so they really expect people to pay for the online service, and have to watch ads? and the only way to not watch the ads is to not have the online service.

 

microsoft is ridiculous.. cable companies charge us but the advertisements we are forced to watch profit the networks, not the cable companies. microsoft wants to profit off of both..

 

soo i really wanted a 360 mainly because i like the controller ALOT better then the ps3 controller, and alot of my real life friends have 360.. but now im leaning back torwards another ps3..

 

 

MS's numbers are scewed. They are shipped-through numbers as opposed to sold-through numbers. Sony releases sales information, MS usually releases shipped information. That is why sales numbers for MS are mere estimates rather than valid numbers. Also, MS has tried to hide the fact that the replacement 360s are being counted in the shipped through numbers inflating the actually number shipped out to the community. If what their former executive said is true, up to 50% of the number shipped accounts as the replacement 360s. That in fact, by numbers and estimates alone, would put Sony in front of the 360 in regards to sales. Shady? No. But definitely doesn't provide the clear picture. However, the attach rate (the amount of games perchased per consoled sold) is higher on 360 than on the PS3. A lot of that is also a big harder to figure out because the PS3 sells in countries that have horrible economies and people purchaed the PS3 to play a few games and haven't purchased much more. 360 doesn't sell well in those countries, but does well in the US and Europe were more people buy more games. Therefore, Sony may sell more consoles and and more games, but as long as it's not per console, those numbers get scewed.

 

Also please don't look at vgchartz numbers they make no sense. Even economists and finance experts have tried to make sense of those number to no avail. The NPD numbers are also scewed since some retailers that sell products don't actually report the numbers, or they report them at different time intervals. The best gauge is the games and the community.

 

Playstation 3 FTW!

People enjoy bashing MS because of their practices. Their marketing strategy has always been to ween the ma**es on their products and squeeze the money from their pockets so Xbox Marketplace, Vista, Office are always gonna be dollar-led. However they pay if the product has appeal. 360 games are just as fun to play a PS3 games. 

As for sound quality, the PS3 destoys the 360. PS3 is certified in almost every known audio format / audio quality specs, while the 360 is not.

 

As far of the controller goes, I've never been a huge fan of te 360 controller. That's probably because I've been playing PS since PSOne.

 

Blu-Ray will be a huge factor for gaming this generation. When you have 50gb of space at your dispossal, it provides almost endless creativity for a developer. The issue is that it costs a lot of money to program 50gb worth of information. However, newer games are hitting the block that are utilizing the ma**ive space and it's showing its true benefit to the gaming community. i.e., MGS, Killzone, Uncharted, etc. Those games are not possible in their current form on the 360, without mutiple discs.

 

At the end of the day, like Trin pointed out, it's the total experience, the games and the community. I personally believe the PS3 excels in all of those categories.

 

and ps3 has more 1080p games

 

plus being free online and no ads is a huge bonus, the 360 on the other hand has a better controller for me and more friends have it.

 

 

 

When I got my new PS3 it now only has 2 USB ports... so rockband is just trash now and it doesn't play PS2 games now either <<

 

i own neither console, completely unbias opinion here jacka**. im trying to decide which system i want before i buy one and if i knew the 360 was so much better like you say i do, i would of already decided.

 

and as far as 1080p games.. microsofts didnt even support 1080p till like last year, and only a portion of the systems even support 1080p.

 

if i want advice on where to get heroin, or how to look like a transvetite elf.. ill ask you collusus, other then that stfu f**got

 

On the other hand with xbox.. that thing just looks like somekind of high tech HDD to store media and files at.. it doesn't look very cool to me =/

 

Sure you shouldn't base a decision on buying a console on its looks.. but you are probably going to use it for a couple of years (If you're lucky) and you want something serious to look at everytime you turn that power on and when you're with friends. You don't want to get bored after a few months looking at a crappy looking console, while you know the PS3 just looks bada**.

 

Also I don't know if this is true in the states but here in Holland, Sony expended the time on the warranty on the PS3, I think you will have 2 year free support now in case it breaks.

 

 

Collosus, it may be decent when it works, but they never work and there is a high chance it will die at some point in it's life. Is that worth $300? You decide. Also, I have no qualms bashing MS for their shady misrepresentations of what was wrong with the console. They never apologized. they spent over a BILLION dollars for a warranty on this product. Also, they charge an arm and a leg for peripherals. There is no need to defend a company that can care less about it's customer core.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know I might be really unlucky or something.. I always take good care of my stuff.

Well said mate! I bought PS3 for UT3 (billed as an exclusive for PS3) but I would still have invested in it for BlueRay. Dont listen to what ppl say, the 360 is a fine m/c. I bought Haze too and Quake - Enemy Territory and to me both were pretty lame. Haze was repetitive and the vehicle controls were awkward. Quake paled into insignificance alongside UT3. Sold em both for £25.

 

Also, you are correct that you don't need HDMI to run 1080p, but the risk of interference by using component cables is much greater than HDMI. HDMI is digital without any static interference.

 

The other point you made is that when a game comes out for both PS3/360, you buy the 360 version. This has a lot to do with the developer. A lot of developers used to program for 360 first then port over to PS3 since the programming for the PS3 was much more complicated. This resulted in quality loss on the PS3 side. EA was notorious at doing this and Orange Box is prime example of how they let the PS3 crowd down. Another example was Grand Theft Auto. However things have changed. Most developers have annouced recently that they will begin development on PS3 first and then port to 360.

 

Lastly, the primary difference between the PS3 and the 360 is not graphics prowess. It's processing power and Blu-Ray. There are many other arguements that can be made, such as the controller, the hard drive size, wi-fi, etc, but the main points are the Cell processor and Blu-Ray. With the capacity of Blu-Ray, it provides almost endless capacity for a developer. DVD-9 is limited in size and compression can only be accomplished to a certain degree without losing information or causing frame rate drops. Thus, BR provides a huge platform (50gb uncompressed) to develop for. Also the Cell is a very complex processor. It takes some of the processing duties away from the RSX graphics gard. In turn, the PS3 is capable of performing more processes than the 360 can. Again, this is up to the developer to use. If all games are programmed like PC games, the chances are they will run better on the 360. If the games are programmed for the individual console platform, the PS3 will edge the 360. Sony's 1st party titles are nothing short of exceptional and they prove this point. Uncharted, MGS, Rachet and Clank,Heavenly Sword, etc. are only possible on the PS3. Not because of the graphics, but because of the size of the game and the complexities of processing power. Dont look at he game play itself, look at the game and what it brings to the table. Game play and whether a game ifs fun is all based on the developer.

 

If you want to know more about the differences between the consoles, then hit up http://www.ign.com - www.ign.com They have a breakdown between the two consoles somewhere on the site. Also, this debate has been going on for over 2 years at http://www.n4g.com - www.n4g.com . It all comes down to preference and the games available, however, at these price points other considerations should be product quality and longevity. PS3 wins on both those fronts. I think this a healthy debate to have on this forum since there is a lot of money at stake when making an investment in the consoles. These machines are not cheap. People should hear first hand why other purchased another system and why they like/dislike the other system.

 

madden 2010

quake 3 arcade

halo odst

and cod mw2

will be the games ill be looking for

 

Ace, I'm not arguing with the comments on the box, but it's a bit deceptive and has been pointed out in various articles since the 360 decided to advertise their full HD experience. Having these statements on the box does not mean the game is playing in 1080p. It means the 360 will send a 1080p signal to the TV, notwithstanding what the game's native resolution is.. Let us not get confused with what the game is programmed as and the signal sent to the TV. They are two different worlds. PS3 supports all games in 1080p. But it does not mean that all games are programmed in 1080p. I hope you understand the distinction. Like I said, there are only a few games on the 360 and PS3 that are actually true HD 1080p. Another reason that MS puts that calim on the box is because when the 360 first came out, it would not play on 1080p resolution monitors. Thus, the TV had to be manually changed to 720p/1080i to work. That defeated the purpose of owning a 1080p TV. The statement on the game states the TV's supported resoltuions, not the game's native resolution.