# PC, Xbox 360 or PS3?



## Chaldfont (Oct 25, 2007)

I've been without a decent gaming PC for quite a while now and I'm going through withdraw symptoms. I thought a PS2 would scratch the itch, but its just been a quick fix. I can't play any of the modern games!

So what should I go for? The PC is the most expensive but it opens up the possibility of MMORPGs. On the other hand I don't really have the time and money for those.

On the other hand, consoles are less expensive, but I have to wait for the kids to go to bed before I can play the more hardcore games and I tie up the TV.

Xbox 360 seems like the best bet. I'm dying to play Halo 2 and 3 after playing the first on PC ages ago. This Portal sounds awesome. Do you have to pay extra to play online?

PS3 just seems way to expensive. What killer games are out for it? Is there any reason I should give it a second look?

Which do you guys like best?


----------



## takyris (Oct 25, 2007)

(Disclaimer: I work for a company that has a 360 exclusive coming out soon.)

The two big exclusives I've heard about for the PS3 are Lair and Heavenly Sword. Lair got mediocre reviews, while Heavenly Sword got pretty good reviews but was hurt by being considered too short at about 5-6 hours. I haven't played either -- neither game struck me as a reason to get a PS3.

The 360 right now has the edge in terms of exclusives, but if you're behind the times already, you might be just fine getting a nice gaming PC -- you can spend quite awhile "catching up" by playing games that were originally Xbox or Xbox 360 games but are now available on the PC as well. Also, since the PC and the 360 are closer in terms of systems (both being built by Microsoft), most games that are originally 360 exclusives are ported to the PC at some point. It's usually a question of whether you are comfortable waiting months or years for a game to come over.

There's also a skew with game types -- the 360 generally has the edge with sports games, while the PS3 tends to have a stronger RPG selection (or at least, the PS2 did, and it's expected that the PS3 will), and the PC is the system for MMOs. Exceptions exist: I'm talking about general breadth, here, not whether any one system happens to have one or more good versions of a genre.

Really, it's gonna depend on what you personally want.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 25, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> There's also a skew with game types -- the 360 generally has the edge with sports games, while the PS3 tends to have a stronger RPG selection (or at least, the PS2 did, and it's expected that the PS3 will), and the PC is the system for MMOs. Exceptions exist: I'm talking about general breadth, here, not whether any one system happens to have one or more good versions of a genre.




At least right now, and for at least the next six months AFAICT -- though that may largely be a function of being a year older -- the 360's RPG selection is much stronger than the PS3's. Though really, it seems like the DS is cleaning up there.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 25, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> PS3 just seems way to expensive.



It's actually pretty cheap... *if* you're in the market for a Blu-ray player, too. Do you have an HDTV, and are you interested in hi-def DVD's?



> What killer games are out for it?



Right now, not many. Heavenly Sword is gorgeous and fun, but short (own it). The new Ratchet and Clank is supposed to be longer and possibly even more gorgeous (played demo), but reviews indicate it's more of next-gen refinement of the earlier games; evolutionary not revolutionary (of course, the same can be about Halo 3). Superstardust HD is a downloadable Robotron/Geometry Wars-like twin stick shooter which rocks hard and boosts some lovely epilepsy-inducing graphics. I hear really good things about Warhawk and Resistance, too. 

I also picked up some already-discounted titles; Virtua Tennis 3 (I loved them on the Dreamcast), Virtua Fighter V, and Oblivion. All look and play great, especially at $30 a pop.



> Is there any reason I should give it a second look?



Frankly, if all you want is a game console and you're wanting more Halo, no. The 360 has a much stronger lineup now, and whether that will change is matter for fanboys to argue about. The PS3 has some really ambitious _looking_ titles coming up, like Uncharted, Little Big Planet, and graphics-wise, at least, Killzone 2. With any luck, they'll play well.

However, if you're also looking for a cheap multimedia center (Blu-ray, upscaling DVD/video file player, music streamer), it's awesome. 



> Which do you guys like best?



I'm really digging my PS3 (60g full BC model for $500). It's nice to at least have the option of playing pretty games. My 'gaming computer' is a several year-old laptop whose claim to graphical prowess is that it can play Civ 4 with the animations enabled (at least most of them...).

I should mention that a number of my friends have 360's, so I'm not going to miss out on Bioshock, Mass Effect and Halo 3. We're going to swap systems (as soon as few more good games come out for the PS3...).


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 25, 2007)

More grist for the discussion mill...

I don't have an HD capable TV. I have to wait for my current TV to die or when we finish our basement (several years out yet). So that's not so much of a draw for me.

Considering I don't have the time and money I used to (going from DINKs to two kids and a stay at home mom-type family will do that to ya), I tend to get games once they drop in price or buy them used. I usually can't play them fast enough to always need the latest and the greatest. I'm still working through the Guitar Hero series on PS2.

But I pine for Halo 2/3, for Portal, for Crysis. I've never played Half-Life or WoW (though there was a time I was addicted to Everquest).

It's going to be hard to justify buying a PC to my wife, but I think I might convince her to get a n Xbox 360 for Christmas.

But I have to decide. I have to commit to one or the other. I can't have both a gaming PC and a console. Then I wouldn't be able to buy RPG books!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 25, 2007)

- Of the consoles, the 360 has the best selection of games right now, and is much cheaper than a gaming PC
- If you want an entertainment center, the PS3 has the leg up, though rumors of a forthcoming HDDVD-360 combo package abound.  If such a thing existed, it would beat out the PS3 big time.
- If you are due for a PC and can swing about $2000 to buy a good rig, do that.
- If you are handy, you could build your own gaming PC for about half that price.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 25, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> More grist for the discussion mill...
> 
> I don't have an HD capable TV. I have to wait for my current TV to die or when we finish our basement (several years out yet). So that's not so much of a draw for me.




Don't bother with a PS3 or 360 without an HDTV (or a nice, big, widescreen PC monitor you can connect your console to instead of a TV; MS sells a VGA cable, or you can find an HDMI->DVI adapter for a PS3). HDTVs are getting less expensive these days (my 42" 1080p LCD was ~$1000; you can find 30" widescreen CRTs for $500), so a console + HDTV will probably run less than a good gaming PC setup, but not by much.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 25, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Don't bother with a PS3 or 360 without an HDTV (or a nice, big, widescreen PC monitor you can connect your console to instead of a TV; MS sells a VGA cable, or you can find an HDMI->DVI adapter for a PS3). HDTVs are getting less expensive these days (my 42" 1080p LCD was ~$1000; you can find 30" widescreen CRTs for $500), so a console + HDTV will probably run less than a good gaming PC setup, but not by much.




Are you saying you can't even connect these up to a non HDTV or that you can but its not really worth it?


----------



## drothgery (Oct 25, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Are you saying you can't even connect these up to a non HDTV or that you can but its not really worth it?




You can but it's (according to reviewers; I'm mostly an RPG guy, so I'm not picking up a next-gen console until _Mass Effect_ comes out) not really worth it. The biggest thing the PS3 and Xbox 360 have going for them is much-improved graphics. Which means higher-resolution graphics. Which takes a higher-resolution display, meaning an HDTV or a computer monitor. They'll work with a standard def TV, but odds are you'll be left thinking 'why is this thing worth $$$ again?'.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 25, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> You can but it's (according to reviewers; I'm mostly an RPG guy, so I'm not picking up a next-gen console until _Mass Effect_ comes out) not really worth it. The biggest thing the PS3 and Xbox 360 have going for them is much-improved graphics. Which means higher-resolution graphics. Which takes a higher-resolution display, meaning an HDTV or a computer monitor. They'll work with a standard def TV, but odds are you'll be left thinking 'why is this thing worth $$$ again?'.



 Honestly, its not that bad with a 'normal' TV.

I've got one and a 360 and, while I know an HDTV would look amazing with these games, its just fine. You don't lose anything and its really not as bad as some people like to scream it is.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 25, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> So what should I go for? The PC is the most expensive but it opens up the possibility of MMORPGs. On the other hand I don't really have the time and money for those.




If you've got the money for a decent PC, you've got the money for a mmorg. They average about as much as catching a movie + popcorn a month. Time and/or the willingness to spend the money those are other issues.



			
				Chaldfont said:
			
		

> On the other hand, consoles are less expensive, but I have to wait for the kids to go to bed before I can play the more hardcore games and I tie up the TV.
> 
> Xbox 360 seems like the best bet. I'm dying to play Halo 2 and 3 after playing the first on PC ages ago. This Portal sounds awesome. Do you have to pay extra to play online?




Well even with Bungie's recent divorce from MS, you won't be seeing Halo on any platforms other than PC. But PCs are much better for FPSs than the xbox or PS3 (though the PS3 at least has the option of permitting keyboard and mouse use, only Unreal Tournament 3 actually supports it AFAICT). I don't think Portal currently supports online play. The Orange Box doesn't have any charges for Online play of Team Fortress 2. Microsoft does try to get players to shell out for a Xbox Live Gold which lists for $50 for a year. You don't have to get it, though there are benefits. There aren't currently any charges for any of the PS3 online stuff AFAIK.



			
				Chaldfont said:
			
		

> PS3 just seems way to expensive. What killer games are out for it? Is there any reason I should give it a second look?
> 
> Which do you guys like best?




The PS3 seems more expensive than it is. Since it's best compared to the most expensive Xbox + the HD-DVD Player options, which is the same price. The low end 360 is really not a good bargain, since it lacks the wireless networking ($100 if you add it) and you need to buy a memory card for it (512mb $50, the HD add on is only like $100) and it lacks the wireless controller. 

Of course one of the main things you are paying for with the PS3 is the Blu-Ray Disk capability (There are various offers for 5+ free movies, but most of the choices suck). However you don't get the full benefit of something like the Blu-Ray movies (or the 360 or PS3) unless you have a decently large tv with an HDMI input. FWIW, I give both of the HD disk formats about a 50-75% chance of both failing long term (3-5yrs) and being "iTuned" by some sort of download system.

The PS3 is quite a capable media hub, if you care about playing stuff from your computer through the tv/stereo. The 360 can do a lot of this as well.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 25, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Xbox 360 seems like the best bet. I'm dying to play Halo 2 and 3 after playing the first on PC ages ago. This Portal sounds awesome. Do you have to pay extra to play online?
> 
> PS3 just seems way to expensive. What killer games are out for it? Is there any reason I should give it a second look?



And here's the rub. Absolutely you have to pay extra to go online with the 360. The PS3 is free. Are you interested in playing online? If so, then the PS3 is _cheaper_ than the 360. That's right - cheaper. (The analysis is somewhere in this formum - if I get a chance, I link to it again; but in any case, a simple NPV analysis by anyone with even a little competency in spreadsheet usage can do it.)

Otherwise - what Takyris said. (With a note that he forgot to mention Warhawk, which is far superior to both of the games he listed.)

Also note that the 360 is an inferior machine with some hardware issues (battery-powered controllers, if you can imagine; and screams like a banshee when the drive is in use; and that's before even mentioning it's very high failure rate ["RROD"]). OTOH, the 360 also has the best selection of games, period. It's an unfortunate and painful choice for the next-gen systems, currently. Kinda sad.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 26, 2007)

The $400 40 gig PS3 is coming soon (Nov 2nd) so it's not really that expensive any more (not at least compared to the Xbox 360 at $350). Drawback is that it doesn't have PS2 back compatability (at all).

The 360 definitely has more games, though, and the $280 Arcade pack is viable (no hard drive, but does come with memory card at least).

However, in the future, it looks like most games will be for both (and PC).  Other than 1st party exclusives.

I'll probably end up getting a 360 first, simply because you can hook it up to a PC monitor (albeit with $50 cables), as I don't have an HDTV.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 26, 2007)

You'll find either side can make good points, usually by glossing over details or exagerating some failures. It also depends on what marks a good system to you.

If you get a 360, go for a Pro (the "normal" console) for $350 and either a Play & Charge kit ($20) or the recharger tower thingee. The new consoles come with Forza and Ultimate Alliance. In addition you also get backwards compatibility for the most part (list available).

Games you need (if you like the sort): Gears of War, Halo1/2/3, Bioshock. Mass Effect will probably be great, and Oblivion can destroy days of time.

I don't have a PS3, and the models change every month, but currently the 80 gig is the model to get, IIRC. It has emulated backwards compat like the 360, and all the hardware. The 40gig is neutered, though it'd still play the games and such. (Same as the 360 Core/ Arcade)

Model guide: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/10/diagram-compari.html

If you can put togethor a PC, that'd probably do you great. The Intel Core's are pricey though, and just about any of it will be outdated soon enough I'm sure.  Still, Bioshock, Crysis, etc, plus MMO's.


----------



## James Heard (Oct 26, 2007)

I'd go with the PC. Everything your next gen game consoles can do, your PC can do with enough mediocre investment, plus you can do "productive" things with it besides play games. Better yet, you're not stuck with a proprietary "maybe no one will buy it/make games for it" platform. You sometimes have to wait a while, but eventually almost everything comes to the PC - and if it doesn't it's not the fault of PC manufacturers locked into a corporate war with games companies.


----------



## MarauderX (Oct 26, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I'd go with the PC. Everything your next gen game consoles can do, your PC can do with enough mediocre investment, plus you can do "productive" things with it besides play games. Better yet, you're not stuck with a proprietary "maybe no one will buy it/make games for it" platform. You sometimes have to wait a while, but eventually almost everything comes to the PC - and if it doesn't it's not the fault of PC manufacturers locked into a corporate war with games companies.




I concur.  Plus you can upgrade as you wish - new video card, monitor, cable hook-up, get the opportunity for MMORPGs... etc.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 26, 2007)

MarauderX said:
			
		

> I concur.  Plus you can upgrade as you wish - new video card, monitor, cable hook-up, get the opportunity for MMORPGs... etc.




Err... even if you don't have an HDTV yet and decide getting one is necessary to get a current-gen console (which I think is true), it's still cheaper to get a $1000 HDTV and a $400 console than to spend three years on the gaming PC upgrade treadmill.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

I'd get all 3.

<--- TOO MUCH DISPOSABLE INCOME


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 26, 2007)

PC ftw.

All the best games (IMO) - and a decent enough setup is not actually _that_ expensive. Especially if you make your own, cutting through as much hype as possible when shopping for the parts.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> PC ftw.
> 
> All the best games (IMO) - and a decent enough setup is not actually _that_ expensive. Especially if you make your own, cutting through as much hype as possible when shopping for the parts.



Sure, you can get a decent gaming PC for a reasonable price. The thing is, it gets less decent every minute you own it as hardware specs march on. At this point I've resigned myself to only playing strategy games on my PC. 

One of the nice things about consoles is that the games get _better_ as the system ages, and you're always eligible for that platforms cutting-edge titles.


----------



## James Heard (Oct 26, 2007)

_Maybe _the games get better, unless your console is outmoded by next year's console. At which point you upgrade the PC and you put the console into the attic.

Consoles are on a ticking clock for the cutting edge too, you just don't notice it because you're not allowed to make any transitional adjustments.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 26, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> _Maybe _the games get better, unless your console is outmoded by next year's console. At which point you upgrade the PC and you put the console into the attic.
> 
> Consoles are on a ticking clock for the cutting edge too, you just don't notice it because you're not allowed to make any transitional adjustments.




But the thing is that a console early in its lifetime costs about as much as a high-end video card. This generation's somewhat more expensive because of the transition to HDTV, almost requiring a new television for most people, but that's not likely to be repeated for quite some time. Whereas if you keep up with the PC gaming upgrade treadmill to play cutting edge games, you'd've picked up three video cards and one pretty much completely new system (CPU, motherboard, RAM, hard drive, new type of media) over the lifetime of a console.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Whereas if you keep up with the PC gaming upgrade treadmill to play cutting edge games, you'd've picked up three video cards and one pretty much completely new system (CPU, motherboard, RAM, hard drive, new type of media) over the lifetime of a console.



Bingo.

Consoles become obsolete more slowly than high-end gaming PC's, new models aren't released annually, and users always have access to the cutting edge games. PC gaming is wonderful, but frankly it requires too big of an investment for me to justify and too much hassle trying to keep abreast of the latest hardware. 

I just bought a PS3 and I should be good for the next 4-5 years. Unless of course it really does tank. In which case I'll still have a Blu-ray player...


----------



## James Heard (Oct 26, 2007)

I guess I'm just failing to see where new PC games are always needing the absolute fastest video card. They'll SAY that a lot of times, but I honestly buying a "last years model" card usually cuts it just fine if you're willing to not put all your sliders up to the max and play on something that looks like it came off of last year's console.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I guess I'm just failing to see where new PC games are always needing the absolute fastest video card.



Nobody here said that they did. What I did say is "A nice thing about consoles is every user gets the top-end experience for the life of the console, without the need to upgrade". Which can't be said about PC gaming.

Whether you care about that top-end experience is another matter entirely.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 26, 2007)

You be crazy to get a PS3 right now.  Sorry, Sony fans.  As much as the Sony is the "better piece of hardware" it also turns out that it's a pain in the butt to program, and the code you write to program it is not very portable.  Soooo, PS3's game selection leaves a lot to be desired currently.

XBox360 games that rock: Dead Rising.  Oblivion.  Halo 3.  Overlord.  Bioshock.  Viva Pinata is a lot of fun, not that anyone bought it.  For god's sake, Bioshock.  Mass Effect any day now.  GTA4 at some point.  If you like casual games, you can get PacMan HD, Carcassone, and soon Talisman on the Arcade.  Geometry Wars is great of course.  There's enough on the Arcade alone to keep you occupied for a couple of months.

PS3 games: uh... Oblivion... (chirp) (chirp)...  I hear Heavenly Sword is good for a whole 5 hours of play... (chirp) (chirp)...  Eye of Judgement?   I hear Flow is original, and you get to hang out in a virtual house with other people who wish they had some games to play.  PS3 may some day ascend to a throne of powerhouse platform, but so far everything that has come out for it has either (a) come out for the XBox360 first or (b) has sucked.

PC is of course good, but it's becoming the second release point for a lot of games (especially RPGs).  It does still have NWN2, but maybe that isn't that great of a selling point.  If you like strategy games, then PC still has quite an edge there...  At least until Civilization Revolution comes out.  Who knows whether that experiment is going to work though.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 26, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> _Maybe _the games get better, unless your console is outmoded by next year's console. At which point you upgrade the PC and you put the console into the attic.
> 
> Consoles are on a ticking clock for the cutting edge too, you just don't notice it because you're not allowed to make any transitional adjustments.




I used to game more than I used to.  Now, I get in a good 2 hours of gaming if I'm lucky after my kid goes to bed.  With a console, I can bring home a game and those 2 hours are spent playing.  With a PC game, I spend the first two hours getting the latest non-certified nVidia driver downloaded and installed, getting the release-day patch from the company that wrote the game, tweaking graphics settings so that my game doesn't lag but still looks good.  And then it's time for bed.  Oooooh fun. 

I used to love playing on PCs, but with less time on my hands, the endless configuring is becoming a real chore.


----------



## James Heard (Oct 26, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Nobody here said that they did. What I did say is "A nice thing about consoles is every user gets the top-end experience for the life of the console, without the need to upgrade". Which can't be said about PC gaming.




Whether you care about that top-end experience is another matter entirely.[/QUOTE]
But a console _isn't_ the "top-end experience" after its release on approximately the same sort of schedule you'd expect for generational graphics. It's simply the only experience that console owners have. I like PS2 games too, but as far as graphics went their top-end props were gone for years before the PS3 came out.

All you're getting from a console is a consistent platform which means a little bit less of a patch issue, which I imagine will be a distinction that begins to vanish as more and more consoles go to online gaming experiences and developers get lazy. You get the "top-end" for a while, then you're stuck with last year's top end and you _can't_ upgrade.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 26, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> PS3 games: uh... Oblivion... (chirp) (chirp)...  I hear Heavenly Sword is good for a whole 5 hours of play... (chirp) (chirp)...  Eye of Judgement?   I hear Flow is original, and you get to hang out in a virtual house with other people who wish they had some games to play.  PS3 may some day ascend to a throne of powerhouse platform, but so far everything that has come out for it has either (a) come out for the XBox360 first or (b) has sucked.




There's also Warhawk and Ratchet and Clank : Tools of Destruction out now. By all accounts R&C is not only a great game, but blows away anything available on the 360. GTA will be out for the PS3 as well and will probably only need a single disk vs the multiple disks the 360 version is likely to require. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a big gun on the horizon for around the end of q1 08. Little Big Planet has gotten a lot of attention. Home (virtual world) is looking quite promising.

Don't forget the 360 wasn't exactly lavish with hot games right off of the bat and it's only in the past few months that many of the big guns have been released for the 360. Yes, the 360's line up is significantly better now. The 360 also had nearly a year headstart on the ps3 not even taking into account the supply problems Sony had for the first couple of months.


----------



## James Heard (Oct 26, 2007)

To be fair, if Spore were coming out exclusively on a console it would very likely be my most expensive game purchase ever very quickly. Regardless of any other factor other than "putting food on the table."


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 26, 2007)

I've heard good things about the new Ratchet and Clank.  So, agreed, I forgot about that.  The series has never caught my interest in the slightest.  Just not my thing, perhaps?  
But I've left out Gears of War on the XBox360 side, so let's call it an even trade.  

Xbox's initial release titles were also abysmal.  Agreed.  It was quite a while before it had the momentum going for it.  Like I said, the PS3 may turn it around.  Sony is a smart company, they have the capability to succeed.  But, I really wouldn't put money on it.  Certainly not the amount of money required to purchase a PS3.

XBox360 was released Nov. 22, 2005. 
Oblivion release: 3/20/2006 
Dead Rising release: 8/8/2006.
Gears of War release 11/7/2006.

PS3 was released Nov. 17th, 2006.  It's very nearly a year later now.  The excuse of it's only our initial line up!  That's getting kind of stale.  People were counting on Heavenly Sword and Lair to break the curse of the poor initial lineup.  But those wound up being turds.  Little Big Planet may be a great game, or it may be more bowel movements.  We'll see when it releases.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

James Heard said:
			
		

> But a console _isn't_ the "top-end experience" after its release on approximately the same sort of schedule you'd expect for generational graphics.



I should have written 'top-end experience for that platform'. Clearer?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Certainly not the amount of money required to purchase a PS3.



You mean 'the same amount of money as it costs to buy a 360 with a comparable hardware loadout'?

And I little confused as to why Oblivion is a plus for the 360 and minus for the PS3? I have the PS3 version and it's quite nice. There's no way in hell it'd run on my laptop and now I have a version I can play on my HDTV, so it's a win in my book.



> People were counting on Heavenly Sword and Lair to break the curse of the poor initial lineup. But those wound up being turds.



Have you actually played Heavely Sword? It's good.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 26, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> There's also Warhawk and Ratchet and Clank : Tools of Destruction out now. By all accounts R&C is not only a great game, but blows away anything available on the 360.




By all accounts?

Heh.

Under what set of guidelines is it a universal thing that R&C blows away Gears of War? I mean, I know it's hyperbole, but darned if I'd let my system purchase come down to Ratchet and Clank.

I've heard real good things about Warhawk, but I don't like Multiplayer Only, so not a big draw for me either. Heavenly Sword I've played in the demo and it was icky.

I liked CoD2 a lot for 360, and I'd think Fall of Man was probably equivalent for PS3, good game that people liked, but ultimately forgettable and forgotten.

Oddly, for Oblivion, everyone said the PC version was best, never really heard a comparison for PS3 vs 360.

For FEAR, again, PC version is an order of magnitude above the console. From what I've heard, the PS3 version is even worse than the 360 version.

To the OP: I own a console because I like to play while on the internet. TV isn't exactly filling the space, as there are few shows I watch. Your situation seems to be the opposite, the TV is needed while you're gaming, so probably a better bet for a new computer.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 26, 2007)

And another thing!

Controllers.
I'm not talking rumble or no, but simply the feel of the thing. The PS controllers have always been a bit off for me, and the PS3 is even worse. The 360 controller fits my hand great. (I haven't tried the Wii arrangement, but the Gamecube was nearly hand crippling.)

The 360 is always touted as too FPS-ey, but that has at least resulted in triggers that don't suck.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Oddly, for Oblivion, everyone said the PC version was best, never really heard a comparison for PS3 vs 360.



The reviews I've seen give a very slight edge to the PS3 version, and that's probably due to the lengthier development time.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 26, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> You mean 'the same amount of money as it costs to buy a 360 with a comparable hardware loadout'?




The reason Microsoft does so well is because they know that people buy software not hardware.  If Sony plays this same stupid game again, they'll lose in the same stupid way that most of Microsoft's competitors have.  So, no.  I don't care if the PS3 comes with a micro-singularity inside.  If they don't get some good games, they aren't going to succeed.

Cable companies are going to learn the same lesson in a few years, though it may be Sony who beats Microsoft to the punch with IPTV.  Who knows...  



> And I little confused as to why Oblivion is a plus for the 360 and minus for the PS3? I have the PS3 version and it's quite nice. There's no way in hell it'd run on my laptop and now I have a version I can play on my HDTV, so it's a win in my book.
> 
> Have you actually played Heavely Sword? It's good.




I put Oblivion on both sides as pluses (though admittedly I didn't create the release list for PS3.  Since that'd be one title long, it's not very interesting anyways).  As for Heavenly Sword...  I have played it.  It was called God of War.  And it used to not cost $60 for a whole six hours of play.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 26, 2007)

That said, I always chuckle when I hear about PS3 owners playing Oblivion.  Oblivion?  Yeah?  You mean that game I had 7 months before your console even came out?  How's that going for you?  It's pretty good huh?  Yeah.  It was good.  Remember Voltron?  Yeah, that was cool too.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> By all accounts?
> 
> Heh.
> 
> Under what set of guidelines is it a universal thing that R&C blows away Gears of War? I mean, I know it's hyperbole, but darned if I'd let my system purchase come down to Ratchet and Clank.






			
				Penny Arcade said:
			
		

> The new Ratchet & Clank is a marvel, further proof that Insomniac is the surest thing that platform has going for it. You'll travel to lush, hitch-free worlds where the brutal load times found in other Playstation titles are nowhere to be found. It's something everyone with the system will be playing, and it's executed at a level that should generate jealousy in the non-owner. I don't know if it's enough to make someone pick it up, but we're moving into that territory. I imagine it largely depends on whether they've heard the sound it makes when you pick up bolts. I know that our desire to obtain bolts is second only to our desire to obtain even more bolts, and this is due largely to its captivating jingle slash jangle.
> 
> Every time you play a demo, and there's something not quite right about it, you think "Oh, maybe they'll fix this before release" but they never do, and you pop in the final only to be greeted by the same issues.  The R&C demo (technically, the "R&CF:ToD" demo) was a few ebullient, engaging scenes marred by some fairly vicious graphical tearing.  I expected this tearing to persist in the final product, but I was having so much fun with it that I didn't care. Imagine my surprise when the retail disc retains the amusement I described earlier, only it runs like a Swiss watch. What a profound luxury it must be to focus on a single platform.




http://ps3.ign.com/articles/829/829409p1.html

I've seen other similar reviews in other places I can't think of at the moment.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 26, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I've seen other similar reviews in other places I can't think of at the moment.





You've seen reviews claiming Ratchet & Clank Future blows away every title on the Xbox 360?  That's very doubtful.  

Good game, yes.  Better than every game out there?  No.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 26, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> With a PC game, I spend the first two hours getting the latest non-certified nVidia driver downloaded and installed, getting the release-day patch from the company that wrote the game, tweaking graphics settings so that my game doesn't lag but still looks good.  And then it's time for bed.  Oooooh fun.





You're not actually going to spend two hours on that stuff.  However, I think if you don't like fiddling with PCs, reading tech reviews and generally being a giant nerd, PC gaming is just going to end up frustrating you.  The hardware side of things is too closely linked to the whole experience.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> http://ps3.ign.com/articles/829/829409p1.html
> 
> I've seen other similar reviews in other places I can't think of at the moment.




Don't misunderstand me, I acknowledge that people love the game. I disagree that there is any one game that can be universally liked. By posting the review above, are you trying to say that if anyone played it, they would agree that it is better than anything on the 360?

Heck, you pick a great review, it basically takes shots at the rest of the PS3 games load times.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 27, 2007)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> You're not actually going to spend two hours on that stuff.  However, I think if you don't like fiddling with PCs, reading tech reviews and generally being a giant nerd, PC gaming is just going to end up frustrating you.  The hardware side of things is too closely linked to the whole experience.




Speak for yourself, man.  I've done it multiple times recently.  And it's not because I don't know what I'm doing.  God help me if I DIDN'T know what I was doing.  Settlers, NWN2, and LotRO all required video driver updates to whichever nVidia driver happened to be out on release day.  

Oh I left out a part in that 2 hour process, which may be part of it.  INSTALL TIME.  Consoles really don't require the extremely lengthy install times that PC games seem to.  Consoles just don't write much to HD, other than the saved games I guess?  Plus, developers seem to depend on the speedy readers that the console provides?  I really don't know what is the secret sauce that keeps install times lower on console.  Perhaps it's offset by load times, but I haven't really noticed that.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2007)

The 360 runs from disc, the PS3 has the option. This is due to there being a 360 without the HD, so the HD can't be required for any games.

Bluray has a slower seek/load rate, so if both games draw from the disc, the 360 would be faster. If the PS3 loads stuff to the HD, then the HD would be faster. In practice, I'm not sure how PS3 games run.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Oct 27, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself, man.  I've done it multiple times recently.  And it's not because I don't know what I'm doing.  God help me if I DIDN'T know what I was doing.  Settlers, NWN2, and LotRO all required video driver updates to whichever nVidia driver happened to be out on release day.
> 
> Oh I left out a part in that 2 hour process, which may be part of it.  INSTALL TIME.  Consoles really don't require the extremely lengthy install times that PC games seem to.  Consoles just don't write much to HD, other than the saved games I guess?  Plus, developers seem to depend on the speedy readers that the console provides?  I really don't know what is the secret sauce that keeps install times lower on console.  Perhaps it's offset by load times, but I haven't really noticed that.





I can see having to update video card drivers and patch a new release, but does that take 2 hours?  In my experience, a driver update is like 5 minutes with all the rebooting.  A patch?  I don't know, 10 minutes?  Install time doesn't seem like a big impact on your time, especially since you can do your email/web browsing while it installs.

Fiddling with settings is what always gets me.  I never feel happy unless I'm sure the game is running every setting as high as it can.  That said, does it take me 2 hours?  I can't imagine it does.

But I do get what you're saying, and it's a big part of why consoles are so attractive to people.  Knowing that you can put in the disc and instantly be playing a unified experience with everyone else?  That's a big relief.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2007)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> But I do get what you're saying, and it's a big part of why consoles are so attractive to people.  Knowing that you can put in the disc and instantly be playing a unified experience with everyone else?  That's a big relief.




Unless, apparently, you have Ratchet & Clank, then you may have to adjust your memory 500mb either way with deleting/adding material...


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 28, 2007)

I know I'll be going 360 when i get my next console. If I was getting a console for a non gamer i'd go Wii. PS3 is for those completist gamers with cash to burn.

WTF is up with PS3s "Eye of judgement?" How transparent of a marketing ploy does it have to be before someone says _" No one will fall for this."_?


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 29, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I know I'll be going 360 when i get my next console. If I was getting a console for a non gamer i'd go Wii. PS3 is for those completist gamers with cash to burn.
> 
> WTF is up with PS3s "Eye of judgement?" How transparent of a marketing ploy does it have to be before someone says _" No one will fall for this."_?




Interesting that the Wii is brought up in the same context with this argument. 
Sometimes a gimmick has its own quality to it.    
I'm not saying Eye of Judgement is that hot, but at least it's trying something new.


----------



## redmagerush (Oct 29, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I
> 
> WTF is up with PS3s "Eye of judgement?" How transparent of a marketing ploy does it have to be before someone says _" No one will fall for this."_?




Well, it is pretty fun actually. Pretty deep gameplay as well. Very pricey though. And I'm horrible at it. Oh well.

I own a PS3 and love it. Warhawk and Folklore eat up my time like it is going out of style. Nothing on the 360 has grabbed me that way in a long time. Dead Rising was fun for a week, same with Gears and Halo 3. Bioshock failed to draw me in when I played it and I never got back around to picking it up.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 29, 2007)

This weekend I went into a custom PC shop where my friend gets all of his gaming PCs and I had a system spec'd out.

Damn.

Ok, I don't have $1800. That's my fault for going to a place that makes custom gaming PCs!

I'm leaning toward the $350 Xbox 360. Maybe they'll drop the price before I get my bonus in April.

Thanks everyone for their help!


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 29, 2007)

So, you won't be buying until April?


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm getting the distinct impression that the Chalfant Budget Committee will be unfriendly to any requests for emergency entertainment payments of that magnitude until at least the new year.

In other words: My wife gave me that look when I mentioned it.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 30, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> I'm getting the distinct impression that the Chalfant Budget Committee will be unfriendly to any requests for emergency entertainment payments of that magnitude until at least the new year.
> 
> In other words: My wife gave me that look when I mentioned it.



 Doh.

And just to add some content...

I'd go with the 360 for now but if you aren't buying for 6+ months it's best to check back sometime in March.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 30, 2007)

I got my Xbox 360 on Saturday, it's already fun as hell. I especially love the Xbox Arcade. Catan, Carcassone, and Golden Axe? Yes please!

Halo 3 should be arriving any day now, thanks to credit card reward points. I bought the Orange Box with the console, and the console came with Forza 2 and Marvel Alliance. Pretty sweet deal.


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 30, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Which do you guys like best?



Well, I fall into the hardcore gaming category, as I have all of toys you list - including a Alienware gaming PC.

By far I spend much more time on the Xbox 360 these days.  My Wii is fun for my step-daughter and for party games, but not much else that holds my interest.  The PS3 sure does a great job of playing my DVDs and my PS2 games... I've only purchased one game for it after a year.  The PC works great, but its usually more of hassle to patch, update drivers, etc. than just using the 360.  It's telling that as a big fan of the Command & Conquer games and I never considered getting the PC version.

I should also mention that I've been a huge shill for Sony's platforms since the PS1, and I still cannot recommend anything other than the 360.  The amount of quality games, the well-integrated Live Arcade and online gaming functionality, and a fine controller scheme too.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> The PS3 sure does a great job of playing my DVDs and my PS2 games... I've only purchased one game for it after a year.



If you're at all interested in shooty platformers, get Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction. I bought it over the weekend and it promptly ate most of Sunday afternoon. Lovely to look at and plays very nicely. 

Unless you're dying for Blu-ray (which, thanks to Comcasts paltry HD lineup in Philly, I was), it's hard to argue with going with a 360 right now. And on that note, what's really good for the 360 aside from Bioshock, Gears, and Halo 3? I'm going to trade systems w/a buddy of mine in a few months. What should encourage him to buy for his 360 before then (or rent after we switch)?


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> In other words: My wife gave me that look when I mentioned it.



So? Unless she spent less than $350 on her extraneous purchases this year, it is time to get a 360.


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> And on that note, what's really good for the 360 aside from Bioshock, Gears, and Halo 3? I'm going to trade systems w/a buddy of mine in a few months. What should encourage him to buy for his 360 before then (or rent after we switch)?




Well, depending on what genres he likes:  Ace Combat 6, Guitar Hero III, Oblivion, The Orange Box, Forza 2, Rainbox Six Vegas, Call of Duty 3, Command and Conquer 3, NBA 2K8, Madden 2008, Eternal Sonata, Dead Rising...

On Live Arcade, Puzzle Quest - Challenge of the Warlords, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Prince of Persia Classic, Uno, Catan, Doom, Carcassone, Geometry Wars...

There's plenty of good stuff out there.


----------



## ohGr (Oct 31, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Well, depending on what genres he likes:  Ace Combat 6, Guitar Hero III, Oblivion, The Orange Box, Forza 2, Rainbox Six Vegas, Call of Duty 3, Command and Conquer 3, NBA 2K8, Madden 2008, Eternal Sonata, Dead Rising...



I'll second Oblivion, Orange Box, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Dead Rising (haven't played the rest).  I'd also add Crackdown to the mix; best surprise of the year, for me.  _Very_ fun.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 31, 2007)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> I got my Xbox 360 on Saturday, it's already fun as hell. I especially love the Xbox Arcade. Catan, Carcassone, and Golden Axe? Yes please!
> 
> Halo 3 should be arriving any day now, thanks to credit card reward points. I bought the Orange Box with the console, and the console came with Forza 2 and Marvel Alliance. Pretty sweet deal.




Did you say Catan... Online? Sweet.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 31, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> So? Unless she spent less than $350 on her extraneous purchases this year, it is time to get a 360.




Its not just the $350. It's the $350 plus what I spent at Gen Con plus all the other gamer books I bought this year plus all the new brewing equipment I bought this summer plus the family trip to Cancun in January plus...

Well, you get the idea. I have too many hobbies.


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 31, 2007)

ohGr said:
			
		

> I'd also add Crackdown to the mix; best surprise of the year, for me.  _Very_ fun.



Definitely a fun ride there!  

My only ding for that one was that it was a bit short, and I wish they would have continued to ramp up the Agent's powers - I always thought that _The Incredible Hulk - Ultimate Destruction_ set the bar for having superhumans in games, and I wish they'd done more towards approaching that level of power.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Well, you get the idea. I have too many hobbies.



Don't be silly, it's good to have more hobbies than playing video games and pretending to be an elf. 

For instance, drinking martini's...


----------



## ohGr (Oct 31, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Definitely a fun ride there!
> 
> My only ding for that one was that it was a bit short, and I wish they would have continued to ramp up the Agent's powers - I always thought that _The Incredible Hulk - Ultimate Destruction_ set the bar for having superhumans in games, and I wish they'd done more towards approaching that level of power.



I agree on both counts; Ultimate Destruction is an awesome game.  (And the Xbox version is backwards compatible on the 360, so it's another one worth checking out.)


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 31, 2007)

ohGr said:
			
		

> (And the Xbox version is backwards compatible on the 360, so it's another one worth checking out.)



Oh ho!  I wasn't aware of that... time to break it out of the old game box and dig it out.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 31, 2007)

Oh yeah, speaking of XBox360.   I just tried out PuzzleQuest for the first time on the XBox360 arcade.  That's actually one hell of an addictive RPG.  I keep restarting everytime my character is "Defeated"...  Rather a hard way to play it, but keeps you on the edge of your seat, that's for sure.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

ohGr said:
			
		

> I'll second Oblivion, Orange Box, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Dead Rising (haven't played the rest).  I'd also add Crackdown to the mix; best surprise of the year, for me.  _Very_ fun.



ohGr and freeb: thanks for the recommendations. I'll definitely check out Crackdown and Dead Rising. 

As for Oblivion, I just picked it up cheap for the PS3 (really, you can play games on it...). I haven't spent much time w/it, but it looks very promising, and by promising I mean 'life-sucking'. I'll probably end up getting the PS3 Orange Box too, when then finish it. I'm really curious to see that the final retail product looks like after Gabe Newell said such kind things about the PS3's architecture (after getting another developer to do the port).


----------



## freebfrost (Nov 1, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I keep restarting everytime my character is "Defeated"...  Rather a hard way to play it, but keeps you on the edge of your seat, that's for sure.



Why are you doing that?  You still get some rewards for losing, and can replay that battle at anytime.... I went up against a Giant Bat at least a dozen times since he was about 2 levels higher than me when I first encountered him, but I eventually beat it down.


----------



## Enforcer (Nov 1, 2007)

Man, I blew through the first 17 rooms of Portal on the Orange Box last night. That game is mind-blowing. So cool and so fun. I love the computerized voice too.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 1, 2007)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Why are you doing that?  You still get some rewards for losing, and can replay that battle at anytime.... I went up against a Giant Bat at least a dozen times since he was about 2 levels higher than me when I first encountered him, but I eventually beat it down.




I know you can, but what's the fun in that?


----------



## freebfrost (Nov 2, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I know you can, but what's the fun in that?



Because I got killed and I still took its stuff!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2007)

I knew eventually I was going to put money down for a 360, I just didn't expect it to be so soon.  Yesterday I went out and bought the 20g model with a most excellent coupon from K-Mart that knocked $70 off the price.

I've only had about 4-6 hours with the console itself (including set-up, reading directions, and mucking around in XBL.)  Already I can see why some folks would be turned off.  While I think XBL is an excellent service, most of the extra DLC has a pricetag, and that includes the various themes and gamer pictures.  I would like to customize my XBox that way, but not at the expense of my wallet.  (I also have ethical questions about it, like who gets this money, and do they actually deserve it?  But I don't want to get into that.)

However, I'm not regretting my purchase at all.  I've barely combed the functionality the console has to offer, and it has so many great games (both released and coming up).  In my mind it's the best system to have if gaming is a serious hobby.  Of course I know that could still change, seeing as how early we are in the three consoles' lives, but I think I've made the right choice.

Let me just say really quickly that I'm not knocking the PS3, just illustrating my own brief experience with the 360, and why it was the right console for me.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 14, 2007)

On the downloadable content score, I don't have a problem at all with the various fees being charged for the downloadable content.  The only way you're going to get a healthy variety of content is to charge something for it.  What I DO wish was that it wasn't such a walled garden.  People should be able to create and release free downloads.  Of course, then it becomes a security problem, and maybe XBox doesn't want to deal with that.

Although, if I want a damn gamer pic, I should be able to get that off the internet, not get charged for it.  That's just stupid.  Hence, I still haven't bothered to change mine from one of the defaults.


----------



## Felon (Nov 14, 2007)

The PC is the best choice for a MMORPG gamer, obviously. Having a mouse makes it superior for FPS games as well. I never will understand how the popularity of Halo or other FPS's on the consoles failed to generate market forces that should have driven MS and Sony to produce a wireless mouse. Such a thing would become a staple of every decent console setup. 

The PS3 and Xbox are a wash IMHO. As has been stated, success in the console market is not about hardware specs. It's about the games. The Xbox could make a noise like a 742 turbine engine and people would still buy it to play Halo 3. But Halo 3 is really the only killer console-exclusive game for the Xbox, and the PS3 doesn't have one at all, so unless you're a Halo fan there is nothing currently providing a clear-cut edge for one or the other. 

I wound up getting an Xbox because I wanted to play Mass Effect. That was back in April when Mass Effect was promised to be out in May. Bioware lied, then lied again and slated it for September, then pushed it back to November. It looks like they're done with the jerking around, and I pray to the gods that it was worth the wait.


----------



## Felon (Nov 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I knew eventually I was going to put money down for a 360, I just didn't expect it to be so soon.  Yesterday I went out and bought the 20g model with a most excellent coupon from K-Mart that knocked $70 off the price.
> 
> I've only had about 4-6 hours with the console itself (including set-up, reading directions, and mucking around in XBL.)  Already I can see why some folks would be turned off.  While I think XBL is an excellent service, most of the extra DLC has a pricetag, and that includes the various themes and gamer pictures.  I would like to customize my XBox that way, but not at the expense of my wallet.



Oh yes, there is a very evident attitude on Xbox Live that giving anything away for free is a very bad thing. 

Having said that, there are certainly lots and lots of freely downloadable game demos. I think I had my Xbox a couple of weeks before I actually put a game in it.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> The PS3 and Xbox are a wash IMHO. As has been stated, success in the console market is not about hardware specs. It's about the games. The Xbox could make a noise like a 742 turbine engine and people would still buy it to play Halo 3. But Halo 3 is really the only killer console-exclusive game for the Xbox, and the PS3 doesn't have one at all, so unless you're a Halo fan there is nothing currently providing a clear-cut edge for one or the other.




I completely agree.  A big selling factor was that 3 of my friends have 360s, and we all enjoy Halo.  So there was a social aspect weighing on my decision as well.

The PS3 games will come.  I've always loved the Ratchet and Clank games, and the new one looks stellar.  Plus, Drake's Fortune, MSG4, Warhawk, and the multiplatform games all look wonderful.  And Home sounds really cool, I'd like to know more about it.  I think Sony botched the PS3 launch, but the system is certainly coming around.



> I wound up getting an Xbox because I wanted to play Mass Effect. That was back in April when Mass Effect was promised to be out in May. Bioware lied, then lied again and slated it for September, then pushed it back to November. It looks like they're done with the jerking around, and I pray to the gods that it was worth the wait.




Another important decision for me on buying the system, so I'm right there with you.


----------



## Rackhir (Nov 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh yes, there is a very evident attitude on Xbox Live that giving anything away for free is a very bad thing.




This is very much a Microsoft thing. Bill Gates actually invented the concept of software piracy. Back in the days of the very first personal computers people used to just give away the software (very primitive mind you) and he complained that people were giving out copies of the Basic he had written for the Altair.

My brother works for Kodak and back in the nineties they wanted to give away a basic image editing package with their Photo CD product, but got a lot of pressure from Microsoft to charge some sort of nominal fee for the product. Simply because they didn't like the precedent of giving the software away.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 14, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> On the downloadable content score, I don't have a problem at all with the various fees being charged for the downloadable content.  The only way you're going to get a healthy variety of content is to charge something for it.  What I DO wish was that it wasn't such a walled garden.  People should be able to create and release free downloads.  Of course, then it becomes a security problem, and maybe XBox doesn't want to deal with that.



Theoretically, that's the problem. Even game patchs have to be cleared with XBox Team to make sure there's no problem and such, before it'll be put in the cue. I can't see MS opening the can of worms that a "free area" would engender.



> Although, if I want a damn gamer pic, I should be able to get that off the internet, not get charged for it.  That's just stupid.  Hence, I still haven't bothered to change mine from one of the defaults.




I agree that charging for the gamer pics and such is silly. It's a promotional product in most cases. Getting an image from elsewhere opens the possibility of someone being offended, but that hardly seems a problem. It's all about Control, I'm sure.


For myself, I have never bought or used any MS Points since I got my XBox 360 at the start of 06. I've played demo's, free games, etc and never bothered looking for backgrounds and such.


----------



## takyris (Nov 14, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I wound up getting an Xbox because I wanted to play Mass Effect. That was back in April when Mass Effect was promised to be out in May. Bioware lied, then lied again and slated it for September, then pushed it back to November. It looks like they're done with the jerking around, and I pray to the gods that it was worth the wait.




Nitpick: Can you find me anything from BioWare that gives a formal release date for Mass Effect? Amazon.com, Microsoft, sure, I can see them saying stuff that turned out to be flat-out wrong, but while Mass Effect had a number of internal release dates planned (and then pushed back when it became clear that we'd be releasing a sub-par product), I don't recall seeing anything stated formally.

'Cause my view from the inside is that we never said anything about a release date. The "we don't plan to show anything at E3" is the closest I saw Ray and Greg get, and that's a ways short of marking a date on the calendar.


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> Nitpick: Can you find me anything from BioWare that gives a formal release date for Mass Effect? Amazon.com, Microsoft, sure, I can see them saying stuff that turned out to be flat-out wrong, but while Mass Effect had a number of internal release dates planned (and then pushed back when it became clear that we'd be releasing a sub-par product), I don't recall seeing anything stated formally.
> 
> 'Cause my view from the inside is that we never said anything about a release date. The "we don't plan to show anything at E3" is the closest I saw Ray and Greg get, and that's a ways short of marking a date on the calendar.



My May release date (and in general my fascination with Mass Effect) came from Bioware newsletters. I suppose it is conceivable that the newsletters simply danced around using implicit language like "imminent" and "impending" and "almost here" while they let Microsoft and major retailers throw out dates that were specific--letting folks like me be strung along for weeks and months making purchasing decisions based on bad intel, and then at the 10th or 11th hour saying "nope, not yet"--but I don't see much of an "innocent bystander" defense in that. 

At any rate, in a week's time my bitterness will be water under the bridge.


----------



## ohGr (Nov 15, 2007)

On the whole "free stuff on the XBL Marketplace" front, to celebrate Live's 5-year anniversary, Carcassone is free to download today and tomorrow.

*So go download it now!*


----------



## Bront (Nov 15, 2007)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> Did you say Catan... Online? Sweet.



You can do that on the PC for free.

Hellhound told be about a site, I forgot where it is, and I can't look it up at the moment, but there are websites where you can do that with a normal PC.

I got a Wii for a low priced gamesystem about a year ago, and it's a lot of fun.  It works great on a normal TV, graphics are good (though not great), but gameplay is usually stellar, and it's missing some of the games the PS3 and 360 get.  It have the huge advantage of some of the best in house game franchises though.  The big advantages the Wii had for me was I had a gamecube and it was compatable, and it had the games I wanted (Zelda & Metroid specificly)

I also have a PC, and I used to enjoy a lot of games for it, but I've found that short of the more involved sandbox games (Like X or Oblivion), it's lacking at times.  I don't care for FPS games (Which PCs are very good at), no MMORPGs for me, and I'm not a huge straturgy guy.  The PC has been left out of the development loop for a lot of new games that aren't in that mold.  There are no college sports games for it, and it's behind the curve in the Pro Sports arena now (and I don't know why).

So, that leaves the 360 and PS3.

If history keeps to itself, the 360 will have a lot more FPS games and support from US game makers, while the PS3 will end up with a few more well rounded games and support from the japanese game makers.  The game makers is a big difference when talking about RPGs at least.

So, if you're worried about budget, or want something the whole family can fool around with, I'd go Wii.  Beyond that, 360 and PS3 are good choices.

You can build a reasonable gaming PC for $1200 (I did in '06 and it's still can handle anything thrown at it), and that's not a bad option if you need a PC for other things (Said PC I use also does some DVD burning, home video work, web programing, and other fun stuff).

The big thing is to find out what games you want.  If there are some PC games, then a PC is a better choice for you.  If there are some 360 games you want, then go 360.  If it's PS3? Wii? go for that.  If they're out for all systems, then you need to fit your budget and needs.

BTW, you'll need an HDTV or converter in the next year or two anyway if you're in the US, so you might want to look into doing that (and it's easier to convince the wife, as she gets something out of it), and you can always sneak in your new consol later.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 15, 2007)

Yep, probably depends a whole lot on what type of games one likes best, what system will be the best choice.

A PC is a lot more powerful than any gaming console out there and can do lots of other useful things, but there are some types of games, that simply aren't available for the PC or only very few are.

Budget games for the PC are a lot cheaper, though, IMX; and a lot of really good titles end up there after a few months or a year.

And with just about $800 (guess) you can build a nice system already these days (lower end mainboard, lower end DualCore CPU, reasonably priced 2GB RAM, 8800GT or equivalent video card, ...).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2007)

ohGr said:
			
		

> On the whole "free stuff on the XBL Marketplace" front, to celebrate Live's 5-year anniversary, Carcassone is free to download today and tomorrow.
> 
> *So go download it now!*



Aw, you beat me to it.


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> A PC is a lot more powerful than any gaming console out there and can do lots of other useful things, but there are some types of games, that simply aren't available for the PC or only very few are.



Can do more stuff? OK. 

More powerful than any gaming console? Not sure what mean there. A console is dedicated to playing games, and the current generation do it at least as well as a garden variety PC.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 15, 2007)

Current PCs have more raw processing power and better dedicated graphics hardware as well with current high-end video cards (at a price, of course). The new Crysis, for example, is impossible to do on current console systems (from what I have seen and read, it really shows of what gaming PCs are capable today). Of course, you won't have much fun with a $800 PC with that one either, supposedly. 

One big advantage of consoles is, that the software is much easier to produce, since there is no mixing hardware, and hence it's less bug-ridden.

And you are right, of course, that todays consoles can easily keep up with an average PC in the gaming department.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## drothgery (Nov 15, 2007)

Bront said:
			
		

> If history keeps to itself, the 360 will have a lot more FPS games and support from US game makers, while the PS3 will end up with a few more well rounded games and support from the japanese game makers.  The game makers is a big difference when talking about RPGs at least.




History's unlikely to repeat itself here, mostly because the 360's outselling the PS3 by a huge margin everywhere but in Japan. It seems like the Japanese console RPGs have generally been making a beeline for portables (most notably the next main sequence Dragon Quest is on the DS), excepting some projects that have been committed to the PS3 for a long time (most notably FFXIII) and some MS-funded studios making 360 games.



			
				Bront said:
			
		

> BTW, you'll need an HDTV or converter in the next year or two anyway if you're in the US, so you might want to look into doing that (and it's easier to convince the wife, as she gets something out of it), and you can always sneak in your new consol later.




This one really isn't true. You'll need a digital converter (or a newer TV capable of handling digital broadcasts, which doesn't need to be an HDTV) to get over-the-air TV in the next year or two in the US. But since most people get TV via cable or sattelite, and that's not affected, it's probably not a factor in whether you need a new TV or not.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> One big advantage of consoles is, that the software is much easier to produce, since there is no mixing hardware, and hence it's less bug-ridden.




In theory. In practice, the PS3 is really weird architectually, and that tends to blow away that advantage.


----------



## Bront (Nov 16, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> This one really isn't true. You'll need a digital converter (or a newer TV capable of handling digital broadcasts, which doesn't need to be an HDTV) to get over-the-air TV in the next year or two in the US. But since most people get TV via cable or sattelite, and that's not affected, it's probably not a factor in whether you need a new TV or not.



That would qualify as a converter as I mentioned 

It's still going to be a good time to buy a new TV in the next year or so.  I saw a 32" LCD TV that did 1080I (the Min you want) for $699, and it was a brand name.  They're coming down in price, and if you're aiming for a new consol in April, you might want to roll that into an entirely new entertainment system.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 16, 2007)

Bront said:
			
		

> It's still going to be a good time to buy a new TV in the next year or so.  I saw a 32" LCD TV that did 1080I (the Min you want) for $699, and it was a brand name.  They're coming down in price, and if you're aiming for a new consol in April, you might want to roll that into an entirely new entertainment system.




I've seen 32" 720p LCDs for as little as $499 online (I'm not really sure a 1080i LCD can exist; it doesn't seem possible given how LCDs work) and 30" widescreen CRTs in the same range, and I'd tend to agree that that's about as small as you'd want to go. That ends up being about as 'tall' of a screen as a 25-27" 4:3 screen.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 16, 2007)

Good article on the insides of the 360 that a prospective buyer should probably read (so you get the right model)

http://anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3152&p=1


----------



## Bront (Nov 17, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I've seen 32" 720p LCDs for as little as $499 online (I'm not really sure a 1080i LCD can exist; it doesn't seem possible given how LCDs work) and 30" widescreen CRTs in the same range, and I'd tend to agree that that's about as small as you'd want to go. That ends up being about as 'tall' of a screen as a 25-27" 4:3 screen.



This was it.

Now that you mention it, yeah, that's a bit odd, but it might just be what the circitry can handle.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 17, 2007)

Bront said:
			
		

> This was it.
> 
> Now that you mention it, yeah, that's a bit odd, but it might just be what the circitry can handle.




Okay, looking at Magnavox's web site, that's a 1366 x 768 panel. Which is a pretty common resolution for 720p LCDs, even though 720p would be 1280 x 720.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 20, 2007)

Well now. I just ordered the xbox360 along with a bunch of games. I just hope it will be as good as I have heard. I've been pondering between xbox360 and PS3 since summer and finally made my mind.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 21, 2007)

If I were to get a console, it would be a 360. Simply because that way, as I already own a PS2 (unused for a while,) I would have access to Xbox, Xbox360, PS1 and PS2 games. If I already had an Xbox though, I'd probably go the other way and grab a PS3. Same logic, of course. I like having access to a wide variety of games - which is why I'd always go for a PC, all else being roughly equal. But yeah, in that 'if' case. . .


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 21, 2007)

I would love to have a dedicated gaming PC, but that's a much more expensive and knowledge-intensive road to travel.  The way I see it, there are two ways to go:

1) Buy a gaming PC from a Dell or HP or Alienware or whomever and pay a significant premium.  On the good side the PC's all put together for me, comes within 10 days of my purchase, and has a nice warranty on all the parts.  On the bad side, I've probably paid $2500, minimum, to get all that.

2) Put the PC together myself.  It would save me about $1000, but I have to acquire all the parts and assemble them.

Unfortunately I don't really have the cash or the know-how for either option.  I might be able to put a PC together with the help of a friend, but of course if a part breaks down (as they sometimes do) and my friend's not around, then I can't really fix it myself.

The 360 was the best option for me because there is so much out there.  And now that I've spent some time with it, I think XBL is a fantastic service.  (The jury is still out on whether or not it should be _paid for_, but that is another discussion, honestly.)  I've always enjoyed PC games because of the multiplayer potential online.  XBox and the PS3 have a robust player connection service, and each has games that really come to life in a multiplayer environment.  The console/computer gaming lines are blurring.


----------



## Goldmoon (Dec 18, 2007)

I'm not sure if this was said but I noticed you had MMORPG's in your OP. The 360 has 2 MMORPG's currently and if I recall correctly, 2 more planned in the near future. One of the current ones (Final Fantasy XI) lets you play on the same servers as PC and PS2 players which makes for a LOT of people to play with.


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 20, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if this was said but I noticed you had MMORPG's in your OP. The 360 has 2 MMORPG's currently and if I recall correctly, 2 more planned in the near future. One of the current ones (Final Fantasy XI) lets you play on the same servers as PC and PS2 players which makes for a LOT of people to play with.



I strongly recommend not buying an xbox if your goal is mmorpgs, especially Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy online has a problem, in that its technology will ever remain an early console generation old.  Its a very old mmorpg that just doesnot compare with modern mmorpgs. Mind you it is a good game, but it is so slow and repetive compared to now days.  

square is developing an mmoprg for the ps3 and there are 2 more in development by other companies.  I am looking forward to the square one. I liked Final fantasy online a lot and considering the improvements over the last five years, i expect square to make a spectacular game. So far rumors have it that its based off of the Saga series.  

As far as systems it was a nobrainer for me.  PS3 all the way.  Better technology, good online system, and a better lineup of games.  Plus I didn't have to play system roulette.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 20, 2007)

I just picked up Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for my PS3, and I'm looking forward to it - the reviews have been great and it sounds like a blast!


----------



## Mallus (Dec 20, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I just picked up Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for my PS3, and I'm looking forward to it - the reviews have been great and it sounds like a blast!



My mother-in-law is getting it for me this Christmas. Heh, I sound like a married 12-year old. I also recently picked up Call of Duty 4. I'm hardly the biggest FPS fan, but I have to say, it's excellent. 

So far, I'm real digging my PS3. Best entertainment purchase I made in a long time.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Dec 20, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So far, I'm real digging my PS3. Best entertainment purchase I made in a long time.




My Dad bought one just for the Blu Ray player, and my younger brother (who still lives at home) gets to reap the benefits!  I played with the system while I was home for Thanksgiving and I was really impressed.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 20, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I played with the system while I was home for Thanksgiving and I was really impressed.



What games did you try?


----------



## dema (Jan 2, 2008)

*Thinking about it*

I have owned 2 Xbox systems in the past. One I gave to a friend to borrow, until the world ends. Well it burned itself, so I took my controllers back for safe keeping. Then I got another one so my girlfriend (now wife) can do something together at home to kill time ( we barely breathed on it.) That one we gave to her brother with a load of games and all the controllers. He modded it to play, well, all games from any pre-Xbox 360 games. I'm not a gamer anymore but I like to occasional shooter, fighter or flying game. 

I saw the Wii in action yesterday, it seemed fun. Our adopted family consisting of folks in their 50's, 60's appeared to like the bowling game. I was drinking and eating then sleeping so I did not play the game system but it seems the most fun for regular folks. My time in gaming pasted about 15-20 years ago when I was in my prime (heading to be 30 soon.)

My B-Day is coming in about 3 weeks so I was thinking of getting the 360 Elite with another controller and a few games (spending about 850 max.) Oh I had an Playstation I think too, god knows who got that one. 

I have the HD TV thing going. I'll have to rewire for the Ethernet. So Xbox 360 is the way? 

Gaming titles I'm thinking about would be; 
Halo 2 or 3 ( bearly got to the middle of Halo 1 before I lost time and interest) , 
Soul Caliber 4 ( in June), 
Call of Duty 4 ( is suppose to be good, but with Halo do I need another shooter?),
Ninja Gaiden (x which ever, it was a kinda cool)
Prince of Persia or God of War,
I would think Guitar Hero, Rock Band would be cool, but I have a real guitar and prefer real drums to buttons. I guess you can say I prefer real sword and guns too but, it's hard to find a place around here to play with such toys.

The HD DVD box is about 200 xtra, don't know if it's worth it.

So the people out there seem to think Xbox 360 is the way to go. How is the system about not committing suicide. And also I have cats, that like to rub against things, their hair ends up ever where. I clean my PC fans and chips 2 times a year. I clean my HD TV fan. Do I have to worry and is it easy to clean the 360 fan and vents.

Thanks.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 2, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> The HD DVD box is about 200 xtra, don't know if it's worth it.
> 
> So the people out there seem to think Xbox 360 is the way to go. How is the system about not committing suicide. And also I have cats, that like to rub against things, their hair ends up ever where. I clean my PC fans and chips 2 times a year. I clean my HD TV fan. Do I have to worry and is it easy to clean the 360 fan and vents.



It really depends on what kind of games you want and if you care about how much you are spending and if you will be using it to watch HD movies.

I love my 360, but it doesn't have the kind of games I really love.  It does have Mass Effect, which is worth owning a 360 for, to me as a RPG fan.    And I just got an Elite and it runs cooler and is less noisy that the older 360's. I expect that means it will be more reliable.

Problem with the 360 is that the accessories really add up fast.  $450 Elite, $180, $50 one year Xbox Live and then you go from there with battery packs, the recharging kit and such.  Oddly enough, it turns out that the $500 PS3 is a cheaper investment.  You really only need an extra controller.  The problem with the PS3 is the current lack of games where the 360 has a big advantage right now.

If you like FPS, racers and fighters the 360 has lots of those and will fit you nicely.  However, if you want more selection than that or if you want to watch Blu-Ray movies (check a list of what is available for each HD format if interested) you could go with a PS3.

It's all about what games you like and if you'll be using the unit to watch other HD content.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> Gaming titles I'm thinking about would be;
> Halo 2 or 3 ( bearly got to the middle of Halo 1 before I lost time and interest) ,




Heard nothing but good things about both of the games, though Halo 2 was for the original Xbox and won't have all the bells and whistles of 3.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> Call of Duty 4 ( is suppose to be good, but with Halo do I need another shooter?),




Its a different kind of game from the Halo series, but I probably wouldn't rush out to get it if I had Halo 3.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> Ninja Gaiden (x which ever, it was a kinda cool)



 Supposed to be good, but extremely difficult. Also is just a remake of an earlier game, so you may have played it.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> God of War,



 God of War is great, but a PS2 title and isn't available for the Xbox as far as I can tell.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> would think Guitar Hero, Rock Band would be cool, but I have a real guitar and prefer real drums to buttons. I guess you can say I prefer real sword and guns too but, it's hard to find a place around here to play with such toys.




Rock Band/Guitar Hero are social games, especially RB. Playing a Guitar for real, will not help you even a little bit, nor is the game anything like playing a real guitar/drums/etc...



			
				dema said:
			
		

> The HD DVD box is about 200 xtra, don't know if it's worth it.



 Almost certainly no. Especially if you have an upconverting DVD player. 



			
				dema said:
			
		

> So the people out there seem to think Xbox 360 is the way to go. How is the system about not committing suicide. And also I have cats, that like to rub against things, their hair ends up ever where. I clean my PC fans and chips 2 times a year. I clean my HD TV fan. Do I have to worry and is it easy to clean the 360 fan and vents.




You are probably going to have problems with a 360 then. Might be later rather than sooner especially if you get one of the newer models with the cooler running chips, but there is something close to a 33% failure rate on the 360s and plenty of people have had multiple machines go bad on them. I would look into the ways of making sure you are getting one of the machines with the newer cooler chips for certain.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 2, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Almost certainly no. Especially if you have an upconverting DVD player.



As good as upconverted DVDs look, they don't look as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.  However, screen size does make a difference.

dema - How large is your screen and can you display 1080p.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> As good as upconverted DVDs look, they don't look as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.  However, screen size does make a difference.




Yes, but the stand alone HD-DVD players are down to about the same price (sometimes even cheaper) as the add on drive and are a much better way to try and watch one.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 2, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Yes, but the stand alone HD-DVD players are down to about the same price (sometimes even cheaper) as the add on drive and are a much better way to try and watch one.



 The quality of those players are somewhat dubious for the moment.  That said, you are probably right about the standalone players if I'm reading between the lines correctly:  Wait a bit longer and the price and quality will be just right for HD-DVD players.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 2, 2008)

I'll ditto John Crichton, pretty much word-for-word, with an additional note that the "lack of games" for the PS3 is now close to becoming a fallacy.

At this point in time, most of the 3rd party games are multi-console (eg. the aforementioned Call of Duty 4, GH3, Rock Band, Soulcalibur 4, etc), with really only Halo being excusive... and if you lost interest in Halo 1 (arguably the best of the bunch) you'll not be happy with either 2 or 3, which are much worse - so the PS3 is getting tons of games now.

And, for my money at least, the PS3 exclusives (eg. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank, Warkhawk) are equal to the 360's now (Halo 3, Mass Effect, and uh...uh... Crackdown...?), before even mentioning how shoddy and unreliable 360s are.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The quality of those players are somewhat dubious for the moment.  That said, you are probably right about the standalone players if I'm reading between the lines correctly:  Wait a bit longer and the price and quality will be just right for HD-DVD players.




Most of the ones I've seen on sale are simply last years models getting cleared out. So there's no issues with them, other than them not having all the latest bells and whistles (like 720p vs 1080p). 

However, there's also the issue of the future of the formats. Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray are setting the world on fire and even their "Big-Hits" don't even sell a tenth the number that the DVD release of the same movies do. There's some talk about '08 being the year the format war gets decided, but I'm not holding out much hope for that and fully expect that neither format is going to "win". I strongly suspect that some sort of download service/format/device is going to nip in and kill both formats, much as iTunes did with DVD-Audio and SACD in the audio realm.

That's one of the reasons why I tend to favor Blu-Ray, IF you want a high def media now. Since Sony is likely to continue to support the format and/or be playable longer. If only because that's the format for the PS3 game disks.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 2, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> However, there's also the issue of the future of the formats. Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray are setting the world on fire and even their "Big-Hits" don't even sell a tenth the number that the DVD release of the same movies do. There's some talk about '08 being the year the format war gets decided, but I'm not holding out much hope for that and fully expect that neither format is going to "win". I strongly suspect that some sort of download service/format/device is going to nip in and kill both formats, much as iTunes did with DVD-Audio and SACD in the audio realm.




It's not going to happen. DVD quality movies take too long to download unless you're very patient or schedule them to run overnight at the 5 Mbps or so that cable and DSL typically top out at, and HD movies are several times longer.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It's not going to happen. DVD quality movies take too long to download unless you're very patient or schedule them to run overnight at the 5 Mbps or so that cable and DSL typically top out at, and HD movies are several times longer.




DSL at speeds up to 100 mbps is widely available in many countries around the world, right now. Verizon's FIOS service hits 30 mbps right now and the next gen of Cable modems due to be hitting in the later part of this year can do up to 100 mbps. The US is currently lagging badly compared to a lot of countries overseas in terms of the speed of our available internet connections.

Not to mention the ever increasing efficiency of video compression codecs, which are continuing to rapidly increase picture quality and reduce file sizes. Then there's technology like Bittorents which make it possible to download a 1080p tv program in at most a handful of hours right now. I know a number of people who watch a substantial number of shows from overseas this way right now.

So it IS coming and it's going to be here sooner than a lot of people might expect and certainly a lot faster than Hollywood and the TV Networks would like. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow or even this year, but it will be here long before a lot of people expect.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 2, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> That's one of the reasons why I tend to favor Blu-Ray, IF you want a high def media now. Since Sony is likely to continue to support the format and/or be playable longer. If only because that's the format for the PS3 game disks.



I've skewed towards BR from the start for this same reason.  I think that this year should be a good one for HD in general.  Between all the extra channels rolling out from satellite and cable providers, HD hardware dropping in price and the upcoming federal change in 2009 to HD, public awareness should continue to rise.

DVD is still king and rightfully so.  To afford a decent HD setup or even want one requires an investment many people still aren't going to make until they have to.  I do expect TV manufacturers to take advantage of the federal mandate and get many people into new TVs ASAP.  Even though they won't really have to people will probably still upgrade, it's just a matter of how many.

It does make me feel good to wander through Best Buy and have heavy traffic in the HDTV section, tho.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 2, 2008)

You think Sony is in for the long haul and Microsoft isn't?  I have to disagree on that one.

The whole Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD is a disaster for the industry. Worse, unlike VHS vs. Beta, this fight is tied up in larger issues and ultimately comes down to Xbox 360 vs. PS3; Microsoft vs. Sony.

And since neither of those formats or companies is going to fold their hand in this game of poker, this conflict is on for the forseeable future.  There isn't going to BE a resolution.

The ideal solution, imo, from the consumer's perspective, would be for DVD's to ship encoded for both DVD on one side and HD DVD on the other side.

If there had been a single High Def standard, this would have satisfied everybody.

I guess a dual HD DVD/ Blu-Ray flip disc would secure the same benefits, albeit at a much higher cost.  They will bilk the High Def crowd for more dollars per disc, I'm sure.

If the 360 decides to change its format on the internal drive that ships standard with the 360 as opposed to simply requiring an add-on HD DVD player for the 360 system (an announcement which is expected to emerge at CES 2008 next week) then we may finally see some pressure from the studios, who may decide to follow Warner's lead and prefer to dual brand their discs for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

That's really the only thing that is likely to settle this - a dual branded disc.

It's a shame as pissing contests like this assist nobody.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 2, 2008)

The problem I have with Blu-Ray is that it's a Sony format whereas HD-DVD is "open".  That means if Blu-Ray "wins", Sony gets a piece of every Blu-Ray disc sold because of licensing.  Historically, licensed vs. open formats aren't very consumer-friendly.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> You think Sony is in for the long haul and Microsoft isn't?  I have to disagree on that one.




Which format wins isn't really that important to Microsoft. While they are firmly in the HD-DVD camp, they haven't bet their existence on it like Sony has with Blu-Ray. By making Blu-Ray disks the format for the PS3, Sony has committed themselves to the format for at least the length of the PS3's life. Microsoft has made no similar commitment to HD-DVD and if it vanished right this instance I don't see how it would significantly hurt the company.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The ideal solution, imo, from the consumer's perspective, would be for DVD's to ship encoded for both DVD on one side and HD DVD on the other side.




This already exists and has made no impact in the market. They cost significantly more to make than either a plain DVD or a HD-DVD disk (since you are essentially making and gluing two disks together). Are priced the same as HD-DVD disks and so as far as I can tell from sales numbers, are not selling at all to people who don't already have HD-DVD player. This renders the whole point of the combo disk irrelevant. They might as well just be plain HD-DVD disks. Then there's the compatability issues and other problems they've had (not major but they've been there). It's essentially a solution without a purpose. IF the disks were sold for the same price as regular DVDs, they might make a difference, but they aren't and thus they won't.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I guess a dual HD DVD/ Blu-Ray flip disc would secure the same benefits, albeit at a much higher cost.  They will bilk the High Def crowd for more dollars per disc, I'm sure.




See above, except that you don't even have the vague hope of attracting attention from a market (DVDs) that dwarfs the two high-def formats put together.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> If the 360 decides to change its format on the internal drive that ships standard with the 360 as opposed to simply requiring an add-on HD DVD player for the 360 system (an announcement which is expected to emerge at CES 2008 next week) then we may finally see some pressure from the studios, who may decide to follow Warner's lead and prefer to dual brand their discs for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD.




While I am quite certain that they will release a 360 with an internal HD-DVD drive at some point. It won't change a critical difference between the PS3 and the 360, that the games will NOT come on the high def format disk. Requiring add-ons for a console, especially expensive add-ons has been a failure every time it's been tried. 

First off you're going to have a year and a half's worth of 360s shipped without one. Then you're boosting the price of the unit to the same or more than the PS3 and the lower price has been a significant selling point for the 360. So most likely, MS will continue to sell models that don't include it. Which means that game makers are not going to ship their products with a disk that the majority of the user base will not be able to use.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> That's really the only thing that is likely to settle this - a dual branded disc.




Nope, wouldn't change a thing.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 2, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> The problem I have with Blu-Ray is that it's a Sony format whereas HD-DVD is "open".  That means if Blu-Ray "wins", Sony gets a piece of every Blu-Ray disc sold because of licensing.  Historically, licensed vs. open formats aren't very consumer-friendly.




Neither format is "open" in the sense that Linux or other similar projects are or even in the sense that x86 computers are "open". Both involve licensing fees and permission to use patented technology. The wildly successful DVD format is no different from either HD format in this regard as well. 

I have heard nothing to the effect that those fees are any higher for Blu-Ray than they are for HD-DVD and given the market completion it would be suicidal for Sony to make them so. Even if Sony did manage to somehow corner the market, competition from DVDs and downloads would likely prevent them from jacking prices up significantly.

HD-DVD disks are somewhat less expensive to manufacture as are the players, but it's not a major edge and both blu-ray/hd-dvd have been dropping rapidly in price.

Though it is worth noting that one of the major hopes of the manufactures and content providers for the HD formats, has been that they might be able to raise prices. Since the DVD market in both hardware and software has been extremely cutthroat and competitive on price, this has driven down profits for everyone on them.

In short, the only real difference between the two is who sells the licenses and who owns the patents and thus who profits from them.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 2, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> While I am quite certain that they will release a 360 with an internal HD-DVD drive at some point. It won't change a critical difference between the PS3 and the 360, that the games will NOT come on the high def format disk.




While MS might launch a 'super-Elite' 360 (internal HD-DVD, built-in wireless, and possibly even larger hard drive and some DVR functionality), or, as current rumors have it, allow Toshiba to make an HD-DVD  player/DVR/Xbox 360 combo device under license, I'm not so sure. Certainly I wouldn't launch an MS-branded 'super-Elite' without dropping at least one SKU; three SKUs is really too many. And they'll be launching an all-new console in 2010 or 2011 anyway, so why not put off bundling an HD player until then?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 3, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Problem with the 360 is that the accessories really add up fast.  $450 Elite, $180, $50 one year Xbox Live and then you go from there with battery packs, the recharging kit and such.  Oddly enough, it turns out that the $500 PS3 is a cheaper investment.  You really only need an extra controller.





I think that was always the issue with the PS3, not so much that it wasn't a value for what you get, but that you get a lot of stuff that most of the market didn't care about.

Of the stuff there, only Live is a big thing for me. Now that other services have come up, I think it's time for Live to go free.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think that was always the issue with the PS3, not so much that it wasn't a value for what you get, but that you get a lot of stuff that most of the market didn't care about.



I think you are right.  They were shooting for a niche market of big HD spenders early on.  That coupled with crappy game selection gives it the current stigma of being a bad console, which it is not.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Of the stuff there, only Live is a big thing for me. Now that other services have come up, I think it's time for Live to go free.



Agreed.  But as long as people still pay for it, they'll keep charging.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> While MS might launch a 'super-Elite' 360 (internal HD-DVD, built-in wireless, and possibly even larger hard drive and some DVR functionality), or, as current rumors have it, allow Toshiba to make an HD-DVD  player/DVR/Xbox 360 combo device under license, I'm not so sure. Certainly I wouldn't launch an MS-branded 'super-Elite' without dropping at least one SKU; three SKUs is really too many. And they'll be launching an all-new console in 2010 or 2011 anyway, so why not put off bundling an HD player until then?



Yeah, at this point it's too late for MS to really take advantage of HD-DVD in any real way for the 360.  I could also see that kind of move driving some people away from the 360 due to confusion about what systems could play what.  They wouldn't be able to put games on HD-DVD because not every system could play them.  Not that I think they'll actually do something that dumb.


----------



## dema (Jan 3, 2008)

*Still kinda undecided*



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> As good as upconverted DVDs look, they don't look as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.  However, screen size does make a difference.
> 
> dema - How large is your screen and can you display 1080p.




I have a 50 inch, 1080p. I use an up converting DVD player currently and am just slightly interested in the HD DVDs. I'm personally thinking that hardware will be King and that dual format players (which are going down in price) will be the mediator. There are still some bugs and functionality loss with the HD DVD Java menu stuff but I think that both formats can live in todays world unlike when VHS and Beta were out. You were not able to have a machine capable of playing both. Now, it's a different story. 

So back to the X Box, I'm thinking about this. I know more people with 360s and the Live Gold seems really cool. I would be able to play with someold friends at a distance. 

PS3 is cool because of the blu-ray and the reliability. 

I think my choice may be an XBOX 360 Elite ( or Pro) I don't know if I really need a 120 GB drive., would 20GB be enough? Can I back up the data from the XBOX to a PC Harddrive if needed? An extra wireless charger/controller, and I suppose 2-3 games would be about right to start. 

Good stuff guys. Still I have the items in a shopping cart in one window, and ENworld in another. I'm still iffy about the investment since I've been out of sync with videogames for so long. 

I think I'm going to go read a book.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 3, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yeah, at this point it's too late for MS to really take advantage of HD-DVD in any real way for the 360.  I could also see that kind of move driving some people away from the 360 due to confusion about what systems could play what.  They wouldn't be able to put games on HD-DVD because not every system could play them.  Not that I think they'll actually do something that dumb.





I just flashed on the Sega CD.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 3, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> I'm personally thinking that hardware will be King and that dual format players (which are going down in price) will be the mediator.




My personal theory is that before either takes hold of the market, a new & better media will present. BluRay2 or somesuch. They've already got HD-DVD and Bluray discs that are deeper levels than current drives can handle, so I don't think Bluray/ HD-DVD is the next VHS or DVD. I think they're both laser discs.



> PS3 is cool because of the blu-ray and the reliability.



It doesn't get as much press, and lacks the catchy "Red Ring of Death" title, but PS3's fail too. No where near the early 360's rates of failure, but like the 360 you see batchs of them fail whenever a new game comes out and pushs the system.



> I think my choice may be an XBOX 360 Elite ( or Pro) I don't know if I really need a 120 GB drive., would 20GB be enough?



I got the 120 because I filled the 20 and had to delete stuff. But, of course, the stuff I deleted was all useless crap anyhow. (Demo's for games and such.)

Also remember, 20 gig=13gig usable, and 120 gig is about 95 usable for me (or something thereabouts.) If you want any of the Xbox classics, they take up room...



> Can I back up the data from the XBOX to a PC Harddrive if needed? An extra wireless charger/controller, and I suppose 2-3 games would be about right to start.



I've seen an aftermarket transfer cable, but no idea how it works.


----------



## dema (Jan 3, 2008)

/// SO far
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare  - heard its cool
Assassin's Creed - look like an upgraded Prince of Persia/Theif
Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation ( I need a good flying game)
Halo 3 (I guess only because)
Xbox 360 Elite Cooling System - unk if this is really needed but,,,
Xbox 360 Elite Accessory Kit (Includes Black Wireless Controller, Play and Charge Kit, and Rechargeable Battery)  
Xbox 360 Elite System Holiday Bundle (120GB HD, HDMI)  

TOTAL:$757.93
This includes a 15 dollar discount, no tax will be added and shipping is 6 bucks.

I spoke to my cousin in WA he has both a XBOX and Wii.

He gave me the basic lowdown on both. I'm still worried as is my wife that the XBOX will be a paperweight. My cousin at least has a kid that plays these games, he himself plays the Wii more. But if I get a BOX then he will upto LIVE GOLD and we can game online again. Sounds kinda promising.

I heard some game called BIOMASS or something is good. I can get some of the hardware from MicroSoft as an employee discount partner, or cheaper if I pull a favor and get it from the MS Store in Washington state. But I hate to ask for such things usually. Hey Halo 3 for 25 bucks appears to be a good deal so you never know.

I put a limit of 850 on my purchase.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 3, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> I heard some game called BIOMASS or something is good.




Not sure if that's Bioshock (kind of creepy not-quite FPS) or Mass Effect (sci-fi RPG) that they're talking about. Both are pretty highly regarded.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> Xbox 360 Elite Cooling System - unk if this is really needed but



Do not buy a cooling kit.  It will actually void your MS warranty.  Not needed.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> Xbox 360 Elite Accessory Kit (Includes Black Wireless Controller, Play and Charge Kit, and Rechargeable Battery)



You will use this quite a bit.  

I would also suggest a HDMI cable from here:  http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10243

Very good prices and these are the cables installers swear by.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> I think my choice may be an XBOX 360 Elite ( or Pro) I don't know if I really need a 120 GB drive., would 20GB be enough?



I would go with the 120.  20 will be enough to start with but after you start downloading demos, updates and such you will probably be glad for the extra space down the line.



			
				dema said:
			
		

> Can I back up the data from the XBOX to a PC Harddrive if needed?



Yes, if you know what you are doing I know many people who have use the after market cables Vocenoctum mentioned with little to no problems.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It doesn't get as much press, and lacks the catchy "Red Ring of Death" title, but PS3's fail too. No where near the early 360's rates of failure, but like the 360 you see batchs of them fail whenever a new game comes out and pushs the system.



That's like saying cars can run out of gas or a any electronic item could be defective.  The PS3 is far more reliable than any of the models of 360 that have come out so far.  It's simply a superior machine.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 3, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It doesn't get as much press, and lacks the catchy "Red Ring of Death" title, but PS3's fail too. No where near the early 360's rates of failure, but like the 360 you see batchs of them fail whenever a new game comes out and pushs the system.



Inasmuch that "everything fails".

No, saying that the PS3 is reliable (and the 360 is not) is very accurate.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 3, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Do not buy a cooling kit.  It will actually void your MS warranty.  Not needed.
> 
> You will use this quite a bit.
> 
> ...




If he's getting an Elite, an HDMI cable comes with it. Probably shouldn't need another one.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If he's getting an Elite, an HDMI cable comes with it. Probably shouldn't need another one.



 I have an Elite and just like my DirecTV DVR that came with an HDMI cable, upgrading was a good idea.  The shielding on the pack-in cable stinks.  You don't need something expensive like Monster Cable for HDMI (some could say no one _needs _Monster Cable), that's why I suggested the link above for an upgrade.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 3, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I have an Elite and just like my DirecTV DVR that came with an HDMI cable, upgrading was a good idea.  The shielding on the pack-in cable stinks.  You don't need something expensive like Monster Cable for HDMI (some could say no one _needs _Monster Cable), that's why I suggested the link above for an upgrade.




Shielding on a HDMI cable simply should not matter. It's a low power digital signal, not an analog signal of variable power, and is therefore not subject to the same interference an analog signal suffers. It either works or it does not.



> But with an HDMI cable, you aren't sending any oscillating analog waves, nor any power. What you are sending is a low-power digital signal. The digital signal is either on or off, and it is impossible to distort it without ruining it. The great thing about a digital signal is that, even if there is a little noise in the cable (and there always is, no matter how good the cable), the TV will clean it up when it interprets the digital signal. The whole beauty of moving to a digital world is that it eliminates distortion completely.
> 
> What this means to you is that there really is no such thing as a "better" HDMI cable. Either an HDMI cable works or it does not. If it doesn't work, you will immediately know it. Your screen will freeze, or it will skip frames, or it will show big square blocks instead of a picture. It will be completely obvious that there is a problem. In that case you need to throw the cable away.
> 
> ...




Full article here: The HDMI cable scam


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 3, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Shielding on a HDMI cable simply should not matter. It's a low power digital signal, not an analog signal of variable power, and is therefore not subject to the same interference an analog signal suffers. It either works or it does not.



Well, in that case my terminology is simply off.  I did need a longer cable and the MS cable isn't terribly thick, which means durability issues.  I like having a cable that if, for example, I run it over with a vacuum or abuse it in some way it won't have problems.

Again, the site I linked to has some dirt cheap cables that work just fine.



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Full article here: The HDMI cable scam



It's a good article.  I've read one similar to it in a magazine earlier last year.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 4, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I strongly recommend not buying an xbox if your goal is mmorpgs, especially Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy online has a problem, in that its technology will ever remain an early console generation old.  Its a very old mmorpg that just doesnot compare with modern mmorpgs. Mind you it is a good game, but it is so slow and repetive compared to now days.
> 
> square is developing an mmoprg for the ps3 and there are 2 more in development by other companies.  I am looking forward to the square one. I liked Final fantasy online a lot and considering the improvements over the last five years, i expect square to make a spectacular game. So far rumors have it that its based off of the Saga series.
> 
> As far as systems it was a nobrainer for me.  PS3 all the way.  Better technology, good online system, and a better lineup of games.  Plus I didn't have to play system roulette.




Im not going to touch the PS3 vs 360 thing as badly as I want to. FFXI is the deepest MMO on the market, period! No other MMO out there has as much content and shear area to exlpore. Unlike most other MMO's you dont have to make a new character everytime you want to try a new Job. It may be five years old but its on its fourth expansion and has five races, three countries to allign yourself with and count em' 21 jobs to level as well as several crafting skills. Also with nearly 500 quests and missions, theres nothing repetive about it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 4, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Inasmuch that "everything fails".
> 
> No, saying that the PS3 is reliable (and the 360 is not) is very accurate.




It just doesn't get as much press when a PS3 bricks due to playing the latest game. It happens. I've never seen accurate failure rates for either system, so saying one is very reliable has no basis. We simply don't know.

The 360 failures are rampant, but how rampant is still unknown. Heck, who knows how long these systems are even designed for. (The PS3's 10 year plan does not mean 1 console lasts a person 10 years, obviously. My brother is on his 3rd PS2 and I had to replace my original XBox too.)


----------



## dema (Jan 4, 2008)

*XBOX seems to be winning*



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Do not buy a cooling kit.  It will actually void your MS warranty.  Not needed.




I think I got confused between the Bio and Mass Effect game.

Regarding the cooling kit, it's not one that you plug into the XBox and pair up though the power adapter. This one has it's own power source and just attaches to the back to pull out more heat. I heard the Elite is an improvement however in terms of the over heating. This new fan system is coming out in just a few days. 

I spoke to some people at work and they game online using Live, I have my cousin who I sorely miss who would be willing to get a Live Gold account to play some games like we used to when we were younger ( 10 years ago, wow.)

Regarding the HDMI cables, yeah I got suckers for a monster. I know I can go to radioshack now and get them for 20-30 easy. 

I spoke to another guy at work who knows how to stream DIvx movies though the PC into the XBOX and out to the TV. I forget why he did it, he gets bored and loves to mess with cracking things.

I just know so many more people that have an XBOX, I think that will be the deciding factor. It's kinda like with DND.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 4, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It just doesn't get as much press when a PS3 bricks due to playing the latest game. It happens. I've never seen accurate failure rates for either system, so saying one is very reliable has no basis. We simply don't know.
> 
> The 360 failures are rampant, but how rampant is still unknown. Heck, who knows how long these systems are even designed for. (The PS3's 10 year plan does not mean 1 console lasts a person 10 years, obviously. My brother is on his 3rd PS2 and I had to replace my original XBox too.)




Yes, I'm sure that Microsoft a company that never does anything without a reason, tripled the length of their warranty and set aside 5 BILLION dollars to cover those costs, did it for no other reason than the goodness of their black, soulless hearts. After countless reports in the tech community, media and the internet of 360's dying like flies.

I've heard of absolutely nothing similar for the PS3, aside from a single spurious report that the new 40 gig models had high return rates, that proved to have no basis in fact. Nor has Sony done anything to extend the warranty on the PS3.

Do the math. One console has a problem. The other doesn't. You can talk about "We don't know the exact return rates" all you like, but the hard cold economic facts say otherwise.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 4, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> ...tripled the length of their warranty and set aside 5 BILLION dollars to cover those costs...



That kinda says it all, doesn't it?

On the other hand, the fact that the 360 is successful despite the fact the everyone who purchases one expects it to die --at least once-- does say something about the gaming experience it provides.

Not that I'm rushing out to get one, mind you.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 4, 2008)

dema said:
			
		

> Regarding the cooling kit, it's not one that you plug into the XBox and pair up though the power adapter. This one has it's own power source and just attaches to the back to pull out more heat. I heard the Elite is an improvement however in terms of the over heating. This new fan system is coming out in just a few days.



The Elite does not need the extra cooling unit.  And add on that would help cool down the 360 could possibly void the warranty.  I would highly recommend against it.  Just make sure you give it room to breath and it will be fine.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 4, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm sure that Microsoft a company that never does anything without a reason, tripled the length of their warranty and set aside 5 BILLION dollars to cover those costs, did it for no other reason than the goodness of their black, soulless hearts. After countless reports in the tech community, media and the internet of 360's dying like flies.
> 
> I've heard of absolutely nothing similar for the PS3, aside from a single spurious report that the new 40 gig models had high return rates, that proved to have no basis in fact. Nor has Sony done anything to extend the warranty on the PS3.
> 
> Do the math. One console has a problem. The other doesn't. You can talk about "We don't know the exact return rates" all you like, but the hard cold economic facts say otherwise.




Seriously, did you read what I wrote?
The 360 has a lot more hardware failures than the PS3, but by no means is the PS3 failure proof. I guess if you dismiss the folks that had problems with the PS3's due to Madden & CoD4, then we can say it's error free.

If what you read when I say that is "the 360 doesn't have any problems, the PS3 is no better" like your response reads, that's not what I said. I just don't like when folks gloss over reports of problems with PS3's like they don't exist.

Sure, I'm going by forums/ blogs and such. Hence why I said that there are no published return rates/ defective rates for either console.

(I assume Wii's work great, though the Mario glitchs are amusing in and of themselves.)


----------



## Mallus (Jan 4, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The 360 has a lot more hardware failures than the PS3



Yes.



> but by no means is the PS3 failure proof.



No on here said or implied that it was. All they did say was that it's a more reliable piece of hardware (and that Microsoft has publicly admitted that their console is not).


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 4, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Seriously, did you read what I wrote?
> The 360 has a lot more hardware failures than the PS3, but by no means is the PS3 failure proof. I guess if you dismiss the folks that had problems with the PS3's due to Madden & CoD4, then we can say it's error free.




I've paid at least as much attention to what you've said as you've bothered to pay attention to what everyone else has been saying and to the hard cold facts of reality. Nobody has claimed the PS3 never breaks down or never has any problems. However you keep trying to imply that there is some similarity between the failure rates for the PS3 (Less than 5% from what I have seen in reports on the failure rates for the PS3) to the extremely high failure rates of the 360 (as high as 25-33%) with numerous reports of people having multiple consoles fail on them in a few months. Since math doesn't seem to be your strong point, that is AT LEAST 5 times the failure rate for the 360 when compared to that for the PS3.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> If what you read when I say that is "the 360 doesn't have any problems, the PS3 is no better" like your response reads, that's not what I said. I just don't like when folks gloss over reports of problems with PS3's like they don't exist.
> 
> Sure, I'm going by forums/ blogs and such. Hence why I said that there are no published return rates/ defective rates for either console.




I have seen failure rates published. While they aren't precise down to the last tenth of a percentage, the order of magnitude is quite clear and the failure rates for the 360 are several times that of the PS3.

Does Microsoft setting aside A BILLION DOLLARS (sorry I was mistaken earlier it was ONLY a BILLION Dollars) to cover the cost of repairs and replacements not indicate to you that there are some serious problems with the 360?

Try reading this for your "non-existant" failure rates.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/07/06/microsoft_red_ring_death_charge/


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 4, 2008)

Gentlemen.

Please watch the tone - keep it civil, without the "You can't read" snark.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 4, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It just doesn't get as much press when a PS3 bricks due to playing the latest game. It happens. I've never seen accurate failure rates for either system, so saying one is very reliable has no basis. We simply don't know.



Of course "it happens". Thankfully, that part is not up for debate.

The two systems are orders of magnitude apart when it comes to failure rates - and there is by far enough evidence to show that thanks to the _massive variety_ of tech and media reports. I reiterate: when comparing the two, the PS3 is reliable, the 360 is not. *shrug* It is what it is.


----------



## SnowRaven (Jan 6, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I've paid at least as much attention to what you've said as you've bothered to pay attention to what everyone else has been saying and to the hard cold facts of reality. Nobody has claimed the PS3 never breaks down or never has any problems. However you keep trying to imply that there is some similarity between the failure rates for the PS3




Actually, it looked like the dispute was between the statement that the PS3 is very reliable vs the statement that the PS3 is more reliable than a 360. When he says "a PS3 is more reliable than a 360, but that doesn't mean the PS3 is reliable", countering with "the PS3 is more reliable than the 360, everyone knows that!" doesn't dispute the actual statement.

And, 5% is more than "aside from a single spurious report that the new 40 gig models had high return rates, that proved to have no basis in fact." No point in glossing over the failures of the PS3.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 6, 2008)

SnowRaven said:
			
		

> Actually, it looked like the dispute was between the statement that the PS3 is very reliable vs the statement that the PS3 is more reliable than a 360. When he says "a PS3 is more reliable than a 360, but that doesn't mean the PS3 is reliable", countering with "the PS3 is more reliable than the 360, everyone knows that!" doesn't dispute the actual statement.
> 
> And, 5% is more than "aside from a single spurious report that the new 40 gig models had high return rates, that proved to have no basis in fact." No point in glossing over the failures of the PS3.




Actually, I said that it was AT MOST a 5% failure rate for the PS3. Since that was the sole figure I could remember seeing in relationship to PS3 failure rates. After some more digging, it appears that I had gotten things slightly confused (let it not be said I'm unwilling to admit to mistakes), the industry AVERAGE is 3-5%. According to this report Sony says the failure rate on the PS3 is about 0.02% (Yes that's two HUNDREDTH of a percent). VS a failure rate of between 25%-33% on the 360. So let's see 360s fail at (we'll be kind and only use the 25% figure) a rate 1250 times greater than the PS3s fail at.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136054-pg,1/article.html

It is by all accounts a very reliable machine. Wishful thinking from some people hasn't changed that.

Here's one of the reports debunking the supposed high failure rate on the 40 gig models.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16160

Apparently it traces back to a single report on a Dutch website.

Does THAT settle the issue of the relative failure rates and reliability of the two systems folks?


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 6, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Does THAT settle the issue of the relative failure rates and reliability of the two systems folks?



Guys, Hypersmurf told you to stop coming off as jerks about three posts up.  I know about how strongly people feel about system loyalty, but you aren't standing on a pulpit and this isn't debate club.  That means that if you make a good point, you don't then have to rub it into each others' faces.

Please. Be polite, and enjoy the conversation. There's lots of data out there on the system failure rates, and no one needs to get angry while referring to it.


----------



## Bront (Jan 6, 2008)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The Elite does not need the extra cooling unit.  And add on that would help cool down the 360 could possibly void the warranty.  I would highly recommend against it.  Just make sure you give it room to breath and it will be fine.



I believe if they are refering to external solutions that simply increase fan power pulling out hot air, they don't void any warantee, since they don't modify anything internal.

Heck, the Wii even has them.


----------



## Ron (Jan 6, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Actually, I said that it was AT MOST a 5% failure rate for the PS3. Since that was the sole figure I could remember seeing in relationship to PS3 failure rates. After some more digging, it appears that I had gotten things slightly confused (let it not be said I'm unwilling to admit to mistakes), the industry AVERAGE is 3-5%. According to this report Sony says the failure rate on the PS3 is about 0.02% (Yes that's two HUNDREDTH of a percent). VS a failure rate of between 25%-33% on the 360. So let's see 360s fail at (we'll be kind and only use the 25% figure) a rate 1250 times greater than the PS3s fail at.




I recall Microsoft saying the industry average to be 3-5% but I don't believe them, I think it is much lower. Game consoles are to be compared to consumer electronics industries and I would guess their average is much closer to Sony's PS3, otherwise TV sets wouldn't be sold with several years warranty as they are for quite a few years.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 6, 2008)

Bront said:
			
		

> I believe if they are refering to external solutions that simply increase fan power pulling out hot air, they don't void any warantee, since they don't modify anything internal.
> 
> Heck, the Wii even has them.



 I'm referring to the same thing.  Even the Nyko (external) fans can void the warranty.  They also aren't needed.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 7, 2008)

wendy413 said:
			
		

> at this time, it think ps3 is the most popular, but it's a little expensive




Actually, XBOX 360 is outselling PS3 still but the Wii is outselling them both combined.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 7, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Does THAT settle the issue of the relative failure rates and reliability of the two systems folks?





I never debated relative failure rates, so there's nothing to settle. I was referencing anecdotal reports on different sites about folks having issues with their PS3's with various games. So, once more, the PS3 is more reliable than the 360, as I have repeatedly said, but that does not inherently make the PS3 utterly reliable as you stated.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 7, 2008)

Ron said:
			
		

> I recall Microsoft saying the industry average to be 3-5% but I don't believe them, I think it is much lower. Game consoles are to be compared to consumer electronics industries and I would guess their average is much closer to Sony's PS3, otherwise TV sets wouldn't be sold with several years warranty as they are for quite a few years.




I think there's various definitions of "failure rate" involved too. I know a guy that went through 3-4 PSP's because of a dead pixel or something. He kept returning them until he got one that he considered "perfect". If Sony got these back and looked at them, they'd probably not consider them a failure. In addition, most failure rates probably exclude "user error", so I doubt Microsoft counted the "disc scratches" due to moving your system while it was running.

It's all a shell game really, made worse by partisan fans that troll some of the tech boards. One guy said his PS3 died and Sony wouldn't warranty it because it was hooked to a surge protector, but there's no way to verify this, Sony of course denies it.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 7, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I never debated relative failure rates, so there's nothing to settle. I was referencing anecdotal reports on different sites about folks having issues with their PS3's with various games. So, once more, the PS3 is more reliable than the 360, as I have repeatedly said, but that does not inherently make the PS3 utterly reliable as you stated.




I never said the PS3 was absolutely reliable and never failed. Can you point out where I did?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 7, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I never said the PS3 was absolutely reliable and never failed. Can you point out where I did?




Sorry, my error in saying "you". It slipped in since you've been the main one debating when I said the PS3 does have some problems. Your "single spurious report" comment is close, but different.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 7, 2008)

I just came into this thread with both guns blazing... only to find an apology and some attempts to find common ground.

Cool.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 7, 2008)

I cant speak to the Failure rate of the PS3 but I am on my third 360 Since Nov 05 when it came out. I dont consider it a big deal however since Microsoft has reapired or replaced both of the broken ones completely free of charge including shipping. As for the 2 months total I was without a 360, they added 2 free months onto my XBOX live account to make up for it. Sure it has flaws and bugs but one shouldnt base their purchasing decision on that alone. The 360 has tons of great games as well as several good exclusives. While I'll admit that most of the 360 games dont quite stack up to the PS3 in terms of graphics I chalk that up to the developers. The 360 has the capability to play games as graphics intensive as the PS3, most developers just dont make them that well. PS3 cant compete with 360 when it comes to number of games or with their online service (which by the way is absolutely superior in EVERY way despite the fact that its not free) so they make sure all their games look beautiful which was a good decision. Sure, youre going to have fanboys on both sides telling you lies and half truths but each individual should do the research for themselves and buy based or his or her gaming needs and tastes.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 7, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Sure it has flaws and bugs but one shouldnt base their purchasing decision on that alone.



The failure rate, coupled with the cost of 360 once you added in wifi and the HD DVD playback I wanted, were the main reasons I bought a PS3 last August.



> The 360 has tons of great games as well as several good exclusives.



It sure does. Which is why I'm borrowing my friend's 360 to play Mass Effect and Bioshock.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 7, 2008)

wendy413 said:
			
		

> at this time, it think ps3 is the most popular, but it's a little expensive



Actually, when directly compared and online is of any interest, the PS3 is cheaper than the 360 (an NPV analysis proves this - see an older thread in this forum for the cost comparison).

(And they're the same price in Canada, as well as other countries.)



			
				Goldmoon said:
			
		

> ]PS3 cant compete with 360 when it comes to number of games or with their online service (which by the way is absolutely superior in EVERY way despite the fact that its not free)



All I know is that I have a superior experience all around with the PSN compared to Xbox Live. I haven't seen any evidence to show that Live is worth paying for, when every other system and console does it for free, often better (ie. 40 player R:FoM and 32 player Warhawk is as good as or superior in every which way - including/especially performance - than Halo 3 and everything else offered by Live). It's also why some media sources are reporting rumors that Microsoft will move Xbox Live "Gold" to a free service.



> Actually, XBOX 360 is outselling PS3 still but the Wii is outselling them both combined.



Indeed. Also, unfortunately, most media outlets seem to be loathe to pay for and report on the _worldwide_ numbers - in which past reports actually have the PS3 ahead of the 360 in the world (thanks to Japan and much of Europe). As you said, though - the Wii does outsell everything in the world.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 9, 2008)

Going to buy a 360 today.  There just isn't anything on the PS3 I want to play that much compared to the 360.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 9, 2008)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Going to buy a 360 today.  There just isn't anything on the PS3 I want to play that much compared to the 360.




This is really what it comes down to.  They're both good systems, but it all comes down to what you want to do with them.  If I _needed_ to play Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, FFXIII, or Warhawk I would've gotten the PS3.  But in my case, I needed to play Halo 3 and Mass Effect.  So the choice was simple for me.

As much as I love my 360, I am a little urked by it's underlying principle:  here is the base system, _everything else_ will cost you.  Even simple things.  Take for example my recent exploits.  I returned my old 'box because, despite the fact that I bought it in November, the hardware was over a year old.  So I returned it for a newer system, no questions asked.  However, I was surprised to learn that the 360 wouldn't even _recognize_ my flash drive, and that in order to transfer all of my saved files I had to go out and by a memory card.  I suppose that's no different from any other game system, but being made by perhaps the largest software giant out there, I guess was expecting a little more compatibility with some of my computer stuff.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jan 9, 2008)

That's one of the nice things about the PS3.  I can plug a USB anything into it, or a bluetooth keyboard, or an external HD (as long as its formatted in the right mode).


----------



## Enforcer (Jan 9, 2008)

True, the Xbox 360's extra stuff is pretty pricey. I'm still miffed over the wireless networking adapter costing around $100... even if there's no way running a 50 ft. ethernet cable would've been okayed by my wife (or me for that matter). At least it works flawlessly.

$50 a year for Xbox Live, however, is a steal. That service rocks, and rocks hard.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 9, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> That's one of the nice things about the PS3. I can plug a USB anything into it, or a bluetooth keyboard, or an external HD (as long as its formatted in the right mode).




Right.  That's awesome, and I dearly wish Microsoft would do the same.  But they don't really operate with an "openness" MO.



			
				Enforcer said:
			
		

> $50 a year for Xbox Live, however, is a steal. That service rocks, and rocks hard.




Really?  I love XBL but I'm not sure I agree with that.  Out of curiousity, why would you say it's a steal?  There's definitely no other service quite like it out there, though as PSN grows and once Home is released XBL will have some serious competition.


----------



## Enforcer (Jan 9, 2008)

The ease of finding other players in multiplayer right there is worth $50 a year. I can start shooting people in Team Fortress 2 within about 60 sec. from powering my system on. Built-in voice chat and the TrueSkill system (behind the scenes) just help to make it better. And since you're actually paying for the service, they (Microsoft) actually cares about making it good (like how we're all getting a free Arcade game due to the intermittent service outages over the holiday season, nevermind the fact that all I've been playing lately is Mass Effect and haven't needed Xbox Live).


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 9, 2008)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> The ease of finding other players in multiplayer right there is worth $50 a year. I can start shooting people in Team Fortress 2 within about 60 sec. from powering my system on. Built-in voice chat



I'm still not sure I understand... don't all the other systems do this as well? The PS3 and PC both do, at least...



> And since you're actually paying for the service, they (Microsoft) actually cares about making it good (like how we're all getting a free Arcade game due to the intermittent service outages over the holiday season



Ouch. There's some ugly irony, here. I like it when the service _doesn't go out at all_ (again, like said other systems, which one gets for free to boot).

I'm still waiting to see what makes Live worth the money (I had online for all the systems, but dumped Live as it provided no value that the other systems already had for free) - no one has yet to be able to explain it, other than trying to justify to themselves the money _they've_ spent...


----------



## Enforcer (Jan 9, 2008)

My understanding is that it's easier to connect with other players on Live than on the PS3. It's certainly much easier than it was to play Counter-Strike on the PC, and the TrueSkill system makes it much less likely that I'll be put into a game with crazy-awesome experts who will do nothing but kick my ass all day, which happened all the time in Counter-Strike.

Perhaps someone who has played multiplayer on both Xbox 360 with Live and on the PS3 wants to chime in here?

As for reimbursing us for service outages, the outages occurred because everyone and their mother signed up for Live over the holidays. Giving some recompense is a great way to treat customers when you drop the ball. If it had happened to Sony they would have said what? Probably something along the lines of "well you don't pay for it, so suck it up and deal with the outage and just hope it doesn't happen again. It's free."


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 9, 2008)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> My understanding is that it's easier to connect with other players on Live than on the PS3. It's certainly much easier than it was to play Counter-Strike on the PC, and the TrueSkill system makes it much less likely that I'll be put into a game with crazy-awesome experts who will do nothing but kick my ass all day, which happened all the time in Counter-Strike.
> 
> Perhaps someone who has played multiplayer on both Xbox 360 with Live and on the PS3 wants to chime in here?
> 
> As for reimbursing us for service outages, the outages occurred because everyone and their mother signed up for Live over the holidays. Giving some recompense is a great way to treat customers when you drop the ball. If it had happened to Sony they would have said what? Probably something along the lines of "well you don't pay for it, so suck it up and deal with the outage and just hope it doesn't happen again. It's free."




While it is possible for the kind of scenario you describe to happen with the PS3 and you're likely accurate about Sony's attitude. I think most of Arnwyn's point was that unless, the internet goes down. You aren't likely to get a similar total outage with a PS3. You could get it for individual games, but not the whole system.

That is a good point about the Skill level matching, though there are some similar features for at least Warhawk from what I understand (no idea about TF2 or UT3).


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 9, 2008)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone who has played multiplayer on both Xbox 360 with Live and on the PS3 wants to chime in here?



That would be me, which is why I was curious.

The online PS3 games I play, including Warhawk, R:FoM, and Rock Band, among others, syncs up perfectly with my friends list. All have voice chat, etc. Since I've played both online, I've seen no evidence that the 360 is "easier" in any way - and certainly not $50 easier.

Not sure about the TrueSkill system, though - I played 360 games (such as Halo 3) online, and I never (overtly) noticed such a thing. Is it game specific (ie. Orange Box only), or a Live thing? If it's a Live thing, _now_ we're (beginning to) talk about value-added stuff (though, indeed, as Rackhir noted, Warhawk does have a ranking system).



Rackhir re-iterated my point about reliability well enough (and I don't care about "if it happened", because it _hasn't_ - which again, is part of my point). I know _why_ it happened with Live, and I just have to shrug (and be amused). For a pay "service", that's pretty lax.


----------



## Enforcer (Jan 9, 2008)

TrueSkill is a Live thing, not a game-specific thing. See http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/features/nextgenmatchmaking.htm It even takes into account what modes of a game you play. "For example, if you're dominant in straight up races in Burnout Revenge™, but struggle a bit more in Crash mode, you'll be matched up against players of appropriate skill for each game mode individually."

Does the PS3 let you rate other players? On Live you can review other players and "Prefer" or "Avoid" them. That's been a great feature for me. For "Avoid" you can even sub-specialize for behavior, player's skill, or player's unfamiliarity with whatever game you're playing. So say I don't like have JoeSchmoe on my Team Fortress 2 team because he has no idea what he's doing (unfamiliarity), I can avoid him for that game, thereby leaving open the option that he's awesome at Call of Duty 4 and good to play with there.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 9, 2008)

Cool beans - that TrueSkill system is so needed for online gaming. Awesome stuff (never noticed it, but that might be part of the beauty of it).

The PS3 doesn't have any way of specifically "rating" other players, but it certainly has a friends ("prefer") and ignore ("avoid") system. It can work for both single game or system-wide. Doesn't sound that it has different degrees of Friend/Prefer/Avoid that Live has. More degrees = good, for sure.

With that, I suppose I can see some people willing to spend $50 for that TrueSkill thing if they really, really like online gaming (though I certainly wouldn't).

In any case, that's definitely a start - if MS can do more things like that and advertise them more often and more clearly, they might have a case for a for-pay Live Gold subscription. But casual use on both/all systems certainly hurts MS (though it is also true that not many people have multiple systems).


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 10, 2008)

Well I really like it so far.  I got the Pro system with Forza Motorsports 2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance.  Then I picked up NHL 08.  I'll rent games like Gears of War and Bioshock since I probably won't play them over and over.  Mass Effect is a must purchase though when I get some more cash.  Dropping 460 bucks in one shot on video games gave me twitches yesterday.  It looks awesome on my 720p TV.  And I was surprised it would sync with my iPod for playing music on it.  Cool beans, I thought Microsoft would hamper that and make it Zune only. 

XBox Live seems cool but I doubt I'll get the Gold membership right away since I don't play much online.  That may change of course.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2008)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well I really like it so far.



Cool. You really can't go wrong with a 360 at this point. 

That said, I was playing a little Uncharted last night before we wife commandeered the TV for Project Runway, and it's nice to know there's at least one currently available PS3 exclusive that rocks on toast.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 10, 2008)

I'm sure there are great games coming for the PS3, but as of now what I want is on the 360 and I have some issues with Sony too.  Maybe I'll get a PS3 down the line. 

This is my first console since the Genesis and I have to say these things have come a long way.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2008)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This is my first console since the Genesis and I have to say these things have come a long way.



No kidding. I had both an Xbox and a PS2, and I was still very impressed when I saw titles like Bioshock and Ratchet & Clank running on good HDTV's.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 21, 2008)

Interesting article on some of the sources of the 360 hardware problems.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/digitaljoystick/archives/129866.asp

Definitely make sure you get the latest hardware rev models if you possibly can.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 22, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Interesting article on some of the sources of the 360 hardware problems.
> 
> http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/digitaljoystick/archives/129866.asp
> 
> Definitely make sure you get the latest hardware rev models if you possibly can.



Good article.

 I saw that on another site as well.  Nothing actually new in the article but it (if true) does confirm what many of us have been thinking for a while now.


----------



## Zarithar (Jan 29, 2008)

All 3 if possible. But if I had to choose... PC hands down.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 31, 2008)

Well, I am a 360 fan, but once you throw a PC into the mix, I'd have to vote for that over the 360.  If you are looking for just gaming though, 360 is probably your best bet.  If you want to do more than gaming, like reading ENWorld  then go PC.  Also, if you are into MMORPGs, the PC is for you (not many MMOs on consoles, and the ones that are out there are not very good).  If you are into RTSs (like StarCraft) then go PC.  If you are into FPSs (like Doom or Unreal) it is a toss up between PC or console.  Some people still prefer PCs for their FPSs, but I prefer console (again, 360...  I am a Halo fan so...).


----------



## Chaldfont (Jan 31, 2008)

I came back here to check on this thread after pretty much deciding not to buy anything. Recently, though, my company announced a huge bonus this year--not enough for a nice gaming PC, but I might be able to get a console. I'm still leaning Xbox360 because I want to play Halo 2 and 3, Bioshock and Mass Effect.

The PC bit might come back into play too, my friend just offered me his 2-year old rig.

Sweet.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 31, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> All 3 if possible. But if I had to choose... PC hands down.




And if what you love are certain kinds of games that work better on the PC (mostly MMOs and RTSs), then that's what you've got to choose. But if it's not (and I'm mostly an RPG guy, with the occasional sports game thrown in), I really prefer the console route, mostly because if you don't have to worry about keeping your video card up to gaming standards, it's much easier to use a laptop or small form-factor PC as your normal PC.

I've been stalling on picking up a 360. Even though I'd really like to get one, can afford it easily, and already have an HDTV, I want an Elite and don't want to pay $450 for it.


----------

