Playstation 3, XBox 360 or Wii

[Phatslugga]

Actually, I could care less, to be honest. The Xbox has much better games coming out. The days when MGS was the only game with that level of polish are long gone.

And besides the fact, Kojima has the worst controls in ten years. I can't imagine the horrible things that are gonna be implemented over sixaxis...

That's one thing I like about the 360. No gimmick. It's just...good.

All opinions, I think MGS controls are fine, and I'll argue with you all day about which system has the better games coming out. However, it's a FACT that the PS3 is the best bang for your buck. So we can argue all day about controls, and what games are good, but when it comes down to it the 360 is inferior technology. While I really don't care which system has better graphics (which is easily the PS3, and anyone that denies it is delusional, seriously, the only xbox game that competes with PS3's graphics is Gears of War), I feel that the PS3's Library will be far superior to the Xbox's. This is debatable, i know, but that's my point.

There is no game out on the 360 yet that has MGS's level of polish, you obviously haven't played the game. Even Gears of War, the current trophy-game of the 360 doesn't hold a candle to MGS 3. Graphics are one thing, but MGS has much more gameplay depth than GOW.

By the way, the sixaxis is not a gimmick, it's rarley mentioned, there is really only one game that features it as more than an extra feature and it's warhawk. The flying in warhawk isn't even half of the game, so I wouldn't even consider that. It's just another extra thing that you can play around with if you want to. Now, the Wii motion sensing... that's a gimmick. That's pretty much what nintendo is riding on. That and the nintendo games that are going to be re-hashed thousands of times (Allthough I love those games don't get me wrong, it's just lack of originality in games from nintendo).

 

[Warlord Kentax]

I'll be getting MGS4, and the controls have been getting better, the cameras in both the portable ops and in subsistence are behind the head like most third person shooters/espionage games. I may like MGS, but they aren't my favorite titles. Most of the functions that I use the PS3 for are no gimmicks. I watch blu-ray movies, can easily insert memory cards of 3 different sizes (this makes it real easy to look at digital photos and load music onto the PS3. The 60GB HDD is nice, I mean the 360 is upgrading to 120 so that at least tells you that 60GB was no gimmick. I also enjoy watching HD movie trailers on my PS3. But just so you know the bottom line is:

The PS3 Cures Cancer.

End of story.

 

[sub]

Phatslugga, I personally don't feel that the PS3 gives you the best bang for your buck. Sony is forcing you to buy a Blu-ray player, which is arguably why the Playstation 3 costs 600 dollars. I'm never going to use a Blu-ray player in my life, it would be far more beneficial to me if they gave consumers a choice and left that out as an add-on. You have to admit, it would take a good 200 dollars off of the console or so.

 

[Phatslugga]

Phatslugga, I personally don't feel that the PS3 gives you the best bang for your buck. Sony is forcing you to buy a Blu-ray player, which is arguably why the Playstation 3 costs 600 dollars. I'm never going to use a Blu-ray player in my life, it would be far more beneficial to me if they gave consumers a choice and left that out as an add-on. You have to admit, it would take a good 200 dollars off of the console or so.

Actually, that was my one gripe with the system. I really didn't want the player either, but it doesn't mean that it's not the best bang for your buck. A good blu-ray player is $800+.

I totally agree with you though, had they made it a seperate $200-$300 purchase, and the system was only $400, it would have sold way better. However, Sony is evil and they want Blu-ray to succeed, and the only way they could give it a push was to have it bundled with their new system.

But say that the Blu-ray palyer isn't even included, you still have WI-FI ready system with free online play. 3 times the memory, HDMI output and a triple card reader.

If you add that to the Xbox...

Wi-fi adapter + $100
free online play $50 a year
triple card reader (let's just say $30, even though it's probably an understatement)
40GB of hardrive space, you'd need to spend $200 right now to do that with the 360, or buy a brand new shiny elite which is $470 (which I imagine has delighted people that already spent $400+ on their current system).
So let's add that up...

$730 for the xbox, and an extra $50 per year to play online
$600 for the xbox elite, and an extra $50 a year IF you didn't already own the 360, which if you did would cost you $1000.

Best bang for your buck. now remember that it DOES come with the BLU-Ray and it just kills the 360.

 

[Tassadar]

I think this round of the console war is going to slide by with no clear winner. But their are losers. Sony... everyone knows Sony botched the PS3 launch. That doesn't mean Sony is dead. Nintendo could have easily sweeped through the competition if the Wii were more powerful. It's innovative and extremly fun. But there are very few games that are PS3/360 exclusives that the Wii could even play.
With that said Microsoft did an excellant job releasing an extremly powerful console early in the game at a fair price. While the PS3 is much more powerful, the fact that it took over a year after the 360 launch for Sony to release it's console, and losing a lot of exclusives to M$ were big factors in Sony failing it's launch.
And Nintendo... is just Nintendo. Their fanbase alone is enough to keep them a sucessful company.

So in short, in my opinion, there aren't any clear winners thus far. 360 is certainly ahead, but it'll be at least a year before I could make a firm decision on which console I would buy if I had enough money for all three.

 

[Smith]

While I really don't care which system has better graphics (which is easily the PS3, and anyone that denies it is delusional, seriously, the only xbox game that competes with PS3's graphics is Gears of War)

The PS3's graphics capability won't really get tremendously better. It's using, in your words, inferior GPU technology when compared to the 360.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think this round of the console war is going to slide by with no clear winner.

Nintendo is the only company that makes a profit off the shelf for every console sold.

Nintendo = winner.

 

[sub]

Actually, that was my one gripe with the system. I really didn't want the player either, but it doesn't mean that it's not the best bang for your buck. A good blu-ray player is $800+.

I totally agree with you though, had they made it a seperate $200-$300 purchase, and the system was only $400, it would have sold way better. However, Sony is evil and they want Blu-ray to succeed, and the only way they could give it a push was to have it bundled with their new system.

But say that the Blu-ray palyer isn't even included, you still have WI-FI ready system with free online play. 3 times the memory, HDMI output and a triple card reader.

If you add that to the Xbox...

Wi-fi adapter + $100
free online play $50 a year
triple card reader (let's just say $30, even though it's probably an understatement)
40GB of hardrive space, you'd need to spend $200 right now to do that with the 360, or buy a brand new shiny elite which is $470 (which I imagine has delighted people that already spent $400+ on their current system).
So let's add that up...

$730 for the xbox, and an extra $50 per year to play online
$600 for the xbox elite, and an extra $50 a year IF you didn't already own the 360, which if you did would cost you $1000.

Best bang for your buck. now remember that it DOES come with the BLU-Ray and it just kills the 360.

You can't argue it's the best bang for your buck if you're getting stuff you don't want and are paying extra for it. If the Blu-ray player wasn't included, then you could argue it's the best bang for your buck, but it is and it's costing me a good 200 dollars. Fact is, that 200 dollars is one of the main things preventing me from buying the system.

I mean no offense or anything, I just don't agree with you man.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

It's also worth mentioning that the online is much better than any free component you will ever use. It's wi-fi add on also has a massive range that, to me, makes it worthwhile. However I have a simple $30 wireless access point that I use and it works just as well.

Does the PS3 have headset and VoIP support? (Seriously, I'm asking because I don't know).

With the somewhat underwhelming MGS4 being the exception, almost every good game coming out for the PS3 will be out on the Xbox and it will be likely just as good. With the Elite, the entire argument about 1080i vs. 1080p is irrelevant as well.

The 360 is also going to become a DVR, and you can download all manner of shows and movies on it already.

The card reader thing is sold for the Xbox and if I recall it is only 20 bucks or so, and I think it has multiple slots on it. Moreover there are dirt-cheap USB adapters for all sorts of ports.

My 360 controller works with my computer too, with a single 1-download file.

I don't actually need the reader at all, either--the Xbox integrates with my computer wirelessly, and I can watch any movies I have or listen to any music I have off of the computer with no concern of my hard drive's lack of space.

I used to defend the PS3 all the time, but even then that was mostly because of the fact that people around here were just acting ignorant about the whole thing. THe 360 has features in it that are so cutting edge, I didn't even know that I always wanted them. Now, I will never play an online game without VoIP again; I will always yearn for a completely automated friends list, a universal invite system, and all the other awesome Live features MS has in that thing.

To be blunt, my predictions about the PS3 were wrong. The superior machine has been with us all along. Microsoft has contributed its revolution of modern gaming with Xbox Live and it's brilliant universal system of handling users of all games, its seamless computer integration, its voIP standards.

Can the PS3 do some of the things I mentioned in this post? I'm sure some of them, it can't. Having a stronger processor doesn't always mean its superior. The games they are putting out for that thing are pure crap; it's DOA because of that. They dropped the ball, no other way to put it. I feel bad to say so because I am a Sony supporter, but that's the way it is.

@Opti: Nintendo only makes profit off those consoles because they are recycled GameCube hardware and they spend very little to produce them in the first place. In order to "win" the console war you have to make an impact, not just make a profit. Besides the age old adage applies...Nintendo makes little money off of third party licensing fees, because they have so little. That's why they make people pay out the ass on the rare occasion they do. People compromise by entering into strong arm partnerships with Nintendo (i.e. Rare, back in the day), but Nintendo tends to burden them with too much costs and they terminate. Microsoft may not make money on the consoles themselves, but all of those peripherals they produce, plus the third party licensing of the games, plus xbox live, plus accessories...things start adding up. Different strategies, regardless. Nintendo doesn't do theirs because it's smarter or better for the consumer; they do it because it saves them money and helps keep the dead weight afloat. If Microsoft is willing to eat some of the money on manufacturing consoles to bring us a better product than I'd say companies like Nintendo profiting instead is a disservice to we the community.

 

[Tassadar]

Nintendo is the only company that makes a profit off the shelf for every console sold.

Nintendo = winner.

Companies rarely make a profit on their consoles. Profits don't necessarily make it the winner. Though Nintendo is making a killing with the Wii. Nintendo could probably put glitter on a turd and sell it, and make money. That doesn't make the turd a better console (terrible analogy, but I'm on E today).

 

[Smith]

New Nintendo Poo! One hand on your Wii, the other on the Poo!

 

[Tassadar]

New Nintendo Poo! One hand on your Wii, the other on the Poo!

jfc.. that's a record time for someone to rip into one of my terrible analogies. Also ewww...

 

[Optimus Prime]

Companies rarely make a profit on their consoles. Profits don't necessarily make it the winner. Though Nintendo is making a killing with the Wii. Nintendo could probably put glitter on a turd and sell it, and make money. That doesn't make the turd a better console (terrible analogy, but I'm on E today).

Well, it outsold the PS3 phenomenally (800,000+ units) between November and February, and was marginally oversold by the 360 (about 280,000 units) by comparison. Furthermore, its numbers probably would have been higher had supply met the demand.

 

[Ravendust]

Although i'm backing the PS3, these arguements about hardware have no backing on what makes a console 'good';

PlayStation - Weakest hardware - 102.49 Million
Nintendo 64 - Medium hardware - 32.93 Million
Dreamcast - Best hardware - 10.6 Million

PlayStation 2 - Weakest hardware - 115.39 Million
Gamecube - Medium hardware - 21.5 Million
Xbox - Best hardware - 24 Million

As you can see, hardware doesn't seem to have an effect on sales, probably because Johnny Consolegamer doesn't know anything about CPU's, clock speeds and the like. I still think the PS3 will come out tops in the next few years, but it'll be through strength of titles, high definition capabilities (1080p, Blu-ray) and reputation/fanboys.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

To address the questions/points from Pride:

the PS3 has bluetooth compatability, and it works via bluetooth with my headset, just like i would with a mobile phone, and yes, i can chat with my friends over the internet using it.

the ps3 controller is designed to work via USB, comes wireless as standard, and has a rechargeable battery in-built, which is an instant money saver.

360 elite? please, i spent ?300 on my 360, microsoft can **** themselves if they think i'm gonna throw it, and buy a 360 elite just for an hdmi output. lets face it, you're not gonna get any kind of real money for a second hand 360 when they release the elite, because people without 360s already, will just buy.... an elite?

i've installed Linux on my ps3, and with it i can watch any manner of content through my ad-hoc network to my pc, download things from the internet, and guess what ladies, i'm making this post from my ps3.

and even then, it's not nececary to install linux, the ps3 online store has movies for download, games, demos etc. and you don't have to pay a subscription to browse, or play online, unlike Live (which i also have).

i'm even considdering installing 3dsmax onto my ps3, because i know it can handle a much tougher load than my pc can. even with a low amount of ram, it can churn out information at a much higher rate.

i'm 99% sure that people will find a way to upgrade the ram in a ps3 safely.

i've already replaced the HDD with a 200gb. and it works like a dream. even then though, the 60gb HDD, was a major advantage for me over the standard premium HDD for my 360. i could only store 12 game demos on that thing!!! not to mention all the movies, downloadable content for games etc, that i wanted.

all in all, people have to just make a choice. can they justify the price?

it isn't a case of the ps3 being not worth it, because it really, really is. but you still have to be able to justify it. for me, the bluray player alone did it, since a standalone bluray player is more expensive than the ps3, and i am almost sure samsung built it for them (sony don't have a standalone, and samsung built a lot of parts for their tv's and audio equipment this year).

my point is, everywhere the 360 excels, my ps3 has the edge. the ONLY downside, is the small games library, which is getting bigger all the time.


to address Prime:

over here in europe, the PS3 broke all kinds of sales records on release day, smashing both the 360, and the Wii.
in europe the Wii is like gold dust, while PS3s really are flying off the shelves in comparison. dispite paying double what you americans do heh.

 

[Ravendust]

i've installed Linux on my ps3, and with it i can watch any manner of content through my ad-hoc network to my pc, download things from the internet, and guess what ladies, i'm making this post from my ps3.

Nice, that was one feature I was jealous of the 360 for, Media Extender capabilities. If it's possible to make it interface with Vista's Media Center like the 360 can as well (if it runs Linux, a program can be written to do this) then i'll be laughing all the way to the bank as I go to withdraw the money for one.

i'm 99% sure that people will find a way to upgrade the ram in a ps3 safely.

The PS3 uses standard DRAM memory doesn't it? I'm sure a similar-sized module and a soldering gun could get this done.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

dunno about the ram, we both know my technical knowledge lies in guitars, tits, and ass. haha.

as for the media extender, i haven't tried using it that way before, it's an interesting idea and i'm sure it's possible. for now though, i have no need. media player classic > your face.

 

[sub]

Ravendust made the comment that the PS3's high definition capabilities will help the PS3 out in terms of sales. That's something I don't agree with at all. The average gamer doesn't have an HD-TV and doesn't care about HDgaming or can't afford it. For me personally, I feel like I'm not getting the full experience if I would buy a PS3 (and to a lesser extent the 360) since the HD part is advertised so heavily... I feel like I'd be missing out on a feature that's supposedly integral to the PS3 experience. i'm sure i can't be alone in that feeling...

 

[Almighty_Gir]

really sub? the average gamer over here is aged 16-26 (this going on the experiance of working in retail... which i no longer do). Now, anyone 16-18 will most likely have parents, who, will want an HD-TV and if they can get a bluray playing piece of equipment, that also shuts their kid up, then awsome!

most of my friends (aged 18-29, and there's a fair few of them) all own HD-TV's.

it should be noted, that HDTV isn't as expensive as it used to be now, it's much more common. i think you are basing your "average gamer" comment, possibly on your own circumstances, and not considdering the market itself.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

That's pretty illogical, considering that kids young enough to need their parents' primary TV to play games on probably are not the target audience of the PS3.

There's a big difference between flat panel tvs, plasma screens, etc. ... and actual HD-ready TVs. An actual HDTV still runs the cost of the PS3 itself at minimum where I'm at.

As for the market...your one store's customer base is not a fully accurate portrayal, either.

Though I can't help but find it ironic that I sit here now on the other side of the "graphics don't make consoles, games do" argument. I said this same stuff months ago and was lauded as a deluded diehard fanboy fool and now here I sit...having the PS3 sold to me on the premise that it was jury-rigged with Linux (which I could do on a ****ing calculator, and likely could on the 360 just the same) and has the very same HD output capability that the 360 elite has.

And it STILL doesn't have a DVR in it.

Either way I think the thoughts of how prominent things like bluray players and HDTVs are is somewhat skewed for all of us. Where I live you would be hard pressed to find almost any of those things; any of a worthwhile size are in the thousands of dollars. I know of only three people who own actual TVs worth using for these purposes. Plus we can't forget that lots of TV manufacturers have made a flat screen and a silver shell for what is otherwise just a normal digital television and sold off many of them to the ignorant consumers believing it is in fact "HD."

Not every one of those pretty silver TVs has composite jacks.

Also worth noting: even the cheapest of them run close to the price of the PS3 itself around here...and those are 20 inches, full HD, but don't even display past 720 (or whatever that frakkin' number is).

I think you might also be overestimating parents. At least here in the states, parents look at these machines as a toy, and could give a **** if it could play back their life story in real time holograms--no american parents want to spend 600ish bucks on a toy. You tell'em it's a bluray player and they just figure it'd be a waste cause the kids would bust it or treat it bad or monopolize it, and they say **** it. And the amount of people who get HDTVs...and I mean ACTUAL ones, with digital cable hookups and home theater setups...well again, of the countless dozens of people I know of only three own anything even close to that (one is a high paid electromechanical engineer, another is a newspaper tycoon, and the last is a construction contractor on the big dig...not exactly typical "18-29" income for sure...worth noting as well is that all are in their mid to late 30s and could give a **** about bluray or even high output TV in general).

Maybe over there across the pond people care more about HD and the gear is more prominent, or maybe in general more people are into the idea of bluray. Bottom line is, here in the states--where the industry is so centralized--the flat panel HDTV does not go hand in hand with gamer budgets.