After a long time of being away from the videogame scene I am now ready to buy a new one to hook up to my Aquos HD LCD. I like the Wii but want a system that really impresses me with graphics and performance like the PS3 and 360. Problem is I have no idea which one to get....and forgive me as a social life has caused me to lose years of videogame knowledge ;)


XBOX 360:

Pros - much cheaper, XBOX live which allows you to play people around the world and is "better" than the PS3 network (is this true?)

Cons - system breakdown issues


PS3:

Pros - One of the best blu-ray players, GTA and Gran Turismo series, better graphics (true?), more powerful than XBOX

Cons - Way more expensive, not as effective online network?, blu-ray player isn't a huge selling point for me right now.


As for the games I am interested in, it is pretty simple: sports games, Guitar Hero and some of the blockbusters like GTA4 and Gran Turismo. I can't stress enough that I have no interest in the RPGs or Japanese imports and fighting games are hit and miss with me. I am basically buying a new system to play NBA 2K9, Guitar Hero 4 and Grand Theft Auto 4. Maybe a Madden or blockbuster game down the road...

Thanks for any advice as I want to get this right. Cost isn't a huge concern, but does play a part in my decision. I do not want or need to own both consoles. And hopefully I don't buy one of these before a Christmas price-drop.

If you have a fancy HDTV, I'd say Blu-ray is a pretty nice way to show it off and in that case a PS3 would be able to help in that regard. However, GTA is on the 360 (and will have more content via download exclusive to the 360) and i'd say graphics are about equal so far from all the games i've seen.

Personally, i'd recommend the 360 if your interest is mainly to get back into video games. By far.

Personally, having owned both, I'd recommend the PS3 by far no matter what your interest is. It's just a better machine.

Also, how does internet connectivity and online gaming work for both? I've never owned a system where I would play online, so wondering how much it costs per year to use each system's network, what I have to buy to play online etc.

You can use this chart:

http://i33.tinypic.com/1ihcwi.jpg

;)

While price is important, you should also look at the VALUE component. I love my PS3, personally. There's some nice software on the horizon, too. (Although the same can be said for the 360.)

<s>I'm surprised Michael Corvin hasn't come in and bashed the PS3 yet. ;)</s>

mod note: Totally uncalled for. :( -namja

<s>I'm surprised Michael Corvin hasn't come in and bashed the PS3 yet. ;)</s>

<s>I'm sure he's busy bashing it in some other thread(s).</s>

mod note: More of the same -ohbfrank- comment. -namja

This is a tough one. If Blu-ray might be a deciding factor go with the PS3, but if it is just an issue of games look at both libraries. Most people I know prefer the Xbox and Xbox Live. Grand Theft Auto 4 is on both, but Gran Turismo is only on PS3. However, Forza 2 is very popular on Xbox and maybe better at this point.

Other factors are the fact that playing games online is free on PS3 and $60 a year on 360. That does add up though Live is the better service and will have the Netflix streaming thing if you want to watch low quality, compressed video on your HDTV. If you need Wi-Fi also keep in mind it comes built into the PS3, but needs an adapter that increases the cost of the 360.

When I had to make this decision it was easy because 360s were dying left and right and Blu-ray was a factor. Also, once I added in the cost of the Wi-Fi adapter and Live the 360 wasn't any cheaper. However, the build quality of new 360s seem to be very solid so I don't think the RROD is a major concern anymore. If Blu-ray isn't a big deal to you then maybe the better online of the 360 is the way to go. Most of the games you mentioned are on both so libraries may not be a big deal.

I don't personally own a 360. PC, PS3 and Wii are my choices this gen, but most of my friends have the 360 and seem to love Xbox Live. PSN is fine, but definitely not as organized as Live. I had no issues playing Burnout Paradise online on the PS3 and free is always better than $60 a year to me.

Owning both, I can tell you I've played a total of four PS3 games on my PS3 in the last 22 months (Resistance, MGS4, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank). I couldn't tell you how many I've played on the 360. As a physical machine, the PS3 is better. As a gaming platform, it's the 360 by a mile, especially if you play online a lot. Also, the only "con" you listed for the 360 is really a non issue if you're getting in now.

Personally, I'm planning on buying a PS3 over a 360 for 2 simple reasons: dependability and built-in wireless. Why these two issues haven't been properly addressed for the 360 is simply mind-boggling. Blu-ray is just icing on the cake.

I know there are cheaper alternatives out there for the wireless option, but Microsoft's own wireless adapter runs $99. Assuming you get that and a Premium system, you're sitting at ~$400, which is the cost of a PS3 as-is. Tacking on the annual cost of Live only makes the PS3 more appealing (for the record, I'm not much of an online gamer so a service with the quality/dependability of Live isn't that important to me).

Unless you want a bluray player, definitely look at the games.
I occasionally walk through the PS3 section of stores, and honestly there are no (or very few) PS3 exclusives that jump out at me, whereas there have been dozens of games I've loved on the 360.
Regarding Live's cost: Agreed, free is better than paid, if they are the same. From what I've heard, PS3's online component is not as full featured or easy to use as360's. Plus 60/yr is the MSRP; Amazon has a 13 month card for 38.99, no tax/free ship.
I do wish the 360 had built in wireless, and not a 99$ adapter; but I'm actually wired (I had a 50 foot cable I used to work at home before getting a wireless router).
If gaming's about the games, I'd have to point you to the 360 first. If you want an all-in-one device, I'd still probably point you toward the 360; there's tons of downloadable (free and notfree) content (movies, tv shows, etc). The biggest draw of the PS3 to me is the Bluray player, which admittedly is supposed to be pretty darn good. However, I haven't been too into movies recently, and I'm admittedly still a little burned/resentful about the HDDVD fiasco.
I'll be upfront and reinforce some disadvantages to the 360:
* paid online play (~3$ a month, and a better service) (still has lots of free online stuff, just not play)
* hardware issues (many have been resolved, and that's what warranties are for)
* no built in wireless (this is definitely an additional cost if there's no way for you to connect via hardwire and you need to go online)
All those (except possibly the wireless thing) are outweighed, imho, by the amount of content, both on Marketplace and in games, available for the 360. And if you're interested in online play, check what your friends play; it's no savings to pay nothing for online play on the PS3, if all your friends are playing on the 360.

PS3

Best Blu-Ray player available and excellent DVD upconversion
Built in Wi-Fi
Free Online Service
Better exclusive games (unless you're into first person shooters)...LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, Warhawk, MGS, Gran Turismo, Wipeout, Ratchet and Clank

360 has price advantage, and it seems like they have the reliability issues worked out now.

Better exclusive games (unless you're into first person shooters)...LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, Warhawk, MGS, Gran Turismo, Wipeout, Ratchet and Clank


I definitely disagree on this point, as would many others.

Just to add to what others have said.

Xbox 360 Live is not free. There is a charge. The PS3 has Free Online Gaming -- which is virtually non-existent at this time. As others have said, you can turn your 360 at any time of the day and see some of your Friends online, while you'll rarely see a Friend online on the PS3.

As for games, both have their exclusives. Xbox 360 is more first person shooter orientated whereas the PS3 has some great third person games. I greatly enjoyed Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank. Couldn't get into Metal Gear Solid 4. For the 360, I've enjoyed Gears of War, Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, The Darkness, Fear, Bioshock. Some of these games are available on the PS3, however, while you can easily pick up and play a third person game on the 360, the PS controller makes it nearly impossible to play a PS3 shooter. This is just my opinion though.

I think it comes down to how often you are going to play it. If you're really into gaming then I would recommend the 360. If you're more casual and looking at watching movies about as often as playing games then go with the PS3.

I own both and love each for different reasons. To put it bluntly, the PS3 is my Blu-Ray player and the 360 is my game machine.

In additional to all the previous comments, I'd suggest you check out the game prices. In my experience, the 360 has more games at a lower price. You can find many great 360 games under $20, especially if you're willing to buy used.

Xbox Live Silver

+

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JM8F5YRAL._SS400_.jpg

=


Free Xbox Live

I was in the same dilemma. I looked at it this way.

My friends that bought the PS3 = 5
My friends that bought the 360 = 24

I wanted to get something to game with friends so I chose the 360.

If you really want to play games, get the 360.

If you want a reliable unit that will play movies and occasionally thrill you with a game, get the PS3.

The last PS3 game I bought I bought almost a year ago.

I think with both you'll be pretty happy, but the 360 is certainly a lot more fun.

Sounds like if I want to play NBA 2K9 online, there are people on the 360 network all hours of the day who would be willing to play? (not necessarily friends of mine but gamers worldwide). That sounds good 'cause it's pretty rare that friends of mine would come over to play NBA 2K9 (or would play online).

The wireless adapter at $100 is a downside (especially when it's free with the PS3) but it sounds like the 360 online network is much more popular? $60 a year for the service is nothing. I can survive on $5 a month.

No, there will also be people on PSN all hours of the day willing to play. Make no mistake about it, XBox Live has more players (it's been out for much longer), but it's not like PSN has 12 members.

If you want to play certain people, find out which system they have and buy that.

I bought a PS3 and I don't regret it. I'm just not an 'X-Box' person; I'm not sure why and I'm not dissing the system, I just never connected with it. Plus. the PS3 has Blu-Ray, free online gameplay, Metal Gear Solid, Socom Confrontation, and in my mind a less confusing controller.

I have all three next gen consoles. The Wii is a really nice dust collector. The PS3 is great for watching movies (blu-ray, DVD upscale is awesome, hulu and netflix streaming, etc). But the 360 is the best gaming console out there. I have over 80 people on my friends list, most from this site. I average 10 people on that list any given time of day if I need to join in a multi-player game. Sure the console has had it's hardware problems, I'm on my third unit. But I think most of those problems have been corrected. The library of games both disc based and on XBLA (xbox live arcade) is huge. The 360 will still play the most popular original xbox games as well, the PS3 cannot play PS2 games (anymore). If you want a great next gen game console you really can't go wrong with the 360.

I'm surprised Michael Corvin hasn't come in and bashed the PS3 yet. ;)

That's uncalled for. I own and love all three for different reasons. I was on LBP earlier and spent an hour playing Eden last night. I have no qualms with the PS3, I just get annoyed when people throw out baseless numbers and claims like the following just to make the PS3 look better:


Other factors are the fact that playing games online is free on PS3 and $60 a year on 360. That does add up though Live is the better service and will have the Netflix streaming thing if you want to watch low quality, compressed video on your HDTV.

1. Xbox Live is $50 a year SRP through the console, but can routinely be had for under $40 for 13 months. Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Live-Month-Gold-Bonus/dp/B000B9RI00/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343154&sr=8-1)is one such example.

2. Little is known of the Netflix partnership. The selection now is less than steller, but recent reports have Netflix beefing up the selection (http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Beefs-Up-Its-Online-Streaming-Content/) since MS has gotten involved. HD hasn't been adressed yet, though Live's HD download service selection dwarfs Sony's by a longshot.


I know there are cheaper alternatives out there for the wireless option, but Microsoft's own wireless adapter runs $99. Assuming you get that and a Premium system, you're sitting at ~$400, which is the cost of a PS3 as-is. Tacking on the annual cost of Live only makes the PS3 more appealing (for the record, I'm not much of an online gamer so a service with the quality/dependability of Live isn't that important to me).

Yes, $99 is SRP but it's easy to find it cheaper. Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Wireless-Network-Adapter/dp/B000B6MLV4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343411&sr=1-1) has it for $83 which is a little break. New and used sellers drop it as low as $60. Froogle (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=xbox+wireless+adapter&btnG=Search+Products&cid=4736563330169735066&scoring=p#ps-sellers) pulls up a refurb for $45. CAT-5 though is super cheap and all it takes is a bit of time to run a wire. Wireless is a perk, not a necessity.

As for the system, the Pro/Premium (http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Console-20GB-Hard-Drive/dp/B000UQAUWW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223344597&sr=1-2) bundle now goes for $260. Finally, that puts the SRP cost of a 360 + wireless (at SRP) at $360.

It's easy to toss out retail prices instead of taking the time to share links. Note the PS3 users lack of sharing the fact that it doesn't come with any HD cables. So in all fairness in tossing out SRP numbers, you will need an HDMI cable (http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-HDMI-Cable-USB/dp/B000VTX0PW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343727&sr=1-2) for the PS3 that could run you $60. Or you could simply go Component (http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-Component-AV-Cable/dp/B000MIXFWA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343799&sr=1-2) for $20. So now you are looking at a $460 purchase with the PS3. Works both ways folks. It's easy to fudge the numbers.


Better exclusive games (unless you're into first person shooters)...LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, Warhawk, MGS, Gran Turismo, Wipeout, Ratchet and Clank

-ohbfrank- I love when that little nugget is drug out time after time. What are some of the most anticipated flagship exclusives on the horizon for the PS3? Resistance 2, Killzone 2, MAG, the Agency & SOCOM. All shooters. What's the biggest flagship title out so far? MGS4 a stealth shooter. Then you add in the multi-platform shooters like Call of Duty, the Darkness, Bioshock and umpteen WWII shooters and both consoles are on equal footing as far as shooters go. The only area where the 360 falls short on is platformers and it's not like the PS3 is a shiny beacon in that area either. Little Big Planet and Ratchet are about it.

Game Selection and pricing is a lot more impressive on the 360. As mentioned, at this point you can get some stellar AAA titles for under $20 and the selection is huge. Same goes for XBLA vs. PSN. The PSN has some really cool titles, but the selection is hard to beat on the 360. All the games you listed are available on the 360 except for GranTourismo which is a glorified demo for $40.

Reliability issues are a concern with both systems (the PS3 isn't perfect, but close). MS supports their consumer with a 3 year warranty vs. 1 for the PS3.

All that being said, since you don't own either system you can't go wrong with either. As you can surmise from other posts, it depends on what you will do more of on your system. If you are mostly wanting a game machine go with the 360(game selection, prices and online user base is hard to compete with). If you think you will get more out of a Blu-ray player get the PS3.

I'm sure he's busy bashing it in some other thread(s).

Seriously, WTF? I've got no dog in this fight, but as you can tell I at least use links and examples unlike the Pro PS3 users that intentionally toss out wrong information to better their cause. All these grumpy PS3 owners in here should give you pause. :lol:

Good luck in your decision PJsig.

That's the problem. The only thing that is still keeping me interested in the PS3 is the Blu Ray player. I bought an HD DVD player last year and felt the sting when it was killed and am still hesitant, but interested, with the Blu Ray. If Blu Ray players go mainstream, I'm guessing they can be had for $150ish in the not so distant future, and that is reasonable.

Will there be any benefit to owning Guitar Hero 4 on PS3 vs XBOX? That is the main game influencing my decision to buy a next-gen console.

And finally, is there any word of a future Playstation or XBOX from either company? That won't affect my purchase but still a question worth asking...

That's uncalled for. I own and love all three for different reasons. I was on LBP earlier and spent an hour playing Eden last night.

Michael, I was MOSTLY kidding around. Obviously not 100% kidding, otherwise I wouldn't have said it, but it was said with a smile, so I hope it didn't upset you.

That's the problem. The only thing that is still keeping me interested in the PS3 is the Blu Ray player. I bought an HD DVD player last year and felt the sting when it was killed and am still hesitant, but interested, with the Blu Ray. If Blu Ray players go mainstream, I'm guessing they can be had for $150ish in the not so distant future, and that is reasonable.

Will there be any benefit to owning Guitar Hero 4 on PS3 vs XBOX? That is the main game influencing my decision to buy a next-gen console.

And finally, is there any word of a future Playstation or XBOX from either company? That won't affect my purchase but still a question worth asking...

There's been mention of the PS4 possibly in 2011. Early rumors say that it will be based on the cell architecture and that Sony won't be throwing in the kitchen sink this time around, in terms of pumping out a high-powered machine with a high manufacturing cost.

That's the problem. The only thing that is still keeping me interested in the PS3 is the Blu Ray player. I bought an HD DVD player last year and felt the sting when it was killed and am still hesitant, but interested, with the Blu Ray. If Blu Ray players go mainstream, I'm guessing they can be had for $150ish in the not so distant future, and that is reasonable.

Will there be any benefit to owning Guitar Hero 4 on PS3 vs XBOX? That is the main game influencing my decision to buy a next-gen console.

And finally, is there any word of a future Playstation or XBOX from either company? That won't affect my purchase but still a question worth asking...
If Blu-ray is a factor get the PS3. It is simply the best Blu-ray player on the market and will continue to get any updates needed. Even Criterion picked it as their reference player.

GH4 is going to be identical on both systems. If you think more of your friends may be available to play online with the 360 that may be a reason to get that console.

No real solid info on next consoles, but you can bet both are working on them.

Michael, I was MOSTLY kidding around. Obviously not 100% kidding, otherwise I wouldn't have said it, but it was said with a smile, so I hope it didn't upset you.

Nah, it's all good. I just don't want to be known as a hater when I'm not. I try to be objective. :)

It's easy to toss out retail prices instead of taking the time to share links. Note the PS3 users lack of sharing the fact that it doesn't come with any HD cables. So in all fairness in tossing out SRP numbers, you will need an HDMI cable (http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-HDMI-Cable-USB/dp/B000VTX0PW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343727&sr=1-2) for the PS3 that could run you $60. Or you could simply go Component (http://www.amazon.com/Playstation-3-Component-AV-Cable/dp/B000MIXFWA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1223343799&sr=1-2) for $20. So now you are looking at a $460 purchase with the PS3. Works both ways folks. It's easy to fudge the numbers.


Or $4 each if you want to buy a couple (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10243&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2). <s>Why are you trying to hide the fact that you're Microsoft's bitch? All one has to do is simply ready a small sample of your posts in this forum. At least man-up and admit it.</s>

mod note: Okay, we don't need to take it that far. -namja

Or $4 each if you want to buy a couple (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10243&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2). Why are you trying to hide the fact that you're Microsoft's bitch? All one has to do is simply ready a small sample of your posts in this forum. At least man-up and admit it.

Wow, I don't think that was really called for. And scanning a few of your posts and seeing a lot of pro PS3 comments thats not very fair of you.

Or $4 each if you want to buy a couple (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10243&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2). Why are you trying to hide the fact that you're Microsoft's bitch? All one has to do is simply ready a small sample of your posts in this forum. At least man-up and admit it.

Of course it's easy to toss out monoprice when it suits your argument but I still don't see anyone tossing out alternatives to 360 extras other than myself, instead resorting to ridiculous SRP pricing. You have to compare apples to apples. Either use SRP for both systems or offer alternatives(like monoprice) for both sides. You can't mix and match to make one look better or worse than the other.

:lol: I'm a Mac guy, I'm about as far away from being MS's bitch you can be, but believe what you want. At least I'm being objective in my posts. So far you have contributed the unshakable argument that "It's just a better machine," a couple of personal bashes and a somewhat decent post about online players.

:shrug: I'm off to play some LBP.

Or $4 each if you want to buy a couple (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10243&cs_id=1024008&p_id=3992&seq=1&format=2). Why are you trying to hide the fact that you're Microsoft's bitch? All one has to do is simply ready a small sample of your posts in this forum. At least man-up and admit it.

Dude that is really uncalled for and is a borderline personal attack.

Getting back on topic, PJ, it seems like you have an interest in Blu-ray and if that is the case go ahead and go with the PS3. Game selection is pretty much even across the board on both systems with the exception of RPGS. The 360 is creaming the PS3 in RPGs this gen with great games like Tales of Vesperia and upcoming ones like Last Remnant and Star Ocean 4. Hopefully this changes with the arrival of Valkyria Chronicles and my game of 2009, White Knight Chronicles.

The more I think about it, just get both if and when it lines up for you financially. There are too many great games out on both systems that just makes it hard just to choose one system. Forget the fanboys (none in this thread) and just be console agnostic.

Sounds like if I want to play NBA 2K9 online, there are people on the 360 network all hours of the day who would be willing to play? (not necessarily friends of mine but gamers worldwide). That sounds good 'cause it's pretty rare that friends of mine would come over to play NBA 2K9 (or would play online).

The wireless adapter at $100 is a downside (especially when it's free with the PS3) but it sounds like the 360 online network is much more popular? $60 a year for the service is nothing. I can survive on $5 a month.

PJ, yes, I would go ahead and buy the 360. You don't need a wireless adapter necessarily. You can always buy a cable or get a wireless network bridge. Or move your router to where your 360 is and buy a $20 wireless card for your PC.

If you want human opponents in your sports games, get Xbox.

And then get a PS3 later. It's great to have both! :)

And then get a PS3 later. It's great to have both! :)

I agree, buy the 360 now and start saving your cash and buy a PS3 later when they possibly come down in price and Blu-ray is more important to you. The 360 is the better gaming console hands down. I love my PS3 but it hardly gets used for anything but movies. Hopefully that will change for me with LBP.

Yeah considering I have an HD-DVD player right now I have little incentive to purchase Blu Ray DVDs at $30 a pop. I think I'll hold off on the PS3 now even though it is sexy. Only the Dark Knight is a movie I'd want on Blu Ray, but I'll be fine with the standard DVD edition and up-converting it on my HD-DVD player.

Do I need to buy an HDMI cable for a 360? If I buy the wireless adapter instead of plugging in, does it only connect to secured wireless networks?

Yeah considering I have an HD-DVD player right now I have little incentive to purchase Blu Ray DVDs at $30 a pop. I think I'll hold off on the PS3 now even though it is sexy. Only the Dark Knight is a movie I'd want on Blu Ray, but I'll be fine with the standard DVD edition and up-converting it on my HD-DVD player.

Do I need to buy an HDMI cable for a 360? If I buy the wireless adapter instead of plugging in, does it only connect to secured wireless networks?

Check into the 360 itself as a great up-converter too.

You don't need to buy an HDMI cable, but I'd recommend it, especially with how cheap they are at Monoprice. However, if you're going to run HDMI and Optical audio (DD5.1) simultaneously, you'll have to do a little DIY modding of your 360 break-out box (really easy). That is moot if you buy the Elite as it includes an HDMI cable and an audio break-out box that doesn't need modification.

Wireless adapter will connect to unsecured networks, like your neighbors ;)

Do I need to buy an HDMI cable for a 360? Yes.

If I buy the wireless adapter instead of plugging in, does it only connect to secured wireless networks?

No. You can connect to unsecured wireless network. I've accidently connected to my neighbor's unsecured wireless and had to disconnect it and connect to my secured wireless network.

I got a PS3 primarily for Blu-Ray and I love that format. HOWEVER I expected to like the console more as a gaming system. Online is not nearly as fun (or fast) as LIVE, and I prefer the Xbox controller, and overall library.

Im a bit surprised that people are still advocating the PS3 as the best choice for the 'movie-only' option. When I jumped in a year ago, the PS3 was pretty much the best/only option for a GREAT player. The ability to play games was a bonus (which kinda fell flat for me) but regardless. Are there NO comparable standalone blu-ray players out yet? To be had for cheaper than a PS3?? If I wanted a blu-ray player at this point, Id look for a standalone player and stick to the 360 for real gaming.

MOD NOTE:

Do we really need yet another versus thread?
Hmmm. I'll leave it open for now.
Please do not engage in a bashing type of a behavior or calling names.
Thanks.

namja

Im a bit surprised that people are still advocating the PS3 as the best choice for the 'movie-only' option. When I jumped in a year ago, the PS3 was pretty much the best/only option for a GREAT player. The ability to play games was a bonus (which kinda fell flat for me) but regardless. Are there NO comparable standalone blu-ray players out yet? To be had for cheaper than a PS3?? If I wanted a blu-ray player at this point, Id look for a standalone player and stick to the 360 for real gaming.

Standalone's are getting better and better, and these days the higher end models are definitely comparable. PS3 probably still has an edge over the $300 level players, but I think the PS3 really had a bigger edge earlier when it was the cheapest option. With standalones under $300 I think it makes the option of getting a 360 and a stand alone a little easier to swallow.

Thanks, this has been helpful. Glad I reached out here instead of a gaming forum where it would've been a bunch of 15 year olds yelling and calling each other names.

Now that I am probably getting a 360, will 20 GB suffice? I can't see myself needing more than that...

As far as we know, 20gb is enough. Not sure what the future will bring, especially with Netflix if you're into that.

I often wonder if the PS3 made it out a year earlier, would things be reversed. I think the 360 being the first HD system out definitely helped solidify the Live userbase.

It's funny because I see so many comments here where 360 people say they've played hardly any games on the PS3. Well yes, if you only buy PS3 exclusives then I could see that happening. But for those who had the PS3 first or don't have a 360 at all, the majority of games you are playing on your 360 are available. These days when it comes down to exclusives, I think it's pretty much a wash.

The PS3 will likely always remain behind unless they get their shit together with the PSN and get some sort of exclusive killer app that draws people to PSN. People are so firmly entrenched with XBL I wouldn't expect them to pick up a cross platform title on the PS3.

Personally, I will always favor my PS3. I have 30+ games for it vs. about 10 (all exclusives) for the 360.

Im a bit surprised that people are still advocating the PS3 as the best choice for the 'movie-only' option. When I jumped in a year ago, the PS3 was pretty much the best/only option for a GREAT player. The ability to play games was a bonus (which kinda fell flat for me) but regardless. Are there NO comparable standalone blu-ray players out yet? To be had for cheaper than a PS3?? If I wanted a blu-ray player at this point, Id look for a standalone player and stick to the 360 for real gaming.

Standalones are improving, but I'm still seeing a disc here or that that requires a firmware update on Panasonic, Samsung, etc. Also, I have tried out many of the standalones available and none are as fast booting or loading discs as the PS3. When you consider everything else it does besides being a great Blu-ray player it is hard not to recommend the PS3. It is nearly a complete home media PC. I use mine for BD, DVD, Music, Divx and it even has a decent web browser I can use to directly download audio and video podcasts. I wouldn't trade my PS3 for any other console. The 360 is cheaper at first, but if you use it the way I do it quickly becomes more expensive if you add a HDD, Wireless, online gaming, HD movie watching and so on. For gaming it is definitely tops, but for audio/video the PS3 kills it.

I often wonder if the PS3 made it out a year earlier, would things be reversed. I think the 360 being the first HD system out definitely helped solidify the Live userbase.

It's funny because I see so many comments here where 360 people say they've played hardly any games on the PS3. Well yes, if you only buy PS3 exclusives then I could see that happening. But for those who had the PS3 first or don't have a 360 at all, the majority of games you are playing on your 360 are available. These days when it comes down to exclusives, I think it's pretty much a wash.

The PS3 will likely always remain behind unless they get their shit together with the PSN and get some sort of exclusive killer app that draws people to PSN. People are so firmly entrenched with XBL I wouldn't expect them to pick up a cross platform title on the PS3.

Personally, I will always favor my PS3. I have 30+ games for it vs. about 10 (all exclusives) for the 360.

But why do you prefer the PS3 for games? You admit that XBL > PSN. So, non-exclusive games being equal - why the slant that way?

Not trying to start a fight, just genuinely curious. Plus, I'm leaving work for the day so this is sort of a hit-and-run post, but I'll be back in the morning :)

Thanks, this has been helpful. Glad I reached out here instead of a gaming forum where it would've been a bunch of 15 year olds yelling and calling each other names.

Now that I am probably getting a 360, will 20 GB suffice? I can't see myself needing more than that...

I feel like I need more then 20 GB. With demos and free videos, as well as downloadable content, my 20 GB drive is all filled up.

My 20gb has been enough since the 360 launched. However, the fall update coming in the next few weeks will be turning on a function that allows games to transferred over from the disc to the HD (the disc will still be required to play the game). This will speed up load times for sure but I think the real reason this is being added is to better support multi-disc games coming out in the future. If I were buying a 360 today I would probably get the 60gb version. The 120gb elite is overkill IMO

If you are a Rock Band junkie then 20 gigs will not be enough imo. I'm feeling a little bit of a space pinch and will probably upgrade to a 60 or 120 gig hdd this winter.

I often wonder if the PS3 made it out a year earlier, would things be reversed. I think the 360 being the first HD system out definitely helped solidify the Live userbase.

Tough call. You would have to take a few things into account:

- Price: 360 = $399; PS3 = $499 & $599

- Brand name: the Playstation brand carried far more weight entering this gen but on the flip side it was ultimately their downfall assuming people would pay $600 for a gaming machine just because it says Playstation on the side.

- Xbox Live was a fully featured and functioning service on Day 1 with every game offering some type of Live features. PS3 has been a work in progress from day 1.

I'd have to say it would have been a hell of a lot closer. There were so many factors that snowballed into the 360 being the dominant machine.

But why do you prefer the PS3 for games? You admit that XBL > PSN. So, non-exclusive games being equal - why the slant that way?

Not trying to start a fight, just genuinely curious. Plus, I'm leaving work for the day so this is sort of a hit-and-run post, but I'll be back in the morning :)

The slant is because to this day I still feel the 360 hardware is unreliable at best. Plus I don't play online a lot, mostly because of all my friends, I am the only one who owns a next-gen console that isn't a Wii, as hard as that is to stomach. :) So any online play I do is typically on the PC (WoW, BF2, etc.).

So last October when I found myself wanting an HD console again (I sold my late '06 360 after two months, and it did in fact RROD on the new owner), I decided to go with the PS3. I knew I would get a 360 when I could reasonably be sure I had a newer build, but with games like GTA IV which get tons of play time from me, I did not want to be at the mercy of Microsoft's return program. There were more than enough cross-platform titles I could get on the PS3 by that point, and COD4 and GTA IV were still on the way. Also, I never got the allure of Gears Of War or Halo as I am not into scifi/horror type shooters, so to me 360 didn't have too many big name exclusives I really wanted.

I actually wound up getting my 360 early this year so I could play Ace Combat 6, BioShock, Mass Effect and the new version of Bully. At the time my PC wasn't beefy enough to handle BioShock and I didn't want Bully for the Wii.

I also prefer the PS controller, even though I have big hands. I should also mention I never owned the original Xbox, so I didn't have a pre-existing affection for the MS console brand like many may have had.

I'm not a Sony fanboy by any stretch though. I never owned the PS1. I was a hardcore Nintendo guy since the first NES. Finally got a PS2 to play GTA3 way back when.

I have both...I use my PS3 for movies, and my 360 for gaming. If you're into sports games, get the 360.

= J

Tough call. You would have to take a few things into account:

- Price: 360 = $399; PS3 = $499 & $599

- Brand name: the Playstation brand carried far more weight entering this gen but on the flip side it was ultimately their downfall assuming people would pay $600 for a gaming machine just because it says Playstation on the side.

- Xbox Live was a fully featured and functioning service on Day 1 with every game offering some type of Live features. PS3 has been a work in progress from day 1.

I'd have to say it would have been a hell of a lot closer. There were so many factors that snowballed into the 360 being the dominant machine.

For the sake of argument, let's say the PSN was ready on day 1 and had features for every game, but the price was still up there.

I guess the point I was trying to make was, all things being equal, I don't think it mattered to most if it was Microsoft or Sony. It was the first HD online gaming console, and it was bound to be a big hit with serious console gamers.

I also have to wonder if MS, knowing this, intentionally rushed out the 360 to be a year ahead of the PS3, even though it cost them a ton of money on the back end due to RROD.

Tough call. You would have to take a few things into account:

- Price: 360 = $399; PS3 = $499 & $599

- Brand name: the Playstation brand carried far more weight entering this gen but on the flip side it was ultimately their downfall assuming people would pay $600 for a gaming machine just because it says Playstation on the side.

- Xbox Live was a fully featured and functioning service on Day 1 with every game offering some type of Live features. PS3 has been a work in progress from day 1.

I'd have to say it would have been a hell of a lot closer. There were so many factors that snowballed into the 360 being the dominant machine.

Uhh, Xbox 360 Pro is $299.99 and PS3 (with 80gig harddrive) is $399. I just checked.

McHawkson, we are discussing launch prices, not current pricing.

IIRC, they've already gone on record saying the system was rushed out to have the year head start. Despite the RROD it was a gamble that has, so far, paid off.

As for your new scenario, so all things equal and the only difference is price? Then I'd say PS3 by a nose because of Blu-ray. When we entered this gen in 2005, and even with the PS3 in 2006 people wanted a gaming machine first. It's only been in the past year and with the price drops have people come to expect all the media features. Therefore you would be looking at a $400 game system vs. a $500-$600 game system.

:shrug: It's crazy to think back and conjecture on a different outcome from different factors.

McHawkson, we are discussing launch prices, not current pricing.

IIRC, they've already gone on record saying the system was rushed out to have the year head start. Despite the RROD it was a gamble that has, so far, paid off.

As for your new scenario, so all things equal and the only difference is price? Then I'd say PS3 by a nose because of Blu-ray. When we entered this gen in 2005, and even with the PS3 in 2006 people wanted a gaming machine first. It's only been in the past year and with the price drops have people come to expect all the media features. Therefore you would be looking at a $400 game system vs. a $500-$600 game system.

:shrug: It's crazy to think back and conjecture on a different outcome from different factors.

Sorry, man, I was half-sleepy. I just assumed that you guys were talking about present price.

All things equal, I definitely think the PS3 would have been ahead due to brand name and still having exclusives at the time. I mean when Final Fantasy 13 is coming out on XBox for the specific reason that there's a larger user base, it really shows how well Microsoft's early release worked.

But a lot of credit has to go to MS for coming out with a solid service from the start, especially stuff like Geo Wars in XBLA to make the service look worthwhile. That and it didn't help that Sony pretty much made MS look good with all their PR flubs.

McHawkson, we are discussing launch prices, not current pricing.

IIRC, they've already gone on record saying the system was rushed out to have the year head start. Despite the RROD it was a gamble that has, so far, paid off.

As for your new scenario, so all things equal and the only difference is price? Then I'd say PS3 by a nose because of Blu-ray. When we entered this gen in 2005, and even with the PS3 in 2006 people wanted a gaming machine first. It's only been in the past year and with the price drops have people come to expect all the media features. Therefore you would be looking at a $400 game system vs. a $500-$600 game system.

:shrug: It's crazy to think back and conjecture on a different outcome from different factors.

I know it's crazy, but basically I'm trying to figure how much of the staunch loyalty to what essentially is a poorly-designed and rushed hardware console is due to the "gotta have it now" mentality that most of us gamers have. MS basically took advantage of that. I leave it up to each individual to decide how respectable or despicable it is to sell a known defective product. I tend to lean towards the latter.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater - it's more curiosity than anything.

If you're into sports games, get the 360.

= JIf this is in fact true, then there is no doubt I should get the 360.

If this is in fact true, then there is no doubt I should get the 360.

AFAIK almost all major sports games are cross-platform. His comment may be in reference to a larger online player pool on the 360.

Personally the best sports game I have ever played is a PS3 exclusive - MLB 08 The Show.

Personally the best sports game I have ever played is a PS3 exclusive - MLB 08 The Show.

As an owner of all 3 systems...I must agree with this...The Show is the best sports games since NFL 2K5. (and is the only PS3 game that could pull me away from the 360's lineup)

I know it's crazy, but basically I'm trying to figure how much of the staunch loyalty to what essentially is a poorly-designed and rushed hardware console is due to the "gotta have it now" mentality that most of us gamers have. MS basically took advantage of that. I leave it up to each individual to decide how respectable or despicable it is to sell a known defective product. I tend to lean towards the latter.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater - it's more curiosity than anything.

It is very despicable that there hasn't been a massive recall but they have done right with unlimited returns/repairs under a 3 year warranty. Even covering the cost of shipping both ways. That being said, the pros of Live, games, features, etc. far outweigh the single con.

I'm sure being a multi-system owner changes the perspective a bit. I can always turn on the Wii or PS3 while the 360 is out for repair. If I had a single console the RROD would be much more of a concern.

I didn't have to have mine--I've learned my lesson, I don't buy hardware on launch day anymore, and I usually wait at least a year. I've had mine less than a year.

"I'm sure being a multi-system owner changes the perspective a bit. I can always turn on the Wii or PS3 while the 360 is out for repair. If I had a single console the RROD would be much more of a concern."

This is interesting phrasing...why not "Being multisystem means I play the Ps3 more so I have less chance of RRoD." This looks to me like the 360 is your "main" console, and the others are "backup" . I have a Wii as well, no PS3, and the Wii is the backup, mainly for occasional Mario Kart or Boom Blox (I have Okami but haven't even opened it yet.)

I don't disagree, MS should not have released hardware they knew was shoddy. In their defense, they have tried to make up for it in good warranty policies; and the fact that the 360 was as successful as it is, even with the poor QA, says something about the console/service. I'd rather play games i enjoy on a console with a 30% failure rate than games I don't care about on a console with 2% failure rate.

I've got the 120 GB, and I have about 45 GB free. Granted I have downloaded lots of demos and haven't tried some of them, but I've also downloaded lots of RB content. With hard drives, I lean more toward "bigger is better". Especially if you want to store/dl music, movies, or videos onto the 360.

If you have the money and want to go "home theater", the best thing would be to buy a PS3 for the BD player and occasional games, and the 360 for your main gaming console.

I know it's crazy, but basically I'm trying to figure how much of the staunch loyalty to what essentially is a poorly-designed and rushed hardware console is due to the "gotta have it now" mentality that most of us gamers have. MS basically took advantage of that. I leave it up to each individual to decide how respectable or despicable it is to sell a known defective product. I tend to lean towards the latter.

I'm not trying to sound like a hater - it's more curiosity than anything.

I'd say that if people were really that into having something right away and whatever came first, the Dreamcast wouldn't have died so quickly. It came out early, had great games, and a lot of staunch supporters (i've never heard anyone say "ugh, that system sucked!"), plus it wasn't even defective like the 360!

Makes me think it was more of Sony shooting themselves in the foot more then anything else. Gaming consoles always seem to suffer based on mistakes, rather then necessarily the big knock out features. But maybe that's just me.

As an owner of all 3 systems...I must agree with this...The Show is the best sports games since NFL 2K5. (and is the only PS3 game that could pull me away from the 360's lineup)

I have to agree as well. Having that on PS3 and the 2K series (on both obviously) and Gran Turismo pretty much made the PS3 my perfect sports console. I will say most people I know are on Live, but I have never had an issue finding people online on PSN to play Burnout, Super Stardust, Poker and College Hoops. There are a lot of people on PSN playing games and to try and spin it like you can't get a match online is very misleading. My only issues are playing with most of the people I know since they bought 360s.

I don't know about the launching first thing. It helped PS2 against Xbox and GameCube, but the Wii hasn't suffered at all launching after and the PSone launched after Saturn and 3DO with no issues. I think higher console cost is the culprit, but 360 also having an amazing game lineup helped.

This is interesting phrasing...why not "Being multisystem means I play the Ps3 more so I have less chance of RRoD." This looks to me like the 360 is your "main" console, and the others are "backup" . I have a Wii as well, no PS3, and the Wii is the backup, mainly for occasional Mario Kart or Boom Blox (I have Okami but haven't even opened it yet.)

I've read this 3-4 times now and I still can't decide on a true response. I didn't mean to sound like the Wii and PS3 are backups, but it does kinda seem like that now that you mention it. Because of Live and friends, the 360 will always get turned on first to see what's going on(that and Rock Band :lol:). Simple as that. I still hit the AAA titles I'm interested in on the others, but maybe not on release day like I do on the 360, and that's due to friends.


Makes me think it was more of Sony shooting themselves in the foot more then anything else. Gaming consoles always seem to suffer based on mistakes, rather then necessarily the big knock out features. But maybe that's just me.


I don't know about the launching first thing. It helped PS2 against Xbox and GameCube, but the Wii hasn't suffered at all launching after and the PSone launched after Saturn and 3DO with no issues. I think higher console cost is the culprit, but 360 also having an amazing game lineup helped.

Were the Saturn and 3DO ever contenders though? That's kinda like tossing in the NGage in a DS vs. PSP debate. It was N64 vs. PS1. It was a perfect storm that led to the 360 taking the lead over Sony. Sony placing all their eggs in the Blu-ray basket led to the pricing problems and Kutaragi shooting himself in the foot repeatedly didn't help. I'm amazed the guy can still walk these days.

AFAIK almost all major sports games are cross-platform. His comment may be in reference to a larger online player pool on the 360.

Personally the best sports game I have ever played is a PS3 exclusive - MLB 08 The Show.

I agree about The Show being an awesome baseball game. Actually, it's one of two games I own for the PS3.

I play everything else on the 360 because of the online availability and the achievements. I don't specifically shoot for them, but when you are having a great game, it's fun to see an achievement pop up out of nowhere.

= J

Because of Live and friends, the 360 will always get turned on first to see what's going on(that and Rock Band :lol:). Simple as that. I still hit the AAA titles I'm interested in on the others, but maybe not on release day like I do on the 360, and that's due to friends.


This is me. I have several single player games that i enjoy but gaming with buddies online or in meatspace is so much more fun. Unfortunately most of my old gaming friends are scattered around the country so that just leaves online.

Easily 9 times out of 10 i pull up xbox.com to check the friends list and see who is on and what they are playing. This dictates whether i even turn the console on. Most of my single player games (aside from the DS titles i am playing) languish because the social element of Live is such a big deal to me and i find it hard to resist an invite to RB or Halo from a friend even if i'm wanting to lure a new piņata into my garden. :lol:

I think it really comes down to the controller. I never owned an Xbox. Didn't care for the controller when I did play it. I had a Playstation 2 and was a staunch PS supporter. And then I got the 360. The controller was like night and day for me. I don't have big hands at all. The 360 controller is bigger but it feels more solid. The PS3 controller is so light it feels like it's hollow. Some may enjoy the lightness, but I prefer a controller that feels heavier than my TV remote controller.

Were the Saturn and 3DO ever contenders though?
The Saturn absolutely was and was riding on a fairly successful run by the Genesis. The PSone came out of no where for most people. Everyone was anticipating the Saturn and Nintendo's console, but it was the Playstation that caught us all by surprise. In that battle launching after the Saturn was not a problem.

It is just not easy to figure out the PS3 struggles, but I think it is a combination of things. Microsoft launched first yes, but they also lined up some great games especially for year two when Sony was trying to get started and they built Live which started quietly in the Xbox era into a powerhouse. Price could also be a factor, but really listening to people I know it seems to be all about Live. They all love the friends lists, achievements, etc and it has taken Sony way too long to catch up.

The 360 controller is bigger but it feels more solid. The PS3 controller is so light it feels like it's hollow. Some may enjoy the lightness, but I prefer a controller that feels heavier than my TV remote controller.Don't the current PS3s all come with Dualshock 3s which are heavier than the initial controllers?

Don't the current PS3s all come with Dualshock 3s which are heavier than the initial controllers?

:shrug: Maybe. I have one of the lighter ones that comes with a PS3 that can still play PS2 games. Oh, the tradeoffs Sony makes.

In the interest of full disclosure, I currently own a PS3 and Wii.

Up until now, I've always owned every "current gen" system. My original Xbox did get more play than my PS2, but I never was into Live. Most of my friends are PC gamers and play a lot of MMORPGs (in which I was never interested), so Live was really more of a novelty for me than anything else. The few times that I did try to play online, I would always get stuck with the most annoying kids on the server. Anyway, I still did like playing all of the single player and local multiplayer games on my Xbox. The only time I fired-up my PS2 was for exclusive titles (Ratchet, Sly, GTA originally, etc.).

I decided to hold-off on purchasing anything for the current generation, and I finally got a Wii in late 2007. My girlfriend and I enjoy playing that together, and it has a lot of games that she can really get into. Plus, I really don't have a lot of time for "hardcore" gaming and consider myself more of a casual user. The "pick-up-and-play" attitude of the Wii appealed to me, and I've always enjoyed Nintendo's consoles and software.

Once HD-DVD died and Blu-ray became more official, I started looking into a PS3. I purchased one not so much as a gaming platform, but because it was a great BRD and (upconverting) DVD player. Although we do use it for movies, I don't use it for music or video (aside from PlayOn!, which I'm loving). To my shock, I'm really enjoying the PS3 as a gaming platform. My game collection is still growing, but I've thoroughly enjoyed Ratchet & Clank Future, Madden, SW: Force Unleashed, and the demo of Fracture. I'm really looking forward to GH: World Tour and LBP.

I never though I'd enjoy the PS3 for gaming as much as I am. Plus, it's the first time (for me) that I've been able to enjoy true HD (1080p) video and high-quality audio. I'm not knocking the Wii, but it is obviously lacking in those departments. Not being a huge online gamer, the lacking of a Live counterpart on the PS3 is a non-issue for me. I really enjoy Sony's PS Store. Sure, I like that I can download games and demos, but I really like that they let me buy things in real money. I never did like the idea of having to buy "points" (Wii and X360) to then buy games. Why couldn't they just sell it to me in real money?

That's just to say that just because you liked one console in the past, that might not hold true today. I always thought I'd be a MS/Xbox person, but Sony has won me over with the PS3. I'll probably always have a current Nintendo console, but I feel like the PS3 is a great balance to the Wii.

This is me. I have several single player games that i enjoy but gaming with buddies online or in meatspace is so much more fun. Unfortunately most of my old gaming friends are scattered around the country so that just leaves online.

Easily 9 times out of 10 i pull up xbox.com to check the friends list and see who is on and what they are playing. This dictates whether i even turn the console on. Most of my single player games (aside from the DS titles i am playing) languish because the social element of Live is such a big deal to me and i find it hard to resist an invite to RB or Halo from a friend even if i'm wanting to lure a new piņata into my garden. :lol:

Ditto. I spent a lot of time playing Gears or Halo 3 with my buddies (lately, Soul Calibur). I don't even really like Halo much but I like playing with my buddies.

I don't buy or play through a lot of games. I've got about 8 Wii games, 8 360 games, and 1 PS3 game (Heavenly Sword - actually the wife bought it).

For me, the PS3 purchase was simply a PS2/BD player combo, although I figured on getting some games eventually (White Knight Story is the first PS3 game really on my radar).

Get 360 Premium 60 Gig holiday Bundle $300 includes Indiana Jones & Kung Fu Panda games for Free. Very good deal you get 60 gigs core systems $220 plus taxes (Free games value $80)

I never though I'd enjoy the PS3 for gaming as much as I am.

Honestly, if you had a 360, you'd have 10x as much fun gaming.

But, if you don't really play games, the PS3 as a BD player that happens to play games isn't bad. Like you said, you've got the pick-up-and-play attitude and that's about right for the PS3: I pick it up and get bored with it after about 20 minutes.

The 360 I play when I've got time to play games and want to really enjoy myself.

The Wii I will play when I've got relatives over or people that don't really play games.

Honestly, if you had a 360, you'd have 10x as much fun gaming.


This is true. I've logged more hours in the 360 than any other console I've owned. I know many are nostalgic, but, for me, I've enjoyed the 360 more than the NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, Dreamcast and PS2.

Same here. I'd say that the N64 comes in second and the Genesis in third for hours of gaming logged in my lifetime.

= J

N64 represent!

Ditto what the other guys said. I've probably spent more time on the 360 than any other console. Like Tarantino the N64 would probably come in second with maybe the Xbox in third due to the hundreds of hours spent on Halo/Halo2. It's hard to judge the NES/Snes era since that was 15-20 years ago. I figure those were regulated by parents for schoolwork, plus there were after school activities and work.

Honestly, if you had a 360, you'd have 10x as much fun gaming.



Well sir, I have a 360 too, and I don't even have 1x as much fun gaming on it. :)

My PS3 certainly isn't just a BD player that happens to play games. I didn't even buy it for Blu-Ray - I already had the BDP-S1 at the time, and I use a Panny BD30 now.

The PS3 is a solid gaming platform. To me the XMB is much nicer to use than the 360 dashboard, and I prefer the controller. I recognize others have differing tastes. But you really can't say someone will have "10x as much fun" on the 360 just because of Live. I certainly don't.

Well sir, I have a 360 too, and I don't even have 1x as much fun gaming on it. :)

My PS3 certainly isn't just a BD player that happens to play games. I didn't even buy it for Blu-Ray - I already had the BDP-S1 at the time, and I use a Panny BD30 now.

The PS3 is a solid gaming platform. To me the XMB is much nicer to use than the 360 dashboard, and I prefer the controller. I recognize others have differing tastes. But you really can't say someone will have "10x as much fun" on the 360 just because of Live. I certainly don't.

I understand everyone has preferences and i actually don't care what one person prefers.

But this is the first time i have ever heard someone say they prefer the XMB to the dashboard. Why? Doesn't it merely do most of the things the dashboard does but leave out some features? I have actually never played with a PS3 so i am genuinely curious.

As a side note, i do think that the PSN seems to be getting some better Arcade titles than the Live Arcade.... but it also appears they are getting far fewer.

The Saturn absolutely was and was riding on a fairly successful run by the Genesis. The PSone came out of no where for most people. Everyone was anticipating the Saturn and Nintendo's console, but it was the Playstation that caught us all by surprise. In that battle launching after the Saturn was not a problem.

It is just not easy to figure out the PS3 struggles, but I think it is a combination of things. Microsoft launched first yes, but they also lined up some great games especially for year two when Sony was trying to get started and they built Live which started quietly in the Xbox era into a powerhouse. Price could also be a factor, but really listening to people I know it seems to be all about Live. They all love the friends lists, achievements, etc and it has taken Sony way too long to catch up.

Great summary. I agree completely with all of your comments. Microsoft has been very "fluid" with the development of their console and community.

I understand everyone has preferences and i actually don't care what one person prefers.

But this is the first time i have ever heard someone say they prefer the XMB to the dashboard. Why? Doesn't it merely do most of the things the dashboard does but leave out some features? I have actually never played with a PS3 so i am genuinely curious.


For whatever reason, I am able to get where I want to go much more easily on the XMB. It seems more intuitive. I also think it looks much nicer.

There have been several times with the 360 dashboard I've had to try and remember where things are. That never happens to me on the XMB.

For whatever reason, I am able to get where I want to go much more easily on the XMB. It seems more intuitive. I also think it looks much nicer.

There have been several times with the 360 dashboard I've had to try and remember where things are. That never happens to me on the XMB.

I bet that has to do with how often you use the system because I'm the opposite. I just figure if I used the PS3 as often as the 360 I wouldn't have any problems navigating either.

For whatever reason, I am able to get where I want to go much more easily on the XMB. It seems more intuitive. I also think it looks much nicer.

There have been several times with the 360 dashboard I've had to try and remember where things are. That never happens to me on the XMB.I think the XMB is very intuitive. I'll admit that I haven't used the dashboard all that much, but I wasn't very impressed with it.

I think the XMB is very intuitive. I'll admit that I haven't used the dashboard all that much, but I wasn't very impressed with it.

I actually like the cross media bar better when just navigating the system menus, but in game the cross media bar is a slightly bigger pain in the ass. Hopefully the new xbox experience will improve the dashboard navigation significantly.

Any reason why the 360 or PS3 controller is better than the other?

The 360 controller is a littler larger and analog sticks are placed a little further apart from the PS3. The PS3, PS2, PS1 controllers are all pretty much the same from a button/stick layout and are really only suited for baby hands IMO.

Any reason why the 360 or PS3 controller is better than the other?

ergonomic design, triggers & removable battery

Well sir, I have a 360 too, and I don't even have 1x as much fun gaming on it. :)

My PS3 certainly isn't just a BD player that happens to play games. I didn't even buy it for Blu-Ray - I already had the BDP-S1 at the time, and I use a Panny BD30 now.

The PS3 is a solid gaming platform. To me the XMB is much nicer to use than the 360 dashboard, and I prefer the controller. I recognize others have differing tastes. But you really can't say someone will have "10x as much fun" on the 360 just because of Live. I certainly don't.

Exactly. Just because I have a PS3 doesn't mean I'm not a true gamer.

A friend of mine had all 3 and is now down to the PS3. To him the Wii was gimmicky and got old quick, and in the age of fewer exclusives, he picked the PS3 over 360 for such things as Blu-Ray, Free Online, and Game Sharing, which I'm not sure has been mentioned as a Pro yet.

Any reason why the 360 or PS3 controller is better than the other?

I prefer the feel of the 360 controller and use a wired one on my PC, but I like that the PS3 controller comes with a rechargable battery so I don't have to buy a separate rechargable pack or use AAs like the Wii and 360. I also like how light the Sixaxis is and even though i like the 360 layout better I had no trouble using the PS3 controller for games. Triggers are definitely better on the 360 though.

I spend so much more time playing my 360 than I do playing my PS3. PS3 has a few good exclusives (primarily Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet), but for multi-platform games, I always go with the 360 version because I prefer its controller and because Live is so much better than what I've seen on the PS3. I own about 6 or 7 PS3 games on disc, compared to 30-odd 360 games on disc, although the PS3 does have a lot of great downloadable games and I do watch a lot of Blu-rays on it. In summary, I think both systems are great, and if you can afford them both, they're well worth it, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with the 360 - no question.

I prefer the feel of the 360 controller and use a wired one on my PC, but I like that the PS3 controller comes with a rechargable battery so I don't have to buy a separate rechargable pack or use AAs like the Wii and 360. How long do the batteries last in the 360 controllers?

I can't give you a precise number of hours, but my rechargeable batteries last several weeks of moderate play.

I never use my PS3 and every time (like last night) I go to watch a BD movie, it tells me the battery is low - so it discharges pretty horribly and when it ultimately goes out on me when I actually have a PS3 game I want to play, I'm going to have to buy a whole 'nother controller.

Pros and cons...

I can't give you a precise number of hours, but my rechargeable batteries last several weeks of moderate play.

I never use my PS3 and every time (like last night) I go to watch a BD movie, it tells me the battery is low - so it discharges pretty horribly and when it ultimately goes out on me when I actually have a PS3 game I want to play, I'm going to have to buy a whole 'nother controller.

Pros and cons...

I wish the PS3 controller would time out and shut off like the 360 ones do. Sometimes I get on to something else, and just pause the game. So rather than drain the battery for 2 hours - why not shut off after 10 minutes of inactivity?

How long do the batteries last in the 360 controllers?

Assuming 2 hours of play a day, it usually last about a week. I have a couple of the rechargeable packs and use rechargeable batteries as well. I like the rechargeable battery optional better because I can use the batteries in other devices. There more money up front for sure but they're well worth it.

I never use my PS3 and every time (like last night) I go to watch a BD movie, it tells me the battery is low - so it discharges pretty horribly and when it ultimately goes out on me when I actually have a PS3 game I want to play, I'm going to have to buy a whole 'nother controller.

Pros and cons...

I don't notice this on my two Sixaxis controllers. I sometimes go 2-3 weeks without charging them when I am using them frequently and if I haven't touched them for a week or two they are always charged.

I wish the PS3 controller would time out and shut off like the 360 ones do. Sometimes I get on to something else, and just pause the game. So rather than drain the battery for 2 hours - why not shut off after 10 minutes of inactivity?

360 = +1

I hate that with a passion. Especially when using the controller for movies. It's easy to forget it's on and waste two hours of battery.

If you like downloading stuff, downloading anything on the PS3 will take you three to ten times as long. If I want to try a big demo (1GB) on the 360, I usually have to wait a few minutes (say, 5-15). On the PS3, that wait can be an hour, counting the stupid "install" that can also take forever.

Some more questions (shocking I know).

Do I need to buy a DVD remote for the 360 or PS3 to play DVDs? Does the 360 up-convert regular DVDs? I know the PS3 does up-convert standard DVDs exceptionally well according to many people.

1) 360 used to come with an extra back-lit remote. Not sure if it still does. The PS3 has a Bluetooth remote sold separately, no back lighting though. In both cases the remotes make movie watching much easier, especially for the wives.

2) 360 upcoverts but the PS3 does a much better job.

Some more questions (shocking I know).

Do I need to buy a DVD remote for the 360 or PS3 to play DVDs? Does the 360 up-convert regular DVDs? I know the PS3 does up-convert standard DVDs exceptionally well according to many people.

No, you don't need a remote to do that - the controllers will work just fine.

Yes, it upconverts well.

They both upconvert well.

thanks guys for keeping this thread alive, i'm undecided as well on what to get and this thread really provides valuable information!

yet i have one more question: i plan on using my console as my main media device, so i plan on streaming stuff off the internet on it (hula, nba leaguepass...). my question: is the 360 still loud when doing stuff that's not related to its disc drive? or is the fan noise only audible when the 360 reads a disc?

many thanks,

mesi

ergonomic design, triggers & removable battery

Thats one thing I'm wondering about the ps3 controller. What happens when the ps3 battery goes dead? Do you have to send it in to sony to replace the battery or can you unscrew it and install a new battery?

thanks guys for keeping this thread alive, i'm undecided as well on what to get and this thread really provides valuable information!

yet i have one more question: i plan on using my console as my main media device, so i plan on streaming stuff off the internet on it (hula, nba leaguepass...). my question: is the 360 still loud when doing stuff that's not related to its disc drive? or is the fan noise only audible when the 360 reads a disc?

many thanks,

mesi

The 360 is definitely louder than the PS3, at least my 1 year old unit is. But, I don't really notice it that much during movies and not at all during gaming.

The 360 is definitely louder than the PS3, at least my 1 year old unit is. But, I don't really notice it that much during movies and not at all during gaming.

My 360 is almost two years old. I know they've made improvements, but I'd be very cautious using a 360 as my main media player. I used to have an HD DVD drive and we simply couldn't watch any HD DVD movies because the roar of the 360 was so loud it was distracting. It doesn't bother me much during games, but it's too loud to use as a DVD or CD player for sure.
I enjoy both systems, but for media functions, it's my PS3 by a country mile.

My 360 is almost two years old. I know they've made improvements, but I'd be very cautious using a 360 as my main media player. I used to have an HD DVD drive and we simply couldn't watch any HD DVD movies because the roar of the 360 was so loud it was distracting. It doesn't bother me much during games, but it's too loud to use as a DVD or CD player for sure.
I enjoy both systems, but for media functions, it's my PS3 by a country mile.

I agree. For streaming media, playing music or watching movies the PS3 is the way to go. For games -- the 360 is tops. The 360 isn't louder when playing a game it's loud all the time.

Maybe i'm lucky or deaf but i have never noticed my 360 being loud. I can hear it turn on (fans kick in gear) but any movie, music, or game completely drowns out the console itself.

I'm not arguing it isn't louder than the PS3 - when i have been near one of them i haven't even been able to even hear they are on but my 360 at least isn't like a jet engine drowning out everything in the room.

The noise level produced varies from 360 to 360.

My original one was very quiet.

The replacement one I have now, was extremely noisy when accessing a disc in the drive...(was meaning it doesn't seem so loud anymore.. I can still hear it, but maybe I just got used to it) and maybe the fan is also a little bit nosier as well... nothing abnormally loud compared to any of the other electronic devices in my living room that have a fan (laptop, TV, DirectTiVo, PS3... not including an actual fan or A/C).

No, you don't need a remote to do that - the controllers will work just fine.

Yes, it upconverts well.

They both upconvert well.

the 360 up-converts? I thought it just did 480p not up-converting to HD.

the 360 up-converts? I thought it just did 480p not up-converting to HD.

Not over component, but it up-converts.

Thats one thing I'm wondering about the ps3 controller. What happens when the ps3 battery goes dead? Do you have to send it in to sony to replace the battery or can you unscrew it and install a new battery?

You order a new one, unscrew the case and replace it. Very easy. There are instructions online. It is Lithium Ion so probably will last a few years before needing to be replaced, but Sony made it pretty painless. I do like the fact they made it possible and made the HDD easy to replace without having to get raped on a proprierty harddrive. Another reason I will never own a 360.

It is Lithium Ion so probably will last a few years before needing to be replaced, but Sony made it pretty painless. .

Pretty painless would be popping off the battery of the 360 controller. I'm not saying breaking out a screwdriver to take apart your DS3 is hard, but it's not in the same ballpark. Just like you give MS flack for having proprietary hard drives, there's no excuse for Sony not having a removable battery in the controllers.

As for fan noise, my last replacement was extremely loud. I just sold it yesterday though and picked up an Arcade unit which is now quieter than my PS3.

I recently got a 360 (for gaming) and the fan noise is fairly loud, but once I start playing a game, I barely notice.

Not sure if anyone said this yet but the holiday bundles are out now. They might have the new jasper chipset and maybe updated hardware.

Pretty painless would be popping off the battery of the 360 controller. I'm not saying breaking out a screwdriver to take apart your DS3 is hard, but it's not in the same ballpark. Just like you give MS flack for having proprietary hard drives, there's no excuse for Sony not having a removable battery in the controllers.
It only needs to be replaced every few years and is as easy as changing the battery in a cordless phone. That is the height of convenience. The reason the 360 has a cover is so you can change AAs frequently or buy their $10 battery pack. I credit the hell out of Sony for giving you the battery pack built in and I'm sorry, but unscrewing a case every three or four years is not on the same level as charging 3-4 times the cost for a harddrive.

I bet that has to do with how often you use the system because I'm the opposite. I just figure if I used the PS3 as often as the 360 I wouldn't have any problems navigating either.

Maybe for others, but not for me. When I was new to the PS3 I was still able to find stuff fairly fast. Not so with the 360.

It only needs to be replaced every few years and is as easy as changing the battery in a cordless phone. That is the height of convenience. The reason the 360 has a cover is so you can change AAs frequently or buy their $10 battery pack. I credit the hell out of Sony for giving you the battery pack built in and I'm sorry, but unscrewing a case every three or four years is not on the same level as charging 3-4 times the cost for a harddrive.

If you buy a system with a hard drive then you aren't paying extra for anything. The larger drives are optional. I also still have to disagree with the controller. Again, height of convenience is the 360 battery. Pop it off, recharge or drop in a couple AAs. Cordless phones have easily removable battery covers. Not quite the same as a the Sony pads. The average consumer isn't going to crack open a controller. So a $10 rechargeable battery vs. another $50 controller down the line is pretty comparable to the hard drive analogy.

Not sure if anyone said this yet but the holiday bundles are out now. They might have the new jasper chipset and maybe updated hardware.

I just picked up a new Arcade unit last week. Part of me wishes I waited for the new bundle, but on the other hand I would assume it will be a while before they run out of old stock (Falcons or whatever the last build was).

I just picked up a new Arcade unit last week. Part of me wishes I waited for the new bundle, but on the other hand I would assume it will be a while before they run out of old stock (Falcons or whatever the last build was).

This is why MS is making millions - all 360 fans buy multiple consoles! :)

This is why MS is making millions - all 360 fans buy multiple consoles! :)

:lol: Looks like you are skirting some choice wording there.

Well my warranty was expiring on the other one (which was my 4th refurb, and loud as hell) so I sold it on Craigslist the other day for $150. Bought the Arcade with a coupon for $169 after tax. New [quiet] unit with a new warranty: $19 out of pocket. I'd say it was worth it.

Oh and yes, it's official, I'm on my 5th 360. :eek:

If you buy a system with a hard drive then you aren't paying extra for anything. The larger drives are optional. I also still have to disagree with the controller. Again, height of convenience is the 360 battery. Pop it off, recharge or drop in a couple AAs. Cordless phones have easily removable battery covers. Not quite the same as a the Sony pads. The average consumer isn't going to crack open a controller. So a $10 rechargeable battery vs. another $50 controller down the line is pretty comparable to the hard drive analogy.
You seriously expect me to believe that the average consumer would throw away a controller instead of ordering a cheap lithium ion replacement? This isn't an iPod situation where it is a bitch to open the case. You literally unscrew a few screws, unplug the old battery, plug in the new one and screw the back on. 5 minutes of work tops and only needed every 3-4 years. They should be applauded for this. Not to mention they have said they will replace any Sixaxis that stops charging for free. I'm sick of dealing with batteries on my Wiimotes and am constantly juggling rechargeables that don't last nearly as long as I need. I need to look into a lithium ion solution for those.

As far as the harddrive I can see being okay with 60GB or 120GB for most people, but if you are one of the millions that have a 20GB and want to upgrade which many do it sucks you have to pay so much for so little harddrive. I'm definitely one that would use the multimedia of the 360 and that was a big turnoff for me. Especially when a 320GB drive for the PS3 is $80. Unlike everyone that I know on their third or fourth Xbox 360 I'm still on my first PS3 and I have had no regrets skipping the 360. To be fair though my gaming PC helped get rid of much of that regret. It was really my 360 substitute.

Why would an average consumer think they could replace the batteries in a sealed unit?

Why would an average consumer think they could replace the batteries in a sealed unit?

Why wouldn't they? The "average consumer" in this case is someone who plays the PS3.

Uhmm... because it is sealed and there is no apparent easy way to open the controller.

Unlike most wireless devices with replaceable batteries (including cordless phones as mentioned earlier) there is no easily accessible compartment to replace said batteries.

One would have to disassemble the controller to even look at the batteries.

Uhmm... because it is sealed and there is no apparent easy way to open the controller.

Unlike most wireless devices with replaceable batteries (including cordless phones as mentioned earlier) there is no easily accessible compartment to replace said batteries.

One would have to disassemble the controller to even look at the batteries.

Are you serious? It's just screws.

I have several devices with replaceable batteries with screws. Most children's toys do. Granted, they are there for a different reason, but most people would at least question it.

Hell, people were tearing apart their controllers back in the Atari 2600 days for more than this.

I amazed this was brought up, honestly.

It's pretty simple. If it doesn't have a defined battery compartment, the "average" consumer is not going to dismantle the controller thinking there are replacement batteries available for it.

The "average" consumer at best would only think about replacing the batteries if it stopped charging properly if it had a defined battery compartment.

It's pretty simple. If it doesn't have a defined battery compartment, the "average" consumer is not going to dismantle the controller thinking there are replacement batteries available for it.

The "average" consumer at best would only think about replacing the batteries if it stopped charging properly if it had a defined battery compartment.

I agree with you. The average consumer can replace the Xbox 360 controller batteries. I didn't even know I would have to replace the PS3 batteries at some point.

I agree with you. The average consumer can replace the Xbox 360 controller batteries. I didn't even know I would have to replace the PS3 batteries at some point.

:shrug: Then just buy a new controller in a few years, I guess. For me, I think the solution is okay.

It's pretty simple. If it doesn't have a defined battery compartment, the "average" consumer is not going to dismantle the controller thinking there are replacement batteries available for it.

The "average" consumer at best would only think about replacing the batteries if it stopped charging properly if it had a defined battery compartment.

...but it's the epitome of easy! ;) I'm obviously down with your post. Without a clearly defined battery compartment, I honestly think average people would assume their controller was broken and go out and buy a new one and not dismantle a sealed controller.

Uhmm... because it is sealed and there is no apparent easy way to open the controller.

Unlike most wireless devices with replaceable batteries (including cordless phones as mentioned earlier) there is no easily accessible compartment to replace said batteries.

One would have to disassemble the controller to even look at the batteries.

The instructions are in the manual for the PS3 (I guess reading the manual is still too much to ask for most consumers) or you can just call Sony and they will walk you through it and replace the battery free. This is really a non issue and I can't believe something this lame is being used as a negative for the PS3. They give you the lithium ion pack free instead of charging like everyone else and they are the devil. Sucks to be Sony.

Damn them and their free online, free batteries, free Wi-Fi, support for non proprietary HDDs, memory cards, headsets and cameras. Why can't they care about the consumer like Microsoft and force expensive proprietary accessories on you, charge you a yearly fee to play online and give you a battery cover so you don't have to bust out a phillips every 4 years. Fuck Sony.

The instructions are in the manual for the PS3 (I guess reading the manual is still too much to ask for most consumers) or you can just call Sony and they will replace the controller free. This is really a non issue and I can't believe something this lame is being used as a negative for the PS3. They give you the lithium ion pack free instead of charging like everyone else and they are the devil. Sucks to be Sony.


Yeah... cause 1. I am going to read a manual about how to use a controller...(which did not come with my controller that I bought separately) and 2. I am going to remember in the year(s) after reading said manual that the manual said the batteries are replaceable and had instructions on how to do it?

Obviously... If I read the manual, I don't remember reading anything about it... so you think the average consumer is going to?


I'm not in this for the PS3 vs 360 which is better/worse debate... I'm basically talking about the controllers themselves in regards to the batteries.


Now for the debate: I like the fact that the PS3 controller has it integrated where you don't have to use regular batteries or switch in and out rechargeable batteries. I also give it a plus that it uses a basic and readily available USB cable to charge it. Until such time that it stops recharging... then I am left without a controller.

On the 360 controller: I like they give you a choice, perhaps they should have included the play and charge kit with rechargeable battery pack with the controller that came with the console. :shrug: Price is not an issue with having to purchase the play and charge kit separately or buying the controller bundle that includes it, do to frequent sales on them.

One strength on the 360 controller side is that when that rechargeable battery pack does stop recharging, I can simply install batteries into it and I am working again... in a matter of seconds.

I don't have to disassemble the controller and replace some special? battery pack.


And further on the hardware negatives of the 360:

Reliability factor (though the PS3 has had some failures reported as well... but not even close to the 360's even when you take into account the number of units of each)
Proprietary Hard Drive
Proprietary Plug and Play Charge Kit


You should have heard and read plenty of the problems the 360 has had with the consoles dying... but then again, you should have also heard all the great things about the 360 and Xbox LIVE that makes people want to buy more than one.

I know that if mine dies (again) that I am not going to want to wait the 2 weeks or so I hear it takes now to get it back... I will go out and purcha