Yet Another Console Debate Thread.

This is probably a dumb question, but are you supposed to use your index and middle finger on the L1/R1 and L2/R2 buttons on a Playstation controller? Cause I tried that once and it felt kind of weird...like I didn't have a good grip on the controller. I usually just use the index finger of my hands for both triggers on the controller.

 

i jus want to say its way to early to debate on who is winning this war. ps3 and wii have not been out a year yet and both systems dont have alot of games under its belt. but wit the ps3 and xbox 360 i think xbox 360 will go down cause you dont make a next gen game and dont allow it to have all next gen features(like hd-dvd,hdmi connection,bigger hdd). Now xbox has to come out with a xbox 360 2 to compete that says u didnt do the job right the first time. ps3 on the other hand is going well (by me). the system is nice really nice features. the system is high but worth every penny. i have both the ps3 and xbox 360 and i played madden 07 and fight night 3 on both systems and i tell u the ps3 is a lil clearer and smoother. but this is the first few months of action with the ps3 system. lets talk about this a year from now when halo 3,metal gear solid4,gta4 and madden 08 is out. then we can debate on the war.

 

yea i do that too sometimes but on the 360 controller its hella hard to use just ur index fingers for both the triggers and the shoulder buttons.

 

After reading all the posts in this thread, a boat load of other threads in this forum and research from other sites, I've made up my mind.

Keep my 360 until the PS3 gets fantastic and starts to really leave the xbox behind, and hopefully get the PS3 for a better price.

In the meantime I'm enjoying HD gaming for a much lower price and really don't think I'm missing anything. Yet.

As for the Wii? I feel it's 360 vs PS3, and you either get a Wii as well or you don't.

 

I read only the first page of this thread and I must say that all I see where the same posts as everyone is saying or posting on the internet..
Now here are some things that frustrated me, made me laugh, made me cry etc. but I just HAD to comment on them ^^

1)Sony is forgetting their gamers.
Well first of all if you call yourself a "Kick a$$ gamer" you have got issues.. I don't think normal people would even like to admit that if it was true
And Sony forgetting their gamers is COMPLETELY wrong in my oppinion. Sony has NEVER been a Video Gaming company (Believe me I'd know I used to work at Sony in europe). Sony is about video cameras, MP3 players, laptops, those nice looking bravias and stuff like that!
The fact they ever started making video game consoles is a mirracle and in my oppinion PS2 WAS the best console of its generation because it also wasn't a simple gaming console where you sit on your ass and jump some buildings as superman or something. It had an internet connection possibility, a chance to add a HDD, DVD playback. So ok Xbox had it too.. hold on a sec.. aren't we forgetting something? Xbox came AFTER the PS2 and pretty much tried to copy their ideas and improve them a bit (As Bill Gates and Microsoft did with Macintosh, netscape and so many companies).
Actually in my opinion Xbox 360 is also a copy. YES it came out before the ps3, but once Microsoft got to know about Sony's multiple processor cores etc. they started making one too. And they let it out earlier... With less power in it. (Though dont take me wrong. Im still considering of buying a Xbox 360 'cause it is simply kick a$$ console).
So here is the point to all of this long blabla the PS3 is a home entertainment system more than a video game console! Though that doesnt mean video gaming isnt their primary objective. Im just saying it has so much to offer that I like the PS3 because it can really be used as a computer to surf internet, download movies etc.


2)The price.
People... Blu-ray players cost MORE than the PS3! Do you understand what a bargain this thing is!? a Bluray player for 499$-599$ !!
And lets not forget:
*)BUILT IN 20gb or 60gb of HDD
*)BLUETOOTH
*)Blu-ray
*)The amazing CPU
*)The GPU
*)Pluss anything else I forgot to mention

Now put these things together and you'll understand that the PS3 is a bargain for what you get

3)The Wii.

Ill have to agree with the one who said that it is Xbox 360 vs PS3.
Why?
The Wii may be selling more, but it is more of a gamecube with Wiimote and that is it! This Nextgen was all about graphics... Wii has BAD graphics. The numchuk things may be fun, but.. meh PS3 Sixaxis control isnt that bad either.

4)PS3 having less games than Xbox 360
And in what way is this Sony's fault? Pluss you are forgetting that the Xbox 360 has been out for a year longer than PS3


And just in conclusion so you dont think im a PS3 fanboy..
I think Sony HAS done some things wrong..
AND I do like the Xbox 360. Its just that it is no PS3
Xbox 360 has great games.
Xbox live is well thought out (too bad it is not for free).
But the core system has no HDD??
What a scam..

 

Oh and to add more about my point about the Xbox 360...
Look at BobbyBlu's sig:
"(11/19/05 - 9/19/06) Microsoft: Sony's 1080p support on PS3 is all Hype and Not Needed.
(9/20/06) Microsoft: Xbox 360 to add 1080p support."

 

Bravo henrito, post of the year you cover everything......

 

PS3 will most likely win out in the long run.

 

Wait didn't sega do pretty much all that first with it's Dreamcast except for the DVD playback part (wich was going to come as an add on.
so does that mean sony copied Sega???? please do explain?.

 

Lets stop right here. The fact that sony is an electronics manufacturer doesn't disprove that Sony has their own market of gamers. The ps2 had dvd-playback, but it was a video game system. Plain and simple. People bought a ps2 to play video games. It's the same with ps1. No one bought it solely because it could play back audio cd's.

It's naive to think that Sony has better business practice than any other large corporation.

You act like sony was the only company to develop the cell processor.
You might be surprised to learn that IBM was involved in the development of both the cell and the 360 cpu.
Not only that, but the chip-making industry was going towards multi-cored processors anyways.

Bargain or not, it's still 600 dollars.

That's like saying the ps3 is like a ps2 but with better visual output. I don't believe that to be the case, so lets both try not to oversimplify things to that much of a degree.

It was all about graphics if you're talking about Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo went towards gameplay.
So far we are watching the results.

Well, I believe it's Sony that didn't get middleware out at a reasonable time. Their Dev units are the most expensive, their system is the most difficult to develop for, and Sony failed to secure many notable exclusive franchises.
Maybe you are forgetting that Sony makes the ps3. So it's partially sony's fault the 360 was out for a full year before the ps3. I don't think Microsoft told Sony when to launch their system.

Yeah I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of core systems in a few years. They're not too popular.

 

I think I know IBM developed those CPUs
But I am not talking about the CPUs themselves. Im talking about the PS3 as a whole compilation of all those magnificent things.

As for multi-cored processors.
Check how many cores does PS3 have and how many does Xbox 360 and an average PC have

 

Yeah well PS3 has a wireless controller. And actually it is MUCH easier for Sony to develop something like the numchuk etc. controllers for the PS3 and if they would want to they could release such controllers in time (since it could be an accessory that you could purchase). While Nintendo won't find it so easy to make the Wii with better graphics since then they'd have to remame the whole console...

 

I'm not arguing the technical differences between the cell and the 360's xenon, or even standard pc processors.
What I am arguing is that multicore processors were becoming the trend long before the two consoles in question were released. IBM, Intel, and AMD all had multicored processors out before the ps3 and the 360. Plus, the cell and xenon are so completely different in architecture that you couldn't possible accuse either MS or Sony copying eachother.
Here's a good list of multicore processors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_(computing)#Commercial_examples

By "magnificent things" I assume you're talking about blu-ray. Because other than that the ps3 and 360 are quite similar in performance.

Furthermore, the fact that you're citing graphics as the emphasis while naming the ps2 as being the greatest console of the last generation (which, btw, I agree with you) just further proves my point that graphics aren't the most important factor.

You're right; Nintendo would have to remake (and name) the Wii to compete with the ps3 graphically.

Fortunately for us, the Wii isn't a 600 dollar hardware powerhouse.

 

Yeah but Id rather spend 600$+60$ per game + 50$ per controller and have great graphics, than pay 250$ + game prices + controller prices for 6th gen graphics

Well the word magnificent was a bad choice, but correct me if I am wrong (because I could be), but doesnt PS3 have the biggest potential for OSs?

So far it seems to me that it IS the most powerful one.
And with 600$ you get not only a video game console but a home computer too. (Xbox 360 has great featuress, but imo PS3 has better)

 

I believe you. But right now it doesn't look like you're in the majority.
Plus, the Wii's controller(s) are kind of a big deal.

Now I'm really confused why you don't think the original Xbox was better than the ps2. (As it's media centre capabilities were much better)
Still, I'd have to argue that if you were savvy enough to get a ps3 (with linux) running as well as a regular pc, you'd probably have a better PC anyways. I really don't think there are enough people with the knowhow to get a ps3 working better than a pc of equal value.

But hey, the ps3 has a ton of features. I can't argue with that. And it sounds like it is a good product for someone with your interests.
However, it's pretty apparent that the 120+ million ps2 owners weren't looking for a pricey media centre unit. Which brings us around full circle to the "Sony is forgetting their gamers".
I'm not saying that sony forgot their gamers, because that's simply not true.
However, the features that made ps2 and ps1 appealing to a broad audience came second priority in the ps3. Those features being cheaper medium (ps1 said "no" to cartriges), massive 3rd party support, killer exclusive titles, price, etc.

 

Well Ill tell you one thing oofRome. Youre the first to give such good points in a console debate ^_^
Usually its just - 0mfg xb0x pwnz!!!!1111one.

 

oofrome u have to look at it as sony was making a console that would last 10 years or more. ps2 came out and had to upgrade to hdd, internet connection, and then they made it smaller.so now they decided to make a console that would feature it all and would last 10 years as a next gen console now and a great console down the road. so they are not forgetting their gamers they are trying to supply their gamers with the console that will keep them playing for years to come

 

to add to that the ps3 was made on keeping up with the tech of the future. sony feels that blu-ray, wirless internet and controller features, bluetooth features, removeable hdd, and os features.

 

I'm not so sure about a full 10 year plan. I know Sony has touted it, but if I recall correctly the ps2 was also hyped similarly.
Granted, both previous playstations did/do have pretty long lives, so you never know. Not 10 years, but a little longer than competitors' consoles. And while Sony might just as well support the ps3 for 10 years, I would also bet on another Playstation successor in 5-6 years time.
Moore's Law isn't coming to an end just yet. ;-)


Edit** I would just like to add that there will inevatibly be a ps3 in my house someday. There's just not enough content right now that would justify the purchase. But it hasn't even been out for 4 months, so I'm not too worried.

 

yea 10 years is a long time but what else is there to come out with in 10 years?