ps3 or xbox 360

[Ascaris]

PS3.

The xBox will probably die in the next two years anyway.

 

[Cherrim]

Where is everyone getting this "It has more games so it must be better," crap from?

Not everyone has the money to afford every single game for the PS3 or the 360. The PS3 has enough games in all it's genres to satisfy most users. For every single blockbuster the 360 has, the PS3 has a title that is no less great. People who say that the games on the 360 are better have obviously never played games on the PS3.

And the price? Buying a 360, the internet cable and the HD-DVD drive, not to mention the yearly fees for live, costs much more than an 80 GB PS3. And the PS3 gets all those for free.

The only thing that the 360 has over the PS3 is live.

360 has a lot more exlusives. For those who CAN afford to buy all the great games, you'll get more out of your 360 than your PS3, not to mention a lot of the cross-platform games on both of them simply perform AND look better on the 360. I'm not just saying all that either; I've played the same games on both systems at times and so I can compare them first-hand. The ones I played all looked better on 360 and lagged less. :/ When developers start fine-tuning games for the PS3 better, maybe then I'd change my tune.

Anyway, buying a Pro console for 360 gives you the ethernet cable, not to mention they're about $15 anyway. It's just if you go for the wireless adapter that it gets pricey (and that brings it up to the price of a PS3, I guess). But why even mention the HD-DVD drive? That's dead; I'm not even sure why you'd buy it, let alone pay more than $20-30 for it.

The main arguments, to me, in the whole 360 VS PS3 battle are the games and the online features--and the latter kind of depends on how you'd prefer to play.

@Harry Blue5: If you think you're going to be installing a lot of games to your hard drive (so they play faster), downloading a lot of demos and XBLA titles, then you might want to splurge for the Elite console. The main difference is a bigger hard drive and that might come in handy. However, the Pro's HDD is pretty hefty now too and I don't think you'd be filling up 60GB anytime soon, so if you don't have that extra cash, there's really nothing to worry about.

Anyway, if you don't want to pay the yearly subscription and still want to play online, PS3's the only option there. But I've had my 360 for almost a year now and I've only had gold for a month and a bit of that--and I don't like it any less. :/ Yeah, I'd prefer to have the option of playing online whenever I want but the thing is, even when I had the chance to, I was perfectly content playing games offline in story mode and whatnot (and/or the games I was playing didn't even have an online competitive mode).

 

[True Reign]

I would definitely go with the 360. It has most of the games the PS3 does, but can also play Blue-Ray discs, which in my mind, is better.

 

[jasonresno]

360 has most of the games the PS3 does, better exclusives, THE xbox live experience (it makes the 360 worth it alone), and it just looks better. It's cheaper. And a year of xbox live will maybe cost 60 dollars? So the cost of one PS3 game will pay your entire year of xbox live.

Not bad.

 

[Tendoman77]

360, same reasons as everyone said above.

 

[Forci Stikane]

I would definitely go with the 360. It has most of the games the PS3 does, but can also play Blue-Ray discs, which in my mind, is better.

...I'm pretty sure you have those mixed up: it's the PS3 that can play Blu-Ray, not the 360.

 

[DaSpirit]

I personaly like the PS3 better. I've seen the PS3 and the 360 compared and the PS3s the way to go. The PS3 gets loads of updates to the system and it's getting great games. I think the 360 has better games only because it was released first. The PS3 controller is the same as the PS2 so if you had a PS2, then you'll be used to the controller. The PS3 is getting better with Playstation Home and with Little Big Planet (I LOVE THAT GAME!!!). Home will beat Experience eventually....

The PS3 is supposed to play PS1 and 2 games but I haven't tried it on anything other then a 60gb PS3 since the others do it differently(They use an Emulator to play it so it could be different...).

 

[Cherrim]

I would definitely go with the 360. It has most of the games the PS3 does, but can also play Blue-Ray discs, which in my mind, is better.

...I think you have them mixed up. PS3 does Blu-Ray. 360 does not.

 

[Skaterzpenguin]

Dude get x box 360 for christmas because it can handle better than the ps3 and 360 has way better games and besides sony is failing... lol GO 360!!!

 

[Firebird1515]

PS3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it has blue ray and better games

 

[Ascaris]

360 has a lot more exlusives. For those who CAN afford to buy all the great games, Not everyone has 500$ to spend on games you'll get more out of your 360 than your PS3, not to mention a lot of the cross-platform games on both of them simply perform AND look better on the 360. That's opinion. It depends on your TV as well. I'm not just saying all that either; I've played the same games on both systems at times and so I can compare them first-hand. The ones I played all looked better on 360 and lagged less. :/ Since when did PS3 games lag?When developers start fine-tuning games for the PS3 better, maybe then I'd change my tune.

The PS3 has much more power than the 360; the developers will take some time to use all of it. The first few games on the PS2 were scarcely better than those on the PS2

Anyway, buying a Pro console for 360 gives you the ethernet cable, not to mention they're about $15 anyway. It's just if you go for the wireless adapter that it gets pricey (and that brings it up to the price of a PS3, I guess). But why even mention the HD-DVD drive? That's dead; I'm not even sure why you'd buy it, let alone pay more than $20-30 for it.

PS3 has Blue-Ray. A PS3 itself if much cheaper than stand-alone Blue-Ray players. As I said before, the developers are not harnessing the full processing power of the PS3 or the capacity of Blue-Ray disks.

The main arguments, to me, in the whole 360 VS PS3 battle are the games and the online features--and the latter kind of depends on how you'd prefer to play.

Live is amazing; I'm not saying it isn't. It's just that the PSN is new. It'll take time to get to the level of Live. Home was a disappointing, but you have to keep in mind that the version released was only the beta, not the full pack.

The point I am trying to make here is that Sony bides it's time. They make consoles which last for a long time in the market. The PS2 is an example; it was released ten years ago but it's still being manufactured, is still popular and is still outselling every other console on the market.

Microsoft is different. They want to make quick profits. The XBox lasted for less than five years in the market before it was pulled out to make room for the 360. I'm betting than in another two to three years, the next XBox will come out and Microsoft will dispose of the 360 the same way they did the original.

The PS3 has a Blue-Ray player built in it because the world is slowly converting to high-definition. In three years or so, HDTVs will become common and Blue-Rays will become the next DVDs and Sony will finally be able to make full use of the PS3s capacity to play 1080p games.

The games will get better. PSN will get better. All the PS3 needs is time.

So my advice is that, if you want to get the most of your games now and you have the money to buy the next XBox that'll come to the market in the next few years, get the 360.

If you want a console that'll last for a good ten years in your household or if you want to get the most out of your HDTV, get the PS3.

 

[Zelda]

Definitely the Xbox 360..much better games I believe!

 

[Cherrim]

Not everyone has 500$ to spend on games

I know... I said that for people who do have the extra money to spend on every blockbuster, the 360 is probably better. Regardless, most people don't have $500 to spend on a console period, let alone games. 360 wins there anyway.

That's opinion. It depends on your TV as well.

Not entirely. I know Gamespot did a feature recently where they took a look at several cross-platform games (CoD5, SC4, Fallout 3 to name a few) and shared full screenshots of both with the same settings; in most, the 360 looked significantly better or else you could tell it was better. It's not the console's fault, but until developers start properly developing games for PS3 instead of just porting or doing whatever they're doing, games still look/play better on the 360. Of course, it's not really an issue unless you really care about a few pixels, but it makes it pretty hard to buy PS3 games when you have both. (If I know a game looks better on my 360, why get it for PS3?)

Since when did PS3 games lag?

Assassin's Creed liked to lag slightly in more populated areas or during sudden turns. Textures took longer to load sometimes too and the general loading times were much slower as well. :( It plays (and looks significantly better) on my 360.

The PS3 has much more power than the 360; the developers will take some time to use all of it. The first few games on the PS2 were scarcely better than those on the PS2

They haven't so far, but I'm hoping they'll start to. Right now, since the 360 is doing substantially better everywhere except Europe and Japan (though as far as I know, it's catching up in Europe), I don't think we'll see properly tuned games on the PS3 for a while. I do really want to rent the PS3 version of Bioshock, though. They spent so much time with it and I'm pretty sure they actually bothered tweaking it specifically for PS3 instead of making a crappy port, so I'm curious to see how it looks/plays.

PS3 has Blue-Ray. A PS3 itself if much cheaper than stand-alone Blue-Ray players. As I said before, the developers are not harnessing the full processing power of the PS3 or the capacity of Blue-Ray disks.

I know, that's why I own one. ♥ It has excellent DVD up-conversion too. I just wrote a paragraph on developers up there but... saying "the developers COULD harness the PS3's power and make great games" isn't the same as saying that they do. Until they do, the PS3 will probably be lagging behind a bit as it is now. :/

So my advice is that, if you want to get the most of your games now and you have the money to buy the next XBox that'll come to the market in the next few years, get the 360.

If you want a console that'll last for a good ten years in your household or if you want to get the most out of your HDTV, get the PS3.

That is an interesting way to look at it, but I'd still side with the 360. With the PS3, if you really aren't looking for a Blu-Ray player (it's honestly rather pointless if you don't have an HDTV), then the only big reasons to get it are MGS4, LBP and Resistance. (There may be some other exclusives I'm forgetting here but oh well.) There are the cross-platformers too, and if you aren't going to be getting a lot of games, hte PS3 is a good investment.

Buuut if you can't afford the initial pricetag and don't need an XBL Gold account? The 360's not a bad choice. I feel its exclusives far outweigh the PS3's. Then later down the road, maybe the PS3 will be cheaper choice while you wait for Microsoft to perfect their next console and throw a price cut at it. :P

 

[Ascaris]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8C71EFAD7FE2E062

This series pretty much sums up my thoughts.

 

[Eruption]

If you want constant FPS games and LittleBIGPlanet go with the PS3.

But if you want constant FPS games that are slightly better and a few more games that arent actually shooters go with the 360.

The 360 has a bigger library of games and a much better online.

360 is the way to go.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Not entirely. I know Gamespot did a feature recently where they took a look at several cross-platform games (CoD5, SC4, Fallout 3 to name a few) and shared full screenshots of both with the same settings; in most, the 360 looked significantly better or else you could tell it was better. It's not the console's fault, but until developers start properly developing games for PS3 instead of just porting or doing whatever they're doing, games still look/play better on the 360. Of course, it's not really an issue unless you really care about a few pixels, but it makes it pretty hard to buy PS3 games when you have both. (If I know a game looks better on my 360, why get it for PS3?)

Depends what console its actually developed for. A lot of developers make it for the 360 and then port it to the PS3. The few that are they other way around look better on the PS3. But, that alone should show what the focus of the developers is - 360.

 

[Ascaris]

That's mainly because the 360 was released a year and a half earlier; most of the major developers started making games for the 360. It's also why it has more exclusives.

 

[Razer302]

I am a big fan of the PS3. I had an Xbox360 but when I got my PS3 I found that the 360 was just gathering dust so I sold it. I think for online play 360 beats PS3 easily with the gamer points and how unlaggy it is, but I preferred the quality of the games on the PS3.

The PS3 exclusives haven't been to great though. The only good one I can think of right now is Metal Gear Solid 4, but with the new exclusives coming out like FFversusXIII I am happy with my PS3 as that game looks amazing. I know a fair few people that have a 360 that saw the latest trailer and wished they had a PS3 instead.

If you want online play go with the 360 as the online play is far superior to that of the PS3 but if you want good story based games I would personally go with a PS3 with next year having so many good story based games coming out.

(I haven't played fable and I have heard it is a really good game but to me it looks a lot like oblivion which I hated I am not including that in my story based games.)