Xbox 360 > All

[Yeargdribble]

Through the Looking-Glass
I'll be getting a PS3 later this month as a confirmed gift even though I'd planned to grab it on Black Friday myself. I've never been that interested in XBox 360 for far too many reasons. Perhaps it's the fact that Microsoft tries to screw its consumers with proprietary gizmos like hard drives, wireless adapters, controller chargers, and online play all for lots of extra money on top of the console. PS3 has always seemed like the cheaper, and more functional-out-of-the-box console even at the higher price point. This is coming from a person who currently owns neither console and is an unbiased outside observer.

Until recently I haven't even given a crap about exclusives. PS3 now has Demon's Souls which tickles my fancy enough (on top of Netflix, Blu-ray, and a handful of older games that aren't even exclusive) to make me want one. But I always hear about how XBox 360 has all of the awesome exclusives and is the far superior console.

"I made him an offer he couldn't refuse."
So apparently there is a rumor (http://kotaku.com/5395950/xbox-360-with-100-card-for-200-this-weekend) that seems all but confirmed (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241654) that Walmart will be essentially selling Xbox 360 (Arcade)'s for $100 this weekend. Though I've never been interested before, I feel I would be stupid to pass up a current gen console at this price regardless. Even if there were only a two or so games making worth it, that would be worth a $100 dollar console and some of the XBLA/marketplace stuff.


Where's the beef?
So with my newly sparked interest in the console that I'll inevitably pick up this weekend, I decided to actually look around to see what's up with all of the awesomeness that is XBox exclusive and why having the console will make my gaming life more complete. I've got to say I'm sadly disappointed. If you're not interested in Halo, what the hell does the 360 have to offer. Sure there's Fable II... maybe Mass Effect (which I could play on PC)... Bayonetta looks better on 360, but many if not most games that are on PS3/360/PC either look very similar between PS3/360 or look far better on PC.

So for all of the rabid fanboyism that the 360 garners, I have to ask, where's the substance? What are the insane perks? Where are the be-all-end-all exclusives that make 360 leagues ahead of the PS3?

[Psychotic]

Ignoring cross-console games, which I guess you should buy based on what console your friends have so you can play online with them, here are my personal favourite 360 games, excluding thew two Halos (although maybe Halo Wars is worth a look if you like RTS games):

- Dead Rising
- Gears of War and Gears of War 2
- GTA: Episodes from Liberty City (much better than the original cross-platform GTA IV imho)
- Ninja Gaiden 2
- Fable II
- Crackdown
- Saints Row (although Saints Row 2 is better and multi-platform, the original is still worth a play)

I'm sure someone else will come in and suggest the JRPGs, but I've never played them so I can't recommend them.
So for all of the rabid fanboyism that the 360 garnersReally? Maybe you're speaking for the internet in general rather than EoFF, but if not, I don't know if you've ever seen any threads in Gen Gaming or FFXIII but the vast majority of the members here are crazy anti-360 fanboys. One day I am going to start renaming them "I LUV MASTER CHIEF" and see how long it takes for me to get brutally murdered.

[Badge]

Xbox360 isn't for everyone. I've had Sony consoles for years and the only reason I got one was for Gears of War. It's a bit dated and naff now but it's my favourite game!

There are plenty of games for the 360 so I'm sure you could find things you like.

Maybe the xbox isn't the best console in the world and it may not have insane perks or exclusive this and exclusive that, at the end of the day it plays games. And I just so happen to like some of the games so I get what I want from my xbox. If you want more from a console then , yeah, ps3 is probably better for you :)

[Momiji]

I'm really not a fan of the 360 at all, but I do like what the Xbox Live Arcade has to offer-- not to mention I'll have Mushihimesama Futari for it by the end of this month. Other than that, it's just the handful of FPS games I'm mildly interested in, and I couldn't care less about the rest. :/

[Yeargdribble]

Maybe you're speaking for the internet in general rather than EoFF, but if not, I don't know if you've ever seen any threads in Gen Gaming or FFXIII but the vast majority of the members here are crazy anti-360 fanboys. One day I am going to start renaming them "I LUV MASTER CHIEF" and see how long it takes for me to get brutally murdered.

Yeah, I meant the internet in general. EoFF seems far more neutral over all and extremely biased toward PS3 over in the FFXIII forum. But on the internet at large there seems to be a lot more ire toward the PS3 and a fap fest around the 360.

I'm not saying that 360 doesn't have its offerings. I've heard great things about Lost Odyssey. I'm interested in Fable II. Bayonetta looks to be far superior on 360 so seeing as I'll have one, I'll pick it up for 360. I also probably wouldn't mind picking up Dead Rising. GTA IV I'll probably aim for PC after reading some comparisons (that is if I ever get interested enough at all). It's just that for all of the bragging on the internet about Xbox exclusives, these picking seem slim... but...

I'm largely just disinterested in the extremely testosterone injected war games (hi2u GoW, CoD, et. al.). I'm guessing these and Halo are the ZOMG exclusives everyone talks about. Sounds like 360 is the ultimate console if you're into online play with these types of games. Just to me personally, it doesn't seem like that much of a selling point.

So I guess my bias is in the types of games I play and that leads me to just not find much interested in the 360 library nor the console relative to other things. Hell, there are probably more games in the Wii library I like (namely exclusives) than across the entirety of the PS3/360 library.

EDIT:

and I couldn't care less about the rest. :/

Every time someone actually states that phrase correctly I get a boost in my trust of humanity.

[Shattered Dreamer]

I have to say I do like the Xbox 360 but hell I love my PS3 a lot more. I had quite a few hours with the olde 360 (my room mate had one) & yeah it was alright. I completed Army Of Two, GTA IV (both endings), Resident Evil 5 never got to finish The Last Remnant unfortunately. I loved Gears Of War as well!

But then I bought my PS3 Slim & I'm sorry its so much better. Unless your playing an FPS game the PS3's controller is so much better. Then there is the added fact if you want to charge the 360's controller you have to take out the batteries & put them in a charger can't play on but with the PS3 controller when the battery is low you plug in the USB cable & keep on gaming. Lack of rumble is not an issue since the Sixaxis controller sold with the Slim has rumble. Graphically as well the PS3 is superior but that wasn't a factor that swayed me so much.

As far as exclusive games goes I'll admit the 360 has the edge to a point. Gears Of War 1 & 2, Halo 3 & ODST & the GTA IV episodes I'll admit I'm miffed I can't play them. But & its a big but Metal Gear Solid 4. This game alone made buying the PS3 over the 360 totally worth it. MGS4 for me is one of the most epic gaming experiences I've ever had.

I am kinda bummed out Metal Gear Rising & FFXIII will be on the 360 because the PS3 version will suffer at least in the graphics department because those games are on the 360. I mean MGS4 isn't on the 360 because of "hardware issues" & those are Kojima's words not mine!

[Psychotic]

Seeing as this thread has now gone into which console is the best, my answer would be neither. The PS3 and the 360 have practically the same games. There are a few exclusives on either side, sure, but it's not like you can say one has vastly superior exclusives compared to the other. I love Halo 3 but if I had a PS3 I'd probably love MGS4 just as much. I think it comes down to - at least for me - which console your friends have.

[DK]

Basically if I wanted to get a console to play single player games on I'd easily take the PS3 because there's hardly any exclusive single player games on the 360 worth getting the console over, not compared to the PS3 which has a load. On the flipside if I was out for multiplayer gaming good times I'd go with the 360 all the way because it craps on the PS3 from a great distance in that respect. It all comes down to what you're looking for out of your console.

[Slothy]

On the flipside if I was out for multiplayer gaming good times I'd go with the 360 all the way because it craps on the PS3 from a great distance in that respect. It all comes down to what you're looking for out of your console.

Explain how? In all seriousness, the two have the same multi-platform games which means stuff like COD4, racing games, and sports titles are all on both, all feature multiplayer, and are not going to be any different.

The PS3 also has plenty of exclusives that not only offered some great multiplayer experiences like Resistance 2 (despite the fact that the single player sucked it's multiplayer was a lot of fun), Uncharted 2, and titles like Little Big Planet that offer an innovative multiplayer and online community experience.

If what you're really trying to say is that Xbox Live is better than the PSN, then you'd be right, but only marginally so. Sony has done a lot to close the gap, and it doesn't cost an extra $50 a year to get all of the benefits of the PSN.


it's not like you can say one has vastly superior exclusives compared to the other.

Certainly not since people's tastes are obviously different, but I could easily make the argument that the PS3 has a greater variety of genres represented by it's exclusives.

For what it's worth Yearg, I've always felt the same way you do now; the 360's exclusives have never been overwhelmingly impressive to me. Aside from Dead Rising and Gears 2 (since I can get the first one on the PC if I really want), there's been nothing that really stood out as being truly unique or exceptional. I find it odd that many people will still even claim that the 360 is far superior for exclusives when it's last really great one was Gears 2 (as far as I'm concerned anyway).

Also, regarding Psychotic's earlier post listing exclusives, Ninja Gaiden 2 isn't exclusive anymore technically, even though I understand there were a lot of changes between it and the PS3 version.

[Yeargdribble]

I'm just finding that this PS3 vs 360 and even console vs PC stuff is so much like religion. People just get in their camps, can't really defend the reason they are so stuck to their own beliefs and refuse to see the positives of any other stance. You're either with me or you're demonized. I really see no reason to say one is so much better than the other. Both are horribly flawed and both have great benefits.

Sony is a douchey company for crap like the PSPGo... removing BC on PS3, having a ridiculously pricey launch for PS3 with almost no titles, etc.

MS is a douchey company for trying to nickel and dime you with all of the peripherals and fees for online play.

I just wonder why people start beating their drums with stuff like "ZOMG Uncharted 2 exclusive for PS3... because XBOX SUX!" and "At least we has Halo and Famitsu only gave Bayonetta a 38/40 for PS3 so your console suckz!!!" Luckily I don't see it here really at all, but why is this stuff even newsworthy and why does it have to be this way.

Guess what? You can like BOTH consoles simultaneously for different reasons, and in the long run I'm sure I will. Even though PS3 currently has one exclusive (Demon's Souls) I care a lot about doesn't mean I think 360 is crap because it doesn't have that exclusive. Hell, I'd really like to pick up Fable II on the other side. Win-win.

[Shoeberto]

Basically if I wanted to get a console to play single player games on I'd easily take the PS3 because there's hardly any exclusive single player games on the 360 worth getting the console over, not compared to the PS3 which has a load. On the flipside if I was out for multiplayer gaming good times I'd go with the 360 all the way because it craps on the PS3 from a great distance in that respect. It all comes down to what you're looking for out of your console.
This is pretty much truth. There's some good multi games on the PS3, but PSN just doesn't give you the kinds of social features that XBL does. I'm not really a big online gamer, so there's very few games on the 360 that appeal to me - Gears and Halo are cool and all, but I'm mostly interested in the campaigns, which aren't really that beefy. Basically what Dan said is exactly right, it's all about where your gaming interests lie.

[Dreddz]

I think you'll find the 360 has a lot to offer that the PS3 doesn't. For me, its the Forza franchise. I played Forza 2 extensively and have played a bit of Forza 3. All I've got to say is that Polyphony Digital has got to deliver big time with Gran Turismo 5. Other than that, Gears of War is good. Halo is actually one of the better FPS's franchises I've played and doesn't deserve the stick it gets from everyone on the internet. And XBLA is friggin awesome. I mean, they have Phantasy Star II on it for christs sake. What more do you want? Doom? They have that as well.

With all that said, the PS3 is still the best system this gen. Mainly because Sony do one thing Microsoft don't. Make games. Microsoft could really do with some more first party studios as throwing money at third party developer isn't really working all too well. Not that they aren't getting some killer software, its just that it isn't coming in at a consistent rate, which is why 2009 has been pretty weak for the 360. PS3 owners on the other hand always have a killer exclusive to look forward to on the horizon. A result from always having first party developers making games for the system.

What has really killed the 360 though is its fans. They are way too forgiving of Microsoft. If only they had complained about the XBL fee from the start instead of saying "You get what you pay for" then Microsoft would have dropped that fee a long time ago. Plus no one seems to even care anymore about the fact that the 360 has a 1-2 year lifespan. They would rather praise Microsoft for the low low prices they offer on the 360, which is probably why the 360 RROD's, because its a cheaply built piece of crap. Sony on the other hand responded to their fans. We asked for a cheaper console, they did that. We asked for more features on the PSN, they did that. We asked for friggin games, and they most certainly did that. I'd rather see Microsoft treat their fans as well as Sony treats theirs.

Ok I'm done.

Also, regarding Psychotic's earlier post listing exclusives, Ninja Gaiden 2 isn't exclusive anymore technically, even though I understand there were a lot of changes between it and the PS3 version.
The differences between the original and Sigma 2 are night and day. Sigma 2 looks better, has a huge amount of extra content and most importantly, runs a lot smoother. To sum up, they turned a good game great.

[Bolivar]

Seeing as this thread has now gone into which console is the best, my answer would be neither. The PS3 and the 360 have practically the same games. There are a few exclusives on either side, sure, but it's not like you can say one has vastly superior exclusives compared to the other.

I would disagree. There's simply nothing out there like Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Valkyria Chronicles and soon 3D Dot Game Heroes. On top of that, I don't think any developers have put as much effort into their games as is visible in Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, or Uncharted 2. That's 7 right there.

I guess I pretty much feel like Yeargdribble. I loved both the Gears of War games, and I wanna play L4D and Mass Effect, but all of those games (except 2nd Gears of War) are infinitely better on the PC. The XBLA games really interested me but Castle Crashers and Braid are coming to PSN. It just seems like over time there are less and less reasons to own a 360, it makes me glad I didn't buy it in 05/06 when i was really contemplating it.

[Shattered Dreamer]

I don't think I said Xbox 360 sucks did I? It got a solid 400 + hours of my life that could've been used reading law books (& god knows I should of spent more time reading them my grade in my degree may of been higher). The controller & MGS4 were the reasons I bought the PS3, I owned a PSX & PS2 I'm accustomed to the controller I'm set in my ways. Most of the other games I buy appear on both machines (I have Arkham Asylum & Fifa 10 along with MGS4, Fallout 3 game of the year edition is next on the wishlist) so I reserve the right to be picky.

When I aired my concerns about how the hardware on Microsoft's machine might effect MGR & FFXIII I meant it in a why couldn't they of just developed these games as PS3 exclusives as they were originally intended & port them later to the 360 with some additional contain to compensate 360 owners for the wait kind of manner. I realize this is a painful expensive way of doing things for developers but hell we're already paying over the odds for console gaming hardware & software to begin with so screw them! €40 - €60 for a new game & €299 for the console a bit steep.

The 360 is a good console if you gave me one tomorrow I wouldn't smash it like some PS3 fanboy. I'm hearing about 360's selling for as low as €150. I might just buy one in the future to catch up on all the exclusives I'm gonna miss. Not getting to finish Gears Of War 2 & The Last Remnant has indeed annoyed me! I reckon I'll get Killzone 2 & Uncharted 1 & 2 to ease my pain :D

[black orb]

>>> Almost 20 years has passed and the console wars still raging strong.. :D (i love this) http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/rodv/Luca-Walk-Front.gif

[Iceglow]

Ok guys this is going to be a little long one but I'm going through peoples posts and see a few things worth commenting on.


I've never been that interested in XBox 360 for far too many reasons. Perhaps it's the fact that Microsoft tries to screw its consumers with proprietary gizmos like hard drives, wireless adapters, controller chargers, and online play all for lots of extra money on top of the console.

Yeargdribble, I seem to recall seeing in another post you have a Wii? Either way, regardless of if you do or not lets face it Nintendo are the ones who screw you over with the periphials. Microsoft got rid of the Pro and Core system models of 360 because frankly the elite wasn't selling with them around, neither was the arcade. I would have dropped the arcade myself and kept the pro around because the 360 definitely does need a hard drive unit on it. However, 360 controllers come in 2 varieties, wireless and wired. Wired ones run on the usb and will also work on the PC as a control pad for games there. Wireless controllers can be run on any rechargable AA batteries, there are options such as the play and charge kit, the quick charge kit ect but they are optional. I've had some AA rechargables for years since my GBA gaming days and thus I just use them, works fine for me. Nintendo requires a remote and a nunchuck for most games and now a motion plus unit for many of it's titles lets add that up: Wii Remote: £29.99, Wii Nunchuck: £19.99, Wii motion plus: £19.99 that is by my reckoning for one controller for one other person to play the games with you a £59.97 bill, maximum number of players in Wii games? 4, excluding the £29.99 for the remote in the console, thats basically: £209.89 exluding any extra periphials needed to play 4 player on Wii. That doesn't then include the accessories for a Wii remote such as steering wheels at £6.99 for unofficial 3rd party ones and £9.99 for the official. Then you got the nunchuck condom rubber grip £9.99 (I'll leave the Wii remote one out since motion plus comes moulded in to one of them already but if not they're £9.99 each too) The gun frame for shooter games £9.99 oh dear god the list just goes on most at £9.99 or more. The fee for online gaming is not too bad to be honest does it bother me? A little, but no more than the monthly £7.99 millions pay monthly for World of Warcraft and I get to play a damnsight more games online than they do. Hell the latest big MMORPG contender has a £15.99 fee monthly to play! XBL gold membership works out to be like £3.50 a month if you do the maths. Sony offer pretty much the same number of accessories as Microsoft just most of theirs are 3rd party. As for the XBL Avatar market place, lets not go there if you're stupid enough to pay for those things you deserve to be mugged for your money.



Basically if I wanted to get a console to play single player games on I'd easily take the PS3 because there's hardly any exclusive single player games on the 360 worth getting the console over, not compared to the PS3 which has a load. On the flipside if I was out for multiplayer gaming good times I'd go with the 360 all the way because it craps on the PS3 from a great distance in that respect. It all comes down to what you're looking for out of your console.
This is pretty much truth. There's some good multi games on the PS3, but PSN just doesn't give you the kinds of social features that XBL does. I'm not really a big online gamer, so there's very few games on the 360 that appeal to me - Gears and Halo are cool and all, but I'm mostly interested in the campaigns, which aren't really that beefy. Basically what Dan said is exactly right, it's all about where your gaming interests lie.

Agreed. I happen to work with a guy who for years was a ps3 fanboy who hated and didn't pay any attention to the 360. He recently after much discussion with me and a few others at work decided that for his second console for his bedroom (his ps3 is in the lounge) that it would be a waste of time getting a second ps3 he may as well have the best of both worlds and get a 360. He now is a completely changed man he brought his 360 and went online same day. He was shocked by party mode and also by the fact that the 360 comes with a headset for online gaming chat straight out of the box whereas the ps3 you have to spend money buying a headset seperately and also whilst he thought the ps3 online was ok he noticed an immediate improvement in terms of stability and the speed of the servers finding games on CoD 4 much faster than he could on ps3. He also stated he found GTA IV much more comfortable to play on the 360 than the ps3. The division on PS3 and 360 is generally comming down to what you go in for. I could have brought either one but I enjoy Halo and I have always enjoyed going online and playing with friends for me the 360 was an immediately obvious choice. DK has hit the nail on the head there and since I work in a store selling consoles most of the time I have to admit when asked by customers what they are after from a console when they ask for the better of the two it is pretty much the exact same words I use to explain that on a technical scale on a HD tv through HDMI connection there is no difference graphically that the naked eye will particulary pick up on. There is very little to split the hairs on.

[Yeargdribble]

Stuff about accessories for Wii with relevance to Yeargdribble's condemnation of Microsoft accessories.

tldr version at the bottom (before my note)

You're correct. Wii does have a lot of accessories, but few of them are necessary. I have a pair of controllers with nunchuks. One I had to buy, the other came with the console. Together a Wiimote+Nunchuk retails for $60. A 360 controller retails for $50 and PS3 controllers range from $55 to $75. You automatically assume since I can play with 4 people that must do and therefor buy all of the controllers, but that's a spurious argument. The controller cost issue is relatively the same across all consoles, probably being worst with PS3. If I want to get a Wii Motion Plus (or 2) I'll just pick up Wii Sports Resort and get two of them in the box.

I got one of the Wii-wheels with Mario Kart and bought another one for $5 when I saw it on sale. Not so bad a deal. I don't need some plastic gun thing or gimmicky sports attachments to play.

My Wii cost $250 when I bought it. At the time the 360 cost $400. My Wii came with built-in wireless. If I added that to a 360 I'm up to $500 for a tiny HD. If I wanted to upgrade the HD in a PS3 I would spend $100 and get probably 500 Gigs whereas for the same price I would've gotten maybe 40-60 Gigs for the 360 because Microsoft made it proprietary. I suppose you could make it without the stupid $100 wireless thing from MS and just make a bridge with a router (which I will be doing), but that still costs you. It's humorous that you argue how the Xbox 360 (Elite) comes with a headset in the box and the PS3 does not. But the PS3 has wireless out of the box and 360 does not. Headsets are cheaper than wireless routers last I checked. Fine, Xbox has more stable online and PS3 (and Wii) has it free. It's give and take, but that doesn't make anyone necessarily better than the other nor does it protect any of them from reasonable criticism where they fail.

Now Microsoft is making all memories cards that aren't marked up, proprietary crap completely unusable. That's not a good way to treat your customers.

With a Wii you can buy lots of silly gizmos if you want but you don't have to. Most of them are third party scammy crap. For Xbox you practically must buy overpriced MS brand crap to even come up to par. That was my only argument against Xbox. They actively make a point of forcing consumers to buy their first party crap to make their console playable.



NOTE: Let's just be clear that we can make arguments without taking sides. I can hate Microsoft's business model and still like their console. I hate a lot of the crap Sony has done where they seem to take delight in sh***ing on their customers as well, but I love my PSP and PS2. You don't have to counterpoint this as though I were a Wii fanboy defending everything Nintendo does. Wii Motion Plus is BS and should've been in the standard Wiimote from the start. I'm just calling a spade a spade with the way Microsoft does business.

[Iceglow]

Stuff about accessories for Wii with relevance to Yeargdribble's condemnation of Microsoft accessories.

tldr version at the bottom (before my note)

You're correct. Wii does have a lot of accessories, but few of them are necessary. I have a pair of controllers with nunchuks. One I had to buy, the other came with the console. Together a Wiimote+Nunchuk retails for $60. A 360 controller retails for $50 and PS3 controllers range from $55 to $75. You automatically assume since I can play with 4 people that must do and therefor buy all of the controllers, but that's a spurious argument. The controller cost issue is relatively the same across all consoles, probably being worst with PS3. If I want to get a Wii Motion Plus (or 2) I'll just pick up Wii Sports Resort and get two of them in the box.


Well I don't assume you must get 4 controllers however here is my point on the whole thing, 4 controllers should not cost over £200 to rig to normal standard use. On the 360 here is how it would break down: (using GB prices from HMV) 360 wired controller £24.99 official, £19.99 unofficial. 2 of these + 2 wireless controllers at £39.99 means, 4 controllers can come to as little as £129.96 for all 4 controllers to be official on the basis of 2 wired, 2 wireless. On the PS3 it comes to £39.99 for each controller or £159.96 for 4 pads. Now acceptable arguments include the cost of batteries for the 360 pads but I'm going to disregard that because frankly there is no need to buy a rechargable quick charge kit or a plug and play/charge kit. As far as gaming goes, the PS3 and 360 pads will work perfectly well out of their packaging for that money, the Wii controllers increasingly need to have Wii Motion plus on them, therefore how can you sit there saying Microsoft force people to use official products or to buy periphials when Nintendo's controllers alone scream out that they are a rip off. Bluntly ask a Nintendo executive to justify charging nearly £100 more for 4 controllers in full function compatability with their console and any game released compared to their competitors, I bet that he can't.



I got one of the Wii-wheels with Mario Kart and bought another one for $5 when I saw it on sale. Not so bad a deal. I don't need some plastic gun thing or gimmicky sports attachments to play.


Thats good that you don't need some gimmicky attachments to play, however a LOT of people are suckered in to buying these things or simply resort to buying the plastic gun frames to make holding the damn thing feel more comfortable. I suppose in a way the world of nintendo fans should be grateful they didn't think to bring out an official light gun controller and decide that to play FPS or Arcade FPS games you must use that because going on Nintendo's track record so far it'd cost around £70 to get each one.



My Wii cost $250 when I bought it. At the time the 360 cost $400. My Wii came with built-in wireless. If I added that to a 360 I'm up to $500 for a tiny HD. If I wanted to upgrade the HD in a PS3 I would spend $100 and get probably 500 Gigs whereas for the same price I would've gotten maybe 40-60 Gigs for the 360 because Microsoft made it proprietary.

I agree the Wii is the cheapest console unit out there, but it's lack of serious games and extortionate controller prices and gimmicky accessories they try to ram down your throat and the short lifespan of the Wii remote (I see customers come in all the time having worn these things out til they break) and it's periphials means Nintendo's Wii is by far the most expensive console to maintain. The ps3 hard-drive you speak of would not be official and therefore if it was incorrectly installed and caused problems bye bye warranty :( The biggest official PS3 hard drive is 250gb, exactly the same as the one in the biggest xbox console, the super elite. Ironically the Xbox 360 super elite costs £250 comes with 2 wireless controls and Forza 3 along with the download codes for extra content from the special edition (though you don't get the keyfob ect from the special edition) this is exactly the same as a PS3 with a 120gb hard drive. The 250gb PS3 costs £300 on it's own with 1 control pad. (again information taken from HMV where I work including content of the super elite bundle and prices)



I suppose you could make it without the stupid $100 wireless thing from MS and just make a bridge with a router (which I will be doing), but that still costs you. It's humorous that you argue how the Xbox 360 (Elite) comes with a headset in the box and the PS3 does not. But the PS3 has wireless out of the box and 360 does not. Headsets are cheaper than wireless routers last I checked. Fine, Xbox has more stable online and PS3 (and Wii) has it free. It's give and take, but that doesn't make anyone necessarily better than the other nor does it protect any of them from reasonable criticism where they fail.


Wireless isn't essential and it's probably advisable to if possible use an ethernet cable to directly go from router to 360/PS3/Wii (yes this is true of all consoles) this is because any interference would directly affect your online play and it's VERY easy to disrupt a wireless internet signal even across such a short distance as a living room. However I will point out that the wireless adaptor for 360 did originally cost £59.99 in the UK. It currently retails at £29.99 in the UK which is a big drop in price as does a 60gb hard drive. Now for a wireless headset for the PS3 you're looking at £29.99 for a decent one. All of a sudden thats not such a big difference after all. I am also curious as to your references of buying a wireless router. What you are buying is a Wireless adaptor, thats very different from a wireless router in fact I believe you might even get away with any cheap one but have never tested this so please, don't take this as gospel truth. As far as buying a router goes, yes they are expensive but as you rightly said there is no requirement that you use wireless and the 360 comes with an ethernet cable in the box.


With a Wii you can buy lots of silly gizmos if you want but you don't have to. Most of them are third party scammy crap. For Xbox you practically must buy overpriced MS brand crap to even come up to par. That was my only argument against Xbox. They actively make a point of forcing consumers to buy their first party crap to make their console playable.

This statement here is utter bollocks sorry. I have a 360. I have 1 wireless controller as came with I have 20gb of hard drive as came with my 360 (and yes sometimes I do consider upgrading it), I do have the wireless adaptor for xbox 360 which did cost me £59.99 but thats my choice to buy that. I do not own a play and charge kit, I do not own a quick charge kit I do happen to own several AA rechargable batteries and the charger for them. So please explain to me where I was forced to buy any accessories for my 360 made by Microsoft? My 360 is more than playable it's fantastically good fun I regulary play on it and get in excess of a weeks active gaming battery life per charged pair of batteries I have 6 batteries meaning I often have 3 - 6 weeks worth of gaming before I have to consider charging a pair up for the next. I'm an avid 360 gamer and I fail to see your point I'm sorry but Yearg for all essential purposes here you are talking completely and utterly out of your ass please listen to 360 owners about 360 consoles we tend to know more than non owners after all we're living with the machines.



NOTE: Let's just be clear that we can make arguments without taking sides. I can hate Microsoft's business model and still like their console. I hate a lot of the crap Sony has done where they seem to take delight in sh***ing on their customers as well, but I love my PSP and PS2. You don't have to counterpoint this as though I were a Wii fanboy defending everything Nintendo does. Wii Motion Plus is BS and should've been in the standard Wiimote from the start. I'm just calling a spade a spade with the way Microsoft does business.

I'm not counterpointing you as if you were a Nintendo fanboy, don't worry you're not Roto yet! However I am making a point here that you own a Wii you should be wiser to this, Nintendo released motion plus, something what we both completely agree should have been in the basic functionality of their console to begin with. Only possible reason to hold this back and then to charge £19.99 per unit is to make more money by forcing your gamers to buy this too. Same goes for the nunchuck, the fact that it is needed for almost all games means Nintendo really to be fair to their customers be selling this and the Wii Remote for no more than the cost of a single Wii Remote. I'm very certain having looked in to getting my girlfriend a Wii and speaking to people with the console and having looked in to it from the route of I sell the damn things often enough to know it is the cheapest console unit to buy but the most expensive long term console, far more so than the 360. I agree Sony crap all over their customers too and so does Microsoft, if they didn't they wouldn't be good businesses making money from us. Microsoft done a massive crap on their customers by discontinuing the most popular models of 360 during their prime allowing them to raise the price of the Arcade from £129.99 to £159.99 though at the same point this same dick move from them allowed them to drop the price of the Elite to £199.99 from £249.99 which did make an awful lot of difference and has directly reduced the price of the Super Elite model which most likely would have retailed at £299.99 if not for the discontinuation of the Pro and Core models. Sony has shat all over it's customers more than any other games console developer so far in this round of console manufacturing imho, constant shakeup of features, functionality and even console specification is not a good thing, they seem to have settled now with the slim and lite PS3 (ironic they call it the slim when it's actually deeper in terms of front panel to back panel than the high gloss original just slimmer in terms of height and shorter in terms of length) with it's 250gb and 120gb models. However I believe it's only a matter of time before we start playing swings and roundabouts with Sony again.

[Yeargdribble]

Well I don't assume you must get 4 controllers however here is my point on the whole thing, 4 controllers should not cost over £200 to rig to normal standard use. On the 360 here is how it would break down: (using GB prices from HMV) 360 wired controller £24.99 official, £19.99 unofficial. 2 of these + 2 wireless controllers at £39.99 means, 4 controllers can come to as little as £129.96 for all 4 controllers to be official on the basis of 2 wired, 2 wireless. On the PS3 it comes to £39.99 for each controller or £159.96 for 4 pads. Now acceptable arguments include the cost of batteries for the 360 pads but I'm going to disregard that because frankly there is no need to buy a rechargable quick charge kit or a plug and play/charge kit. As far as gaming goes, the PS3 and 360 pads will work perfectly well out of their packaging for that money, the Wii controllers increasingly need to have Wii Motion plus on them, therefore how can you sit there saying Microsoft force people to use official products or to buy periphials when Nintendo's controllers alone scream out that they are a rip off. Bluntly ask a Nintendo executive to justify charging nearly £100 more for 4 controllers in full function compatability with their console and any game released compared to their competitors, I bet that he can't.

First, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're talking about MSRP on the Wii controllers and using a discounted price you can find from a retailer on the 360 controllers to make your point. I can also find all Wii controller bits for considerably less than MSRP. That's why I was using MSRP as the zeroing point. You're then trying to inflate your point by talking about the price of a set of 4 vs the cost of 1 or 2. It makes your argument seem more compelling because you're throwing out a bigger number, but it's a misnomer.

I think you're a bit hyperbolic about Wii games increasingly needing Wii Motion Plus. There are relatively few current adopters though I will concede that at some point it will likely become a necessity, though Nintendo is likely to make cheap bundles for some time to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see TW2 as a standalone at $50 and a bundle for $60 which would include a half priced WMP. They've already started down this road.

But for the sake of your argument, a single MSRP controller with Wiimote+Nunchuk+WMP would be $80 while an MSRP 360 controller would be $50 which clearly makes the Wii controller more costly.


Thats good that you don't need some gimmicky attachments to play, however a LOT of people are suckered in to buying these things or simply resort to buying the plastic gun frames to make holding the damn thing feel more comfortable.

Once again, most of these little gimmicky things are 3rd party and have nothing to do with Nintendo's marketing. They are far from necessary so I see it as a moot point when we're talking about the console company gouging the players.


I agree the Wii is the cheapest console unit out there, but it's lack of serious games and extortionate controller prices and gimmicky accessories...
... just gonna restate the irrelevance of 3rd party plastic to the discussion...

...they try to ram down your throat and the short lifespan of the Wii remote (I see customers come in all the time having worn these things out til they break) and it's periphials means Nintendo's Wii is by far the most expensive console to maintain.

This is quite anecdotal and I don't see where you're getting this from. I've had the same two Wiimotes for about 3 years now and they are fine despite plenty of play. I've never heard any complaints about how well they hold up before.

I was really really going to try to avoid this, but your argument reeks of irony as you seem to ignore the RROD. If you want to talk about maintenance and shoddy devices that break down you shouldn't try to do so in comparison to the 360.


Wireless isn't essential

I'll agree, but for fairness sake, both other consoles (including the dirt cheap one) have onboard wireless if you want to use it. In side-by-side comparisons, for those that want it, this is a place where the once relatively low price of the 360 is not all that it seems.


I am also curious as to your references of buying a wireless router. What you are buying is a Wireless adaptor, thats very different from a wireless router in fact I believe you might even get away with any cheap one but have never tested this so please, don't take this as gospel truth. As far as buying a router goes, yes they are expensive but as you rightly said there is no requirement that you use wireless and the 360 comes with an ethernet cable in the box.

You can use a wireless router in lieu of the wireless adapter and get a lot better value. MSRP on the MS WNA is $100 while a decent router is only $60. You can get far more functionality out of the router as you an hook it to several other devices and use it as a bridge to your primary router for all of them. It's what I'll be doing without a doubt. It just takes a little extra setup.


The ps3 hard-drive you speak of would not be official and therefore if it was incorrectly installed and caused problems bye bye warranty

Perhaps, but it's pretty easy to install a HD and at least Sony gives an option. For those who are smart enough install their own non-Sony HD, they just saved some money. This isn't even a realistic option with the 360 and I'm sure it was done this way on purpose.


This statement here is utter bollocks sorry. I have a 360. I have 1 wireless controller as came with I have 20gb of hard drive as came with my 360 (and yes sometimes I do consider upgrading it), I do have the wireless adaptor for xbox 360 which did cost me £59.99 but thats my choice to buy that. I do not own a play and charge kit, I do not own a quick charge kit I do happen to own several AA rechargable batteries and the charger for them. So please explain to me where I was forced to buy any accessories for my 360 made by Microsoft?

You're probably right that I overstated it. I don't even consider the controller chargers necessary and don't have one for my Wiimotes. When I'm talking about the MS crap I'm talking about the proprietary wireless adapter and proprietary HDs. Sure your console is functional without them, but less so than it could be. You would probably be more likely to upgrade that HD if it wasn't so costly to do so. The fact that you have to shell out a huge amount of money for a wireless adapter is sad not only because you have to buy one, but because it was made to be needlessly proprietary and therefore far more expensive.



In the end I think we largely agree on certain issues like the fact that basically all of the console companies suck. I don't really have that much more ire for the 360 than any of the others, it's just that certain issues stick out to me. Primarily are the proprietary things they put in place where a standard could be used. This pissed me off so much about the PSPGo going to a proprietary USB cable instead of the standard cable that everyone probably has half a dozen of lying around their house. This forces the consumer down a narrow path and that always upsets me.

I don't think Nintendo intentionally dicked the consumer over with the WMP. I think it was a case of the tech not being ready at release, but they had to drop a console into the market to make a showing against the other current gens. In the long run it pissed everyone off though because what WMP has turned into is what everyone felt like they were promised. Instead they got silly waggle controls often used in a place where a traditional control scheme would work better. Also to be fair, for the lower price of the Wii you also don't have DVD, much less Blu-Ray. They were not equipped to offer large storage solutions though they did help a little when they allowed SD cards to fix the shortcomings... but sadly SD cards cost a premium vs a real HD.



I really didn't want to get into all of this when I started the thread. Mostly I just wanted to see what everyone was talking about being so awesome on the 360 because I wasn't seeing it. I found the answer. It's mostly the FPSs that aren't on my radar but still appeal to a wide number of gamers. It's the superior online play (with the caveat of a fee).

I'm not going to be sad to get my Xbox this weekend. I'm looking forward to a number of games that are Xbox exclusives even if they aren't marquee titles and even though most of the XBLA exclusives I was most interested in are going to also be on PSN soon, I'm still certain there will be a good number of games that I'll want to purchase.

It's always going to be better to have all of the consoles and not miss out on any of the games. I have no grudge against any certain games getting exclusivity (and once I have all the consoles I'll have even less reason). I just have a problem with crappy business practices which all of the companies engage in and arguably some to a greater degree than others.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I think it breaks down to this:

Microsoft is willing to give incentives to companies to release "exclusive" titles. The company gets all this money to develop, but the contract only requires it to be exclusive for a set period of time. The company, with the completed game, knows their is a market for it on PS3. It's extremely easy to convert from the 360 to the PS3. They go to Sony, and Sony says, you can only release it if you change stuff.

This is how you get: Ninja Gaiden Sigma(2), Star Ocean: The Last Hope International, Tales of Vesperia... etc releasing on PS3

On the other hand, it's very difficult to change a game developed exclusive for the PS3 for the 360.

Honestly, I'm happy with my PS3 and Wii. I've been playing Demon's Souls like crazy, and I haven't enjoyed a game this much in a long time! I'll be getting Assassin's Creed 2 for my PS3, and I actually own the first for the 360 (though I don't own the system, roommate did lol).

THE JACKEL

[Iceglow]

First, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're talking about MSRP on the Wii controllers and using a discounted price you can find from a retailer on the 360 controllers to make your point. I can also find all Wii controller bits for considerably less than MSRP. That's why I was using MSRP as the zeroing point. You're then trying to inflate your point by talking about the price of a set of 4 vs the cost of 1 or 2. It makes your argument seem more compelling because you're throwing out a bigger number, but it's a misnomer.

I'm not using any discounted prices, the prices I am using in the UK are the official RRP prices. If I was to mention discounted prices I would be deducting 30% of all the prices of the controls since that is my current level of staff discount. Also I would point out that the Wii Nunchuck actually falls in to a 2 for £30 offer which also includes SD cards and games. I used the base price of these units from the UK, it seems that America is being dicked more on the price of console periphials than the UK, however my point still stands. Even if we took 4 wireless 360 controllers it would still only come to the same cost as 4 ps3 controllers, something Nintendo do need to answer for when they charge £100 more nearly.



This is quite anecdotal and I don't see where you're getting this from. I've had the same two Wiimotes for about 3 years now and they are fine despite plenty of play. I've never heard any complaints about how well they hold up before.

I was really really going to try to avoid this, but your argument reeks of irony as you seem to ignore the RROD. If you want to talk about maintenance and shoddy devices that break down you shouldn't try to do so in comparison to the 360.


I get the Wii remote faults from the number of times customers come in and say they are buying a replacement pad to me. That is fine however you here are comparing apples and oranges, the RROD is a fault yes, however Microsoft now offer a free 5 year warranty on all Xbox 360 consoles which covers the RROD as standard. The Wii controller systems are not covered in the Nintendo Wii Console warranty and cannot be covered by 3rd party replacement covers or extended warranty not to mention the Wii comes with a standard 1 or 2 year warranty. If you wished to compare issues with the periphials you should be looking for faults with the PS3 or 360 controllers to compare, something I haven't managed to find many apart from gamers throwing the control in a pique of rage.



You can use a wireless router in lieu of the wireless adapter and get a lot better value. MSRP on the MS WNA is $100 while a decent router is only $60. You can get far more functionality out of the router as you an hook it to several other devices and use it as a bridge to your primary router for all of them. It's what I'll be doing without a doubt. It just takes a little extra setup.

Why would you bother doing this unless you only have an ADSL modem and not a router? Ok heres a simple thing to do, most normal routers have 4 ethernet ports and you can simply place a networking cable between the 360 to one of those and connect to the internet through your main router. You could also bridge it by networking the 360 in to the ethernet card of your PC and sharing the connection. The idea of buying another router for your home to connect your 360 too is mildly disturbing and like I said, the wirless adaptor in the UK at least has fallen in price dramatically so I would assume the wireless adaptor has in America too (also to note, it has no proprietary features apart from the fact that it is designed to clip smoothly and discreetely to the rear of the console as for connecting to the machine it plugs in via a rear usb port hence I believe any network adaptor will work)



You're probably right that I overstated it. I don't even consider the controller chargers necessary and don't have one for my Wiimotes. When I'm talking about the MS crap I'm talking about the proprietary wireless adapter and proprietary HDs. Sure your console is functional without them, but less so than it could be. You would probably be more likely to upgrade that HD if it wasn't so costly to do so. The fact that you have to shell out a huge amount of money for a wireless adapter is sad not only because you have to buy one, but because it was made to be needlessly proprietary and therefore far more expensive

You definitely overstated it. I actually am not upgrading my hard drive because as with both the 360 and the PS3 the transfer of data between two of them is not as simple as a PC to PC or even memory card and I am pretty lazy with it and therefore won't bother. I will probably upgrade once I have absoloutely no choice but for now I have still got over half my hard drive empty. The USB wireless adaptor I made a point about above, it's simply that usb the only proprietary facts about it is that it clips to the rear of the casing very nicely and flush as far as I am aware it is simply an 804.2g network adaptor. The hard drive is another matter yes but then if you were serious about getting a 360 you'd honestly not even consider an Arcade unit sensibly, you would be looking at the Elite or the Super Elite.


In the end I think we largely agree on certain issues like the fact that basically all of the console companies suck. I don't really have that much more ire for the 360 than any of the others, it's just that certain issues stick out to me. Primarily are the proprietary things they put in place where a standard could be used. This pissed me off so much about the PSPGo going to a proprietary USB cable instead of the standard cable that everyone probably has half a dozen of lying around their house. This forces the consumer down a narrow path and that always upsets me.

It's true we are agreeing in a lot of places, all companies dick us over it's the way of life however I do feel you're getting mixed up in places as to the level of proprietary periphials for the 360 and that for me is annoying because it isn't half as bad as you make it sound.



I really didn't want to get into all of this when I started the thread. Mostly I just wanted to see what everyone was talking about being so awesome on the 360 because I wasn't seeing it. I found the answer. It's mostly the FPSs that aren't on my radar but still appeal to a wide number of gamers. It's the superior online play (with the caveat of a fee).


I'm not attempting to put others of getting other brand consoles well apart from maybe the Wii but then I really don't like the Wii, it feels too gimmicky and too full of broken promises of what should have been hardware wise. and I didn't like the Cube either for that matter, though I did love the 64 and the SNES before that. Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's 360 are pretty damn even like DK said and like I initially agreed with the difference is that the 360 is more aimed at multiplayer gaming and the ps3 is more aimed at single player journeys. I would hapily own both if I could afford a PS3, (boo no staff discount on consoles and hardware) the difference in the two really is neglible though as others I am sure will agree, the 360 is the FPS gamers bread and butter when it comes to console gaming these days.

[Yeargdribble]

Why would you bother doing this unless you only have an ADSL modem and not a router? Ok heres a simple thing to do, most normal routers have 4 ethernet ports and you can simply place a networking cable between the 360 to one of those and connect to the internet through your main router. You could also bridge it by networking the 360 in to the ethernet card of your PC and sharing the connection. The idea of buying another router for your home to connect your 360 too is mildly disturbing

My primary router is in a room that is not my living room with no way of being moved closer. I'd have to run probably 30-50 feet of cable around several walls, through a door and down the hall to have a hard line. I happen to have an extra wireless router lying around which works out for me. Even if I didn't I'd rather buy a 4 port wireless router (which is cheaper than the wireless adapter anwyay) and at least have the flexibility of it being useful for something else at a later date in addition to being able to hook to more devices. I see no purpose in getting a single purpose device for more than the cost of a multi-purpose device that serves the same.

[NorthernChaosGod]

But then I bought my PS3 Slim & I'm sorry its so much better. Unless your playing an FPS game the PS3's controller is so much better. Then there is the added fact if you want to charge the 360's controller you have to take out the batteries & put them in a charger can't play on but with the PS3 controller when the battery is low you plug in the USB cable & keep on gaming. Lack of rumble is not an issue since the Sixaxis controller sold with the Slim has rumble. Graphically as well the PS3 is superior but that wasn't a factor that swayed me so much.

I don't know if this has been touched upon, but you can play while your controllers are charging on 360. It's called a play and charge kit, my 360 came with one when I bought and I opted to get a second one for my second controller.

[Madame Adequate]

oh god wall of text crits for 9001 damage

[Slothy]

They go to Sony, and Sony says, you can only release it if you change stuff.

I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a developer said Sony made them add content to a timed exclusive when porting it. I'd say it's more likely that they want to give PS3 owners something extra to compensate for the wait, but whatever.


On the other hand, it's very difficult to change a game developed exclusive for the PS3 for the 360.

I have to call BS on this I'm afraid. The major difficulty in porting from the PS3 to the 360 is in the programming. Code developed on the 360 generally ports better to the PS3 then the other way around, though I'd bet that as developers have become more familiar with the PS3 that's not as true today as it used to be.

Even still, having to recode things has nothing to do with adding extra content since that would be a simple matter of adding content (levels, character models, etc.), not drastically overhauling the underlying code. The only difficulty you might run into is similar to FFXIII where there is simply so little space on a DVD compared to a Blu-Ray that some quests or things may need to be locked out on some discs, but that would actually be less of a problem for an FPS or action game than something massive like an RPG and there are ways around it. In fact, if the team is developing for the PS3 with the knowledge that it will be ported to the 360 later, they'll likely anticipate those difficulties and work around them on the PS3 so it's easier to get on the 360 later.

[Bolivar]

Bolivar's Guide to Online Gaming - Debunking Myths (lol jk)

TLDR: For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - - you can just look at headings to get the point

I. Stability - The PSN is faster, more stable, and more PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers


also whilst he thought the ps3 online was ok he noticed an immediate improvement in terms of stability and the speed of the servers finding games on CoD 4 much faster than he could on ps3.

Okay, this is the biggest myth on the internet that needs to be dispelled - XBox Live is not faster or more stable than PSN. How many times was XBox Live unexpectedly down this year alone? I can only think of once that's happened with PSN (and its free). Furthermore, a MTV multiplayer study (http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/02/02/which-console-downloads-games-fastest/) found that in fact the PSN is faster than XBox Live.

Even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter what system you play a game on. Nearly every multiplayer game on ps3/360 uses P2P, not servers. This mean your connection speed and stability depends on the host of the game, not what network you're using. The only game on 360 I can think of that doesn't are the Battlefield games, but those servers are owned and operated by EA, and they use the same ones on all platforms.

At the same time, plenty of PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers whereas I can't think of a single 360 game that does. Resistance 1 & 2, Killzone 2, Warhawk, SOCOM, and MAG all use dedicated servers, meaning your experience will always be fast and stable no matter how you're playing them.

II. Wireless - It works...


Wireless isn't essential and it's probably advisable to if possible use an ethernet cable to directly go from router to 360/PS3/Wii (yes this is true of all consoles) this is because any interference would directly affect your online play and it's VERY easy to disrupt a wireless internet signal even across such a short distance as a living room.

This simply isn't true. I've been using Wireless for over a year now and there hasn't been a noticeable difference from playing with ethernet. I use a decent $50USD one that's usually simultaneously used by 2 laptops while a 3rd laptops downloads. Even before that, I used a crappy one provided by the landlord, shared with 5 rooms in our apartment as well as our own. Even then, there was no noticeable difference from playing wired.

III. The difference between XBL and PSN is now nominal; PS3 games have richer and more varied multiplayer experiences.

as others I am sure will agree, the 360 is the FPS gamers bread and butter when it comes to console gaming these days.

Over the last 3 years, Sony has been slowly chipping away at the differences in services provided between the two, and the only features remaining are a universal Party System and Cross Game (Voice) Chat. But if you can hop into games with friends on the PSN just as easily, what's the significant advantage XBox Live has? The only game that's been a hassle for me is Battlefield 1943, and even then the game had problems with the 360 Party System if I'm not mistaken. Furthermore, many games provide their own party systems like Resistance, Call of Duty, Little Big Planet, MAG, and Uncharted 2. XBL has a little more convenience, no doubt, but not much.

Moreso, I disagree with Iceglow and DK because I have to question what kinds of game experiences you're having on XBL once you get into matches. It seems to me that 360 games just provide the same generic multiplayer modes that have been the norm for the last 15 years.

I would argue the PS3 has better online games. SOCOM and Warhawk are 32 player tactical shooters, the latter with a variety of vehicles on land, sea, and air. You can hop into a friend's game in Little Big Planet and build a level together. Killzone 2 is up to 32 players with dynamic matches with a deep class system boasting an impressive array of effects. Resistance 2 is up to 60 players on massive maps also with dynamic matches. Demon's Souls is arguably innovating the community experience of RPG's. And MAG, well, I think that goes without saying.

IV. Conclusion

I totally agree XBL is a solid service that gives you convenience for your money, but in no way is it faster or more stable. Wi-Fi is an awesome feature to have in your box. Lastly, the PSN is all but caught up with XBL, but even then, I would say the PS3 library gives you more to choose from and experience when it comes to online multiplayer.

[DK]

Moreso, I disagree with Iceglow and DK because I have to question what kinds of game experiences you're having on XBL once you get into matches.

fantastic ones thanks, I have had many hours of entertainment trolling people with Psy (usually Steve) on Halo 3, great times exploding aliens with chainsaws and fighting for my life in the corner of a map on GoW in Horde mode, one of the best gaming experiences in my life playing through the entire of SR2 with Psy tearing up a full on sandbox game world as, among others, B.A Baracus and Mad Murdoch, the Chuckle Brothers, Uncle Phil and Carlton etc, not to mention co-oping entire campaigns in other games such as ODST and GoW, having parachute wars on the excellent GTA IV episodic addons The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and Damned among other things, gathering lots of innocent citizens around with our beautiful lute playing in Fable II only to spam god level lightning spells on them etc etc. And yes having universal party systems and the ability to have private chats open with just all of my friends in the same party vastly improves the multiplayer experience in its own right. I suppose you could say I have as much fun with my XBL gaming experiences as you do playing with yourself furiously trying to prove the PS3's superiority in every possible way over the 360 because you hate Bill Gates hair or some other inane reason. Which I am assuming is a lot because it is all you seem to do.

[Shattered Dreamer]

I agree with Bolivar on the wireless subject when I play AOE3 with my mates we use wireless & it runs the same as using a cable!

But I have to say I agree with Iceglow that the 360 is the better console for FPS gamers. I mean Xbox Live was built around the COD series & Halo & the controller has triggers on it for crying out loud.

I can't really comment on online gaming it honestly doesn't really interest me. I prefer to play games by myself or socially with people who are actually in the same room.

[Bolivar]

I suppose you could say I have as much fun with my XBL gaming experiences as you do playing with yourself furiously trying to prove the PS3's superiority in every possible way over the 360 because you hate Bill Gates hair or some other inane reason. Which I am assuming is a lot because it is all you seem to do.

...are you ok?

[Psychotic]

On a one to ten scale, Bolivar, what would you rate Bill Gates' hair as?

[Shattered Dreamer]

I suppose you could say I have as much fun with my XBL gaming experiences as you do playing with yourself furiously trying to prove the PS3's superiority in every possible way over the 360 because you hate Bill Gates hair or some other inane reason. Which I am assuming is a lot because it is all you seem to do.

...are you ok?

Despite agreeing with most of what Bolivar has been saying DK's message made me laugh until I was near tears:D

[Bolivar]

On a one to ten scale, Bolivar, what would you rate Bill Gates' hair as?

lol apparently I think it's a -11

[Iceglow]

It's over 9000! (to begin this post with a meme because I admit I am critically overkilling the wall of text posts in this topic)


Bolivar's Guide to Online Gaming - Debunking Myths (lol jk)

TLDR: For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - - you can just look at headings to get the point

I. Stability - The PSN is faster, more stable, and more PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers


also whilst he thought the ps3 online was ok he noticed an immediate improvement in terms of stability and the speed of the servers finding games on CoD 4 much faster than he could on ps3.

Okay, this is the biggest myth on the internet that needs to be dispelled - XBox Live is not faster or more stable than PSN. How many times was XBox Live unexpectedly down this year alone? I can only think of once that's happened with PSN (and its free). Furthermore, a MTV multiplayer study (http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/02/02/which-console-downloads-games-fastest/) found that in fact the PSN is faster than XBox Live.

Even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter what system you play a game on. Nearly every multiplayer game on ps3/360 uses P2P, not servers. This mean your connection speed and stability depends on the host of the game, not what network you're using. The only game on 360 I can think of that doesn't are the Battlefield games, but those servers are owned and operated by EA, and they use the same ones on all platforms.

At the same time, plenty of PS3 exclusives use dedicated servers whereas I can't think of a single 360 game that does. Resistance 1 & 2, Killzone 2, Warhawk, SOCOM, and MAG all use dedicated servers, meaning your experience will always be fast and stable no matter how you're playing them.


Why thankyou for being the sony fanboy of the thread, also since when was MTV a god like source of information? Really, lets face it...MTV - Music TeleVision...Who in all honesty can accept the findings of MTV with anything other than a huge dose of salt? MTV should really stick to what they do best, music television programs seriously. I'll listen to findings of my friends personal experiences with computer issues before I will take the advice of a company who would sell the directors mother to pimps if they thought they could make a buck from it. My mates with both 360's and PS3's have no reason whatsoever to lie to customers when a PS3 is £50 more for the basic console which is more money for their department which means they are more likely to get a bonus than with a 360 sale will willingly tell customers the 360 is better for online play. I consider that good enough for me. When it comes to making money we're all serious people especially when your annual wage is not fantastically great a bonus makes a difference if someone is still willing to sell the cheaper console to ensure their customer is satisfied then I'm going with them. Call it what you will.



II. Wireless - It works...


Wireless isn't essential and it's probably advisable to if possible use an ethernet cable to directly go from router to 360/PS3/Wii (yes this is true of all consoles) this is because any interference would directly affect your online play and it's VERY easy to disrupt a wireless internet signal even across such a short distance as a living room.

This simply isn't true. I've been using Wireless for over a year now and there hasn't been a noticeable difference from playing with ethernet. I use a decent $50USD one that's usually simultaneously used by 2 laptops while a 3rd laptops downloads. Even before that, I used a crappy one provided by the landlord, shared with 5 rooms in our apartment as well as our own. Even then, there was no noticeable difference from playing wired.


Where did I say it didn't work? I merely state the fact that wireless signals are incredibly easy to disrupt...this is true. Ask any person who has a neighbour on the same isp using wireless routers. The fact that both devices are emmiting their signal on the same default channel can cause huge ammounts of disruption. If there is interference from another network then your network adaptors are useless. This goes for PC's, consoles and anything else connected. In a move what betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject you are ranting about how many objects or computers are connected to the wireless router, nothing in my point related to that I am talking about external interferences the wireless connection to the router will be 100mbps regardless of the number of consoles/computer terminals connected. The router in most situations without any bandwidth control software will automatically divide the connection in to equal divisions of speed until it has allocated all it's possible bandwidth hence shutting down a few unused terminals can actually increase overall net speeds. I personally use wireless myself all I am pointing out is that Yearg need not spend $60 to pay for a wireless adaptor he could easily set up a bridge via a laptop or computer or even directly interface his 360 to the router via a ethernet cable.



III. The difference between XBL and PSN is now nominal; PS3 games have richer and more varied multiplayer experiences.

as others I am sure will agree, the 360 is the FPS gamers bread and butter when it comes to console gaming these days.

Over the last 3 years, Sony has been slowly chipping away at the differences in services provided between the two, and the only features remaining are a universal Party System and Cross Game (Voice) Chat. But if you can hop into games with friends on the PSN just as easily, what's the significant advantage XBox Live has? The only game that's been a hassle for me is Battlefield 1943, and even then the game had problems with the 360 Party System if I'm not mistaken. Furthermore, many games provide their own party systems like Resistance, Call of Duty, Little Big Planet, MAG, and Uncharted 2. XBL has a little more convenience, no doubt, but not much.

Moreso, I disagree with Iceglow and DK because I have to question what kinds of game experiences you're having on XBL once you get into matches. It seems to me that 360 games just provide the same generic multiplayer modes that have been the norm for the last 15 years.

I would argue the PS3 has better online games. SOCOM and Warhawk are 32 player tactical shooters, the latter with a variety of vehicles on land, sea, and air. You can hop into a friend's game in Little Big Planet and build a level together. Killzone 2 is up to 32 players with dynamic matches with a deep class system boasting an impressive array of effects. Resistance 2 is up to 60 players on massive maps also with dynamic matches. Demon's Souls is arguably innovating the community experience of RPG's. And MAG, well, I think that goes without saying.


I'm sorry but Warhawk might offer 32 player matches which would be amazingly awesome for any console but it's still just an FPS with the same old 15 modes you've played for years. Sure 32 is a big number however, I can say from playing on my friends ps3 in Swansea I experienced lag on Warhawk, trouble connecting to the game, long loading times for the game. In fact for the people who play halo 3 or have played halo 3 it was no real different from playing a big team social on Valhalla Heavy mode, excepting the loading times were longer I had time to go make a cup of tea even and so was the game search. In the game to compensate for the 32 players respawn times were longer and I often found it fraustrating since 32 players means getting the equipment you need to play the game on an even footing with most of the veichles in the game is hard to do, much more so than in Halo where as a last resort a BR and a couple of sticky grenades will see you through until you can acquire a better anti-veichle weapon.



IV. Conclusion

I totally agree XBL is a solid service that gives you convenience for your money, but in no way is it faster or more stable. Wi-Fi is an awesome feature to have in your box. Lastly, the PSN is all but caught up with XBL, but even then, I would say the PS3 library gives you more to choose from and experience when it comes to online multiplayer.

The PS3 library offers no more variety than the 360 to claim otherwise is to disregard a good many games the PS3 simply doesn't have and to also focus entirely on a singular genre of game. If we take away the cross platform games then your argument falls entirely flat on it's face considering the fact that there is a greater variety of games exclusive to the 360 most PS3 exclusives fall in to the same categories whereas the 360 exclusives tend to spread across all categories. I'm merely ignoring your evidence from MTV surveys because as I said, MTV is not an impartial computer expert company they are a company after profit.





Moreso, I disagree with Iceglow and DK because I have to question what kinds of game experiences you're having on XBL once you get into matches.

fantastic ones thanks, I have had many hours of entertainment trolling people with Psy (usually Steve) on Halo 3, great times exploding aliens with chainsaws and fighting for my life in the corner of a map on GoW in Horde mode, one of the best gaming experiences in my life playing through the entire of SR2 with Psy tearing up a full on sandbox game world as, among others, B.A Baracus and Mad Murdoch, the Chuckle Brothers, Uncle Phil and Carlton etc, not to mention co-oping entire campaigns in other games such as ODST and GoW, having parachute wars on the excellent GTA IV episodic addons The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and Damned among other things, gathering lots of innocent citizens around with our beautiful lute playing in Fable II only to spam god level lightning spells on them etc etc. And yes having universal party systems and the ability to have private chats open with just all of my friends in the same party vastly improves the multiplayer experience in its own right. I suppose you could say I have as much fun with my XBL gaming experiences as you do playing with yourself furiously trying to prove the PS3's superiority in every possible way over the 360 because you hate Bill Gates hair or some other inane reason. Which I am assuming is a lot because it is all you seem to do.

This I quote because every damn word of it is a 100% truth we have destroyed worlds, and trolled the trolls, we have torn idiot rednecks (sorry americans but it was the only description me and Psy could make) limb from virtual limb with words and actions. In fact, it's become something of a sport for us. I have to admit without Dan and Psy, my gaming has become more boring and now I find even when I am merely exploring the wastelands of Fallout 3 I will sit there in party chatting away to Psy no matter the game he plays. That is why 360 and XBL is best in my opinion. Because at the end of the day, you can have better hardware, you can have faster speeds and anything else but without the people to play with there is nothing to do about it. It'd still damn suck.

[Serapy]

Iceglow, why would you call Bolivar a Sony fanboy when most of your posts in this thread seem to show that you support Xbox 360?

Anyways, I have a 60GB PS3 (with BC support) since three years ago and I'm happy with it. A quality HDTV with a PS3 (cheaper Blu-Ray) is just good enough for me. I don't play online that much but if I do, it's always free. That's one of the main reasons why I don't own a 360; why would I pay Microsoft $$ a year or a month when I don't play online that much? Not worth the price, my friend.

One of the main advantages PS3 offers is that it's secure (cannot be hacked), which is a good thing for the developers.

[Bolivar]

Iceglow, why would you call Bolivar a Sony fanboy when most of your posts in this thread seem to show that you support Xbox 360?

I know, here I was thinking we could have this discussion without calling eachother fanboys... This is EoFF not Gamespot, dammit!

Iceglow, what you said is pretty circumstantial. Just b/c it's MTV doesn't mean there can never be any inherent truth to their findings. They're methodology isn't all that great, I concede, but it goes to show that there is no inherent speed or stability advantage of XBox Live.

And I'm surprised you still insist this, because you're usually the one schooling everybody on tech stuff. These games are P2P. Because of that, you have to know that it doesn't matter what system you play it on, it's all about the host's speed. That your friends find otherwise is only due to who and how they were playing it on any given day, as well as their imaginations.

About Wi-Fi, I understand you guys were discussing add-ons, I just wanted to state that Wi-Fi is a great feature to have built in and that it works just as well as Wired for most of us.

Lastly, I hope you guys know I was never questioning if you have fun or if the games are any good. I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the variety and depth of multiplayer experiences offered by each library.

Speaking of which, where is this great variety of games that the 360 has? I've never heard anyone posit this ever. And I wasn't restricting myself to one genre, last time I checked Little Big Planet and Demon's Souls aren't First Person Shooters.

[Iceglow]

Well Bolivar that was a little irony on my part (check the post it began with a damn meme fer christs sake!) don't take it personally because I'm messing with you a little. Although my posts seem to come across as a 360 diehard I will point out I am explaining this in a rational debate here where the vast majority of people on this site as Psychotic rightly put are vehemently against the Xbox 360. I don't own a PS3 it's true but as I have stated in this thread and others I'm only against 1 type of console and that is not the PS3 it's the Wii because frankly it's not a true console ihmo. I personally say having both the PS3 and the 360 gives a gamer the best of both worlds and it is in my longterm plans to have a PS3 in my posession alongside my 360.

Yes the gameplay is p2p but the servers used to set the games up, matchmaking/gamesearching ect that is server based and I'm sorry but every experience I have had with PS3 leads me to believe it to be slower than finding a game via Halo 3 or other 360 games. Then again the main game I play online is Halo and I guess I shouldn't be so hard on other titles/consoles Halo has award winning online matchmaking services even against the games that have come since.

MTV often rates things on their bling factor and I'll give the ps3 that it certainly does have bling factor which is why I won't accept MTV as a serious testing body they simply cannot be trusted not to skew results merely because Sony or Microsoft threw them some cash. To go off topic music magazines aren't ever really a trustworthy form of media I remember a music magazine called Kerrang went on for a good year about how much Linkin Park suck as a band and everything they done was wrong. This was because Casey Chaos didn't like them. All of a sudden Metallica turned out in support of Linkin Park, touring with them, saying their music was inspiring to them ect ect...Kerrang now loves Linkin Park and has pretty much denied ever being anything but worshippers of the band...thats just 1 example of why I don't feel any music magazine organisation is particulary trustworthy.

Heres some fun examples of online games from 360 for you:

Fable 2
Too Human (yes it's flawed but it is fun to play)
Gears of War
Forza 3
Project Gotham Racing 4
Halo Wars
Halo ODST
Halo 3
Dead or Alive 4

Out of those games there and there are lots more it must be said only 3 are shooters, 1 is a beat em up game and 1 a strategy, Fable is an RPG, Too Human is a dungeon crawler type RPG and 2 of them racing games unique to the 360. Also with Arcade games like Castle Crashers available on the 360 for more multiplayer fun I'm going to end my post here.

[Madame Adequate]

The 360 is superior to the PS3 in every way.

Even superior at fucking breaking. :mad2:

[Slothy]

The PS3 library offers no more variety than the 360 to claim otherwise is to disregard a good many games the PS3 simply doesn't have and to also focus entirely on a singular genre of game. If we take away the cross platform games then your argument falls entirely flat on it's face considering the fact that there is a greater variety of games exclusive to the 360 most PS3 exclusives fall in to the same categories whereas the 360 exclusives tend to spread across all categories.

I was ready to just let your arguments slide because there's no way to prove one way or the other for pretty much any of them, and you'll certainly never be convinced. Then you had to go and say something that is clearly not true to anyone who doesn't have their head up Microsoft's butt. I will fight you on the notion that the 360 has more exclusives in a greater variety of genres all day, and you know what, I'd be right. Don't believe me? Allow me to break it down for you.

PS3 exclusives and their genres:
Valkyria Chronicles - Strategy RPG
Uncharted and Uncharted 2 - Third Person Shooters (which feature a colour palette other than brown thankfully)
Little Big Planet - 2D Platformer
MGS4 - Third Person stealth, or shooter depending on how you play.
Killzone 2 - FPS
Demon's Souls - RPG
Wipeout HD - Racing
Ratchet & Clank Future - 3D platformers
Resistance 1&2 - FPS
inFAMOUS - super hero sandbox game
Motorstorm - Racing
Warhawk - Third person shooter/vehicular combat
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue - Racing
Echochrome - badass puzzle game
Fat Princess - you know what, I'm not sure what genre Fat Princess falls in, but it's not like any other game on this list

And for the 360 side of things:
Gears of War 1&2 - Third Person shooters
Halo 3 - FPS
Forza Motorsport - Racing
Project Gotham Racing - Well, you can figure that one out
Dead or Alive 4 - Jiggle physics simulator
Halo 3:ODST - FPS
Dead Rising - Action
Crackdown - third person shooter/sandbox game if I'm not mistaken
Saints Row - Sandbox game
Fable 2 - Action RPG

I've probably left some out on both sides, but if it isn't becoming quite obvious, people who feel like doing something other than shooting things or racing cars are gonna feel a little left out in the cold on the 360. Sure you could say that multiplatform titles can fill in the gaps, but then there's no argument for the 360 over the PS3 in terms of variety.

If you think I'm wrong about this feel free to argue it. Just be sure to bring some actual examples to the table.

EDIT:Just saw your last post with a few of the other titles that I missed. I'd say even adding those genres the best you can argue is that things are fairly even. Again though, feel free to prove me wrong.

[ljkkjlcm9]

^^^
that's exactly why I prefer a PS3 to a 360. The exclusive games on the PS3 for me are more varied and suit my interest more.

thought,
Magna Carta 2 and Lost Odyssey are 360 exclusive RPG's that interest me. But lucky for me, my roommate has both.

THE JACKEL

[Yeargdribble]

This thing has devolved quickly and I'm sure it's partly my fault. I originally just wanted to know what fueled the 360 lover's insistence that 360 was the superior console. I got my answer on that.

You can talk s**t about the crap that every company does and likewise you can talk about the amazing things each company does. Why does this mean you have to take sides at all?

It seems you can never mention the negative of any console without getting the backlash comparing it to any other console. It's always a pissing contest. Why is it impossible to talk about the failures/merits of any given system, even in comparison to the other consoles without saying there is a clear winner.

All 3 have exclusives. All 3 have great things. All three have crap things. Just because I (or anyone else) take issue with any issue about a console doesn't mean that I'm saying it is innately inferior to the others.

[Old Manus]

Best thread ever.

[Shattered Dreamer]

Best thread ever.

I have to agree with Old Manus, I haven't seen out right biased over the top flaming like this that was actually entertaining & not just mere nerd jousting in years. EoFF rules:D

[NeoCracker]

I'll just say, being a pS3 owner myself, the online issues aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. I've head many solid play experiences with Tekken 6, Blaz Blue and Demon Souls online.

Not saying it's inherently better then 360, or that they are the same, just that people exaggerate it far more then necessary. :p

[Shoeberto]

I'll just say, being a pS3 owner myself, the online issues aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. I've head many solid play experiences with Tekken 6, Blaz Blue and Demon Souls online.

Not saying it's inherently better then 360, or that they are the same, just that people exaggerate it far more then necessary. :p
Yeah, it's really not that it's broken or anything. It really does work pretty well. It's just as far as social features go it just doesn't hold a candle to XBL. But if you need to just get on and game with no frills it's not that bad.

[Depression Moon]

I would say go with the most technologically advanced system.

I like PS3 overall and for me it has more exclusives that I want than 360, not that there's nothing that interests me on the 360 because there is. pS3 just outweighs them.

PS3
Uncharted
Uncharted 2
Ratchet & Clank
Ratchet & Clank Quest for Booty
Ratchet & Clank A Crack in Time
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
Heavenly Sword
Heavy Rain
God of War III
Killzone 2
Resistance 2
Little Big Planet

360
Lost Odyssey
Halo 3
Gears of War 2
Fable II
GTAIV Espidoes of Liberty City
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Alan Wake
Braid

To Vivi22. Little Big planet is far more than a platformer. Whgen you find stuff online a good chunk of it doesn't even fall under platforming. You can make almost anything you want.

[Yeargdribble]

Just going to note that Braid is coming to PSN and thus ceases to be a 360 exclusive.

[Quindiana Jones]

I think the 360 is the worst out of the three options, but is the cheapest. The PS3's better, but not >£100 better. And PC gaming is harder, in terms of commitment, I think. Basically, you have to do stuff to get the game. Consoles are just plug and play.

[Loony BoB]

I'll say what I say to anyone getting a console: If you want to play with friends online using these consoles (which is what a lot of people do want to do) then get the console that your friends have. It's pointless doing much else.

Having said that, I am partially regretting my 360 purchase lately. All the guys at work have a PS3, you see... now, I have a 360 because my online friends have 360's. Which is good in many a way - not the least that I adore Lost Odyssey - but I am struggling financially lately and detest the fact that I have to spend money now if I want to do my online gaming via consoles. Both me and my girlfriend have had our Xbox Live Gold accounts expire and that means I can't hop on whenever the hell I feel like it and do some online gaming. Not with Dan and Psy, because I can't afford it, and not with the guys from work, because I don't have a PS3. So I'm screwed both ways. When my good lady has a job that provides her with a significant enough amount of money that we can once again afford to buy things, I will more than likely buy a PS3 before I re-purchase an Xbox Live Gold account. I just don't play online often enough to warrant spending money on a yearly subscription, and Dan/Psy play too many different games for me to keep up with. When they do play the games I play, they're so far ahead of me that they find themselves enjoying shooting me non-stop to the point that I no longer want to play. So yeah. However, with a PSN account I'll be able to join the guys from work in a few online games without having to pay for anything but the original game, and I like that.

But if she gets enough money I'll probably end up paying for both anyways. Ah, to be anything but poor. :(

Oh, back to where I was going with this: Yeah, the PS3 is more expensive, but it evens out after a few years of paying for a Live account. But buying a PS3 when all your mates play on Xbox 360 will mean your PS3 version of Modern Warfare 2 won't get you nearly as much fun as your Xbox 360 one will. Of course, that goes both ways. So really, just consider what you really want with it rather than what games it has. The only time you need to think "Hmm, but does it have good exclusive games?" is when you have a game that you feel you must have (read: Me with Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII vs... hence I want both PS3 & Xbox 360 by midway next year), or when you honestly never expect to want to play a game with friends. Which would be kind of sad.

[JKTrix]

Been avoiding this thread because everytime I looked in it, it put me in a bad mood. Not so much because of what people are saying, but because of all the games that get ignored.

I tend to see and play more games than most people pay attention to. So while I see people comparing all the RPGs and the huge, heavily marketed, 'Triple A' titles to each other on their respective platforms, I see the little guys like Culdcept Saga and Earth Defense Force 2017 and Senko no Ronde go ignored. I kind of like too call them 'ugly ducklings', since there may be something off-putting about them from the start (like bad graphics, weird controls or stupid setting), but if you can get past it they're great fun. For sure, they aren't as spectacular as things like Uncharted (and one could question if they even belong on a 'next gen system'), but those are the quirky games that I end up spending much more time playing than any high profile game.

LBP and Scribblenauts on the DS are games that I would have considered 'ugly ducklings' if they didn't get so much attention. They both have some weird gameplay flaws in them, but there's enough good stuff in 'em that you might be able to get past it.

I'm glad Atlus seems to be picking up steam on the PS3 to bring more of those 'ugly ducklings' to that system. Demon's Souls was a great start.

[Dreddz]

Don't forget downloadable games as well. Most of my favourite games this gen are download only (Wipeout HD :love:).

[Depression Moon]

I'll say what I say to anyone getting a console: If you want to play with friends online using these consoles (which is what a lot of people do want to do) then get the console that your friends have. It's pointless doing much else.


Say Bob, you see the flaw in that right? I know this sight has to be filled with a lot of nerds and many nerds tend to not to have friends. What then?

[Markus. D]

I think the concept of nerds not having friends for the most part... is a lie.

[Mirage]

I don't really care, I just look at the games I want to play, and then which console that enables me to play the most of them. In my case, PS3 came out at the top.

[Iceglow]

I will agree with JK we've focused more on the Killzone's and Halo's out there in the gaming world in this thread but lets not forget that the realm of minor uniques which are inherently flawed but enjoyable goes both ways, 360 and ps3 have equally got as many same goes for downloadable arcade games. This thread is all but dead anyhow, the end decision comes down to which consoles your friends have. I am sure if myself, Paul and Dan all had PS3's we'd be laughing it up on Killzone 2 and such and still having a great time but we have 360s and thus are laughing it up on Halo and such games and because we're all good friends and enjoy gaming together it's not important to us if PS3 is better because we're doing what we want to where we want to and how we want to.

[Bolivar]

^ sounds like a good note for this discussion to go out on.

[Depression Moon]

I think the concept of nerds not having friends for the most part... is a lie.
you're saying that it's not possible for a large group of people to not have friends?

[VexNet]

Been avoiding this thread because everytime I looked in it, it put me in a bad mood. Not so much because of what people are saying, but because of all the games that get ignored.

I tend to see and play more games than most people pay attention to. So while I see people comparing all the RPGs and the huge, heavily marketed, 'Triple A' titles to each other on their respective platforms, I see the little guys like Culdcept Saga and Earth Defense Force 2017 and Senko no Ronde go ignored. I kind of like too call them 'ugly ducklings', since there may be something off-putting about them from the start (like bad graphics, weird controls or stupid setting), but if you can get past it they're great fun. For sure, they aren't as spectacular as things like Uncharted (and one could question if they even belong on a 'next gen system'), but those are the quirky games that I end up spending much more time playing than any high profile game.

LBP and Scribblenauts on the DS are games that I would have considered 'ugly ducklings' if they didn't get so much attention. They both have some weird gameplay flaws in them, but there's enough good stuff in 'em that you might be able to get past it.

I'm glad Atlus seems to be picking up steam on the PS3 to bring more of those 'ugly ducklings' to that system. Demon's Souls was a great start.

I always feel bad about this because I never hear about these "ugly duckling" games, but I'm always ready to try these games out that are under appreciated or overlooked. It's just hard to find them when for that very reason I never hear about them, but I just don't have the money to go out and buy games that I'm not sure about. It's a case of being stuck in the middle of a rock and a hard place.

saying that, I got introduced to one of my favorite 360 games which is download only called Geomatry Wars2: Retro Evolved. Highly addicting. Wasted plentiful hours of life on that game.

[Markus. D]

I think the concept of nerds not having friends for the most part... is a lie.
you're saying that it's not possible for a large group of people to not have friends?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Yeargdribble]

I only wanted to know what made people piss their pants about 360 > PS3. The answer I got was basically games I'm not that interested in (though plenty of people are, so I understand the reasoning) and the online play.

However, I'm seeing something interesting flavoring the discussion as it waxes on. It keeps being about having the console your friends have for multiplayer purposes (and in most cases I assume that it's actually the 360).

Maybe I'm really alone in this, but I'm 27 and married. I work at a school that's far from where I went to college. I don't have the types of friends that play Xbox or PS3 or anything for that matter. Hell, half the people I know still have trouble turning on their computers when they are force to use one (which is scary considering the kindergarteners know 10x more than their teachers about technology).

That said, I really doubt I'm the only one in my age bracket who doesn't happen to have a large group of gamer friends. Maybe it's just the line of work or something, but part of me wants to think it's the age. A few years ago I would've had plenty of college friends to play with (and no time to do so) and before that I would play a lot with friends in HS, but as an adult who is not in school and doesn't work around very many people under the age of 25, I just don't have gaming friends.

I guess that's why all of the multiplayer aspects of these consoles just don't blow my skirt up at all. If I play multiplayer it's with my wife, so either it has to be PC or local co-op because I'm not impressed enough with any game to get two of the consoles and two copies of the game.

[Loony BoB]

If I were you, then, I'd get a PS3. I say that as an Xbox 360 owner. :p If you ever want to play online, that way, you can - and you won't have to shell out for it. You'll get a Blue Ray player, which is handy enough I guess, and the PS3 will get both versions of FFXIII so all the better. :p The price is good for it at the moment, too.

[Bolivar]

Well I think first and foremost it should be about the games you want to play, I think it's crazy to assume otherwise, it should be about you and your tastes.

But I think the point others were making is that if that's not a large factor for you, if you lean just as much towards one library as you do another, then it would be a circumstance to factor in which one your friends play.

[Yeargdribble]

At the end of the day, it's not really even an issue. I'll have both and I'll find games that I like for both. There are going to be a handful or marquee titles for each that I like, but honestly, there will be plenty of never-heard-of-it games that I won't ignore while thinking to myself, "Meh, I'll never have a 360/PS3 anyway," which has happened in the past.

Since this thread has started I've already begun digging up such titles and doing quality comparisons between the platforms on all games for which that is an issue.

That said, I ultimately do think that the better argument is probably what do your friends have. Often the friends will have similar interests and therefore you can all play together.