Black on black: Xbox 360 Elite vs PS3, which is more 1337?
By Ryan Block 
posted Apr 26th 2007 2:27PM
posted Apr 26th 2007 2:27PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
-Jon Graft-
Try not to be so ignorant next time you write down your thoughts. More people will pay attention to you.
WTF y is every one slagin off xbox they fukin rule ps3s r shit nd are sooooooooooo bad for online gaming fuk yeeah
Most defenetly Playstation 3.... Xbox 360 elite rys to copy ps3 but still it is not equal or bether than the best consule ever made: Playstation 3
Hi!
I've been reading these comments for a while now and I've seen some very convincing arguments from all sides. I do not possess near the technological knowledge that most of you appear to have, but I can nod at the 360 for being more l33t based on what I feel is more significant to me, the consumer. I currently mostly only play Halo 3 on the 360, and have just recently purchased a Phillips 1080p HDTV to finally get the most out of it. Sadly, I have an older model of the 360, so I'm stuck with HD through composite. I'm thinking about getting a newer 360 so I can use the HDMI cable, because although it looks AMAZING and the motion is very smooth, it seems to have little hiccups here and there, which I think is attributed to the composite cable running @ 1080p. Some would argue the composite will not work with 1080p, but the xbox video settings are set @ 1080p and I'm getting a very crisp (but sometimes choppy) picture. When I say choppy, I mean the game will be running smooth and just lose frame rate at inconsistent times.
Anyway, a buddy of mine owns a ps3 and I own a 360. I've gone through many many games on the 360 and enjoyed them all very much (Halo 3, Crackdown, Mass Effect, Fear, Oblivion, Perfect Dark, Burnout, KoF: Circle of Doom, Rainbow 6: Vegas) My friend has 3 games on his PS3 and I honestly don't see any difference in the quality of the games. We have played Ninja Gaiden, MX vs ATX, and Call of Duty 4 on his ps3. As far as graphics are concerned, They look pretty much identical - performance as well. We were only able to compare cod4 on both systems and there was virtually no difference.
The bottom line, from my experience and in my very humble opinion, is the 360 is better suited for more hardcore gamers. There is a much larger library of games (which may be because it's been out longer I'll admit that) There is a seemingly infinite and accessible multiplayer community (xbox live) which by the way, at $50 a year is quite reasonable considering you're getting a service that is constantly being maintained, marketplace, easy to use buddy system; That's what you're paying for. Yes, the ps3 multiplayer is free, but you don't get any of that extra stuff with it, which may be important to some and not to others. I play most of my games online because I am a competitive gamer who just can't settle for scripted AI all the time.
I haven't used the ps3 as much, so I will admit that my knowledge is limited, but from what I have read and seen, it seems like ps3 owners are really just getting a more limited pc that can play blue ray movies. It's got some nice little tricks if you own a psp, and serves better than the 360 as a media center, but looking at it from a game playing perspective (which is what I thought consoles are made for) the
360 wins.
I've tried to digest all that technical info, but have come to the conclusion that it doesn't make a difference to me if the end products aren't providing a noticeable difference.
that pic of the dell pc comparing it to the elite made me lol
Xbox's Gpu is superior to the ps3's. Sony went multimedia while microsoft went pure gaming processing power.......fact. U get what u want if u want a all in 1 package buy a ps3 if u want the best in gaming power but less features buy a xbox 360.
guys i already have PS3 with 10 games that their scores above 8 on game spot, but i only liked 2 (nba2k8, warhawk) and play one (warhawk) and really get borred of the game, and i didn't buy metalgear4 or gtv becouse i think metalgear4 is for an old man like old snake lol, and i don't like the gtv type of games, i saw a movie for halo3 tournmant (semi-final & final) and i liked the game alote it look like that the game is alote butter than warhawk, and then i planed to buy elite xbox for not only this game but for the game selection (ResidentEvil5 will be in the xbox too), and i saw a graffic compare for both sys, xbox look smoother to me, but i heard of a failure problem called the 3 ring of death is this problem is in the elite xbox too? and do you recommend me to buy elite xbox and thanks alote guys.
Not sure why people care so much about the console graphics and technical comparisons for each console...? Games right now look the same. The colors on the X360 look better sometime because of "Digital Vibrance" I don't see this on the PS3 or it's low. But in truth is that the PS3 should have some more life in it in terms of technology. The main thing that disappoints me about both systems is the lack of AA and AF both systems do about the same in this area. AA and AF are done only close up to objects. I do believe DEVS could do more on the PS3 but they would have to work harder because the X360 is technically less capable and so extra work is avoided so that a single game runs about the same on both consoles. Devs are not developing games to be visually different for either console. If you want to compare graphics and technology with some kind of point to it. Then PC hardware and games should be your focus. Console games are not made to be scalable. I vote both as being ok. I just wish there are PC level AA and AF then consoles would be great.
i think their both nice both have pretty even graphics so i think their both worth it but the 360 has more features like removable hardrive better online play and on but yeah i think their both good systems their the top ones so yeah the one i think is not worth the money is the wii horrible graphics and ugly system so yeah i have a 360 and iim happy with it i dont really care as long as t has good graphics and not like the ones 4 the wii im happy
Umm, guys? I need help... I'm planning to either get Xbox 360 l33t or ps3 But I can't seem to figure out which to get. I want the Xbox 360 L33t for the controller yet I also want something to load fast and has smooth graphic. And I also want the Xbox 360 l33t cause most of the people I know have one. But I don't feel like paying 50$ a month for Xbox Live. I'm 13 year old btw.
I dislike both, but out of the two, it has to be the PS3.
I don't see what the big deal is with the Elite. All it has is a bigger hd. And its graphics may finally be able to keep up with the ps3s. Does anyone know what the cost is going to be???
With wifi, blue tooth and hd player build in $599 package? the ps3 is a sweet machine, if you buy a $479 360 leet and $89 usb wifi adapter you will pay $568 and still not get hd movies or fork over 199 more for the hd player! so if their is no nd player are your games really in hi def? Nope just look better then xbox but wait this one is BLACK! then got to pay more per year if you want exclusive and early access to content, TrueSkill matchmaking, and even more a.k.a gold member online? but this one is black and has a weak hdmi that may or maynot work! 1337 thats easy it ps3!
I never post anything on the sites but you guys are killing me...
I really do think both systems are great and think you guys need to get a tech clue!
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1
Considering that the PS3 is still the more technically impressive of the two, it gets the nod. Plus the shiny beats the matte.
"Considering that the PS3 is still the more technically impressive of the two, it gets the nod. Plus the shiny beats the matte."
Actually, many people consider the xbox 360s processor to be superior to the PS3, as well as the fact that the xbox has dedicated video ram.
PH - "Actually, many people consider the xbox 360s processor to be superior to the PS3, as well as the fact that the xbox has dedicated video ram."
Actually the ps3 had dedicated ram and the Xbox uses shared video. So far the Xbox 360 is only just matching the first gen games of the PS3. What does that say to you? And most programmers are just learning the ins and outs of the cell processor still. Read a bit first dude.
They are both hideous.
Only me who think that the PS3 look really uggly in that picture?
It's at a bad angle.
The ps3 may have a slight technical edge on the 360 but games look practically identical on both systems. Also the 360 costs a decent amount less. I give the nod to the 360 cause its games are better and there’s a lot more of them along with costing less money.
You are soo correct! It looks hidius in this bad photo.
Except the PS3 does have the Cell CPU which is undeniably a very powerful and state-of-the-art processor.
Don't forget Blu-Ray either. While not a necessarily liked feature, it is quite a lot more |337 than the standard DVD drive in the Elite.
To PH ...Would these "many People" be retarded?
@ ph: You've got it backwards, the PS3 has the RSX graphics card in it with 256mb of VRAM, whereas the 360 has 512mb of RAM that's being shared by both the processor and the on-board graphics chips. Not to mention the fact that each core of the Cell processor has a small amount of RAM that it can use. Technically, the PS3 has a much better chance of delivering better performance, it's up to the developers to deliver on the promise. If Sony provides good documentation then we could see the PS3 coming out with games that kick the crap out of 360 games within the next year or two. Especially if they release a revised version of the PS3 that has a faster Blu-Ray drive in it, allowing for much faster transfer speeds and shorter load times without game content installation to the hard drive.
Wrong!!360 has shared ram, ps3 has specific video ram
The PS3 has the same amount of 'video' RAM as the 360, it has 256mb GDDR3 RAM I believe, and 256mb XDR RAM, and XDR owns in RAM terms.
"Actually, many people consider the xbox 360s processor to be superior to the PS3, as well as the fact that the xbox has dedicated video ram."
That's not true at all. This isn't an opinion thing, it's either fact or fiction. And it's a fact that the PlayStation 3 is a technologically superior machine compared to the Xbox 360. Both the Xenon and CBEA are based on the POWER architecture. The Cell's PPE alone is already one-third of the Xenon's total power, and then you've got the seven SPEs. And based on calculations, the Cell is around twice as powerful as the Xenon, doing more than 2 TFLOPS.
Also, the PlayStation 3 actually DOES have dedicated VRAM. The Xbox 360 is actually the one that has to ALWAYS share RAM. The Xbox 360 relies on 512MB of GDDR3 RAM for all its memory. On the other hand, the PlayStation 3 uses 256MB of XDR DRAM and and 256MB of GDDR3 RAM, used by the Cell and RSX respectively. However, each of the processors can also access each other's RAM as needed.
Overall, the PlayStation 3 is indeed more 1337. The Xbox 360 Elite may be elite by Xbox standards, but it pales in comparison to the PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 3 has newer HDMI, internal Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0, superior processor, next-generation optical storage, internal memory card readers, et cetera.
The piano black colour suits the PlayStation 3 better than the matte black suits the Xbox 360. And the PlayStation 3 has the most kickass games (Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, Final Fantasy XIII, Gran Turismo 5, et cetera).
The PS3 has 256MB of XDR clocked at 3.2Ghz and 256MB of GDDR3 clocked at 550Mhz, the GDDR3 is dedicated to the graphics card, but the graphics card can also access the XDR via a 1.3Ghz bus. So the PS3 has both dedicated and shared graphics memory. The 360 has 512MB of shared GDDR3 clocked at 700Mhz. The 360's video chip also has an internal 10MB eDram buffer for doing graphical tricks (free FSAA for example) but it is not "graphics memory" in the traditional sense. The bandwidth of the PS3's main memory is about twice that of the 360's (51GB/s vs 22GB/s). In terms of raw power, the PS3 is far ahead of the 360, and that is a fact plain and simple.
Accually, the Xbox 360 is the one WITHOUT the dedicated video RAM. The PS3 has 256 video, and 256 generic. The xbox just uses 512 for everything.
No numnuts the 360 gpu is just alittle better than the PS3's and the RSX can acces either section of RAM as needed so technically they have the same amount of RAM. The cell processor is a whole terflop faster than the 360's processor which more than makes up for the RSX's shortcommings.
well some people feel that leaving the toilet seat up is improper while others dont.
tell M$ to put folding@home on a 360 and get back to me
The xbox 360 looks like an old dell desktop.
Hahaha, this is EXACTLY what I thought when I saw it. http://www.pcrent.co.kr/shop/upload/goods/a93437_dell-gx280.jpg
THANK YOU! HAHA. You are the best fitinferno.
Your right! im staring at one in my office and it looks just like a Dell computer.
No, Will!
When you buy the Wifi($100)and the HD-DVD($200)drive, it actually cost more than the PS3. Probably the only right thing you said is the games(which won't be in late 2007). Better games than currently will come out for the PS3.
Anyway, I vote for the PS3 because it is actually cheaper and give the technical edge over the 360 elite. Blue-Ray is selling 3-1 over the HD-DVD. It also serve as a basic computer. And the hard drive is laptop compatible, so you can buy a 150+ gigs for the PS3. More buddys to play with(7 players is really odd)! More USB ports! And one of the finest graphics the world has to offer before PC start taking over again.
"Except the PS3 does have the Cell CPU which is undeniably a very powerful and state-of-the-art processor."
Except that the cell processor is not as state of the art as many people think. It is very hard for programmers to tap into the potential. It is VERY unlikely that the PS3 will deliver better graphics, or even graphics that are equal to the xbox.
I used to be unbiased towards the next gen consoles...I even routed for the PS3 at one point. But the facts have me leaning towards the 360.
"Don't forget Blu-Ray either. While not a necessarily liked feature, it is quite a lot more |337 than the standard DVD drive in the Elite."
Well I like HD DVD, and I think that the blu ray drive will quickly become obsolete. However, you are correct, The 360 only has a dvd drive, which is already obsolete.
Someone can't spell 1337!
blu ray sucks ass and the sony games list has sucked since the first xbox came out. bet every1 with a ps3 cant wait for singstar. freakin losers
I agree with the former poster, the 360 totally looks like an old Dell desktop, it's awful. The PS3 looks like a widget out of Blake's 7 so for that reason it gets my vote.
ryan, if you took that picture... you look bald as hell in that reflection
Um, but I am bald? I shaved my head last week.
There is no "these are the ugliest pieces of consumer electronics every created and expected to live with all other sleek electronic devices in my cabinet" option. Give me a Wii anyday over these 2 monstrosities.
That matt black is a sweet as the steath bomber
What does 1337 mean?
It's means elite as in 1337 leet
old skooool hax0r talk
1337 = leet
http://www.urbandictionary.com
-----
The consoles are both nice, but I would prefer the 360... because it's cheap, fun, has a popular online service (xbox live), lots of accessories, currently has some of the best games (opinion), and its just what I like.
Jimmy likes shiny things!
Uh Penguin Warlord; the games are PS3 "exclusives" for a reason. The games are not going to be on other consoles if they're "exlusives"!
The 360 begins to be comparable after spending 100 dollars on the wifi dongle, and 200 for the HD-DVD dongle, and then you have to pay 50 bucks to play online.
Except I do not need Wi-Fi being that my router sits right next to my 360. Wired is more reliable than wireless for gaming. And, if you want them to match exactly, then you need to need to buy a new wireless adapter for the PS3 - the 360 wireless is A/B/G, the PS3 is only B/G. I use A for my laptop at home, much faster and reliable than B/G.
Now add in the $60 for the Sony HDMI cable - the elite version has one in box. $53 for a 120GB drive for the PS3 (from newegg) - the elite version has one in box. $30 for a headset (the cheapest one from EBGames) - the elite version has one in box.
Add in the $200 for the HD DVD drive (although, there were reports of it for $79 from Sam's, but we will go with the official prices).
360 Elite price - $679
PS3 price - $842
That is $163 difference, which you could spend on XBL Gold but a lot of people are just using Silver (and the Elite has a card for free Gold time). I do have a Gold acount, and I do play games on it. I also do have a PS3, but I do not because 1) None of my friends have one, so we cannot play and 2) not many games have online play for the PS3. Finally, game publishers can charge for their online play since they have to run the servers, MS runs the servers so all the play you want is built into the Gold membership with no additional price.
Seriously, who the hell will spend $100 for the xbox 360 wifi dongle when you can buy a Linksys wrt54G and wirelessly bridge the Xbox 360 to your wireless router for $40.
Dude 2 posts above, you forget that you dont NEED the sony one - its just the same to get a really chepa one. And why do you want a 120GB HDD when you can just get a 60GB External, to have 120GB altogether? So really you're just adding in money that needn't be spent, in order to make the elite look better?
PS3 Guys say what you want about the 360 but I'll actually listen when the PS3 game lineup improves. I don't know about most of you but having features such as Blue Ray and a crazy "free" online multiplayer game setup when there aren't alot of games out for the 360 that even utilize headsets is a bit hilarious to me. Who wants to play online with people you can only IM? You know what they say, "You get what you pay for" but in the case of the PS3 I think somebody lied.
While I agree that the blue Ray drive over a DVD drive is nice lets be realistic here -hardcore gammers baught it for high-res games not movies. I baught Spiderman 3 on the PS3 for the extra character that is only available on the PS3 version however the graphics were just pittiful in comparrison to the full HD I could have gotten on the 360.
I am a programmer -nuff said. I think that the Playstation team is spending tooooooo much time perfecting the things that don't really matter right now instead of putting their efforts into things that the average user won't notice anyway because of things like for instance: they own an older TV's that only show up to 720p.
And for those of you who will say that the 360 came out long before the PS3. The PS3 has been out for years before the XBOX was even dreamed of and when the XBOX 1 came out it blew the PS2 out of the picture. Stop making up excuses fir the Playstion, and start demanding more -like games for staters. I mean how much COD3 can a man play?
lets not forget the fact that you dont need to buy a "ps3" headset. my bluetooth headset for my cell phone works just fine for my ps3, so thats money saved again.
Your an idiot. You don't NEED wi-fi at all on a 360. ANd who the fuck buys a xbox 360 to watch movies? Thats' what a fucking dvd player is for.
fuck your couch, jackson. 50 dollars a year for online service is pretty fucking tight.
and i don't remember who said it. something about the titles on ps3. your retarded. msg4 comes on on 360 too. along with a bunch of titles that used to be ps3 only.
FF13 360 version? hells yea, ho.
To NINJAAAAAAA; no MGS4 isn't going to be on 360, it's already a confirmed PS3 exlusive, and so is FFXIII. So get your facts straight before you leave incorrect feedback!
@C32
If you spend $60 on an HDMI cable, you're the gullible type of person that Monster markets to. You can get an HDMI cable for $5 from Amazon. It's digital, not analogue, you don't need super high quality cables to get the best output.
@x54Kx TH3 B3AST
Why can't you play SpiderMan 3 in HD on the PS3?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8925983&&#post8925983
I have an Xbox360 and SpiderMan 3, and the graphics in 1080i don't look much better than SpiderMan 2 on PS2. The difference is barely noticeable.
"The PS3 has been out for years before the XBOX was even dreamed of and when the XBOX 1 came out it blew the PS2 out of the picture. Stop making up excuses fir the Playstion"
Uhh, are you smoking crack? Shooting PCP? Snorting Crystal Meth? I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say you just typed that wrong, and just meant PS. How exactly did the Xbox blow PS2 out of the picture? The PS2 is the best selling console of all time(non handheld). Are you talking technologically? Then yes, but newer PS2 games graphics are comparable to Xbox.
"Except that the cell processor is not as state of the art as many people think. It is very hard for programmers to tap into the potential. It is VERY unlikely that the PS3 will deliver better graphics, or even graphics that are equal to the xbox. "
Uhm... except that it's out, and it is. And it's not all that hard for programmers to tap in to - that's something that has been blown out of proportion, and something that Sony is making much easier in SDK revisions.
"The 360 only has a dvd drive, which is already obsolete."
It's a myth propagated by the industry that something immediately becomes "obsolete" once something bigger and better comes out. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I'm just not interested in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD at this point. HDTVs just don't offer enough of an improvement to justify the enormous cost to me, and as long as I don't have a high-def display, what do I need with a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player?
This may be a little off topic, but I think you are SERIOUSLY jumping the gun if you are claiming that Blu-Ray will become obsolete and HD-DVD will be the standard. In actuality, looking at the current numbers, Blu-Ray is VASTLY outselling HD-DVD titles. Plus, it's been pretty obvious that the studios are strongly favoring Blu-Ray as of right now. But due to small sales numbers, it's still way too early to tell who will win out.
If the cell processor is so easy to program for then why are most of the PS3's exclusives coming to the 360; because of the ease of programming.
360 is winning so far by about 18%, kind of curious to see how this goes on a large scale. http://www.burnedbytheman.com
Xbox360 Elite is ok but I would have to say that the future lies with the PS3. Though they need to drop the price; in some countries they trade their first born for a PS3.
The Xbox 360 Elite of course. I mean 1337 is in the name.
Boy that matte black looks bad. I'll wait for the gloss white 360 Elite.
even at the wrong angle, the PS3 wins both in looks a techical ability.
lol @ the Dell Desktop comparison, i work for Dell and youre spot on!
"HDTVs just don't offer enough of an improvement to justify the enormous cost to me"
"That legislation is now drafted, and sets a December 31, 2008 date by which broadcasters who're still hogging those analog airwaves have got to give it up. One of the issues still unresolved is what to do about the nagging problem of the 20+ million American households that are still using antenna-based TVs, who are gonna be understandably disgruntled at the prospect of needing to go in on some new gear just to keep the tube a-pumpin'."
I feel for the people still using a SDTV they only have about 2 years left on their TV's lol.
I don't own either, but I voted 360.
Aesthetically, the PS3 feels "overdesigned" to me. The 360 E is sleeker and more "functional." Both are a bit clumsy-looking, in my opinion.
Hardware spec wise, it's a wash. The 360 is a more traditional device with some better specs on paper, whereas the PS3 is a unique design that's yet to be proven. I think they'll run roughly neck-and-neck in the long term, each system perhaps exceeding the other in specific tasks.
The PS3's got some fun perks, but I'm hard pressed to really call Blu-Ray a value add. Home's unproven.
Overall, I like the 360 better, and am far more inclined to buy one.
Help me out, which one runs Linux out of the box?
Oh right... PS3 wins
Ah you see we have PC's to do that now...
playstation is dead....xbox is the future!
Any facts to back this comment up?
Oh, I thought not.
i agree
11% win for Microsoft amongst English speaking readers.... that's not good when xbox is a wash in asia.
oh, the Dell vs Elite comparison is BRILLIANT!!!
My understanding is that Sony runs the online servers, not the publishers or developers. I know that to be true for RFOM at any rate.
linux == 1337
unix == 1337
linux is purely riding on that pony (and a good old nag it is too!)
my bad... i havent been keeping up with the Hipster Hair Habits blog...
... and if there isnt one there should be
On the grounds that one is a Micro$oft product and the other can run Linux there really can be only one 1337 machine - PS3. Simple as!
Slashdot doesn't have a windows section for a good reason it suxxor!
One 1337 push for the sony is how impressively it has taking over the distributed computing statistics on folding@home see http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats
PLAYSTATION®3 380 TFLOPS
Total 685 TFLOPS
The ps3 in the past month alone has assumed 55% of the total computing power... wow
wait till the ps3 gets some games for it... then the @home stats will drop when the ps3's arent sitting unused all day long...
Should have used a picture of the PS3 and a Xbox with the HD-DVD drive + the wireless attachment + the memory card reader.
The PS3 is really cool. I just got a PSP and with remote-play, it is really nicely integrated between the PSP and PS3.
Hmmm...I just realized the only way I have ever seen a PS3 is in stores. I dont know a single person who has one. Counting just people I work with there are about 15 Xbox360 owners, and outside of work another 15-20. If out of all of them I was the only one with the Elite version I'm sure they would all think of me as "1337". On that same token, I suppose if out of all of the people I know ONE person had bought a PS3, there would be something literally elite about that......
...or maybe thats tragic.
The xbox has been out since 2005! Of corse more people would have xboxes, but in a few years the PS3 will rule the world!
The best part is you all are rating a machine that has not even been out for 1 day. and for all we know half of them could be bad sitting in a truck on the way to the store.
WHOOOO HOOOOO IT IS THE BEST YEA OH NO MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE....
HY,
I believe that the PS3 have it's place because it has a faster processor that has ben used for medical rechearch.
I voted, of course, for the shiny black PS3 that matches perfectly with my shiny black 56" 1080p Smasung TV.
I have to give the PS3 the nod ONLY BECAUSE ITS RELATIVELY OPEN COMPARED TO THE X360.
PS3:
-replace internal hard drive with commodity 2.5" SATA HDDs you can get on the internet super cheap
-use external USB storage devices (flash keys or hard drives) to store media and PS3 data
-use any bluetooth headset you want for voice communication
-install Linux with the Other OS feature, now you have a sick computer that outputs 1080p set up with your HDTV
X360:
-need to buy proprietary MS hard drives, $180 for a 120GB hard drive when the drive itself is available to consumers over the internet for under $80 shipped.
-not as flexible with what you can save to external USB drives
-need to use proprietary X360 wireless headsets
-MS jealously guards against people loading alternative OSs, much less facilitating them.
Including Blu-ray may have been a mistake (its adding $200 to $300 in costs to each unit), but I still have to give Sony the nod. The PS3 seems to be the most open product they've ever created. If they opened the GPU up a little more to the Other OS feature, they could really spark a Linux community, which would greatly expand the appeal of the unit. Imagine if you could download a free .iso file from the internet, burn it to a DVD, slide it into the PS3 drive, and a half hour later after following onscreen instructions be able to surf the internet, watch videos, download/organize/play music/movies, type papers, edit photos and video, etc, all on your PS3 with software included in the linux distro that you had downloaded.
What's so great about being able to install Linux on a game console? Isn't the point of them to play games on? To me, the ability to install another OS just isn't a feature that catches my attention at all. What matters to me is the price, quality of graphics, and quantity of games that I would even want to play. With both systems having amazing graphics (especially compared to the NES/SNES I had growing up), and Xbox 360 having more games plus a lower price, making the XBox 360 the one I would buy first. I did, however, vote for the PS3 because it has better specs.
@ charlie: or you could, ya know, just by a computer for that price, and not worry about all the hassles.
I thought we were rating game consoles.
BTW, for Blu-Ray movies... WTF is up with NO IR PORT on the PS3? After dropping a c-note on a Logitech Harmony remote, I gotta use a PS3 controller to nav the menus? Oh well, maybe some 3rd party will come up with a BT/IR type adapter.
Now THAT would make my day.
As an owner of both, 360.
Reasoning? I don't give a crap about tech specs when I buy a console. I want good games, and the PS3 stable is pretty thin (especially on the 'exclusives'). Anyone who's played Crackdown or Gears of War know 'ehy r teh pwnage (not to mention a bunch of other titles).
At this point in time, as a games console, the PS3 makes a great Blu-Ray player (which is why I bought it - that and hoping for some future gaming goodness).
Well, gotta say if "1337" is what we're going after, I'd say the PS3 - the self-upgradeable hard-drive, the LINUX option, the wifi, the browser, the Folding@Home, the open bluetooth standard... More 'leet' than the 360. The PS3 is the machine that someone who might refer to themselves as '1337' at the comic-con or has a sub-50k 'slashdot' i.d. number...
But for gaming, the 360 is trouncing it. I own all three new systems and while I have hopes for the PS3, the 360 is what I play most right now.
-John Craft-
You may be right that the PS3 is "technically" superior however Sony has made it a -itch to create games for it compared to the 360 and I think that you should stop trying to justify your choice of a ps3 and maybe come up with an intelligent thought or two.
Side by side comps have shown the 360 to be better not only in inovations (which MS surprised me with) but overall cost. It comes down to what do you want to do with it, games, media center, etc. The 360 wins everytime. Sony will eventually get close behind, only after Sony copies the 360's Xbox live, Which they have already started to do.
So unless your drinking the Sony kool aide, ya got no argument, bub bye
Sory I have to ask; what inovations exactly are you talking about? Almost anything the Xbox 360 can do the PS3 can do better. The PS3 has only been out for a few months vs. a whole year. Give it a little longer and lets see who has the better games. That enough of an argument for you?
MS ATUALLY PIONEERED ONLINE CONSOLE GAMING SONY IS JUST COPYING THEM NOW. I am no MS fan but every now and again they do something right and I gotta give it to them for that.
Why did Sony go with the "Spider-Man" movie Font for the PS3? It's horrendous.
Sorry Preston, you are incorrect. The reason why the developers are developing on multiple consoles is that the cost of making a next-gen game is so expensive that they have to release it on multiple consoles to turn a profit.
Remarks about Microsoft taking too long to make a profit on the Xbox division are utterly retarded.
Guess what guys? People think about business in the long term! That's right! You know Amazon.com, the most successful retailer on the Internet? It took them -eight years- to finally make a profit on that company.
Gee, imagine if all enterprises made microeconomic decisions based on short term yearly profits instead of long term investments: "It's over. Amazon is finished."
Posted at 10:01PM on May 4th 2007 by Economist
16. "Where's my choice of not paying $100 for goddamn wi-fi that *every* other system has by default"
Does *every* other system have a wifi adapter that is a/b/ and g compliant? Ever look up the cost of those? The last time I checked, they were about $75 for a name brand.
"At least Nintendo (and Sony now) are upfront about their pricing and standardized with their features."
Like a $500 console that you can't buy anymore?
"Microsoft's tactic is to cut out a bunch of stuff so they can lower the initial price and then sell you that same stuff later at incredibly ridiculous prices."
Yeah, you're right.
Sony didn't cut out legacy memory cards, only to sell you the transfer kit back at a ridiculous price, which you'll only need to use once.
They didn't cut out infrared, only to sell you a console specific bluetooth remote control for the ps3.
Talk about adding shit 100% of the owners didnt want or need.
Thanks sony, now in addition of my $250 universal harmony remote, I have to buy that piece of shit.
Sony didn't cut out the HDMI cable (TruHD, and composite cables?), only to try and sell you one back.
Which incidentally, I never knew sony made HDMI cables, until the ps3 came out.
Sony didn't cut out replaceable batteries for the sixaxis, only to sell you a new controller once the battery finally dies.
I guess nintendo didn't cut out a wired ethernet connection, only to sell the adapter to us.
(Which anyone who games online knows, a wired connection is much more reliable)
I could go on, but I won't.
Point being, they are all guilty of cutting stuff out, only to sell it back to us. For some reason, you just have a hatred for microsoft, when all three companies are guilty.
Posted at 10:16PM on May 4th 2007 by Lord Chako