Which is Better? PS3, Wii, or Xbox 360

[R G]

I own a 360 and a Wii. I play the 360 ten times more because of Xbox live truthfully. I played Wii only when other people were there, and we could do fun games of bowling, baseball, ect.

Recently, i bought Super Mario Galaxy, which is my new favorite game of all time lol. My 360 broke, so I'm going on a crazy Wii frenzy. I'm hoping to Recieve the Mario vs. Sonic game (the Gamestop people said it was very good, any other opinions?) and in Feb. of course Smash. I've been telling friends to buy a Wii just for Smash. I still play melee time from time, so i know I'll be playing the Brawl until I'm in my 40's! I'm syked.

I don't know much about the PS3, but I have heard 1. it breaks easily 2. although it was nice graphics, the gameplay is too similar to PS2 and 3. a lack of a good online system makes it inferior to the 360.

To compare the three, is almost impossible. YOu must compare PS3 and 360, becuase they are for one type or people: gamers. The Wii is a system made for all ages, so it can't really be defined. But I must say, I have more fun PLaying Wii than 360. To make a 1, 2, 3 comparision, it would have to be

1. XBOX 360
2. Nintendo Wii
3. Playstation 3

XBOX takes it all for one reason - Xbox live. that really makes games playable after the mission mode, and a huge reason for Microsoft's success.

 

[X]

There is nothing worse then being on the losing side of a format war (I have a dozen or so HD-DVDs...I'm an idiot, I know) so I need you video game junkies opinions.

I'm a more casual gamer, the only games I play currently are probably Madden 08 on my PS2, and sometimes I'll pop in one of the old GTA's. I used to love the Final Fantasy series.

What would be the better option here? I've never owned an Xbox, always been a Playstation man, and the PS3 is really my first option, but it's so god damned expensive that I'd feel like a sucker for shelling out $400 bucks for it.

Mainly, I just need to own one of these consoles so I can play the new GTA. Which should I go with guys?

 

[Uncle Sam]

Judging by what you want it for - to play the new GTA - get the 360. Currently, it is the better console by far. It could be a very different story by the end of the year but right now, it's cheaper, it's better - just get it. I was always a PlayStation man too, but there's really hardly any adjusting to do coming from the PS2. The PS3 was far more alien to me than the 360 was. The Xbox also has the most comfortable controller I've ever held. Vibration is also a big thing. You think it won't be, but not getting that feedback, especially on games with guns, explosions, cars etc. it's just not satisfying.

Then there's online play. Live has always been better than PSN. Frankly, I don't care, but others do. There's also extra game content announced for the 360 via Live, but none thus far for Sony.

 

[Slim Pickns]

The one thing about this console "war" is that the third parties are supporting both systems almost equally. That means you really can't go wrong because both systems will have a long life span. I have both because I like to waste my tax money on shit I don't need (i.e. I bought a ps3 and an HDTV when I already owned a 360) and can tell you everything Sam said is true. Potentially the ps3 has more power, but game developers have said that its to hard to develop games for, so they end up making it for 360 and porting it to ps3. This makes the ps3 version come out a little inferior. Plus, I can tell you first hand the ps3 load times are borderline unacceptable. Any game I have played for both has played better on the 360.

 

[Uncle Sam]

On the other hand, if you're someone with a lot of patience that actually isn't interested primarily in GTA, the PS3 could be a good choice too. It's real heavy hitters are coming out this year, just like the 360s did last, and Microsoft are yet to announce many of their opposing exclusives. After they've both come into their own, there'll be little separating them in terms of quality or games. So it depends if games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2 really interest you. I'd say for your case though, 360 hands down.

 

[Slim Pickns]

Look up the preview for Gears of War 2 by Game Informer. I just finished reading the world exclusive they were given in their last magazine and I have to say I have never been this excited for a game.

The graphics are incredibly detailed and the story is being expanded greatly. The first one was one of the best games I have ever played and it hardly had a story at all. So if the second one is almost the same thing with a story, it will make buying a 360 worth it all on its own.

 

[Derix661]

Ppl who own Xbox 360 say its better than PS3 and ppl who own PS3 says its better than 360. I want to hear from a person who has both.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Ppl who own Xbox 360 say its better than PS3 and ppl who own PS3 says its better than 360. I want to hear from a person who has both.

I have both, technically. Currently, the 360 is a far superior console. The gap will unquestionably grow smaller over the coming year. However, it's to what extent that really matters. Will the gap in quality be small enough to warrant Xfear getting it, especially considering the criteria he's supplied? Absolutely not. Then again, if you really must have a blu-ray player, there's only four or five cheaper on the market. That's the one big advantage the PS3 has, and why the ratio between software sales and hardware sales is all wonky.

 

[Slim Pickns]

I just said two posts before yours that I have both and that I prefer the 360. I don't hate ps3, I just think that right now there is no way that anyone can honestly say the ps3 is better. It has more potential, but is showing no signs that it will live up to it.

There happy? Pay attention next time.

EDIT- Response to Sam- Blu Ray is highly overrated. Its the HDTVs that make the movies look better.

 

[Shocky]

No, Blu-Ray is certainly not over rated. The resolution is clearly better then DVD, and it's not even close. I still have my DVD player hooked up to the HDTV, and honestly, it looks like I'm watching a VHS tape again after watching Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is sweet and if you're an electronics junky like myself, it's a must own thing.

X, I have both currently. As far as currently, the 360 takes the cake. The layout and menu is so much better, and the current games library is remarkable. Halo 3 is an astounding game, Bio Shock is amazing, Gears of War, and with future installments of Gears of War on the way, the 360 is probably what you want currently.

However, if you like movies, then obviously the PS3 is the way to go. It's super cheap for a blu-ray player, and the sheer amount of size and power that the PS3 has is ridiculous. I really think by the end of this console generation, PS3 is going to be the clear cut number one. So much untapped power at this point for the PS3 that when they finally to unlock it, it's going to blow everything ever away.

It just depends on what franchises you are into. With Metal Gear 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Gran Turismo, and various other Sony franchises ready to unleash on the new console, (Not to mention God of War III and a possible remake of Final Fantasy VII, which would make that system worth 1000 dollars that I would spend), the PS3 has a ton of upside.

So currently, I'd go the 360, but in a few years, you might regret it.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you're wanting to avoid coming out on the losing end of the console war again, go with Playstation 3. I don't know what everyone above me is talkign about, but PS3 is easy to navigate and just as fun to play as any game on 360. Plus it has wireless internet card, Blu-Ray player, and a free online ability.

Playstation 3 is the way to go, not just for the future, but for the current.

 

[Gelgarin]

As someone who... *dumdumdum* doesn't like first person shooters and struggles to get enjoyment out of any game with plot/dialogue that I (with my eight months of writing degree) could write better myself, I've surspect I'd have struggled to get any enjoyment out of either choise.

In the end I went with a PS3, partly becasue as a rich, non drinking student, I could; but mostly becasue if a lump on inane technology is going to clutter up my desk, the least it can do is to sit there any look pretty. The 360 had Mass Effect, which the Bioware mark inside me would proberbly have enjoyed, but I'm off the oppinion that one game does not justify buying an ugly console.

In terms of which is actually better, right now they both seem to be locked in a war of 'who can release the most games which involve shooting things', and the 360 is winning by quite a long way. Unfortunatly, comparing the 360 to the PS3 is rather like comparing Windows Vista to XP; right now XP runs better, faster and doesn't cause your computer to explode... much; but Vista will invariably triumph because it look nicer becasue it is technologicly superior.

Personally I would recomend those without either model to simply pretend GTA/MGS/FF? isn't coming out for another year, lamp anyone who tries to tell you differently, and wiat for the price to drop abit more.

Then get a PS3.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Well, the PS3 supporters have shown up. I'd also like to take this time to fully list all the current current (and decent) PS3 exclusives that don't involve shooting things. Ready? Motorstorm. Phew, glad we're done with that. Facts are, the best games library available belongs to the PS2, last-gen hardware.

Besides, having a console on the losing end of the console war means nothing. I know many satisfied Gamecube and Xbox owners that weren't in the least bit affected by how poor their systems sold in comparison to the PS2. Yeah, the 360 has games with guns. A massive majority of games have guns. Does it make them bad? No. Bioshock is one of the most critically acclaimed games ever. Does it make them samey? Again, absolutely not. The PS3's three biggest 2008 hitters - Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 - all feature guns. Two are FPS. Its best exclusive, Uncharted, features guns.

The 360 just has the much better list of exclusives right now. And for those games that aren't exclusive (big, big list of those), it's the much cheaper console (you guys got the price cut yet?). If you want a Blu-Ray player, great, get a PS3. (I have actually seen Blu-Ray players for £30 less, however). If you think you have the patience for the PS3 to get back in the game, get a PS3. If you want a games system that has better games that its competitor, at a cheaper price, get a 360. You can always trade it in. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the best games will mostly be non-exclusives anyway, save the "G Of War" series(es?) and a few others. Mm, Resident Evil 5...

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, the PS3 supporters have shown up. I'd also like to take this time to fully list all the current current (and decent) PS3 exclusives that don't involve shooting things. Ready? Motorstorm. Phew, glad we're done with that. Facts are, the best games library available belongs to the PS2, last-gen hardware.

Who cares about "exclusive" games? I can take a shit in the toilet and call it "exclusive", still doesn't mean that anyone wants to play it. An "exclusive" piece of shit, is still a piece of shit.

Besides, having a console on the losing end of the console war means nothing.

Apparently to xfearbefore it does.

The 360 just has the much better list of exclusives right now.

Do they have free online play? Wireless Internet? High Definition movie player come standard?

And for those games that aren't exclusive (big, big list of those), it's the much cheaper console (you guys got the price cut yet?). If you want a Blu-Ray player, great, get a PS3. (I have actually seen Blu-Ray players for £30 less, however). If you think you have the patience for the PS3 to get back in the game, get a PS3. If you want a games system that has better games that its competitor, at a cheaper price, get a 360. You can always trade it in. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the best games will mostly be non-exclusives anyway, save the "G Of War" series(es?) and a few others. Mm, Resident Evil 5...

[/quote]

In the end, the PS3 is the much better machine. I have both, and have played both. I've played the same game on both. PS3 is better NOW than Xbox, and in 3 years it'll be no contest. You can talk about exclusives all you want, but with the much larger disc space on the PS3, when new games want to start taking advantage of all the creativity the Blu-Ray disc gives them, who do you think is going to get the Exclusive contracts then?

 

[Capt. Charisma]

The Wii is an absolute joke compared to the PS3, for half the price of tour getting the PS3 your getting a substandard console withno blueray/hidef player. Sure it's fun if you play u like to play arcade games, but I only recommend getting it if you ONLY play arcade games because everything else on it is shit. I played Pro Evo on it the other day, now the idea of being able to physically interact is a good one, but it's nowhere near ready for a game like that and the controls are far too awkward with it. In ten years when they have perfected it and they have the right technology the Wii idea will probably be mainstream. Now though it's terribly overated espcially since the graphics and gameplay is worse currently in most games than the PS2 or Xbox.

As for Xbox vs Ps3, the graphics and gameplay is similar. Ps3 has slightly better graphics IMO but what really makes it better is free online gamplay, and a free blu-ray player. The Ps3 will be good even in 4 years time, whereas the xbox will be on its last legs and in desperate need of a new console for the series.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Who cares about "exclusive" games? I can take a shit in the toilet and call it "exclusive", still doesn't mean that anyone wants to play it. An "exclusive" piece of shit, is still a piece of shit.

Good exclusives. If you have something good that your opposition doesn't have...well, I'm going to let you continue on this train of thought yourself.

Apparently to xfearbefore it does.

Do they have free online play?

You'd have to be a very poor man indeed to not afford the peanuts it costs to play Xbox Live, as well as the actually standard of online play being far superior. It runs much smoother, and has great online experiences such as Project Gotham, Halo 3 and Gears of War at its disposal, as well as the online community being much larger.

Wireless Internet?

With an attachment, yes. And it barely bridges the price gap either.

High Definition movie player come standard?

With the games? I don't think so. Besides, I've already admitted the Blu-Ray function is the PS3's big advnatage - but not much an advantage if you just want a games machine.

In the end, the PS3 is the much better machine. I have both, and have played both. I've played the same game on both. PS3 is better NOW than Xbox, and in 3 years it'll be no contest.

Um, not really and yeah, maybe.

You can talk about exclusives all you want, but with the much larger disc space on the PS3, when new games want to start taking advantage of all the creativity the Blu-Ray disc gives them, who do you think is going to get the Exclusive contracts then?

I'd imagine once the "potential" (which is questionable, according to some sources) is met, it's going to be even more expensive to develop games on the Blu-Ray format, so the 360 would get the exclusives due to much lower development costs.

 

[Slyfox696]

Good exclusives. If you have something good that your opposition doesn't have...well, I'm going to let you continue on this train of thought yourself.

Exclusives are incredibly overrated. That's the point.

You'd have to be a very poor man indeed to not afford the peanuts it costs to play Xbox Live, as well as the actually standard of online play being far superior.

An Xbox 360 costs $350. A Playstation 3 costs $400 for the 40GB model.

It costs $50 a year for Xbox live, and that's the best price. Let's say you have Xbox live for 2 years.

You have now payed $450 for you Xbox, with only 20GB of storage space, online gaming using an Ethernet cord, and with no high definition movie player, compared to only $400 for the PS3, with 40 GB storage space, online gaming with Wi-Fi, and high definition movie player.

You do the math.

With an attachment, yes. And it barely bridges the price gap either.

No, it comes standard. Wi-Fi is standard on all PS3 models.

With the games? I don't think so. Besides, I've already admitted the Blu-Ray function is the PS3's big advnatage - but not much an advantage if you just want a games machine.

For only $50, why not get both?

Um, not really and yeah, maybe.

Yes, and definitely.

I'd imagine once the "potential" (which is questionable, according to some sources) is met, it's going to be even more expensive to develop games on the Blu-Ray format, so the 360 would get the exclusives due to much lower development costs.

If a game developer used 18 GB for the game (imagine the possibilities), then there is NO way that Xbox could get that game. Ever. Entirely not possible.

And, with the way Grand Theft Auto LOVES to give gamers a huge world from which to play...

 

[Uncle Sam]

Exclusives are incredibly overrated. That's the point.

No. There are many, many good exclusives. They can be overrated by their respective fanboys, but games like Bioshock and Mass Effect are amazing, as well as games like Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart, Super Mario Mega Racing 5 etc. Uncharted is pretty good too.

An Xbox 360 costs $350. A Playstation 3 costs $400 for the 40GB model.

It costs $50 a year for Xbox live, and that's the best price. Let's say you have Xbox live for 2 years.

You have now payed $450 for you Xbox, with only 20GB of storage space, online gaming using an Ethernet cord, and with no high definition movie player, compared to only $400 for the PS3, with 40 GB storage space, online gaming with Wi-Fi, and high definition movie player.

You do the math.

Wow, the console is a lot more expensive than in England. Which model of the 360 is $350 dollars? And isn't the 40GB model of the PS3 the only model left now, and it lacks backwards compatibility?

No, it comes standard. Wi-Fi is standard on all PS3 models.

I thought your questions were regarding the 360. My answers certainly were.

For only $50, why not get both?

You might not want games, or you might not want high def movies. Or you might desperately need $50. Like I've said, the Blu-Ray component is very important to the PS3's success.

Yes, and definitely.

No, and maybe.

If a game developer used 18 GB for the game (imagine the possibilities), then there is NO way that Xbox could get that game. Ever. Entirely not possible.

Shame most game developers would be turned off by the price it would cost to develop.

This IGN article may also interest you: http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Their conclusion?

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.

And, with the way Grand Theft Auto LOVES to give gamers a huge world from which to play...

I've yet to see a game that requires that much space. Oblivion, Mass Effect and GTA are huge games, they seem to be doing fine. 18GB must mean a ridiculously large amount of space.

 

[Slyfox696]

Wow, the console is a lot more expensive than in England. Which model of the 360 is $350 dollars?

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360prosystem/

That one on the official Xbox page.

And isn't the 40GB model of the PS3 the only model left now, and it lacks backwards compatibility?

You can buy 40, 60, and 80 I believe. And the 40 GB is the only one without backwards compatibility. But, who buys a new system to play old games? Why not just play old games on the system you already have?

I've never understood why backwards compatibility was so important.

I thought your questions were regarding the 360. My answers certainly were.

I see what you're saying.

By the way, the Network Adapter for Xbox360 is currently selling for $80 on Amazon, which is a sale price from the normal $100.

So, it very much bridges the price gap. Or, you can buy an ethernet cord for $20, and still be close to bridging the price gap.

You might not want games, or you might not want high def movies. Or you might desperately need $50. Like I've said, the Blu-Ray component is very important to the PS3's success.

Yes, but with free wireless internet, and free online gaming, the Blu-Ray player pays for itself. Or, you pay for the Wireless internet and online gaming, and the Blu-Ray player comes free.

Either way, it's a better deal.

Shame most game developers would be turned off by the price it would cost to develop.

This IGN article may also interest you: http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Their conclusion?

That article was from May 2005, a year and a half before the PS3 was even released.

Hell, the Xbox360 hadn't even been released yet.

I've yet to see a game that requires that much space.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? It was never possible before. Now it is...only on the PS3.

Oblivion, Mass Effect and GTA are huge games, they seem to be doing fine. 18GB must mean a ridiculously large amount of space.

Just imagine the possibilities.

 

[Uncle Sam]

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360prosystem/

That one on the official Xbox page.

The lowest priced one actually costs $279.99.

You can buy 40, 60, and 80 I believe. And the 40 GB is the only one without backwards compatibility. But, who buys a new system to play old games? Why not just play old games on the system you already have?

I've never understood why backwards compatibility was so important.

It's really so you can trade in your old games machine but still play your old games. Problem being, the PS2 had incredible games so I imagine people would consider backwards compatibility very important on the PS3. I enjoy playing the odd classic Xbox game on my 360, having missed out on them initially.

I see what you're saying.

By the way, the Network Adapter for Xbox360 is currently selling for $80 on Amazon, which is a sale price from the normal $100.

Damn your American expensive...ness. Oh wait, £40 = $80, doesn't it? Anyway, that's only a real problem if you don't plug your 360 directly into the phonelines.

So, it very much bridges the price gap. Or, you can buy an ethernet cord for $20, and still be close to bridging the price gap.

Mine came in the box...

Yes, but with free wireless internet, and free online gaming, the Blu-Ray player pays for itself. Or, you pay for the Wireless internet and online gaming, and the Blu-Ray player comes free.

Either way, it's a better deal.

True, but you don't seem to be taking the actual games libraries, the actual meat and bones of a gaming machine into account.

That article was from May 2005, a year and a half before the PS3 was even released.

Hell, the Xbox360 hadn't even been released yet.

True, but the points weren't about statistics. The point was that the power of the hardware is irrelevant if the software quality (i.e. the games) is good enough. Case in point: Nintendo Wii, Playstation 2.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? It was never possible before. Now it is...only on the PS3.

Well, I'll gladly wait for these supergames then. There certainly haven't been any announced like that for this upcoming year. Games have been an absolute chore to complete with length before, I don't see what's wrong with multiple discs in that department, I've already heard it mentioned on many gaming sites. As for space...

Just imagine the possibilities.

Well, I suppose they could develop a fully automated world with that kind of power. I'd imagine it'd take a few years and cost a lot though. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the already huge, sprawling worlds there are available in the aforementioned games.

 

[Slyfox696]

The lowest priced one actually costs $279.99.

The Official Xbox page only let me buy the $350 one. Where do you see that?

Damn your American expensive...ness. Oh wait, £40 = $80, doesn't it? Anyway, that's only a real problem if you don't plug your 360 directly into the phonelines.

Huh?

True, but you don't seem to be taking the actual games libraries, the actual meat and bones of a gaming machine into account.

The actual game libraries are going to be almost exactly the same, with the exception of the "exclusives" which is really not that big of a deal.

True, but the points weren't about statistics. The point was that the power of the hardware is irrelevant if the software quality (i.e. the games) is good enough. Case in point: Nintendo Wii, Playstation 2.

Again, it was a year and half before the PS3 game out. Show me one from 2008, and then we can talk. Most people didn't even know what the PS3 processor was capable of.

Well, I'll gladly wait for these supergames then. There certainly haven't been any announced like that for this upcoming year. Games have been an absolute chore to complete with length before, I don't see what's wrong with multiple discs in that department, I've already heard it mentioned on many gaming sites. As for space...

Well, I suppose they could develop a fully automated world with that kind of power. I'd imagine it'd take a few years and cost a lot though. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the already huge, sprawling worlds there are available in the aforementioned games.

All it does it prove that the ONLY benefit to the 360 is the price. The ONLY benefit.

Where as the PS3 already benefits from Wi-Fi, Blu-Ray player, and free online gaming. Plus, the potential benefits of the hardware are so much greater than the Xbox.


Hopefully Xfear is following this discussion. Note xfear: the ONLY benefit to the Xbox360 is out of the store price. If you pay for ANYTHING else for the Xbos 360, in terms of hardware, the price is going to rival the PS3 out of store price...but the PS3 already has the hardware installed standard. Plus the storage space is, at the bare minimum, double that of the Xbox360.

The PS3 is the better machine. Now, and for the future.

 

[Uncle Sam]

The Official Xbox page only let me buy the $350 one. Where do you see that?

Look at the top(ish) right of this page: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/compare101.htm?WT.svl=nav

Huh?

With the cable you get in the box, you can just plug it into the phone lines.

The actual game libraries are going to be almost exactly the same, with the exception of the "exclusives" which is really not that big of a deal.

Bioshock, Project Gotham Racing 4, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Beautiful Katamari (yes I'm fucking serious), Lost Odyssey, Saint's Row, Dead Rising and others are all fantastic games. Games like Lair and Resistance are not what new-gen games should be. Uncharted's getting there.

Again, it was a year and half before the PS3 game out. Show me one from 2008, and then we can talk. Most people didn't even know what the PS3 processor was capable of. Combine that with Microsoft's fantastic online service and you've got a winning formula. With two games machines with such similar libraries, it'll be the titles like Gears of War 2, God of War 3, Ninja Gaiden 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 that dictate the quality of either machines. In conclusion, exclusives, namely good exclusives, are very important.

What? The point I and the article are making is that software quality is more important than hardware capabilities. It doesn't matter about the time it was published. The examples given are the PlayStation 2 and the Wii, both of which are highly successful despite having pitiful hardware capabilities in comparison to their competitors.

All it does it prove that the ONLY benefit to the 360 is the price. The ONLY benefit.

No, the games library and the online service as well. The most important thing and the most important extra.

Where as the PS3 already benefits from Wi-Fi, Blu-Ray player, and free online gaming. Plus, the potential benefits of the hardware are so much greater than the Xbox.

Free online gaming, but the gaming itself is mediocre in comparison. And potential doesn't effect the current system. Like I've already said, I'll readily admit the PS3 could be better.

Hopefully Xfear is following this discussion. Note xfear: the ONLY benefit to the Xbox360 is out of the store price. If you pay for ANYTHING else for the Xbos 360, in terms of hardware, the price is going to rival the PS3 out of store price...but the PS3 already has the hardware installed standard. Plus the storage space is, at the bare minimum, double that of the Xbox360.

Storage space of what? The hard drive? Unless you're planning on downloading movies onto your 360, it doesn't make much of difference. I've got lots of games and music saved to my pitiful 20GB hard drive and it's still got plenty of space left.

The PS3 is the better machine. Now, and for the future.

No, and maybe.

 

[Slyfox696]

Look at the top(ish) right of this page: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/compare101.htm?WT.svl=nav

With the cable you get in the box, you can just plug it into the phone lines.

Bioshock, Project Gotham Racing 4, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Beautiful Katamari (yes I'm fucking serious), Lost Odyssey, Saint's Row, Dead Rising and others are all fantastic games. Games like Lair and Resistance are not what new-gen games should be. Uncharted's getting there.

What? The point I and the article are making is that software quality is more important than hardware capabilities. It doesn't matter about the time it was published. The examples given are the PlayStation 2 and the Wii, both of which are highly successful despite having pitiful hardware capabilities in comparison to their competitors.

No, the games library and the online service as well. The most important thing and the most important extra.

Free online gaming, but the gaming itself is mediocre in comparison. And potential doesn't effect the current system. Like I've already said, I'll readily admit the PS3 could be better.

Storage space of what? The hard drive? Unless you're planning on downloading movies onto your 360, it doesn't make much of difference. I've got lots of games and music saved to my pitiful 20GB hard drive and it's still got plenty of space left.

No, and maybe.

Repeat everything I've already said in the last three posts.

In the end, the choice is simple. It's Playstation 3. Why? Because, to get the same quality and performance capabilities out of your Xbox360 that you get out of your PS3, you have to pay a lot more money to do so. Not to mention, the only high def movie player for Xbox360 lost the format war to Blu-Ray.

Free Wi-Fi, larger game storage space, High Def movie player, larger disc space, free online gaming, and more potential to the future. That's what PS3 offers. And all that for only $50 more than an Xbox360. If you have the money to spend $350, you can afford $400. And it's well worth the money.

EDIT: Sam, actually click on the link for the "cheaper" Xbox360. Tell me where you get directed, and what happens. Thanks.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The main flaw in your argument being, that you DONT get the same preformance. Gamespot.com does a screen to screen comparison of PS3 and Xbox 360 on the top 10 selling titles for both systems, and Xbox has routed PS3 evey time the comparisons have been made. Xbox soundly defeated PS3 in all showings. Look it up.

 

[Uncle Sam]

EDIT: Sam, actually click on the link for the "cheaper" Xbox360. Tell me where you get directed, and what happens. Thanks.

Two things. Firstly, the page for the cheaper version of the Xbox, which has been dubbed the Arcade package. I then click on Buy Now as I am curious to see what you're talking about and I'm taken to a Toys 'R' Us page saying it's out of stock. Is that what I'm meant to be looking for? Are you questioning the existence of the Arcade package? You are, aren't you? It's an illness you have, you sick person.

I still say the largest factor in this is the games library, which the 360 has the definite edge on. If you're primarily getting a console for GTA IV though, I'd actually heartily recommend the Arcade system. You can't go too far wrong either way. Unless you get a Wii. Good luck playing GTA on that.