The Xbox360 vs PS3 war. Hidden costs for Xbox??

smillie-world

robmaytum wrote: »

:mad:

I thought that I'd put an honest perspective online, so that people who may not have looked into the full specs of machines, but wanted to have HD and wireless gaming, etc would at least see the potential costs they might incur over time. The Xbox 360 is boasted as being wirless and HD capable, I was merely pointing out the costs to achieve.

So to get comments that I'm being a fanboy is slightly disappointing and pretty childish to be honest.

If this was purely an unbiased cost comparison why title the post "The Xbox360 vs PS3 war"? There is no war if its a comparison. When reading through the forum index, the title is the first thing anyone is going to see, and immediately they will pick a console and back it to the hilt. A typical "fanboy" scenario ensues, and no longer is this a meaningful comparison.
Also, why finish the post with "Now tell me the PS3 is over-priced", let the reader draw their own conclusions based on the "facts" presented. Such a statement adds bias, and again creates a "fanboy" scenario.

I think you'll find that these reasons are the main contributory factors for drawing negative comments.

When discussing such hot and passionately fought topics, try and remain as neutral as possible, otherwise expect to be branded as a fanboy of one or the other.

motorguy

smillie-world wrote: »

If this was purely an unbiased cost comparison why title the post "The Xbox360 vs PS3 war"? There is no war if its a comparison. When reading through the forum index, the title is the first thing anyone is going to see, and immediately they will pick a console and back it to the hilt. A typical "fanboy" scenario ensues, and no longer is this a meaningful comparison.
Also, why finish the post with "Now tell me the PS3 is over-priced", let the reader draw their own conclusions based on the "facts" presented. Such a statement adds bias, and again creates a "fanboy" scenario.

I think you'll find that these reasons are the main contributory factors for drawing negative comments.

When discussing such hot and passionately fought topics, try and remain as neutral as possible, otherwise expect to be branded as a fanboy of one or the other.

Too late - the O/P has taken his toys back and went home...

barginboyrob

xbox 360 is better because you can download and burn the games yourself when it's chipped....i was in asia...they don't even sell non chiped xbox 360's!

terryharman

Im sure that last post is not legal?

Anyway, my lil thing:

Im backing PS3, my current PS2 collection is over 40+ Games, and the PS2 has the largest libary, with quite a high success rate of emulating them.

Also, PS3 has some great games in the works, MGS4, GTHD, Haze, Eight Days, Final Fantacy,Killzone 2 and many more i cant think off.

Why i think the PS3 will still be going strong?
It has blueray, yes its great for films, but people are forgetting games, i mean, if you want higher res textures the file sizes are going to be increased, more polygons higher file size, longer lasting games, again higher file size. I know the levels in Killzone 2 are around 2GB each.

As for online?
Warhawk has shown us the sony is really taking a great leap foward, with hundreds of warhawk servers full to the max. Also, home, great idea, 360 is ok if you have mates, but what if you was bored? just flick on your ps3, go into home and u can chat to 1000's of other players and jump into a game with them !

Price?
Ok, it can be costly, £425 is quite expencive for most people, but in the long run i think the price will drop as does everything. And in the long run...well....its scary....xbox live is a must have for any 360 owner, costing around £35 / Year just to play online. And if you wanted all the extras to make it match what the ps3 has to offer ( wireless, HD-DVD ) ps3 works out cheaper.

Finshed yet?
Almost, i dont think 2007 is PS3's year, its had a bad start, i think things will defo pick up in 2008 when the major games are coming out and when playtv comes out ( in case you dont know, it lets you watch tv on your ps3 and use it as a PVR)

I would like to note im not a fanboy....its just my honnest opinion....i think 360's days are limited....

randalf72

One thing to remember when it comes to the PS3 is that American and Japanese PS3s have full hardware emulation of the PS2 and offer near 100% compatibility of your old games.

For the European release, this feature was removed and replaced by software emulators, the compatibility between the PS2 and PS3, depending upon the source, is anywhere between 40% and 60%.

Sony have a list of compatible games on the PS3 website along with any known issues with particular PS2 games.

Admittedly software emulation can be improved with time, but you have to ask the question 'is it really in Sony's best interests to let you play all your old PS2 games when they can make much more money from enticing you to buy new games?'


Randalf

JasonLVC

To me, it all comes down to the games.

I had a Dreamcast because of the games on it, I had an N64 because of the games and I had a Saturn....because of the games.

I skipped the PS1, still got a PS2, traded the Xbox and currently have a 360. Because I like to play games - online and offline.

The PS3 is highly spec'd but where are the killer apps?. Motorstorm looks pretty but it's boring to play. Ninja Gaiden is a shiny Xbox title of some years ago (but still a great game) - hardly cutting edge and still rock hard!.

All new consoles have a lack of decent games in the first 12-18 months AFTER launch as the manufacturers co-fund those launch titles to encourage developers to make something decent. After that, the developers need time to get to grips with the console.

360 was the same, we're only now (nearly 2 years later) starting to see some awesome games (Bioshock, Half-Life 2, Mass Effect, etc) so PS3 is about 12-18 months away from actually being interesting. But it will be a cracking console in-time. Specs are irrelevant - if they were then the Wii and DS Lite wouldn't be out-selling everything else 5-1.

Folks just want to play games....something the PS3 doesn't have much of for now. Blu-Ray, Wifi are all just 'extras' in sales pitch, the bottom line is games.

As for extra storage capacity of Blu-Ray - Yes, but that means a developer has to spend more time filling the disk with data, more time + higher development costs = pricier games and/or much more cross-platform/risk reducing = boring game or 'no difference' between consoles.

custardy

remember if it went HD dvd then sony could release an add on given the ps3 has usb like the 360.
however i doubt there would be a market given buyers have already paid out on blueray originally.

superscaper

custardy wrote: »

remember if it went HD dvd then sony could release an add on given the ps3 has usb like the 360.
however i doubt there would be a market given buyers have already paid out on blueray originally.

I was thinking about that yesterday, I can't see any way they could add HD DVD to the PS3. The USB ports wouldn't be able to cope with the data transfer, certainly not for sustained transfer. Basically if it came down to only HD DVD being successful then Sony are stuffed, and not just with the PS3.

BillScarab

terryharman wrote: »

I

Also, PS3 has some great games in the works, MGS4, GTHD, Haze, Eight Days, Final Fantacy,Killzone 2 and many more i cant think off.

W

How do you know they're great games if they haven't been released yet?

Personally I don't own any consoles as I prefer gaming on the PC but of the latest consoles the only one I will buy is the Wii as it looks far more suitable for my children. The Xbox 360 and PS3 don't seem to offer anything I can't get with from games on the PC, at least the Wii is innovative.