[bling_singh]

Originally Posted by FStop7

I have both, I say 360 all the way. Many more games, much better online service. The only reason I still have my PS3 is because of Blu Ray.

XBox Live is a better online service I agree, and ingame dashboard access is still far ahead of the PS3's ingame XMB. Those points can't be argued. The 360 has more games, yes, but that's a quantitative answer that could use some qualitative clarification.

If you look on a site like Metacritic and look at the number of games on the PS3 and the 360, both have roughly the same number (not proportion) of games that have been given an 80% rating or more, and just about the same number of games that have been rated 90% or more.

That being said, and acknowledging the fact that the 360 has more games, does that mean the 360 proportionally has more crappier games than the PS3? The problem with the PS3 isn't as systemic as people try to make it out to be. Yes the development curve for the PS3 is longer and steeper, but top quality games are already starting to enter the market. No the PS3 doesn't have as many games as the 360, but that console was on market a year longer, and is easier to develop for.

The fact that the PS3, despite the 360s advantages, is already starting to see games that look and play better than titles on the 360 shows how developers are already past the apex in that long, steep learning curve. And it is generally accepted that the 360 has essentially reached its technological peak while the PS3 continues to give developers more room and more power with which to create. Games on the PS3 only suffered when developers ported a version of a game already made for the 360 to the PS3. That's why games like Madden 07 and The Orange Box were such a flop on it. However games like Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty 4, Devil May Cry 4, Far Cry 2 and Bioshock were all multiplatform titles that were built from the ground up for the PS3 and in all cases the PS3 versions either played/looked as well as if not better than the 360 counterparts. Yet developers still continue to say they haven't yet maximized the PS3's full potential.

Every console ever released has suffered from lack of compelling software in its first year. The 360's first must own title, Gears of War, wasn't released until a year after the console launched. Now that kicked off a year of amazing games on the 360 including Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect. But people have used the XBox's great second year to support a heuristic that the PS3 has next to no games, like it did in its first year. Yet in the 360's third year (2008) there were only two standout exclusives for the system: Gears 2 and Left4Dead. In that same year, the PS3's second year, it saw Metal Gear Solid 4, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance2, and Valkyria Chronicles. The difference may only be two games, but lets carry the trend forward into 2009 (which i've tried to do in posts above).

Yes the 360 has more games now, but if I were to buy a 360 now I wouldn't be looking at how many games are in the back library, rather I'd be looking at how many games are coming up in the future. For 2009 there is much more announced for the PS3 than the 360 and Sony has had a history of putting out a greater variety of games, support more artistic titles and original experiences. The original XBox had shooters and fighters but not much else. Let's not kid ourselves these games have hardcore appeal and in the first few years of a consoles life you need these sorts of games to establish a solid marketshare (unless you're the Wii).

But a game like LittleBigPlanet could never work on the 360. And that's not just because 360 gamers are more hardcore. XBox Live is far too centralized and content administration is far too strict for anything like level creation to work. Microsoft is doing great things with XNA, but even the XNA community suffers from the redtape surrounding Live. It's why the most user generated content ever seen on XBox Live is customized paintjobs in Forza 2.

I've written way too much on this topic, and I'll have to stop after this post. So much for breaking away from essays over the holidays. I'll just sum it up by saying XBox offers a great service in the 360 and in Live, but it is not without its share of glaring problems. For one thing the console's reliability is something that will not be solved, only marginalized for the rest of its life cycle. There is no price justification in the service especially when Sony does the networking aspect of Live better in PSN and does it for free (Gold membership afterall is the right to use Live's networking feature). The only distinguishing features are cross game invites and cross game party chat. However Sony is bringing those features into PSN and will not charge for it. Sony Computer Entertainment is the largest first party development team, and one of the largest amongst all developers. There is a massive back library of exclusive titles that reaches back to the PS1, not to mention original intellectual properties (look up information on 'Tears for Blood' and 'Silhouette'). For every third party exclusive that Sony has lost to the 360 there are many more in Sony's library to replace them.

If shooters, fighters and a racers are your thing then go with the 360, Microsoft has always done these things well. But if you want more you'll have to look elsewhere. Just look at games like LittleBigPlanet, echochrome, PixelJunk Eden, Flow, and Flower. Additionally the XBox has entered the fourth year of what is projected to be a 6-7 year lifecycle. The PS3 has entered the third year of a ten year lifecycle. Given the game support the Playstation has, its reliability advantage, value as a longer term investment, and a console that has yet to realize its full potential it just makes more sense as a purchase.

And how could I forget: Bluray too!

[Brunotheboxer]

Atari FTMFW.

[mJ335]

If you don't have a gamer's enthusiast type PC, I would go that route.

[BMW2006]

-BMW2006

[BzsBimmer]

Originally Posted by canook

rumours have it that IBM is developing digital downloading formats that use photons of light which will let you download hd movies in a matter of seconds or minutes. If you want your hd movie fix now, grab a PS3, if not hold off for 2 years until IBM's technology gets marketed for mainstream use.

I was working for IBM over 10 years ago when they were developing this holographic storage technology at their STL location.
Back then I was like yeah right
They were so ahead of their time... makes me wonder what they're working on now that we won't see for another 10-15 years.

[darkphantom]

Sucks for sony though, they are still losing money...

[bling_singh]

That's what happens when you spearhead a new format in the face of a recession while adding value to a box at the same time.

Microsoft's business model is seeming to come out as a shortrun winner but that's only because they've got pockets deep enough to subsidize the mess. They're also benefiting from the fact that the recession hit Sony as the PS3 started turning the corner. All they have to do is continue to take up marketshare from the PS2/XBox days and they'll be set for when the XBox3 drops a few years from now. It gives them the time to make sure they build the XBox3 reliably. Consumers are sheep, they'll forgive and forget about RROD once the first few reports on the console's reliability are released.

While I doubt XBox is being sold at a profit, they're recouping some of their losses with their overpriced peripherals and $50/year every year from those who have Live. While I think the PS3 has to come down to $299 to survive, it is already being sold at a $50 loss. An article in Bloomberg suggests that if Sony does drop the price they'll be subsidizing the PS3 hereon.

The potential for Sony to make money off microtransactions and purchases online exists yet that can't be realized until they drop the price to $299, finally get those waiting for the price drop (there are over 125million PS2 owners afterall) and get them buying 3D images of Ligne Roset furniture in Home. Very much a Catch 22.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/29/p...is-holiday-se/

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

And just for kicks Bling/

The launching of the playstation 4 is inevitable. The playstation has become less of a gaming console and more of an entertainment system. The blue ray disc reading capability integrated in the playstation 3 further demonstrates what playstation has to offer to consumers of entertainment, in other words, what playstation has to offer to everybody. Our guess here at PS4Online.net is that the playstation 4 will require a great amount of online interactivity. We hope to provide all of you playstation lovers and ps4 gamers the latest news regarding the playstation 4.

Which proves my point.


http://www.ps4online.net/

[bling_singh]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

And just for kicks Bling/




Which proves my point.


http://www.ps4online.net/

what does that prove exactly? The ps3 is an entertainment device that looks to offer more than just gaming for the consumer? Of course it does, anyone can tell you that. I spent more time this week watching Planet Earth on my PS3 than I did playing games. That doesn't make it a slouch in the gaming department. Its just that playing video games doesn't occupy all my free time.

Yes it makes it more expensive than the 360, but it means the PS3 dollar for dollar has more value packed in it than any other console. Yes it's harder to program for yet it's a console that developers didn't abandon...in fact they're embracing it more and more. 2K didn't need to do a Bioshock so far after the 360 version but they did. Capcom didn't have to add cutscene videos on the PS3 version of Streetfighter 4 (and not on the 360 because of DVD limitations) but they did. In fact I'd consider it a waste if Sony didn't use all that power for the variety of things they have the PS3 do, given my set of wants/needs of course.

Just look at what they did with the 360? Yes its a great games machine. But it also plays DVDs, there was an add on for HD-DVD for a while, now there's a partnership with Netflix to stream movies from their service. They also have a Singstar clone, an online casual gaming community in NXE a la Playstation Home, and are working on a game, Kodu, that will allow for casual game development.....much like LittleBigPlanet. Not quite the machine for hardcore gamers anymore.

That link didn't prove much one way or the other. It was an op-ed piece by the owner of a site who's trying to jump on the PS4 bandwagon before everybody else. Just saying something is the way it is doesn't make it so. People still buy the PS3 and people still buy games for it. If anything it will only be picking up steam now as games development is starting to catch up with what the technology has to offer. Killzone 2 was the first game to make use of all Cell Processors to take a load off the GPU. Yes the GPU isn't as strong as the one in the 360 but Sony are showing you don't need the strongest GPU to get the best graphics....just spread the work out to other processors to do the job. Uncharted 2 is going to be using all 7 processors also, and I wouldn't be surprised if God of War 3 and GranTurismo5 do the same given that they will probably look better than what Killzone and Uncharted2 offer.

The PS3 just surpassed 20million in console sales and did it two weeks quicker than the 360. For a console to do that with the slim games library that it did shows that its only now gathering momentum. 2009 will see more and better exclusives on the PS3 than on the 360. I think I mentioned before that the power of first party development shouldn't go unnoticed. Sony Computer Entertainment is the largest first party developer and it's only now that we're beginning to see their first party powerhouse titles come through with an increased regularity.

No lie, that Halo Wars demo is pretty sweet.