sebasness:

to everything satansmunchkin said-

Its better for gaming because it has more games and better games. Ultimately it does come down to preference, but if you look at at a side by side comparison of the ratings of PS3 games and and 360 games, the 360 games have more higher rated games(just by a bit).  ive played MGS4 and i would love to have it. I agree with you there. but the 360 just has more.

Look it up. The 360 has a 512 mb graphics card. its significantly more than what the PS3 has(256 mb, I think). Xbox live is better than PSN. We arent talking about PC here( PC is always superior.) Its better supported. Home was a total bomb with no point. You can do a wide variety of things on live that you can't do on PSN(still not worth the money though. but im just saying)

360 does have issues, more than PS3 but its reduced. My friends PS3 bricked after a firmware update. we had to wipe his harddrive clean. my 360 hasnt had problems yet and i have a warranty if it does at least. So i still stick with what i said before. If your willing to bear the risk, get a 360 for games. get PS3 for a more rounded experience.

More maybe but I bought halo 3 and GoW2 both dissapointing, killzone looks godlike, quality > quantity, I did buy a 360 but that was because I like LH games, and I thought fallout 3 dlc was exclusive but now its coming to ps3 so it didnt matter. As for line up Killzone 2, inFamous, MGS4, MAG and others wil probobally be out, most 360 exclusives seem like fps's the only 2 I have intrst in is mass effect and fable, most games are multi platform anyway. And after e3 if M$ are going ahead and making games for natal and other gimmicky crap, I would 100% side with ps3.
Bt I bought a 360 it broke, I bought another it still works, so thats £260, now add the cost of my 360 games, I could have bought a ps3 with several games, it would have saved money in the long run, and with a console thats what I want a long term investment, not somthing to replave every year and a half.

---

garjian:

the clincher... fable has always had erectile disfunction...

its never been long or hard enough to have any fun with

sebasness:

Its better for gaming because it has more games and better games. Ultimately it does come down to preference, but if you look at at a side by side comparison of the ratings of PS3 games and and 360 games, the 360 games have more higher rated games(just by a bit).  ive played MGS4 and i would love to have it. I agree with you there. but the 360 just has more.

Well you just said it yourself.. It's a matter of preference. If you look at metacritic the exclusives are only seperated by a couple of points on 360 and ps3 game list sorted by review. I dont see any kind of games on 360 that ps3 doesnt (and have games that are just as ) but i see it the other way around like with little big planet. You cant just say that one side got the better games as there is a hell lot of diffrent opinions on that and a couple of points wont tell you that the one game is better than the other.

sebasness:

Look it up. The 360 has a 512 mb graphics card. its significantly more than what the PS3 has(256 mb, I think). Xbox live is better than PSN. We arent talking about PC here( PC is always superior.) Its better supported

Read what Matnee said. It's now all about the GPU and that is probably why 360 doesnt have any games looking like killzone 2 (and hopefully soon heavy rain). Satansmunchkin got both consoles by the way and you dont so how the hell do you know live is better ?

sebasness:

Home was a total bomb with no point. You can do a wide variety of things on live that you can't do on PSN(still not worth the money though. but im just saying)

Home was a total bomb ? I dont like it and find it really boring but already a month after release there had been sold items in it for over a milion dollars and over 5 milion users have downloaded it so far. It's pretty much just the avatars on 360 with a world to walk around in and your own home.

sebasness:

360 does have issues, more than PS3 but its reduced. My friends PS3 bricked after a firmware update. we had to wipe his harddrive clean. my 360 hasnt had problems yet and i have a warranty if it does at least. So i still stick with what i said before. If your willing to bear the risk, get a 360 for games. get PS3 for a more rounded experience.

All consoles can break yeah i dont think anyone ever said that the ps3 was some kind of super machine that would repair itself. Get a ps3 if you like the games more (and there is a lot of ones) or get a 360 if you like the games better... Dont just get a ps3 if you want to play blu ray also because it is a great machine even "just" for gaming.

---

Look it up. The 360 has a 512 mb graphics card. its significantly more than what the PS3 has(256 mb, I think).

The 360 has 512MB of unified RAM that is used as the developers decide. The PS3 has 512 split 256 to the GPU, 256 to the CPUs.

Satansmunchkin got both consoles by the way and you dont so how the hell do you know live is better ?

I have both & I much prefer Live, is my opinion more valid the Satansmunckin? It's just personal preference, it's all just personal preference.

The Bag:

I have both & I much prefer Live, is my opinion more valid the Satansmunckin? It's just personal preference, it's all just personal preference.

No. He said "Live is better than PSN" and has kept repeating it in this thread like it is some kind of fact without any reasoning or anything behind it other than "it's better". Your opinion however is more valid than sebasness as you actually got both.

---

Lol, i think i came off as a bit of a 360 fanboy. So let me clarify. I like the PS3 a lot. I will buy one when i have the money. I just like the games on the 360. My friend has a PS3 so i've seen it in action and I've played it.(and i do think live is better than PSN. still not worth what i pay for it, but its better.) They are both pretty equal, but the reason I prefer the 360 for games is that it has a lot of my favorite game types. I like first persons and rpgs, so one of the reasons I got it was fable 2. Halo also looked , and Mass effect was also very . The exclusives look on the PS3. Killzone 2 looks absolutely amazing, and so does MGS4. im not disputing that. but multiplatform games are generally developed on the 360, because its easier, and then get ported over to the PS3, and generally(not all the time), it isn't as on very small things(lighting, textures) and i said home was a total bomb, because as a user experience it wasnt fun. not financially. So its a matter of play style and what you want in a console.
         The PS3 is probably a better investment in the long run, because Sony plans to support it until 2016. But if you buy an Xbox and it breaks again, you'll have a warranty for three years. Graphically and gameplay wise, you can't say one is more superior than the other. its about game selection and what other features it offers.

maggot:

sebasness:

Look it up. The 360 has a 512 mb graphics card. its significantly more than what the PS3 has(256 mb, I think). Xbox live is better than PSN. We arent talking about PC here( PC is always superior.) Its better supported

Read what Matnee said. It's now all about the GPU and that is probably why 360 doesnt have any games looking like killzone 2 (and hopefully soon heavy rain).

Steady on, mate What I mean is that in a straight GPU comparison, the Xbox 360 is going to go to the toilet all over the PS3. This has been quite visible in past multi-platform games, although as far as I can tell it's practically non-existent in them now. That said, I don't sit there doing side by side comparisons between the two, because I'm not a lunatic. So I may be wrong. If I am, I'm sure someone will pounce on me and say so.

That said, Sony is quite big on some C PU tied graphics processes (Deferred shading for example) in it's games right now, hence there are games for the PS3 that far outstrip the potential of the GPU alone.

I'm just saying that on any given console, it's not necessarily helpful to judge it's ultimate potential on the same GPU/CPU model that PCs traditionally use. Because they're not PCs - they're fixed configurations of hardware that can be specifically optimised for.



But ultimately, the most important graphics component in any game is probably the Art Design.

And even more important than that is, well, Fun.

---

First up I have a PS3, Wii, 360, PSP and DS (I spent far too much of my wages on gaming systems in the last 2 years) I also have an extensive collection of games, some 50+ for all systems ...

sebasness:

to everything satansmunchkin said-

Its better for gaming because it has more games and better games.

More games doesn't make it better, and "better" games is very dependent on personal preference ... I find more on the PS3 that I enjoy than for the 360 ...

Ultimately it does come down to preference, but if you look at at a side by side comparison of the ratings of PS3 games and and 360 games, the 360 games have more higher rated games(just by a bit).

Telling statement, the 360 has more games but only just edges the PS3 on quality of games? So from a large pool of games you are saying that there are a few that outshine the PS3 games catalogue ...

I prefer Resistance fall of Man to Gears of War ... it's a better thought out game, they put more thought into story than they did into graphics

I prefer Little Big Planet to Viva Pinata (best comparison I can think of there), it's got a better, more easy to use feel to it

The list goes on ... there are a lot ... even down to poxy arcade games;

Flower, Elefunk and Echochrome are some of the best games I've played in years, and they are just funky little arcade gems, rather than the dross you get on xBox Live! ...

quality over quantity has been Sonys mantra this generation and by god it's worked well so far ... Microsoft have had to pay megabucks to try and stop the Sony train rolling off unrivaled, GTA IV DLC, FFXIII etc etc, everything they have done they have lashed massive amounts of money at to try to stem the PS3 in its tracks ...

ive played MGS4 and i would love to have it. I agree with you there. but the 360 just has more.

95% of games are available on both consoles ... I like Dead Rising, Blue Dragon, Fable 2 and Mass Effect for the 360, but I like Drakes Fortune, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo prologue and Metal Gear Solid 4 for the PS3 ... that said I also like Tiger Woods, Legend of Zelda and Mario Galaxies for the Wii ...

Look it up. The 360 has a 512 mb graphics card. its significantly more than what the PS3 has(256 mb, I think).

All I know is I prefer the graphics on the PS3 of any game that is dual console ... I have done a cross comparison and just find the PS3 outputs a better, sleeker and more polished graphic ...

Xbox live is better than PSN. We arent talking about PC here( PC is always superior.) Its better supported.

How is it better supported? They are virtually identical... you are faced with a lot of marketing and advertising for Live! on the xBox dash, but that just pisses me off ... PSN is brilliantly realised, online gaming is simple and intuitive and there is a plethora of videos, games and DLC to download easily from PSN ...

Live! pisses me off because it should be free, there is no arguing that point, it simply is not worth, compared to PSN, spending £40 a year on, it's a console with a 10 year lifespan, that's £400 in its life you spend on online subscription, double the price of the console in the first place? Is that value to you? No.

And my comparison was simply that Left4dead an online game for the 360 requires a subscription, another £40, to play online on the 360 and yet it is free if you buy it on the PC, that DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!! no matter how you look at it

Home was a total bomb with no point.

Have you used it? I love it ... It's intuitive, there's lots of stuff to do and I use it to meet people and set up gaming events with them, people I've never met before ... tell me where you can do that on Live! without going into a game first

You can do a wide variety of things on live that you can't do on PSN(still not worth the money though. but im just saying)

such as? I'm intreagued to know what you can do with Live! you can't do with the PSN ...

360 does have issues, more than PS3 but its reduced. My friends PS3 bricked after a firmware update. we had to wipe his harddrive clean. my 360 hasnt had problems yet and i have a warranty if it does at least. So i still stick with what i said before. If your willing to bear the risk, get a 360 for games. get PS3 for a more rounded experience.

The firmware update was a major *** up on Sonys behalf, but that was a software glitch, *** all to do with the hardware, your warranty won't cover your console indefinitely and the simple fact of the matter is the 360 is built cheap, was rushed out to beat Sony to market and for cost and has all the problems associated with that ... the PS3 is a phenomenal piece of kit, it's a luxury item and it has the luxury feel about it, the 360 feels like a home computer stuck in a fancy box with all the foibles of a PC such as hardware issues etc...

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360 and I certainly wouldn't part with it, but in a side by side comparison the two are in different leagues, the 360 has this "mass appeal" factor which appeals to 12 year old kids where as the PS3 and the games have been aimed at the 20-30 year old gamers, with a more refined games catalogue and a quality associated with top end electronics!

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

satansmunchkin:

sebasness:

Ultimately it does come down to preference, but if you look at at a side by side comparison of the ratings of PS3 games and and 360 games, the 360 games have more higher rated games(just by a bit).

Telling statement, the 360 has more games but only just edges the PS3 on quality of games? So from a large pool of games you are saying that there are a few that outshine the PS3 games catalogue ...

I prefer Resistance fall of Man to Gears of War ... it's a better thought out game, they put more thought into story than they did into graphics

I prefer Little Big Planet to Viva Pinata (best comparison I can think of there), it's got a better, more easy to use feel to it

The list goes on ... there are a lot ... even down to poxy arcade games;

Flower, Elefunk and Echochrome are some of the best games I've played in years, and they are just funky little arcade gems, rather than the dross you get on xBox Live! ...

quality over quantity has been Sonys mantra this generation and by god it's worked well so far ... Microsoft have had to pay megabucks to try and stop the Sony train rolling off unrivaled, GTA IV DLC, FFXIII etc etc, everything they have done they have lashed massive amounts of money at to try to stem the PS3 in its tracks ...

As far as I know, the last time it was looked at with any kind of serious methodology, the PS3 came out slightly ahead on quality of games

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6210357.html

Note the word slighty. Very slightly - certainly enough to be effectively meaningless, especially when you take into account how subjective the whole idea of games reviews is in the first place. And to be honest the whole thing looks a bit convoluted and I can't say I would have set about doing the study the same way myself, but there you go.

Ultimately it's all a load of monkey ploppy though. Xbox games are better quality if you happen to like the xbox exclusives, PS3 games are better quality if you happen to like the PS3 exclusives, and Wii games are better quality if you happen to have suffered a severe blunt head trauma early on in life.

---

to satansmunchkin

Microsoft hasn't really tried to "stop Sony in its tracks". Microsoft wants money, and its getting a lot more of it than Sony is. As a business, they are succeeding, and as a game company, they are as well, so I don't know exactly what you mean with that.

As for the Xbox live vs. PSN, live isn't worth what you pay for it. But for what you pay, it is better supported. And the look of it is better polished. If you look at both in a side by side comparison, I would say live wins barely. Still not enough to make the difference of which console.
And I would have to dissagree with your last statement. The wii has the "mass appeal" factor. I don't understand what would make it appeal to 12 year olds that the PS3 wouldn't. Both the 360 and PS3 are for older gamers, and "hardcore" gamers. PS3 doesnt necessarily have a more refined game catalogue. Home was still a total bomb. While you may like it, the majority of people really don't. And to say that either has definatively better "sleeker" graphics is just a lie. Most multiplat games look worse on PS3 because they are usually ported from the 360. And all the blockbuster games always have really graphics. Both systems have, at the moment, the same graphics.

I'm a little confused as to your criteria of Home being a 'Total Bomb with no point' and not being a fun user experience. I'm not quite sure what you expect from it. Perhaps you could explain a little further?

One thing that's worth noting about it that it's a six month old developing service with - apparently - a developing userbase. I mean, quite obviously not all of the 6.5 million people who downloaded it are regular users. I believe the official line is that 85% of people who downloaded are returning users, although that's vague to say the least. But it's apparently getting more popular in terms of visitors.

The other thing that's worth noting is that Home isn't a game - it's a Social Network. I would have thought this is a rather obvious point, but how it is as an experience rather depends on how your friends are. This might be an assumption, but I'm guessing you don't have a PS3 and haven't got a friends list for PSN that also use Home? If that's the case, it's a little like using facebook without a friends list - you've got your own space that nobody visits, there's a few simple games you can play on your own, some multi-player ones that don't make much sense alone or are best played with a friend, and a lot of social interaction going on around you that you just don't feel part of. You'll have to trust me on this, but home can make more sense if you've got mates on your friends list.

Personally I feel if they can regularly come up with things like Xi for it, it's going to be interesting as it it fills out. Still, it's never going to be for everyone, jsut as a lot of people don't see the point in other social networks. If you don't enjoy it, you don't enjoy it. But it's free to get it and it appears to be gathering momentum in terms of users and 3rd party support. Completely optional as well, of course. It's not like you have to use it if you don't like it, although you do have the choice if you do. This isn't the standard PSN interface we're talking about after all - it's an icon that you can add to the XMB.

---

sebasness:

to satansmunchkin

Microsoft hasn't really tried to "stop Sony in its tracks". Microsoft wants money, and its getting a lot more of it than Sony is. As a business, they are succeeding, and as a game company, they are as well, so I don't know exactly what you mean with that.

Microsofts business model is the same as it always has been, take their lack of a decent search engine, what did they do? throw money at it to try and stop google from being the dominant force.

They do the same with the consoles, they shelled out millions for DLC for GTA IV and they shelled out a lot to get other games so they weren't "exclusives" for the PS3, it's not cheap to buy out games rights.

Furthermore they snap up software houses so that they can't publish games on a competitor platform, that's not some benevolent gesture to the games company, it's a shrewed marketing move ...

Sony are still a lucrative electronics business, turning over billions of pounds a year, so I don't think they are struggling by any means, Microsoft may have more money and more turnover, but they do own 90% of the OS market as well as some ludicrously high % of business applications ... so I don't really see what your point is ... the Playstation brand still makes a killing for Sony, the xBox brand is doing ok for Microsoft, but a lot of what you read in the press is smoke and mirrors for both companies, so you can't buy into either PR campaigns ...

As for the Xbox live vs. PSN, live isn't worth what you pay for it. But for what you pay, it is better supported. And the look of it is better polished. If you look at both in a side by side comparison, I would say live wins barely. Still not enough to make the difference of which console.

Didn't say it made the difference for a console...

And I would have to dissagree with your last statement. The wii has the "mass appeal" factor. I don't understand what would make it appeal to 12 year olds that the PS3 wouldn't.

Have you played the Wii? Have you actually seen the full games catalogue because there are mostly childrens games on it ... with the exception of a few sports games and the odd thing like Madworld it really is a childrens console, it's marketed at families with young children...

Both the 360 and PS3 are for older gamers, and "hardcore" gamers. PS3 doesnt necessarily have a more refined game catalogue.

But it does, it has a wide array of quality varied games, rather than a mass of FPS and a few games from other genres, the only thing I think that the 360 has more of and better quality of is RPG's and it has some absolute gems there, but the PS3 has fewer games but some serious heavy weight games in many different genres ... That's refined, by the very definition of refined

Home was still a total bomb. While you may like it, the majority of people really don't.

What majority of people, I would love to see that poll ...

And to say that either has definatively better "sleeker" graphics is just a lie. Most multiplat games look worse on PS3 because they are usually ported from the 360. And all the blockbuster games always have really graphics. Both systems have, at the moment, the same graphics.

The PS3 does have sleeker graphics, yes most cross platform games at the moment are ported from the 360, but when it comes to graphical output my PS3 does 1080p to my HD TV and looks amazing, where as my 360 does 1080i and doesn't have the same polish. Don't get me wrong there are some great looking games like Fable 2 for the 360 that look amazing, there's just something about the way games look coming out the PS3 when you sit them side by side with a 360 game that makes them look better.

Remember though a lot of this graphical output depends on the TV, I picked my TV because it had more "shiny" and vivid colours, the PS3 compliments this well with the glossy graphics of the Nvidia chipset ...

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

skormsweasel:

Well my 360 died and I have considered buying a ps3 instead of chancing onother RRoD, but I dont know which one to choose, there are to many fanboys giving biased arguments so please dont turn this into a xbox rules or xbos sucks thread Thanks.

Depends on what your preference is -- the Xbox 360 has a ton of games that the PS3 does not have. According to websites like Gamerankings or Metacritic, the Xbox 360 has over 116 more quality games (critically , mind you).

With that larger selection comes more variety and more options to choose from, so the odds are better that you'll find more games that you'll enjoy rather than choosing from a list that has a lesser amount of games.

Another determining factor is the obvious -- cost. It's obvious to which console costs the most -- the PS3 costs a whopping $200 more than the Xbox 360. (Though I would recommend the $300 Xbox 360). However, considering your Xbox 360 just died, you might as well buy the $200 Arcade Xbox 360. Why? You already have a HDD and the essentials (Headset, HD cables, ethernet cord).

Unless I am mistaken and you already own a Arcade or Core model. Then forget the latter.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of multiplatform games that are shared between the PS3 and Xbox 360 are either on par with another or superior on the Xbox 360 (though most of the time it's minor differences -- or differences which are fixed in a patch ect. Oblivion, Fallout 3).

Reliablity is another issue. And teh Xbox 360 is definitely a console which is prone to issues, though you're coverened under warranty for three years -- and with that, newer models are much, much, much better compared to older models. Mind you, I still own a perfect launch system (though the DVD drive is still incredibly loud). In terms of reliablitity, the PS3 is the obvious winner which is surprising considering Sony's history is incredibly poor when it came to the PS1 and PS2.

---

To satansmunchkin:

Again, what you say about the games being more refined is a matter of opinion. There is no real way to back up this claim. I do have a Wii, and most of the games are, indeed, for kids. And it is outselling both the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Hence, the "mass appeal factor". It appeals to the parents by being cheap and supposedly revolutionary, so they get it for their kids. I was talking about how I couldn't see the 360 appealing to 12 year olds more than the PS3. Perhaps marketing, but this doesn't make it kid's item just because they buy into it. And as for the graphics, they are, for the most part, the same. And graphical output doesn't depend on the T.V. No matter what T.V you use, the graphics are the same. How well it's focused is another matter. The 360 does support 1080p, and if I remember correctly, it has more games than the PS3 that support 1080p. You can't say that one console is definatively better than the other. Not at the moment at least.

satansmunchkin:

First up I have a PS3, Wii, 360, PSP and DS (I spent far too much of my wages on gaming systems in the last 2 years) I also have an extensive collection of games, some 50+ for all systems ...

And even though you own multiple systems, you can still prefer and been biased towards a particular platform. I owned a PS3 (died on me), Xbox 360, Wii and a gaming PC. And I prefer my gaming PC and would defend PC gaming at the utmost, rather than, the Wii or Xbox 360.

More games doesn't make it better, and "better" games is very dependent on personal preference ... I find more on the PS3 that I enjoy than for the 360 ...

Telling statement, the 360 has more games but only just edges the PS3 on quality of games? So from a large pool of games you are saying that there are a few that outshine the PS3 games catalogue ...

More games gives users more variety and more options to choose from -- meaning, the odds that a certain user will find a game they enjoy is greater than the PS3. What you're trying to do is like arguing that the Xbox or Gamecube had a better library than the PS2, I mean... really now? "But the PS2 has has more games, doesn't mean those games are better".

Such a non-sense argument if you asked me, the Xbox 360 has more critically acclaimed games and exclusives. It doesn't matter if you don't like them, you still have to recognize that they're games and that they exist. I for one, despise JRPGs, but I would never say the FF franchise is "crap". That's just fanboyism.

I prefer Resistance fall of Man to Gears of War ... it's a better thought out game, they put more thought into story than they did into graphics

I prefer Little Big Planet to Viva Pinata (best comparison I can think of there), it's got a better, more easy to use feel to it

The list goes on ... there are a lot ... even down to poxy arcade games;

And I can say the exact opposite, what does any of that prove, really? We all know that preference is subjective. I enjoyed far more titles on the Gamecube and Xbox than I did on my PS2, does that mean I'll say that the Gamecube's library is superior to that of the PS2s? No, I wouldn't -- again, that'd just denial and fanboyism coming into play. (or that of ignorance, and not knowing what the PS2 offers, which could be the case of you ... you just "don't know" what the Xbox 360 offers -- which in this case, could be excusable)

rather than the dross you get on xBox Live! ...

Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 1 and 2, Braid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are amazing as well -- and they're just XBLA games. Don't get me started on the fantastic remakes of classics, or games like Portal Still Alive.

Microsoft have had to pay megabucks to try and stop the Sony train rolling off unrivaled, GTA IV DLC, FFXIII etc etc, everything they have done they have lashed massive amounts of money at to try to stem the PS3 in its tracks ...

LOL. Yeah, and Sony is "completely innocent" in 'business tactics'. LOL.  Oh brother. I can't believe you even wrote all that. Do you even believe what you type? I surely hope you don't. Welcome to a business, and if you think Microsoft is going to sit by and let the competition excel, you're severely mistaken. Microsoft "invested" money in those places -- and by golly, how is the Xbox 360 selling compared to the PS3? Eight and half million lead? Ouch. And let's not even start on the Wii, and hell, there was an article the other day stating the PS3 is selling at a slower rate than even the original Xbox. Double ouch.

95% of games are available on both consoles ...

That's a bull**** percentage is I ever saw one. Where did you pull that from? I'm curious. Serious. I would love to know, did you do the math yourself, or just reckon you'd throw out a number that suited your particular agenda?

All I know is I prefer the graphics on the PS3 of any game that is dual console ... I have done a cross comparison and just find the PS3 outputs a better, sleeker and more polished graphic ...

And yet even though other credible sites have disagreed? Strange. Really. Nevertheless, the differences are also -- negligible. Have you even seen some of the so-called differences? OMG. GTAIV on PS3 has more blurriness, it's superior! Wait, what? Someone actually cares enough to notice that?

The fact of the matter is simple -- and oh so easy to grasp as well. Sony and its fans touted it console as the true "HD" console (even though it doesn't even ship with HD cables -- that was a big F.U. to the consumer LOL), and that the PS3 was the "most powerful console on the planet". In the end, the CPU has raw power that will never be utilized, and the GPU is -- in fact, inferior to that of the Xbox 360s GPU.

So, as the games came and went -- even though CGI trailers were the main focal point of presentations with Sony, once we saw gameplay footage, we were left with a bad taste in our mouths. How can it be that the most powerful console on the planet... can't even outperform technology that was released one year previous?  So the excuses came and went, developers were "inexperiened" yet the games were praised for their quality. The technology was too difficult to handle, that Sony ****ed and made the console developer ... "un"friendly. Ouch, again.

But now, PS3 exclusives have finally "shined". PS3 has exclusives like Killzone 2 and MGS4 which arguably, look visually superior to anything on the Xbox 360 (Though I'm sure one can argue that RE5 is the best looking game available on consoles). But the question I always love to ask to my fellow PS3 fans is simple, if Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 was made for the Xbox 360 -- why couldn't it look better on that such platform? (Rhetorical)

Live! pisses me off because it should be free, there is no arguing that point, it simply is not worth, compared to PSN, spending £40 a year on, it's a console with a 10 year lifespan, that's £400 in its life you spend on online subscription, double the price of the console in the first place? Is that value to you? No.

Indeed, it should be free -- it's a large ripoff, and the pricing on the DLC is worse. I mean, a few bucks for some pictures for your dashboard? Really now? Nevertheless, Microsoft is a business, and they make a considerable amount of revenee from the Xbox Live service, and so long as people pay for it -- it will continue to cost money.

And my comparison was simply that Left4dead an online game for the 360 requires a subscription, another £40, to play online on the 360 and yet it is free if you buy it on the PC, that DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!! no matter how you look at it

But that so-called "subscription"  can be used to play a plethora of other games online. Not just Left 4 Dead. It only makes sense if you look from a business persoective. I'd do the same if I were Microsoft, you don't deserve anything to be free -- nothing. You're a consumer. You're not entitled to anything.

such as? I'm intreagued to know what you can do with Live! you can't do with the PSN ...

Well you have the party system, and TruSkill. Servers will always be there (unless they're by EA -- the bastards), so if you're worried if you're going to able to play Call of Duty in four to five years, XBL will still have Call of Duty 2 still up, even if the usage in horrible.

your warranty won't cover your console indefinitely and the simple fact of the matter is the 360 is built cheap, was rushed out to beat Sony to market and for cost and has all the problems associated with that ... the PS3 is a phenomenal piece of kit, it's a luxury item and it has the luxury feel about it, the 360 feels like a home computer stuck in a fancy box with all the foibles of a PC such as hardware issues etc...

My brother's warranty ran out yet Microsoft still repaired his console free of charge. Again, the same was said about the PS2 -- at least Microsoft cares about the consumer, unlike Sony and the PS2.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360 and I certainly wouldn't part with it, but in a side by side comparison the two are in different leagues, the 360 has this "mass appeal" factor which appeals to 12 year old kids where as the PS3 and the games have been aimed at the 20-30 year old gamers, with a more refined games catalogue and a quality associated with top end electronics!

That's an interesting opinion that which I do not coincide with.

---

stevenhomen:

satansmunchkin:

First up I have a PS3, Wii, 360, PSP and DS (I spent far too much of my wages on gaming systems in the last 2 years) I also have an extensive collection of games, some 50+ for all systems ...

And even though you own multiple systems, you can still prefer and been biased towards a particular platform. I owned a PS3 (died on me), Xbox 360, Wii and a gaming PC. And I prefer my gaming PC and would defend PC gaming at the utmost, rather than, the Wii or Xbox 360.

yes, my epic fanboyism in my love of gaming, I'm just a gamer, one that finds more games on the PS3 that I like, rather than the 360, but I wouldn't want to be without either

More games doesn't make it better, and "better" games is very dependent on personal preference ... I find more on the PS3 that I enjoy than for the 360 ...

Telling statement, the 360 has more games but only just edges the PS3 on quality of games? So from a large pool of games you are saying that there are a few that outshine the PS3 games catalogue ...

More games gives users more variety and more options to choose from -- meaning, the odds that a certain user will find a game they enjoy is greater than the PS3. What you're trying to do is like arguing that the Xbox or Gamecube had a better library than the PS2, I mean... really now? "But the PS2 has has more games, doesn't mean those games are better".

Such a non-sense argument if you asked me, the Xbox 360 has more critically acclaimed games and exclusives. It doesn't matter if you don't like them, you still have to recognize that they're games and that they exist. I for one, despise JRPGs, but I would never say the FF franchise is "crap". That's just fanboyism.

Not really, if you have 100 FPS for a console that are all great or exceptional or exclusives then woopty f****ng do, but what if you want to play an RTS or an RPG, the PS3 has the variety, it has fewer games, but the variety is there ... If I want to play an FPS I pick up RFoM, if I want to play a driving game I'll pick up GTPrologue or GTV if it ever sees the light of day, If I want to just prat around making stuff I pick up Little Big Planet and if I want to relax I pick up Flower, if I want to test my mind I pick up Echochrome or Elefunk.

Simply saying it has more games and more better games does not mean it has more depth of games, it could have a variety of games but only the FPS and RPG catagories fare better, which means that for anything else the PS3 is better ...

I prefer Resistance fall of Man to Gears of War ... it's a better thought out game, they put more thought into story than they did into graphics

I prefer Little Big Planet to Viva Pinata (best comparison I can think of there), it's got a better, more easy to use feel to it

The list goes on ... there are a lot ... even down to poxy arcade games;

And I can say the exact opposite, what does any of that prove, really? We all know that preference is subjective. I enjoyed far more titles on the Gamecube and Xbox than I did on my PS2, does that mean I'll say that the Gamecube's library is superior to that of the PS2s? No, I wouldn't -- again, that'd just denial and fanboyism coming into play. (or that of ignorance, and not knowing what the PS2 offers, which could be the case of you ... you just "don't know" what the Xbox 360 offers -- which in this case, could be excusable)

So saying that you prefer the 360 is fanboyism as well then?

You ask for an opinion on the consoles, I gave my opinion, you can't then tell me that it is just preference because that's what an opinion is ...

rather than the dross you get on xBox Live! ...

Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 1 and 2, Braid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are amazing as well -- and they're just XBLA games. Don't get me started on the fantastic remakes of classics, or games like Portal Still Alive.

PSN has PSone classics which I've been sinking myself into as well as the arcade games like Elefunk, Flower and Echochrome, the difference is negligable, as I said, the problem I found is that XBLA appeals to the gamers who use the 360, which is as I have said a fairly FPS orientated audience.

Microsoft have had to pay megabucks to try and stop the Sony train rolling off unrivaled, GTA IV DLC, FFXIII etc etc, everything they have done they have lashed massive amounts of money at to try to stem the PS3 in its tracks ...

LOL. Yeah, and Sony is "completely innocent" in 'business tactics'. LOL.  Oh brother. I can't believe you even wrote all that. Do you even believe what you type? I surely hope you don't. Welcome to a business, and if you think Microsoft is going to sit by and let the competition excel, you're severely mistaken. Microsoft "invested" money in those places -- and by golly, how is the Xbox 360 selling compared to the PS3? Eight and half million lead? Ouch. And let's not even start on the Wii, and hell, there was an article the other day stating the PS3 is selling at a slower rate than even the original Xbox. Double ouch.

I'll assume from that comment that you have no notion of how corperate ethos and organisational behaviour work. Microsoft has persistantly used their money to buy into the market, it's a tactic that works. It's a statement of fact, not something that I choose to believe or not. The fact remains that Microsoft spend more on the 360, where as Sony are using the "luxury" status of the console to drive sales, they have no need to invest the mega bucks whilst the PS2 is STILL outselling all the next gen consoles ... >.>

*sigh*

Lies, damn lies and statistics. You can bend them to say whatever you like, if you look at 20 differnent sources they will all tell you different things about how well the consoles are doing, the way to look at how well they are doing is too look at how well the company is doing for Sony that is the "playstation" brand, for Microsoft that is the xBox brand. Playstation is doing better.

95% of games are available on both consoles ...

That's a bull**** percentage is I ever saw one. Where did you pull that from? I'm curious. Serious. I would love to know, did you do the math yourself, or just reckon you'd throw out a number that suited your particular agenda?

Spit balling random statistics, it was not meant as a numerically accurate statistic, more as a gauge for how most major games are available multiplatform, because of the huge spend that goes into games these days it is a fact of life that exclusives are harder and harder to come by ...

All I know is I prefer the graphics on the PS3 of any game that is dual console ... I have done a cross comparison and just find the PS3 outputs a better, sleeker and more polished graphic ...

And yet even though other credible sites have disagreed? Strange. Really. Nevertheless, the differences are also -- negligible. Have you even seen some of the so-called differences? OMG. GTAIV on PS3 has more blurriness, it's superior! Wait, what? Someone actually cares enough to notice that?

The fact of the matter is simple -- and oh so easy to grasp as well. Sony and its fans touted it console as the true "HD" console (even though it doesn't even ship with HD cables -- that was a big F.U. to the consumer LOL), and that the PS3 was the "most powerful console on the planet". In the end, the CPU has raw power that will never be utilized, and the GPU is -- in fact, inferior to that of the Xbox 360s GPU.

So, as the games came and went -- even though CGI trailers were the main focal point of presentations with Sony, once we saw gameplay footage, we were left with a bad taste in our mouths. How can it be that the most powerful console on the planet... can't even outperform technology that was released one year previous?  So the excuses came and went, developers were "inexperiened" yet the games were praised for their quality. The technology was too difficult to handle, that Sony ****ed and made the console developer ... "un"friendly. Ouch, again.

But now, PS3 exclusives have finally "shined". PS3 has exclusives like Killzone 2 and MGS4 which arguably, look visually superior to anything on the Xbox 360 (Though I'm sure one can argue that RE5 is the best looking game available on consoles). But the question I always love to ask to my fellow PS3 fans is simple, if Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 was made for the Xbox 360 -- why couldn't it look better on that such platform? (Rhetorical)

Can't be made for the 360? why ask a question if you are going to say it is rhetorical? (rhetorical!)

A HDMI lead costs a fiver, it's not exactly back breaking, and at the time of launch most households didn't have a HDTV. economic sense not to include a lead most people wouldn't use.

Let's not forget that the 360 didn't even ship with HDMI ports originally

Let me pose a different question at you, why can't you make MAG for the 360? ...

Live! pisses me off because it should be free, there is no arguing that point, it simply is not worth, compared to PSN, spending £40 a year on, it's a console with a 10 year lifespan, that's £400 in its life you spend on online subscription, double the price of the console in the first place? Is that value to you? No.

Indeed, it should be free -- it's a large ripoff, and the pricing on the DLC is worse. I mean, a few bucks for some pictures for your dashboard? Really now? Nevertheless, Microsoft is a business, and they make a considerable amount of revenee from the Xbox Live service, and so long as people pay for it -- it will continue to cost money.

And my comparison was simply that Left4dead an online game for the 360 requires a subscription, another £40, to play online on the 360 and yet it is free if you buy it on the PC, that DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!! no matter how you look at it

But that so-called "subscription"  can be used to play a plethora of other games online. Not just Left 4 Dead. It only makes sense if you look from a business persoective. I'd do the same if I were Microsoft, you don't deserve anything to be free -- nothing. You're a consumer. You're not entitled to anything.

moot point, the subscription should then be to access the other content, not something that is free to people who have a PC ... You can play something free ont he PC it should be free on a console as well. They wouldn't get away with charging for the other stuff as no one would pay it, so they force you to pay by saying you can't play online unless you do. Clever really, but not something that I agree with.

and *** that, just because I am a consumer means I can be dicked about? No. I choose not to pay for Live! in the same way I choose not to buy fair trade produce and will only buy locally sourced food. It's a choice, I am not being dictated to as to what I get. Microsoft lost sight about their consumers a long time ago, just look at the windows debachles over the years and you can't help but agree.

such as? I'm intreagued to know what you can do with Live! you can't do with the PSN ...

Well you have the party system, and TruSkill. Servers will always be there (unless they're by EA -- the bastards), so if you're worried if you're going to able to play Call of Duty in four to five years, XBL will still have Call of Duty 2 still up, even if the usage in horrible.

and you can't do that on PSN?

your warranty won't cover your console indefinitely and the simple fact of the matter is the 360 is built cheap, was rushed out to beat Sony to market and for cost and has all the problems associated with that ... the PS3 is a phenomenal piece of kit, it's a luxury item and it has the luxury feel about it, the 360 feels like a home computer stuck in a fancy box with all the foibles of a PC such as hardware issues etc...

My brother's warranty ran out yet Microsoft still repaired his console free of charge. Again, the same was said about the PS2 -- at least Microsoft cares about the consumer, unlike Sony and the PS2.

When the laser in my PS2 broke after 4 years they replaced the console for free. When my mates 360 died on him they refused to replace it, despite the fact it was a faulty console, because it was out of warranty, this was before microsoft even adopted the stance that their could possibly be something wrong with their consoles. They have never admited that there was a problem and simply altered the hardware of newer consoles in an effort to cover the fact that the original consoles had problems. Again, makes business sense, but it does shaft the consumers, and your brothers case is not the one that is echoed by most.

plus, I had to wait FIVE WEEKS to get my console repaired, that's excessive for anything I got a refurbed iPod when mine broke in 2 weeks, my computer repaired in 3 days and a replacement monitor in a week. Why is it 5 weeks for the 360, unless there is too much volume of products for them to work on quickly.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360 and I certainly wouldn't part with it, but in a side by side comparison the two are in different leagues, the 360 has this "mass appeal" factor which appeals to 12 year old kids where as the PS3 and the games have been aimed at the 20-30 year old gamers, with a more refined games catalogue and a quality associated with top end electronics!

That's an interesting opinion that which I do not coincide with.

It's true though, the ps3 is a console targeted at the "older gamers" the ones that were in their teens and 20's when gaming first took off, those that have the spare cash to hand to pay £300 or £400 for a console, they still have their "mass appeal" Ps2 which is selling well, so they have no need to make the PS3 any less of a luxury commodity, I wonder how well it would sell when they finally drop the price?

Anyways, completely pointless argument, as I said before, I am not a fanboy, I do not blindly think that the PS3 is better, I know it is better for me (opinion remember) because of experience with all consoles, it just feels sleeker, and more like a high end electical product and I feel that it is worth the money in the long run, even down to simple things like batteries, the PS3 remotes don't use them. I spend a fortune on batteries, have to buy new packs of rechargables every year, the 360 alone has cost me another £40 in batteries since I bought it, and don;'t get me started on the Wiimote

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

Normal 0 unctuationKerning/> aveIfXMLInvalid>falseaveIfXMLInvalid> false false oNotPromoteQF/> EN-US X-NONE X-NONE napToGridInCell/> ontGrowAutofit/> plitPgBreakAndParaMark/> ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> ontVertAlignInTxbx/> MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 mallFrac m:val="off"/> ispDef/> efJc m:val="centerGroup"/> ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-familywiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {pageection1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

First off, some side points: Funny that you all still post around here. Been a long time since I posted here, still interesting to see the originals posting about'. I'm still hoping that Lionhead will make a Movies 2, though ... I tihnk that's still wishful thinking.

Not really, if you have 100 FPS for a console that are all great or exceptional or exclusives then woopty f****ng do, but what if you want to play an RTS or an RPG, the PS3 has the variety, it has fewer games, but the variety is there ... If I want to play an FPS I pick up RFoM, if I want to play a driving game I'll pick up GTPrologue or GTV if it ever sees the light of day, If I want to just prat around making stuff I pick up Little Big Planet and if I want to relax I pick up Flower, if I want to test my mind I pick up Echochrome or Elefunk.

Simply saying it has more games and more better games does not mean it has more depth of games, it could have a variety of games but only the FPS and RPG catagories fare better, which means that for anything else the PS3 is better ...

>>

First genre: “Fighting”>>

X360 = 18 A or better games; PS3 = 12 A or better games >>

Second genre:  “Platformers”

X360 = 18 A or better games; PS3 = 9 A or better games

Third genre:  “Shooters”

Xbox 360 = 74 A or better games; PS3 = 39 A or better games

Fourth genre: “Action-Adventure”

Xbox 360 = 30 A or better games; PS3 = 24 A or better games

Fifth genre: “Adventure”

Xbox 360 = 9 A or better games; PS3 = 4 A or better games

Sixth genre: “Driving”

Xbox 360 = 24 A or better games; PS3 = 21 A or better games

Seventh genre: “Role-playing”

Xbox 360 = 16 A or better games; PS3 = 7 A or better games

Eighth genre: “Simulation”

Xbox 360 = 2 A or better games; PS3 = 0 A or better games

Ninth genre: “Sports”

Xbox 360 = 67 A or better games; PS3 = 44 A or better games

Tenth genre: “Strategy”

Xbox 360 = 14 A or better games; PS3 = 9 A or better games

Yeah, the Xbox 360 has the PS3 beat in EVERY SINGLE category. Looks like the Xbox 360 offers more quality games in every single genre, and you still think the PS3 offers more variety? Interesting. I won’t lie, that’s very intriguing. Perhaps, denial? Or fanboyism. Either or, they go hand in hand regardless.

So saying that you prefer the 360 is fanboyism as well then? You ask for an opinion on the consoles, I gave my opinion, you can't then tell me that it is just preference because that's what an opinion is ...

>>

I never asked for your opinion, I merely butted in on your and that other guy’s conversation. >>

“PSN has PSone classics which I've been sinking myself into as well as the arcade games like Elefunk, Flower and Echochrome, the difference is negligable, as I said, the problem I found is that XBLA appeals to the gamers who use the 360, which is as I have said a fairly FPS orientated audience.”

>>

That’s nice, but don’t really care -- I already know what the PSN offers. I merely pointed out that when you say that XBLA is basically crap, it’s baseless.>>

I'll assume from that comment that you have no notion of how corperate ethos and organisational behaviour work. Microsoft has persistantly used their money to buy into the market, it's a tactic that works. It's a statement of fact, not something that I choose to believe or not. The fact remains that Microsoft spend more on the 360, where as Sony are using the "luxury" status of the console to drive sales, they have no need to invest the mega bucks whilst the PS2 is STILL outselling all the next gen consoles ... >.>

>>

The PS2’s growth has slowed, and it doesn’t outsell the Wii nor the Xbox 360. Both consoles sell more than the PS2 each month... unless you were referring to the overall sales … which, that behemoth of the Wii will soon reach in a few years. Still can’t believe it still flies off the shelves; damn POS.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. You can bend them to say whatever you like, if you look at 20 differnent sources they will all tell you different things about how well the consoles are doing, the way to look at how well they are doing is too look at how well the company is doing for Sony that is the "playstation" brand, for Microsoft that is the xBox brand. Playstation is doing better.

>>

Perhaps, but the sales lead is objective and factual. It ain’t no vgchartz non-sense. Playstation "brand"? That reminds me of the Sony Defense Force non-sense, always gives me a chuckle. They used the brand to hide the fact of the PS3's dismal sales.

Spit balling random statistics, it was not meant as a numerically accurate statistic, more as a gauge for how most major games are available multiplatform, because of the huge spend that goes into games these days it is a fact of life that exclusives are harder and harder to come by ...”

>>

I know it was – just making sure you also recognized it as such. Indeed, that is true. In fact, developing costs will only continue to rise as the next-generation comes into play, and I’ll be damned if I have buy more expensive games.>>

“Can't be made for the 360? why ask a question if you are going to say it is rhetorical? (rhetorical!)

A HDMI lead costs a fiver, it's not exactly back breaking, and at the time of launch most households didn't have a HDTV. economic sense not to include a lead most people wouldn't use.

Let's not forget that the 360 didn't even ship with HDMI ports originally

Let me pose a different question at you, why can't you make MAG for the 360? ...”

>>

Because it’s fun. Duh. >>

Could have gone the route of Microsoft and provided a cable which had both regular video and audio along with component cables connected to the same cable.>>

Let’s not forget that HDMI isn’t needed (it was a luxury at the time), component still to this day does a fantastic job. Microsoft provided the necessary HD cables, Sony did not. >>

Uh, you can? >>

“moot point, the subscription should then be to access the other content, not something that is free to people who have a PC ... You can play something free ont he PC it should be free on a console as well. They wouldn't get away with charging for the other stuff as no one would pay it, so they force you to pay by saying you can't play online unless you do. Clever really, but not something that I agree with.

and *** that, just because I am a consumer means I can be dicked about? No. I choose not to pay for Live! in the same way I choose not to buy fair trade produce and will only buy locally sourced food. It's a choice, I am not being dictated to as to what I get. Microsoft lost sight about their consumers a long time ago, just look at the windows debachles over the years and you can't help but agree.”

>>

Indeed, if XBL users refused to pay for it – much like GFW users refused to pay for online on PC, then Microsoft would make it free. But, that’s not going to happen.>>

Think of it like Nintendo – if the Wii sells boatloads upon boatloads of Wiis, why the hell would they lower the price? Hell. They even had the NERVE to RAISE the price in some regions in the EU. That’s some bull**** right there.>>

You’re a consumer. You don’t get pity from a major corporation.  >>

“and you can't do that on PSN?”

>>

Noppers.>>

When the laser in my PS2 broke after 4 years they replaced the console for free. When my mates 360 died on him they refused to replace it, despite the fact it was a faulty console, because it was out of warranty, this was before microsoft even adopted the stance that their could possibly be something wrong with their consoles. They have never admited that there was a problem and simply altered the hardware of newer consoles in an effort to cover the fact that the original consoles had problems. Again, makes business sense, but it does shaft the consumers, and your brothers case is not the one that is echoed by most.

plus, I had to wait FIVE WEEKS to get my console repaired, that's excessive for anything I got a refurbed iPod when mine broke in 2 weeks, my computer repaired in 3 days and a replacement monitor in a week. Why is it 5 weeks for the 360, unless there is too much volume of products for them to work on quickly.

They replaced it for free because of the class action lawsuit filed in 2005 or 2004 (can't remember when) which forces Sony to do such.

Microsoft had to of replaced that console later for free, and if he payed for it – Microsoft pays FULLY back the consumer if they paid to have their console fixed. If not, and I’m sure that it it’s not just in the states, but worldwide.

>>Who knows. Some people receive in a week, some two weeks. And then you have the odd balls and have to wait a month. Could be the region, or could be other variables. I couldn’t possibly explain why that happened to you.

it's true though, the ps3 is a console targeted at the "older gamers" the ones that were in their teens and 20's when gaming first took off, those that have the spare cash to hand to pay £300 or £400 for a console, they still have their "mass appeal" Ps2 which is selling well, so they have no need to make the PS3 any less of a luxury commodity, I wonder how well it would sell when they finally drop the price?

Hopefully better than now -- I would buy one if it were $300, my girlfriend needs a Blu-Ray player at her house.

Edit: I have no idea how my post became such a mess either, When i try to edit it... I can't delete any of that crap at the beginning. What gives.
>>

---

About a month after PS3 was released, I purchased it. I had it for about a month until I saw Gear of War. I returned my PS3 (Mind you I was a die hard Playstation fan) and bought an Xbox. As time went by I started to regret my decision because of PS3 exclusives like Infamous MSG and Killzone 2. Now though, I've changed my mine. Previous exclusives to PS3 like Final Fantasty and MSG are now coming to the Xbox. Who knows what could happen next. Companies that produce these games might decide to go exclusive to Xbox 360 or could even get bought out by Microsoft. Also, now that Natal is coming out, owning an Xbox 360 will be like owning both a Wii and 360.

All in all, when PS3 was first released, 360 was the better system. Now, PS3 is the better system, but I think that in the future, Xbox will become the better system once again. I've also heard rumors that Microsoft wants to make future 360's blue-ray compatible.

PS: Its always possible that Microsoft could decide to make Live free, especially because PS Network is the competition.

---

Microsoft make one of their products free when people are already playing it in greater numbers? (when I last looked anyway).

That'd be the most amazing thing I've heard this year.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

deliriousstudios:

Microsoft make one of their products free when people are already playing it in greater numbers? (when I last looked anyway).

That'd be the most amazing thing I've heard this year.

Lol, one can always dream right?

---

figgy13:

Its always possible that Microsoft could decide to make Live free, especially because PS Network is the competition.

Sony requiring subscription sounds more likely...

uzivatel:

figgy13:

Its always possible that Microsoft could decide to make Live free, especially because PS Network is the competition.

Sony requiring subscription sounds more likely...

I doubt any of that would happen and if it did i would stop playing online on ps3. Maybe even sell it.

---

Double post and blah blah :


PS3, SLIM High-Definition Blu-ray player for the best movie experience. Free PLAYSTATION Network membership. 120GB HDD for downloading games, music, videos, and photos. Includes DUAL SHOCK 3 controller. HDMI output for 1080p resolution.



http://www.kmart.com/shc/s/p_10151_10104_018W014436760001P?adCell=W2

Sony conference in some hours, must be comfirmed today.

---

Hmm. Might get a 2nd PS3 when the slim comes out, to use as a media box, Blu-Ray player, PVR and so on.

---

September. It will be available for 299 euros, 299 dollars and 29,980 yen.

---

maggot:

September. It will be available for 299 euros, 299 dollars and 29,980 yen.

Will be taking the plunge when I can afford it (job hunting still).

I mean...they do have some games I wouldn't mind playing.

---