Well I did it , I feel like a dirty cheating whore but I did it ...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

I always find this argument to be silly. A PC is not a console. Why does it even come up in 360 vs PS3 arguments?

Because all are devices to play games on, and sometimes even the same games. A console is really just cheap, locked-down computer anyways.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

That's just lazy developers not optimizing the PS3 versions of those games.

I find both systems have great games and are fairly equal when it comes to game playing ability. Xbox Live is superior to PSN but PSN is free so I have no complaints there.

The end result is all I care about as a consumer.

And the "free" experiment is nearly over.

[3 Justin 3]

The 360 has twice the ram the PS3 has, which is a fact. I should have stated, that is the reason why it is superior, not because of games, etc.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

I always find this argument to be silly. A PC is not a console. Why does it even come up in 360 vs PS3 arguments?

It's like mentioning a sweet BMW ride when the Chrysler vs. GM bankruptcy comes up in discussion.

[Top_Prospect]

I have both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. Everybody is different in their choice of games though. The only game I have purchased for both systems is the NHL series (Yes I actually have the same game for both systems).

If friends come over some are used to a PS3 so we play on that, but almost all of friends have Xbox 60 for Live.

I use the PS3 for watching movies sometimes, but it collects dust otherwise. Both are collecting dust right now until NHL 11 comes out, but this time I'm probably only buying it for Xbox.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

The 360 has twice the ram the PS3 has, which is a fact. I should have stated, that is the reason why it is superior, not because of games, etc.

*facepalm* Please stop arguing things you have no understanding of. You obviously have no concept of how technology works or that the PS3 and Xbox work completely different in how they process data and have completely different architecture. IIRC, in terms of system memory, both consoles actually have the same amount. The Xbox has 512MB of shared GDDR3. The PS3 has 256MB of system memory and 256MB of video memory. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

The PS3 has 7 processors instead of 3 with far more cache which is much more important than system ram. The PS3 has double the floating point performance. The PS3 system bandwidth far exceeds the Xbox 360's because it's designed to constantly pipeline data to it's cell processors. There is a reason why the US Navy has computing farms setup with hundreds of PS3s running linux and not Xboxes. I could bring up random numbers that are bigger all day and it would still mean little.

This still does not mean that the PS3 is better than the Xbox. It comes down to software and the PS3's biggest issue is lazy developers who find programming for the Xbox much easier given the similarity to PC development and then do a poor job of porting it over to the PS3's cell architecture and OpenGL video. Additionally, because of cross platform gaming, they usually restrict game resources to the lowest common denominator - that being the Xbox 360 as the weakest of all major gaming platforms in terms of technical performance, therefore neither the PS3 or the PC can make use of their greater power.

[Finny61]

I went to PS3 after I went through 3 xboxes, the only thing I liked more with the 360 was Live and the controller...that is it. PS3 has a decent library of games.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

*facepalm* Please stop arguing things you have no understanding of. You obviously have no concept of how technology works or that the PS3 and Xbox work completely different in how they process data and have completely different architecture. IIRC, in terms of system memory, both consoles actually have the same amount. The Xbox has 512MB of shared GDDR3. The PS3 has 256MB of system memory and 256MB of video memory.

The PS3 has 7 processors instead of 3 with far more cache which is much more important than system ram. The PS3 has double the floating point performance. The PS3 system bandwidth far exceeds the Xbox 360's because it's designed to constantly pipeline data to it's cell processors. There is a reason why the US Navy has computing farms setup with hundreds of PS3s running linux and not Xboxes. I could bring up random numbers that are bigger all day and it would still mean little.

This still does not mean that the PS3 is better than the Xbox. It comes down to software and the PS3's biggest issue is lazy developers who find programming for the Xbox much easier given the similarity to PC development and then do a poor job of porting it over to the PS3's cell architecture and OpenGL video. Additionally, because of cross platform gaming, they usually restrict game resources to the lowest common denominator - that being the Xbox 360 as the weakest of all major gaming platforms in terms of technical performance, therefore neither the PS3 or the PC can make use of their greater power.

Clearly I got served.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Clearly I got served.

That's okay Justin. The Xbox 360 is still awesome and has great games. You don't need to defend it or try to argue that it is better.

My PC has 18 times the ram of the Xbox 360. Does that make it better at playing games? Not neccessarily. It comes down to software as always. The Xbox has more modern mainstream games than I can ever buy for PC.

[puckluck]

I have a Blackberry, I want a iphone. I have a 360, I want a PS3.

Why am I always buying the second best gadgets?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Well here is pretty much the side of it ... I just paid 299 for a gaming system and I get the old ass f'in A/v cables to hook it up with! Just Yellow , White, Red. PS3, couldnt even include the hi-def components with the Red/Green/Blue? Is this a ploy to get me to buy their 60 dollar HDMI cable?
I mean really 299 for the system, 50 bucks for a headset, 60 bucks for a game, 50 bucks for another controller , all that and I can the crappy A/V cables. I mean I bought the Xbox 360 when it came out in what 2005 or 2006 and it (the RGB A/v cables) was included then.... Very crappy of you Sony.

I cant remember the last time I used just yellow for the video , I am lucky my newer tv still has the option on the back of it. It actually makes the game play look horrible IMO.... Ughh.. I bet Blu-Ray will look great with A.v cables eh?


I guess if this is my only complaint , its not so bad. I love the PS3 so far but miss the game graphics quality of my Xbox as of now.

I felt the same way about the Xbox 360 not having Wifi built in. Just seemed like a ridiculous decision not to include that and call it "next gen".

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I have a Blackberry, I want a iphone. I have a 360, I want a PS3.

Why am I always buying the second best gadgets?

People have to stop ranking technology in terms of who's number 1. It's all different strokes for different folks.

[Hack&Lube]

nickerjones - my friend just bought a PS3 and was playing it on the Red/White/Yellow AV cables @ Standard definition (480p uhggg!).

I bought him a set of PS3 component cables for 1080i on Ebay for $4 shipped.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=280535388349

You could find HDMI cables too on ebay, dealextreme, monoprice, or even @ Winners ($7 last time I saw them).

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I felt the same way about the Xbox 360 not having Wifi built in. Just seemed like a ridiculous decision not to include that and call it "next gen".

No kidding, then Microsoft has the nerve to charge $120 (when I bought it) for a bloody wireless adapter, like really? I am sure the tech inside it costs about $12 to manufacture, then again they charge $50 for a memory card with 52MB.

I am in no way a Xbox fanboi, I just prefer it to the PS3. As a machine I still hold the PS3 is far superior to the 360. Not to mention I have had 10+ 360's brick between me and my bro and I am still on my launch PS3.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

My biggest beef with the PS3 is that the fan is soooo loud. Trying to watch Blue-Ray movies and after 20 minutes the fan kicks in and I have the pump the volume way up. Aside from that, the only thing that keeps me using my 360 as my main console is I have only two friends on PS3 and my 360 Gamer score; which is nothing to brag about but still a few years in the making. =/

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

My biggest beef with the PS3 is that the fan is soooo loud. Trying to watch Blue-Ray movies and after 20 minutes the fan kicks in and I have the pump the volume way up. Aside from that, the only thing that keeps me using my 360 as my main console is I have only two friends on PS3 and my 360 Gamer score; which is nothing to brag about but still a few years in the making. =/

You have a 360 and you think the PS3 fan is loud? wow. The PS3 is super quite and when the fan does kick in, it is nothing special (not that loud). When you turn the 360 on right from the get go it seems like an Apache Helicopter gun-ship is flying through my basement.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Yeah I feel but ya but its not the point. I mean this is supposed to be Next gen gaming and the hoopla about having great graphics and a blu-ray and they toss in this ty A/v cable , the same ones I used when I had a VCR ... I know they want you to buy their HDMI so they can make money, but I am not going too..... GREEDY BASTIDS

I think the reason they ship it with those cables is everyone has composite inputs on their TV. Not everyone has component or HMDI inputs. Some people need a HDMI/DVI cable to play their PS3 on a monitor. Even those who have need for a HDMI cable probably would not all be satisfied with a cable of a standard length, some might prefer 3' and others might want a 20'.

Just like you are upset it didn't come with an HDMI cable, probably just as many people don't need that same cable. Chances are it would increase the retail cost an lower overall sales figures or profits.

Bottom line is you not getting one probably personally saved you money, and most definitely decreased the cost for all PS3 purchasers overall.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I have a Blackberry, I want a iphone. I have a 360, I want a PS3.

Why am I always buying the second best gadgets?

I think you are suffering from the grass is always greener on the other side syndrome. There are many people who would think Blackberry and 360 are not second best products in those categories.

You had Shaw and hated it, so you got Telus and for the first week you loved in and then afterwards you changed your mind and wanted the entire Telus organization to die a fiery death.

Technology isn't perfect. No product can be everything for every person.

If you feel that honestly you are not buying the product that is the best fit for you, you probably need to do more research on the things you buy.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

No kidding, then Microsoft has the nerve to charge $120 (when I bought it) for a bloody wireless adapter, like really? I am sure the tech inside it costs about $12 to manufacture, then again they charge $50 for a memory card with 52MB.

I am in no way a Xbox fanboi, I just prefer it to the PS3. As a machine I still hold the PS3 is far superior to the 360. Not to mention I have had 10+ 360's brick between me and my bro and I am still on my launch PS3.

or how about having the balls to charge $170 for a 250gb hard drive. my first gen Xbox 360 is still doing fine, but the 20gb drive just isn't cutting it anymore. so i looked to upgrade just that and was floored at how much i'd have to spend, hell i just bought a 1 Terrabyte drive for my PC for $70 (which i could install in my PS3 no problem, because they use standard SATA drives). so now i'm probably just gonna spend the extra $130 and get one of the new slims that includes a 250gb drive and all the extra stuff my old 360 doesn't have

i guess that's Microsoft's ploy, make their hardware upgrades so damn expensive that it's an incentive to buy a whole new machine. they suck

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

or how about having the balls to charge $170 for a 250gb hard drive. my first gen Xbox 360 is still doing fine, but the 20gb drive just isn't cutting it anymore. so i looked to upgrade just that and was floored at how much i'd have to spend, hell i just bought a 1 Terrabyte drive for my PC for $70 (which i could install in my PS3 no problem, because they use standard SATA drives). so now i'm probably just gonna spend the extra $130 and get one of the new slims that includes a 250gb drive and all the extra stuff my old 360 doesn't have

i guess that's Microsoft's ploy, make their hardware upgrades so damn expensive that it's an incentive to buy a whole new machine. they suck

No kidding eh? I like the 360, but every tactic Microsoft uses when it comes to Marketing, Pricing, etc. just pisses me right off.

I bought an Elite back in January I believe when my 6th console's dvd drive decided to stop working. My hdd was filled up too so I ended up getting the elite rather than a pro again. Damn you Microsoft!