system)? How come graphics matter all of a sudden?

I realize this isn't directed at me, but I just wanted you (XGuNn3rX) to know that I am consistent. When the original XBOX came out, I sang it's praises, and rightfully so. After all, the XBOX had 3 times the processing power of the PS2. So that goes to prove that I am not biased towards one company or another. I always side with the company that makes the best product. History shows that this changes from season to season. Last time, MS made the best product (even though Sony won the marketing war). This time around, Sony obviously has the better system (even though there is a chance that MS may beat them in profits). Regardless of who makes the most cash, I will still only settle with the best. And as of right now, the best is Sony.