Comparing the PS3 and 360

Yahoo! Games is running a piece comparing the PS3 and 360. They look at the hardware, software, and HD offerings for Sony and Microsoft's next-gen consoles. From the article: "Unlike the last generation, where Sony clearly held a commanding lead, the next generation of gaming is going to be a much closer race between the behemoths of Microsoft and Sony. Though there were many skeptics last fall, the past eight months have shown the Xbox 360 to be a very capable system and more than powerful enough to challenge the PlayStation 3. Microsoft also believes it will have 10 million units in the global marketplace before Sony even leaves the gate. So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

Comments

Simple Answer

[Jokerz17]

I already own a 360.

Re:Simple Answer

[MyDixieWrecked]

In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found about it was the controller. It really felt nice. Aside from that, I was disinterested in the console as a whole. It was big. It crashed a bunch (until we put it on a better platform), and it didn't have any decent games.

Now, they've got an impressive lineup. Fight Night, Burnout, Table Tennis, and Geometry Wars (o, how I am e'er addicted to you, geometry wars) make the system worth it. Although, I still think my friend is an idiot for justifying the 500$ he spent to get the system when it was still sold out everywhere.

so, being that you already own a 360, are you implying that you wouldn't purchase a ps3, no matter how strong the offering of launch titles?

Re:Simple Answer

[vandon]

Which do I plan to buy first?
A Wii

Re:Simple Answer

[RoadDoggFL]

Well silly me for assuming that a gaming machine's launch should be evaluated on its performance as a gaming machine. Also, unintentional uses can't really be credited as successes on Sony's part.

But I'm quite disappointed with the 360. The Xbox really appealed to me and it just seems that the 360 represents another step in the loss of the charm of console gaming. If the PS3 gains significant popularity, that'll be another few steps but at least Nintendo knows what it's doing.

But yes, anything is possible.

One word...

[no_opinion]

Wii!

Multiple Choice

[roguenine19]

I'm going with c) None of the above.

I think it's interesting that the Wii isn't included, especially because the current best guess is that it will be launching before the PS3. I wonder if it's because the writer recognizes that it's truly something unique and different, or if he's just discounting it because of Nintendo's image problems in the previous generation.

Re:Multiple Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.. since the article was "xbox 360 vs ps3" including Wii in there would seem a bit odd. it's nice it got that paragraph at the end as it is.

if the article was "next gen console war" then NOT including Wii in there would be insulting.

Re:Multiple Choice

[Rydia]

That argument is silly. The only market segment Nintendo is actually abandoning is the "hardcore gamer" segment, which is really small anyway. Nintendo can say all they want about how they don't want to compete directly, but at the end of the day, they are, and perhaps even using the non-competition rhetoric to insulate themselves from any putative slugfest.

I can answer that

[skam240]

"So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

That's easy. You buy the one that isnt ridiculously over priced.

Re:No blu-ray

[harrkev]

This assumes that one WANTS to buy blu-ray. I, for one, do not welcome our HDCP overlords that come riding in on the back of HDMI.

Thanks, but I'll pass for this lifetime.

Re:No blu-ray

[j00r0m4nc3r]

This makes sense if:

1. You can afford $600
2. You have an HD tv
3. You are in the market for a game console
4. There is a catalog of available movies for BR
5. You are in the market for a HD video player

I think a very small segment of the population fits these criteria. Personally I would only buy a PS3 to use as a video player if I knew for a fact that BR would be the winner. BR could bomb and you would have to go buy a standalone HD-DVD video player anyway.

Ah, that would be the PS3 then?

[SmallFurryCreature]

If you look at what is in the PS3 vs the 360 then the 360 seems to be a bit expensive for its hardware. At least spec wise the PS3 delivers a lot more.

A 100.000 dollar mercedes is more expensive then a 20.000 dollar lada but it is still the lada that is overpriced.

Off course this has nothing to do with gameplay but for now it seems that if you want gameplay you are in luck, the cheapest console will be the one with the better gameplay. Offcourse that is not saying the Wii is not overpriced. Nintendo has the most overpriced consoles of all, the proof? MS and Sony subsidise the early consoles, Nintendo does not and makes a profit on them, if that isn't overpricing them I don't know what is.

Perhaps you meant "That's easy. You buy the one that isnt ridiculously expensive."

In that case,might I introduce you to the humble PC. Cheapest console of them all, you already got one after all since you post here. Can't get much cheaper then 0 dollars. Oh and you it is fully backwards compatible with other consoles even. Strange enough neither the 360 or the PS3 or the Wii allow me to play old games not off their brand. Silly.

Re:Non Fan-boy opinion

[lochlan m]

But at the moment, the Wii does not strike me as being next-generation when it is only now approaching the pixel-power of the Xbox, a current-generation console.

Are you serious? The Wii's controller is going to revolutionize gaming. It is going to open new markets and change the way we think about video games. In my opinion, the Wii is, in a way, the only console that should be considered "next-gen". Polygon counts and massive storage do not make games any more fun. The thing that makes a game console good is the software and the way that you interact with it. Just look at the Nintendo DS, which is outselling the PSP 8:1 right now in Japan. It has less processing power, an inferior graphics processor, and far less storage capacity. And, yet, it is (in my eyes) the clear victor in the handheld market. Your post really spoke to me, particularly this line:

However, the cold hard facts are that graphics sell games. A game that looks good will be talked about, and purchased.

I think a great deal of gamers would agree with you. However, IMHO this is because the gaming market hasn't really been cracked in the way that it potentially could be. Console games today are marketed to an 18-24 year old, because 10 years ago the PS1 found success in that market which until then didn't really exist. Before then, video games were thought of as more of a kid's toy. You know who isn't playing console games? Women, young or old. Anyone over 40. (sure there are exceptions but generally speaking, this is true). Yet, a lot of these people are buying cell phone games or playing minesweeper. I think that when the Wii comes out it's going to have an effect somewhat similar to the PS1, opening new markets and broadening the "gamer" demographic.

Easy answer

[AmiMoJo]

Which ever one has the games you like.

If you like western style games (very easy FPS, racing, movie tie-ins) get an XBOX 360. If you like Japanese style games (difficult RPGs, 2D/3D fighting games, anime tie-ins) get a PS3.