It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Xbox 360 versus Playstation 3

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
How would the core be missing Blu-Ray drives...that's what they are going to be using for their games...

I realize how expensive the PS3 is, but you do have to understand it has a lot of technology packed into that box. If i were to get equally as good of hardware for my computer it would cost wayy more. Not to mention the Blu-Ray players right now are $1000+.

I have to side with the PS3 FOR SURE. Through my experience, XBOXs are more the system for non-hardcore gamers, just people who call themselves bigtime gamers with their 3 Madden games and Halo 1/2/3. But of course, as with everything else, that's not true for every case. I don't mind paying the money for the PS3, though I do think it's kind of odd that the max players is 7....in the past it's been 2. That's a big jump...and what would the screen look like split into 7 pieces...




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Don't wanna call outright BS on the 7 controllers thing, but this pic (from Sony's site) makes ya wonder...



I only see 4 indicators lights, I would assume that means 4 controllers supported. I don't claim to know this for a fact, but it wouldn't suprise me. Sony did also promise a built in ethernet hub and dual HDMI as well... Linky McLink



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Well, perhaps I misunderstood this:


Controller:

Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)


Source: ps3.ign.com...

I really like the fact that PS3 is said to be very exceptional at stimulating lifelike qualities of cloth and fluid. I've been thinking about getting a Physics Processor for my computer just for those same effects.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Ok here my $.02 first of the PS3 numbers wise it much better also sony has about games 20 when it comes out. The controller for the ps3 has motion sensing in it but not like the Wii it use wyz unlike the Wii which interacts with the T.V. also standed hard drive in all it system. The blu-ray is going to help devlopers cause cram more stuff into it and it cell processer is 2x more powerful the Xbox360 processers but the 3d cards in the ps3 is a little weaker but not that much. If some you guys saw the demo for the game Metal Gear Solid 4 you can see how real it (not how pretty) is the problem for me is the Xbox360 makes the charaters to "fake" there too shiney not real. The system that going to win is the one the more innovative games and Xbox360 does not have that yet. You can see aready some really inovate games on the PS3. I think even the Wii look like the better system I'm worred about the xbox360. It only good looking games are Halo 3 and Bioware. The PS3 have it all but the real selling point it doesn't has is the price $500-$600 is to much.

There I'm done



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Xbox360 is just a big time money maker because of the MASSIVE population of sports/FPS games in the world. There are TONS of people that have never played a game other than Madden or Tiger Woods or Halo, like I said in my last post, and Microsoft took advantage of that. Their system is only better for FPS' and sports games in my opinion. The PS3 is clearly a more well built system with a much more powerful archive of games. In a poll among the hardcore gaming population, you will most likely never see the XBOX or XBOX360 win a "what's your favorite system competition". I have seen MANY of them on gamefaqs, and many on other sites, and the XBOX and XBOX360 never beat the PS2/3. In fact, for the first year that XBOX was out, its approval ratings were even lower than Gamecube's, but eventually passed it due to the fact that many of Gamecube's players are children not active in the polls. However, in a recent poll of "By the end of 2007, with next-gen game system do you think you will be spending the most time playing?" the Nintendo Wii surprisingly won. Of course, Nintendo is always the one to not try to make their systems just better than others, but to take different paths and make it different, not just better. Something I respect Nintendo for. But as for the poll topic, I still have to go with PS3.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Well, perhaps I misunderstood this:


Controller:

Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)


Source: ps3.ign.com...

I really like the fact that PS3 is said to be very exceptional at stimulating lifelike qualities of cloth and fluid. I've been thinking about getting a Physics Processor for my computer just for those same effects.


If you bothered to read my previous post you will see that I provided a link to the same spec list as you. You should also look at the fact that these are the specs Sony released for E3 2005. Take a look at the updated specs here. Sony said the specs annouced at E3 2005 were standard. But as we know now the wifi, media card readers and HDMI (1 port, not 2 as promised) are only available on the higher priced system.

While the price point and value of the PS3 is debatable, the fact the Sony has time and again (PS2 and PSP) overpromised and underdelivered is troubling in relation to the PS3.

I hope the PS3 is everything they promised, but that's impossible since they've not even released the system, and they're not giving us what they promised already.

I'm not a PS3 hater, I just don't trust Sony anymore. I'll wait until the 2nd gen PS3's come out and then make my decision between it and the 360. Undying love for a system that hasn't even been released just doesn't make much sense.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Get them all and play the games worth playing. Arguing about which console is better means nothing as long as the games for all of them are fun.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panzeroth
Get them all and play the games worth playing. Arguing about which console is better means nothing as long as the games for all of them are fun.


I would agree 100% if I had the money to.
I'll go with Wii first and start saving money for when the PS3 price drops, a lot. I have a feeling I will end up getting the PS3 last though, I don't think it will ever cost less than the 360.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
JUst in ase no one knew the PS3 originally did have 2 hdmi ports but becasue of noobs moaning about that being pointless they reduced it to one and i thin they also then reduced the controllers to 4



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
JUst in ase no one knew the PS3 originally did have 2 hdmi ports but becasue of noobs moaning about that being pointless they reduced it to one and i thin they also then reduced the controllers to 4


Sorry but that makes no sense, why would anyone, noobs or not, complain about having extra outputs that are never used, everyone that has a surround sound system would be complaining like crazy. Most PC video cards have two outputs and most people don't use dual monitors. If you could post a link to people upset it would have two HDMI outputs I would reconsider my opinion, but I believe it was Sony's way of covering their butt because the system isn't powerful enough to output 2 signals.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I cant remeber where i read it but im sure i did.
It was the same with the contoller which thank god they changed.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
I cant remeber where i read it but im sure i did.
It was the same with the contoller which thank god they changed.


I don't see why supporting 7 controlers would be a bad thing. It probably isn't neccessary, and it's no big loss that they dropped it, but why would it have been a bad thing?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by yadboy
While the price point and value of the PS3 is debatable, the fact the Sony has time and again (PS2 and PSP) overpromised and underdelivered is troubling in relation to the PS3.


Does it bother you that MS does it too? Remember a harddrive in every unit? Remember backwards compatibility, remember 1 sku? All MS lies, they all lie.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
[

Ps3's goingto be $499.95 for its regular version, which comes with less things, no harddrive, etc. (like a xbox 360s core system) and its premium version is $599.95, which comes with the other stuff.

Xbox 360s base system only costs $299.95 Its premium, which comes with the harddrive, and then a wireless controller for free, is $399.95. So even if you got the advanced premium bundle for the 360, your still paying 100 bucks less then the ps3s bare minimum system.

And I think most people aren't complaining about the price of the ps3, but more of the quality of the system vs the price.

Like Sony's previous antics, they've shown that the system itself isn't all as great as they hyped it up in E3 2k5. The games at launch are lackluster, looking not too much greater then the 360, not the leap that was hyped. Combined with the insane price, the terrible launch titles, the lack of any vibration controls, and the added price for HD abilities, it just isn't proving to be worth it, or living up to the massive hype.

Right now, Sony will be in the console race, just because of all the devout fanboys sony has accumilated, but I think 1st place will be given to the Wii.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by WolfofWar]


First of all either PS3 come with a harddrive the cheaper SKU comes with a 20GB harddrive and the more expensive one has a 60GB drive. With is very good for devolopers. They can design all games to work with the HD, and you will be able to play any game on any PS3 sku, something you can't do with the 360. The cheaper PS3 sku doesn't have wifi or an hdmi port.

How are the launch titles terrible?? You have games like Resistance: Fall of Man, Heavenly sword. SIngstar will sell very well in europe. Motorstorm looks like a very fun game, with some great physics. There are also some more games. Launches are never really that great anyways.

I have no problem with the price. We live in a world where people buy $400 i pods that play music. A $600 console isn't that hard to grasp. Where console launches supposed to be $299 forever?

Is very funny that you think Sony will fall. Sony will only last for a while because of fanboys? Sony sold 100 million PS2, from a starting price very close to the PS3's. It will only cost me a $100 more in Canada to buy a PS3 then a lunch PS2. GC sold 20 million, thanks to Japan. Nintendo makes games for kids and 25y/o who still play pokemon. You really think the 100 million buyers will all of a sudden switch to the Wii ? A VERY underpowered console when comparered to 360 and PS3? You think people want to play the 1000th mario tennis game but not GTA4, Halo3, MGS4, GT5, DMC4, Final Fantasy, Fable 2, or COD 3.

No one owns or likes Nintendo because they have no good games. The biggest market from games is 18 - 34 y/o's. They will buy PS3's and 360's, again next gen. Nintendo will be last again, no one cares anymore about Mario.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wask

Originally posted by yadboy
While the price point and value of the PS3 is debatable, the fact the Sony has time and again (PS2 and PSP) overpromised and underdelivered is troubling in relation to the PS3.


Does it bother you that MS does it too? Remember a harddrive in every unit? Remember backwards compatibility, remember 1 sku? All MS lies, they all lie.


Don't get me wrong, I don't own a 360 and have no plans to purchase one anytime soon. I'm not down on PS3 to give M$ props. I realize things change during a consoles development, but Sony seems to be taking it a bit too far.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wask

--snip--

Sony sold 100 million PS2, from a starting price very close to the PS3's. It will only cost me a $100 more in Canada to buy a PS3 then a lunch PS2.


Holy crap, I guess the kanucks really got screwed on the PS2 then...it launched at $299 in the states. Seems like twice the price for a PS3 isn't "very close" to the price of the PS2 at launch, at least not in the states.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadboyDon't get me wrong, I don't own a 360 and have no plans to purchase one anytime soon. I'm not down on PS3 to give M$ props. I realize things change during a consoles development, but Sony seems to be taking it a bit too far.


Regardless of "M$" having a lot of money, there are several decent games released for the X360. If you think your "contribution to the evil corporation" means anything, your loss. It's about choosing the right games, the console doesn't matter.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panzeroth

Originally posted by yadboyDon't get me wrong, I don't own a 360 and have no plans to purchase one anytime soon. I'm not down on PS3 to give M$ props. I realize things change during a consoles development, but Sony seems to be taking it a bit too far.


Regardless of "M$" having a lot of money, there are several decent games released for the X360. If you think your "contribution to the evil corporation" means anything, your loss. It's about choosing the right games, the console doesn't matter.


I'm not avoiding any console because of the companies business practices. I'm just taking a wait and see attitude. If satan himself released a console made out of baby souls, I would buy it if it had kickass games!


To be perfectly honest, if I didn't have a new baby and a stay at home wife, I would probably have a 360 and be saving up for a PS3. But right now, being the soul breadwinner I can't justify spending that money on games. I'm not complaining, I love my family and will do what I have to do. So the wait and see attitude works for me on many levels, both neccessity and smart consumerism!



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by yadboy

Originally posted by Shenroon
I cant remeber where i read it but im sure i did.
It was the same with the contoller which thank god they changed.


I don't see why supporting 7 controlers would be a bad thing. It probably isn't neccessary, and it's no big loss that they dropped it, but why would it have been a bad thing?


It wasnt the 7 controllers that was bad it was its shape *shudder*



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I wanted to get a PS3 untill I saw the graphics on "Hitman: Blood Money" on a regular xbox

I was amazed at it. So, im getting an xbox 360 for sure.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join