The ultimate PS3 - XBOX 360 comparison thread!

I can't believe twice as many people prefer 360's! I have had both and only sold my 360 because it began to get a disk read error which was a problem with a few of the first ones made. I bought a PS3 the day they came out and was a bit worried because it was a lot of money to be spending on a games console. I was surprised by how much better it was than the 360, the whole start-up interface is awesome, the browser is really useful too. My only problem is the lack of games on ps3 but that doesn't take away from how much better it was than the 360.

 

As you hint in your post it's a combination of the price, the number of games available and to a much lesser extent the online play.

 

And in further news, the Wii is selling more consoles than the 360+PS3 combined, and it's got more "fun" games, not just shooters and racing games

But if I have to pick one of the two, I'd get the PS3.

 

Well, our family is pretty much set on a PS3, we want Rock Band, Singstar, and Guitar Hero (and I want Killzone 3).

The latest firmware update means I can set a PS3 up as a media center, and stream video and music to my PSP from any access point. That's a big plus for me.

 

Hum, different priorities, I guess. Some people actually buy consoles because of the games. So if there aren't any good games, they don't buy the console. Now apparently, you buy consoles for a different reason, but I suspect this is the reason why so many people here prefer the 360. It has plenty of good games.
To most people, yes, the lack of games *does* in fact take away from the PS3. It makes the PS3 completely pointless.

GPU-wise, the 360 is way ahead of the PS3. That's true for every version of the 360, and as said, the Elite is no faster than the old versions.

 

I have had both consoles (I've gone through about 6 360s due to a combination of not liking it and them breaking) so I'll drop my two cents.

The 360 has better online play and a better library of games. Its interface is also 100x better than the PS3. Fortunately, I don't play online much because of the kiddies (I prefer PC for multiplayer games)

The PS3 has better graphics (Fight Night 3 looks MUCH better on the PS3!) but I think is way overpriced. Yes, it comes with Blu-ray but not everybody wants BR (and the games dont' require the extra storage yet) If the PS3 was around the 360 price point I may have kept mine.

I can never find a Wii so I have no idea if they're fun or not. If I had to own a console, at this point I'd choose the 360.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25247543

'nuff said.

the xbox 360 is by far the superior system and will be for the remainder of this console generation. i am too tired to get too deep into it, but i'll try my best to outline my justification for this claim. for one, the xbox 360 is only $400 for the premium edition, featuring all you need to game; in comparison, the ps3 is $600 for the now-only edition, sporting an unnecessary blu-ray player. gamers do not need to be cornered into shelling out an egregious amount of money for something most will not really access unless they are avid multimedia buffs i.e. not the average or even hardcore gamer.

aside from price, the xbox 360 is geared towards the online gamer, a new, social kind of gamer dedicated to taking their games online to not only test their mettle, but experience a side of gaming many have not for years. the easy-to-use xbox live features blow away anything sony has revealed (including HOME) and is well worth the $50 for a year. not to mention developers are finding it increasingly difficult to take their games online for the ps3...but more on that later.

games! the xbox 360 features the biggest and most substancial repertoire of games on the market right now, including the pc. from oblivion to halo 3 to gears of war to bioshock to devil may cry 4 to soul calibur iv to vegas to ghost recon to splinter cell to...the list goes on and on and on. what's even more surprising, is most these games are online! and, if they are also on the ps3, they run far better on the 360! all of sony's claims in the ps3's defense have yet to see fruition.

it is alarmingly evident developers are beginning to see the ps3's difficult design in regards to creating games for the system as it continues to lose a slew of third-party exclusives ranging from soul calibur to devil may cry 4 to ace combat 6. it is also important to compare the first-party exclusives for each system; sony has killzone, ratchet and clank, and grand turismo 4 while microsoft has halo 3, gears of war, and fable, all of which are system sellersin the vein of super mario 64. the ps3's biggest cannons are final fantasy xiii, which the 360 will counter with lost odyssey and the last remnant, and metal gear solid 4, which interestingly enough lost its playstation 3 logo in the latest trailer...on the other hand, the 360 has the above-mentioned halo 3 and gears of war, fable 2, mass effect, and bioshock...all of which are surefire candidates for game of the year.

everything sony has claimed, is false. the graphics on the ps3 pale in comparison to the 360, as seen by gamespot's article on it:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

to HouseDo, just look at the comparison of fight night on the 360 and ps3...in response to this article, sony fanboys claimed "just wait a few months 'til developers catch up and the ps3 will surpass the 360!" it's been six months...and check out this article:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6171831/index.html

it seems sony fans are too damned steadfast and disillusioned in their system's POTENTIAL. who cares about potential? we want to see results here and now. by the time developers tap into the cell processor's potential (which is too difficult to develop for most developers at the moment), the next xbox will be out...

i could continue to go on and on, so i might as well attempt to go as far as i can. the ps3 is a blunder...simple enough. it's too pricey, too little, and offers nothing the 360 doesn't; in fact, it offers far less. at most, the 360 and ps3 will eventually have games that look the same. however, the 360 is capable of a lot of things the ps3 is not, including superior shading, which lends to a more realistic experience. but i think the 360's BIGGEST advantage is online play. once halo 3 comes out and sells more copies than the number of people inhabiting china, i think the first nail will be hammered into the ps3 coffin.

it's not even a debate...the ps3 is really and truly a horrible piece of hardware with nothing to offer other than a blu-ray player, final fantasy xiii, and a ridiculous killzone cgi trailer. it is pretty saddening, as i used to be a huge sony buff during the days of final fantasy vii, metal gear solid, vagrant story, resident evil 2, and xenogears...but things change and sony must realize this before it's too late even though i think it is.

the 360 is going to continue to offer great first-party and third-party exclusives due to their massive funds and marketing connections with great online components while sony releases the occasional great japanese rpg every year or so. an example of the 360's superiority is reflected in a deal microsoft just made with rockstar regarding grand theft auto iv...it seems 360 owners are going to be getting exclusive online content over a $50 million deal.

the only problem with the 360 is its rampant crappy quality, although i think a lot of it has to do with consumer care. for example, i keep my 360 in a well-ventilated area and use a notebook cooler and nyko intercooler to keep it cool. plus, i don't keep the thing running while i don't play.

i'm sure a lot of what i claimed has been said before plenty of times, but do yourself a favor and check out the links i posted to see the true story. sony fans need to stop hoping for a bright future of photorealistic rpgs and realize their system is a $600 blu-ray player that can play some decent games.

 

[Note : I am not taking sides here, but the whole point of this thread was to do a fair and un-biased comparison]

Yes, PS3 is difficult to develop for, no one denies it, but Sony was always a pain for the developers. You can search for PS2's history and see how it was then (A totally unusual system it was- with the MIPS instruction set along with co-processors, but after a while when the engines were developed, the development was no longer much of a difficulty) and there are also some improvements on the development side, for example Sony has - in may 2007 it seems - released two development tools one for RSX GPU profiling and one for the SPU programming.

The Graphics power of the XBOX 360 is better than Sony's PlayStation 3, but not THAT much that you claim, to be exact, in the XBOX 360->PS3 ports, the Textures where a bit clearer while in PS3 while the HDR and the Lighting effects of the XBOX 360 were better.And it also seems that the CELL processor can also do graphics operations along with the RSX - not sure of it, but the Wikipedia page seems so [see the shader operations and dot product part] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer'#_note-rsx
Of course the briliant eDRAM idea in the XBOX 360 offers extremely good performance, so with all the optimizations and the improvements, it's very likely that XBOX 360 will still have better graphics (even if it's slightly)

Again about the online gaming, currently the XBOX Live! offers a better choice. But you should also remember the fact that PlayStation 3 Networks have been launched for 6-months while the XBOX Live! is older than 6 years AFAIK, and the online capabilities is not locked like the hardware capabilities and has space for improvement - And your comment about PS-Home was not apples-to-apples to be exact because the XBOX 360 was not
The CPU is much easier to develop for, but it is weaker than CELL in calculations.

And yes, if you view PS3 purely as a 'gaming' console, the XBOX 360 is a better choice. But PS3 has the Linux and Multi-media capabilities that has a great value for many.

 

i'm sorry if my post was biased mujtaba; it's just so late and i can't sleep and i'm a bit upset at the moment, but i did try a bit to not be that biased!

anyway, i never meant to imply the 360 offers graphics far ahead of the ps3, but i was generalizing a bit; for example, when i compare gears of war to resistance: fall of man, there is no comparison at all. sure, gears is a second generation title, but even games like call of duty 2 and perfect dark zero (both 360 launch titles) look superior to MOST of the games out for the ps3 currently. as i stated previously, i honestly think the argument most sony fanboys push in the ps3's defense of superior graphics technology is invalid, as evinced by the slew of beautiful 360 titles. likewise, i only believe the ps3 will catch up to the 360 in the graphics department throughout its life cycle; if it does ever begin to feature games with superior graphics, i think it will be too little, too late.

i was not aware of the ps3's rsx capabilities and was inferring upon the 360's eDRAM and its apparently lending to longevity. i believe developers will continue to optimize the 360's capabilities at a similar rate to the ps3, which means the 360 will always look a little bit better than the ps3.

and for a system which got so much hype for breathtaking and photorealistic near-cg quality graphics a la the killzone 2 trailer, i can't help but feel they missed the mark a little.

as for online components, i am fully aware the ps3 just jumped into the pool online networking. but, for the average gaming consumer, that point is moot. it's very difficult for gamers to take the pill and say to themselves, "i know it's not as good as xbox live, but it just came out! therefore, i'm fine with it." from the terse experience i've had with the ps3's online component, i was very disspointed and i know it's because i'm spoiled with xbl.

like i said, i know the ps3 is more geared towards the multimedia outlet of consumers, but i honestly don't think sony made the right decision with that. the majority of 360 owners did NOT spring for the external hd-dvd drive, an indication of the average gamer's disregard of high definition media. i think it's something like 30% of american households have hdtvs...and that does not bode well for high definition optical devices.

maybe sony jumped a bit too early on the blu-ray bandwagon and should have offered an external drive like microsoft did to reduce the cost a good amount in order to make it a more appealing gaming device.

but to be honest, it ALL comes down to the games, and it's not debatable that the 360 has delivered and will continue to deliver in spades while the ps3 offers sparse titles with few online components.

 

Don't forget that the graphics processing capability of the Cell + RSX is significantly greater than than of Xenos. It's probably pretty difficult to write an efficient renderer that functions like this, but as devs become more familiar with the PS3 I have no doubt that it will produce some interesting results.

 

This would be a very good point if devs weren't dumping the PS3 and heading to MS land. I think the price point is the biggest failure of the PS3, combined with a lackluster game library. You can have the most powerful console in the world, but if nobody owns it you're not going to make any money developing for it. $$$ rules the world.

I left console (and gaming) land a long time ago. I might would have liked a Wii, but as I said earlier, I can never find one.

 

Xbox 360 has a 3 year warranty now vs the PS3 one year warranty.

 

Yeah, but the games is where I think the PS3 comes out on top. The Japanese and North American game markets are a lot different, as is evidenced by the hardware sales of Xbox360 vs PS3. The type of games the two markets favour is different too. With games like Halo, and... well, games like Halo the Xbox caters to the American style gamer, whilst the Playstation has typically drawn those interested in interactive games (Eye Toy, Singstar, Guitar Hero) and more role playing/adventure games.

Despite living in little America, I am definitely more the Japanese style of gamer. I enjoy inviting a few friend's around for a night of Singstar, or sitting alone by myself playing Final Fantasy. The PS3 is great for me, as it has the games I want, and the fact that is is region free means I can import those Japanese gems that never make it to Australian shores (I'm looking at you, Super Robot Taisen).

For me, region free gaming is a big thing. It expands the library of games available by so much. Every year, so many games from Japan are ignored by American and European publishers, much to my disappointment. The PS3 gives me the best of the western and eastern world.

 

to each his own. in my opinion, i prefer western games more so than eastern games simply because i grew tired of hackneyed and overwrought storylines intertwined with linear gameplay featuring androgynous male leads. i know quite a few people that enjoy the style of gaming you enjoy and they love their ps3s! so, that's not the debate i'm bringing to the table.

if you honestly enjoy japanese-style games, then the ps3 is definitely for you. i used to be bent on eastern rpgs for the longest time until i played a few games like kotor, fable, morrowind, and jade empire.

my argument is to those gamers who enjoy a broad range of gaming; from the halo-esque shooter to the final fantasy-esque rpg. for example, the 360 features games like gears of war and halo 3, but it also features games like blue dragon, lost odyssey, the last remnant, guitar hero 2, virtua fighter 5, soul calibur 4, devil may cry 4, and ace combat 6. not to mention it offers a slew of games i am sure will be groundbreaking such as mass effect and bioshock.

what's even more impressive is that most of these games have online components! online gaming is definitely a western thing, unless of course you consider mmorpgs. anyway, i believe the ps3 has offered nothing as of yet, aside from resistance and warhawk, that have satiated the average western gamer.

what's saddening is that each game that has the capacity to pull in the western audience for the ps3 is outclassed by a similar 360 game. for instance, resistance pales in comparison to gears of war or halo 3. similarly, games like gta iv and virtua fighter 5 will have exclusive online components for the 360.

there is only ONE GAME i honestly believe has the ability to pull in american consumers and that's final fantasy xiii. but, with games like lost odyssey, the last remnant, fable 2, and mass effect on the 360, it is making it very easy to forget about square's newest installment.

 

I'm a big KOTOR fan. Was really the first D&D game I could get into.

Well, to be fair, the PS2 did have Killzone, and the PS3 will have Killzone 3.

Sony have decided to leave online functionality up to individual publishers and developers, so the online component can be better or worse than it's X360 counterpart.

I enjoyed resistance because it was different. WWII crossed with alien invasion was something I'd been waiting for since seeing the opening scene of Gunparade March. It's all opinion, of course, but I found Gears boring by comparison. Although, I've only played through each once, so the replay value may differ.

Will have to wait to compare it to Halo 3, but as an original XBox owner, I hope Bungie live up to the Halo universe's awesomeness and don't screw the story up like Halo 2. Games don't normally leave me angry at the end, but Halo 2 managed it.

Yeah, FFXIII is definitely something I'm looking forward to. Although I'm sure I'll appreciate a PS3 port of Mass Effect.

 

same here, but don't you still prefer eastern rpgs? that's how i interpreted your previous post which lends to your liking of the ps3. if you like your rpgs with chocobos, amazing cg cutscenes, and atb battle systems, then the ps3 will likely be the better system for you. if you like them with meandering storylines decided by the player, western cliches, and a more involving battle system, then the 360 is probably for you. all i am getting to is the 360 is beginning to offer more eastern rpgs, like blue dragon, lost odyssey, trusty bell, and the last remnant whereas the ps3 is not offering western rpgs like mass effect, bioschock, fable 2, or fallout 3.

i played through killzone and hated it. i felt sony should have waited until the ps3 to come out with the game because it had a great atmosphere, interesting storyline, and some cool gameplay, but it was just too bland and simplistic for me. i know the ps3 will have its sequel, but i highly doubt it will be able to challenge halo 3 for the console fps throne. from the halo 3 beta i poured hours into, i can safely say bungie has fixed every problem from halo 2 and the multiplayer is going to be some of the best ever. period. as for the campaign, bungie is a company that listens to their fans. rest assured, the ending to halo 3 will not piss you off. and nothing can be interpreted from sony's crappy attempt to wow the audiences with their killzone 2 trailer from e3 a few years ago...everyone saw through it.

yes, this is very true. unfortunately, many developers do not have the time and resources to create the online component for their own game; it would be counterproductive. which is exactly why you'll see a lot of ps3 ports without online gameplay and a lot of 360 ports with online gameplay, such as virtua fighter 5. for the 360, developers just have to plug their game into microsoft's code and have fun with it. online gaming is getting huge for console gamers now as well. sony needs to realize this and i guarantee they will for the ps4.

i agree, resistance was a very cool idea. however, i felt its execution wasn't anywhere near as solid as epic's on gears of war. although gears of war has the biggest cliche for a storyline, the game placed an emphasis on gameplay while the story took a backseat. and i honestly believe the gameplay is rock solid. gears has the best single-player campaign i have played since half-life 2 back in '04. millions of western gamers agree as well.

as for halo 3...just trust in bungie. they know fans were disappointed with the ending of halo 2; they know fans hated starting with an smg in multiplayer; they know dual wielding was given too much importance, therefore limiting grenade tossing and melee attacks (essential halo fun);they know many weapons were unbalanced; and they know the cutscenes were subpar. everything will be resolved and much more will be delivered once september rolls around. trust me.

yep, ffxiii i'm sure will be a great eastern rpg. unfortunately, i'm sure it will have the archetypal androgynous male lead, chocobos, ultimate weapons, a linear storyline, incredibly long cutscenes, a simplistic battle system, and a sephiroth/kuja/kefka villain. BUT, i love those things! it's just i prefer western rpgs. that doesn't mean i don't want to play japanese rpgs. which is why i gravitate to the 360. games like mass effect, bioshock, fable 2, kotor 3, oblivion, and fallout 3 stand next to games like trusty bell, blue dragon, lost odyssey, and the last remnant. on the other hand, the ps3 only offers endless final fantasy rip-offs with the occasional classic.

 

Rather than start a new thread Sony announces, officially, $100 price cut:

Sony Cuts PlayStation 3 Price to Lift Sales

Sony Corp., responding to one of the biggest criticisms of its new videogame console, slashed the price of the PlayStation 3 by $100 in an effort to increase sales.

The price cut, effective in the U.S. beginning today, reduces the cost of the PS3 to $499. The move, on the eve of a big games-industry conference in Los Angeles, was widely expected within the games business. Sony has suffered from slow PS3 sales since the product went on sale in November, in part because it was far more expensive than rival systems from Microsoft Corp. and Nintendo Co.

"We've certainly heard price was a barrier to entry for a lot of consumers," said Jack Tretton, president and chief executive of Sony's U.S. games division. "Our hope is this $100 price drop will make it accessible to more consumers."

With the cut, the PS3 is now modestly more expensive than Microsoft's $480 Xbox 360 Elite, the high-end version of the Microsoft console most closely resembling the PS3. While the Xbox 360 Elite has a larger hard disk than the PS3 for storing games and other content downloaded from the Internet, it lacks an optical disk drive similar to the PS3's capable of playing high-definition movies.

It is unclear how many more users will pay more for the PS3's technically superior features when there are still less-expensive versions of the Xbox 360 with lesser features selling for as low as $299, and Nintendo's $249 Wii. "I'm not sure you're going to get a quadrupling in demand, but as you come down the price curve you're going to get more and more people interested," said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities.

U.S. retailers sold 5.6 million Xbox 360s though May, compared with 2.8 million Wiis and 1.4 million PlayStation 3s, according to market-researcher NPD Group Inc.

Microsoft's efforts in the console business suffered a blow last week when the company said it would take a more than $1 billion pretax charge to cover what Microsoft called an "unacceptable" number of repairs of Xbox 360s.

Microsoft beat its competitors to the market with its new console by a full year. "It was very frustrating to have the PS3 debut late and have initial production quantities so small, but the quality of the device makes it all worthwhile," Sony's Mr. Tretton said.

Sony is also introducing a high-end version of the PS3 for $599 packaged with an 80-gigabyte hard drive and a racing game called "MotorStorm." The $499 version has a 60-gigabyte drive. When the PS3 went on sale in November, Sony offered a $499 version with a 20-gigabyte hard drive and no wireless networking capabilities, but it discontinued the model, saying consumers preferred a model with more storage.

 

Could you provide a link to that article? I just read that sony denied the price drop rumors july 6th.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/801/801981p1.html

 

If there is a real price drop, we'll probably hear it tomorrow as the tech-press gets busily to work.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/09/sony.price.reut/index.html

It's still too expensive at $499 and with really no decent games still.

Oh, and nothing like XBL.

 

I just read that too...!

 

Mmmm, gee, maybe that's because the Xbox 360 breaks way too often. Consoles aren't meant to break. So, Microsoft did the only logical thing they could think of, and that was to extend an already questionable warranty. If your 360 breaks, you give it to Microsoft to fix, or they give you a refurbished one. Yuck! With Wii, you get a brand new console. Boy, do I love my Wii.

 

Too bad the Wii has graphics that will make my hands cover my eyes in pain of seeing such a sight.

Well, each one to his own. My sister loves her Wii. I really just hate looking at it on the 32" LCD TV because everything looks even crappier compared to playing it on the 29" ordinary Sony TV. Then again, I am, after all, a graphics whore. And the games on the Wii just aren't my cup of tea.

Oh, BTW, I'm a proud owner of an Xbox 360. I'll get a PS3 when Gran Turismo 5 comes out. It's the ONLY reason I want a PS3.

 

You can get the component cables for the Wii, you know, which I plan on doing as soon as I get an HDTV. Just look at the reviews of the cable... one guy even has a 32" LCD TV The Wii will do 480p, while it isn't an HD resolution, it ain't too bad. It's DVD resolution if you have a good progressive-scan DVD player, also known as EDTV (extended definition, vs 480i, SDTV, or standard definition TV). Zelda: Twilight Princess is actually really pretty (not 360/PS3 level, of course, but still beautiful) and a Wii exclusive. I've put more hours into that than I probably should... hehe.

Anyway, if you use it on an HDTV, get the component cables. It's well worth it. And remember to set the Wii to use widescreen 16:9 ratio so you don't get stretching and to use 480p, rather than 480i. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. It's not 360/PS3 level, but it's a lot better than it'd be on your 29" ordinary (I take that to be a CRT) TV.

 

I really love my PS3. Not to start a fight or anything but it really is a nice piece of equipment.