For owners of the PS3 and X360 - your thoughts?

AsSiMiLaTeD

I now own and have spent at least a little time with each of these consoles, and have made some observations about the tw. However, I've spent much more time with my 360 since I've owned it longer, so I'm not sure how valid my observations are.

I'm curious what you guys think.

I'm most interested in opinions from thsoe of you who actually own both consoles, or have ast least spent a significant amount of time with each console.

This isn't a PS3 vs 360 debate - we obviously like both since we own both, but obviously each console is going to have it's advantages, wondering what you guys have found.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Here are my observations thus far:

1 - So far the game selection is better on the 360, but will even out over time.

2 - XBOX Live absolutely crushes the PS3 onnline play, but you have to shell out about $40 a year for it. I'm not a big online player, so that wasn't a huge selling point for me.

3 - While they both offer hi-def formats, I think the PS3 having Blu-Ray built in is an added bonus. The XBOX has HD-dvd, but it's an add on. For the price that M$ wants for the hd-dvd drive, I'd just go buy one of the Toshiba players. I thought I'd never actually use either machine for HD playback, but I've watched a few Blu Ray movies on the PS3 now, and the picture quality is absolutely fantastic, every bit as good is HD DVD IMO.

4 - I haven't decided which I like better as a media player. I'd say overall the 360 is a little more up my alley because I'm used to the interface, but the PS3 has some nice features that are missing from the 360.

Other differences:

1 - The PS3 comes with a built in wireless connection, the 3601 does not, it's a 100 add on.

2 - The 360 comes with an HDMI cable, the PS3 does not. I'm not sure how cheap you can get those today, but in store they're still around $80.

3 - The PS3 doesn't compare with the 360 in hard drive size, offering only 80GB to the 360s 120, those are the highest capacities available currently.

4 - The PS3 has built in web browser, the 360 does not. IMO, the browsing on the PS3 is clunky, but it IS there.

5 - The PS3 has keyboard and mouse support, the 360 does not. Ironically, I plugged a Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse into my 360 and couldn't get it to work - plugged it into the PS3 and it was recognized and functioned flawlessly without any setup. The keyboard on the PS3 is essentially necessary for the internet browsing.

6 - The PS3 has Bluetooth, the 360 is IR. While alot of people attribute this as an advantage of the PS3, I disagree. I can use my Harmony (or any other standard remote) with my 360, can't do that with the PS3. That's not a big deal for most, but can be annoying if you're used to the Harmony and want to use the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player. I'm gonna have to pick up the Blu Ray remote for the PS3, which isn't expensive, but I don't like loosing that capability on my Harmony remote. An advantage to the Bluetooth on the PS3 is that you can use it in other room - so if you can see through walls that should be an added bonus to me.

I'm sure there are other differences, but that's what I've noticed so far...

cheddar

Good summary of strengths and weaknesses of each machine. I especially find the slow pace of game release for the ps3 aggravating as there are some really good games announced, but not released -- although the same thing happened with Halo 3 and with a wait for second gen games from the 360. 'Cause the ps3 is a year behind, it just sucks to have to wait all over again. But since we own both, there are plenty of great releases for the 360 to keep us happy right now .

Also, I think you will grow to appreciate the multimedia capabilities of the ps3 in time. I know you want to hook up the player more like a game machine, but I would encourage you to think of the ps3 as a high end media server and hd disk player instead. And hook it up and play around with its settings just like you would if you bought the most expensive and feature loaded blu-ray player on the market now. Firmware updates have opened up many ps3 video and audio features for fine tuning. If you go into the menus and hook it up with compatible outboard equipment, it will reward you with outstanding PQ and AQ. The AVS forum is loaded with enthusiasts who use the ps3 primarily for its high end multimedia playback capabilities, with every major firmware update bringing even more goodies.

Also, I think the hard drive differences are a plus for the ps3. The 360 uses a proprietary interface so you have to pay close to 200 bucks to upgrade the drive in previous 360 versions to 120GB (as you say, the highest available for the 360). However, the ps3 uses a standard laptop SATA interface, and if you can change the battery in your remote, you've got all the skills you need to pop in a new laptop 2.5" hard drive. That means you can upgrade to 120GB for under 70 bucks. And for a little bit more, you can have a 200 or even 250GB drive eliminating the need for streaming from a pc if you just copy your stuff over to the box. I would rather they just drop the price of each ps3 by 50 bucks and include a smaller hard drive since upgrading is so easy. But, of course, most people probably won't want to mess with it because you have to use a screw driver for a few screws. Otherwise it's just open the door, slide the old drive out and slide the new drive in. The instructions are right in the manual.

BIZILL

I love both systems. everyone already listed my same thoughts. but the xbox has seen more play/viewing time over the past couple of months.

one the plus side for ps3 is that i have more faith it will not break down as quickly as the 360. i've already fallen victim to one red ring of death. i don't really worry too much about the ps3.

SolidSqual

In the end, most people buy game systems for the games. The best titles on PS3 were pre-released months earlier on Xbox360. Xbox360 has tons more exclusives that are far better than anything on PS3. We'll see if this changes with the release of MGS4 and others this holiday season. That being said, something tells me MGS4 may appear on Xbox as well.

cheddar

SolidSqual wrote: »

In the end, most people buy game systems for the games. The best titles on PS3 were pre-released months earlier on Xbox360. Xbox360 has tons more exclusives that are far better than anything on PS3. We'll see if this changes with the release of MGS4 and others this holiday season. That being said, something tells me MGS4 may appear on Xbox as well.

MGS4 looks good, but I'm really waiting for Killzone 2. Gran Tourismo looks like a great racing simulator too.

Demiurge

Gaming? XBox 360 hands down. There's incentive for the competitive people among us to play titles on the XBox 360 as well with the achievement factor. The games are great and the best part about them is being able to play with your friends when they can't be over hanging out with you.

I don't own a single PS3 game, so I guess that should speak to how I feel about what the PS3 has had to offer us gaming fans so far. XBox 360 had great, must have games within a couple months after release, and things have pretty much been steady ever since then.

I am looking forward to MGS. Love the series. Gran Turismo as well.

Movies? I can go either way. The add-on doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother others. I like the idea of an all-in-one system, but both have worked flawlessly with me so far.

When all is said and done the Xbox 360 is the far superior gaming experience in consoles. On-line play is a very big deal to most gamers these days.

Systems

I said this in a previous thread but here is my opinion. Remember, the 360 has been out a year longer and is a lot lower spec hardware box.

The Xbox is at its prime, games made for it are tagging it at 100% (Say Halo 3) and they have a good handle on everything. Its just about as good as it can get and its pretty much all around better then the PS3 right now. It can play anything out there right now. All of its features are "mature", It’s like an AMD X2 processor (dual core).

That being said

The PS3 is like the Intel core 2 quad core proc. It can play any game out there that the Xbox has but current games are only tapping 10% of its power. Developers are still trying to figure it out, tap into it. A lot of its features are still "under construction" but nearing "maturity" (especially in the update 2.0 coming out any time). Content is weak for games. The BR on it is the strongest point. Soon some games will be out that will start tapping it a little, games the Xbox would not be able to handle.

So basically it’s a choice to be made. The Xbox is "matured" and running hard. The PS3 is on its way. It comes to shelf life in my opinion. I give the Xbox a year before games are tapping it out. I give the PS3 2 years before games even start tapping it. But Sony has done an amazing job of continually adding new things to the system and have lots of plans in the future. It is a very expandable system backed by a proc that will last a LONG time.

So if you want to get into gamming running hard right now, get the Xbox, if you want a system that will grow right now as you own it, get the PS3. You may be looking to replace the Xbox a lot sooner.

Demiurge

Wait, are we back to arguing about specs again? Oh man, Jesus just butchered 15 kittens. First of all, you can't play the PS3 online. That's clearly what a lot of people want. If it was all about the O MI GO TEH GRAPHIXXXXX they'd stick with their PCs, not either console....

The main reason I bought a PS3 was for the ability to have access to Blu-Ray movies. Since I do like to play games, the fact that I can get Gran Turismo & MGS made it worth the price as far as I am concerned. If given the choice between multiple format games I will take the XBox 360 version every single time because of the multi-player versatility.

Systems

Demiurge wrote: »

Wait, are we back to arguing about specs again? Oh man, Jesus just butchered 15 kittens. First of all, you can't play the PS3 online. That's clearly what a lot of people want. If it was all about the O MI GO TEH GRAPHIXXXXX they'd stick with their PCs, not either console....

The main reason I bought a PS3 was for the ability to have access to Blu-Ray movies. Since I do like to play games, the fact that I can get Gran Turismo & MGS made it worth the price as far as I am concerned. If given the choice between multiple format games I will take the XBox 360 version every single time because of the multi-player versatility.

Same here, I use my Ps3 90% for music and movies.

But I’m confused about the online thing; I play online with my PS3 all the time. I’m always playing Mortal Combat 2 (ahh.. my youth) against players online. It’s there; it’s just not as mature as the 360. Wasnt a 1st person shooter just released thats online only?

But Sonys release of its new "store" thingy is on its way. Again, The PS3 is just starting to mature. The 360 has had an extra year on it.

fatchowmein

I think the 360 has the advantage.

1. More games for now.
2. Ability to connect to Vista or Windows Media Center Edition on the backend for music, photos, movies (3rd party apps required for vob playback), and TV. The PS3 can to a certain extent but the interface is clunky. MCE/Vista is like having Meedio or similar apps for HTPC but it's simpler although not as sophisticated but at least you won't be programming in Linux.
3. PVR capability via Media Center/Vista connection for TV recording and playback.
4. Ability to hook up a multidisk DVD player (50-100 DVD's). Haven't tried it because I don't own one.
5. If you own a Zune and all your music is in wmp lossless, you can use your 360 as a jukebox by going through MCE/Vista. You can also use Apple lossless but it requires a patch and you lose the ability to ff through a song.
6. And, obviously, there's the HD portion for an extra $179.
7. MS Live! for communication with friends, making new friends, online games, and, for me, downloading trailers and free stuff. I use the free version of Live!
8. Ability to play old xbox games.

So, if you're a windows/MS person, the 360 can pretty much do it all including checking the weather (I'm sicko). Almost.

Now, if they would just allow streaming of any format...

AsSiMiLaTeD

I'd like to see more details on the PS3 being better hardware than the 360. I mean, if that's true then awesome for me if I've got something that's better than the 360, but I wonder.

I remember people saying the same thing about the PS2 over the XBOX and I never really agreed with that. Does Sony rate the specs on their consoles like they do on their receivers - if so then that would explain the variance between specs and actual performance.

I've compared a couple games that I own on both, but I don't think that Carbon and Tiger Woods 2008 are exactly taxing on each system - so those are bad games to really try to do the comparison with. If only they had Bioshock on PS3...

AdamRagland

i owned a PS3 at one point and within 4 months i had sold it. the games for ps3 just werent to my taste but i will say i have had my 360 since the day they came out and i still love it. i loathed my ps3. im not bashing it though. this is what i think:

i think on paper the ps3 looks more powerful machine. this "cell" processor seems like some cool new tech that sony has claimed will blow everything out of the water and they show you cool little demos of duckies bouncing in the water. however, i have also read some developer interviews around gaming sites that say game developers have such a hard time programming and developing games for ps3 because of this technology's complex nature. in short my main point is i think the ps3 may have greater potential but as of now its just been a let down for me.

BOTTOM LINE: If you are an online gamer or want a system that can also do media center go 360 allllll the way. I live to play online and ps3's online just plain sucks. yes xbox live costs but nobody on this forum can tell me they cant afford 50 bucks a YEAR

avelanchefan

Silverti wrote: »

I said this in a previous thread but here is my opinion. Remember, the 360 has been out a year longer and is a lot lower spec hardware box.

The Xbox is at its prime, games made for it are tagging it at 100% (Say Halo 3) and they have a good handle on everything. Its just about as good as it can get and its pretty much all around better then the PS3 right now. It can play anything out there right now. All of its features are "mature", It’s like an AMD X2 processor (dual core).

That being said

The PS3 is like the Intel core 2 quad core proc. It can play any game out there that the Xbox has but current games are only tapping 10% of its power. Developers are still trying to figure it out, tap into it. A lot of its features are still "under construction" but nearing "maturity" (especially in the update 2.0 coming out any time). Content is weak for games. The BR on it is the strongest point. Soon some games will be out that will start tapping it a little, games the Xbox would not be able to handle.

So basically it’s a choice to be made. The Xbox is "matured" and running hard. The PS3 is on its way. It comes to shelf life in my opinion. I give the Xbox a year before games are tapping it out. I give the PS3 2 years before games even start tapping it. But Sony has done an amazing job of continually adding new things to the system and have lots of plans in the future. It is a very expandable system backed by a proc that will last a LONG time.

So if you want to get into gamming running hard right now, get the Xbox, if you want a system that will grow right now as you own it, get the PS3. You may be looking to replace the Xbox a lot sooner.

Silverti,

I have seen this argument, and it si a very valid one at that. But Sony has made there programming so difficult for this system that developers are getting sick of it. Case in point is GTA:IV. The game is currently done for the 360, yet the fans have to wait because Rockstar admitted to having difficulty with the PS3 coding. I think this is why we continue to see console games pushed back, like Army of 2, Battlefield, and Brother's in Arms. And they are being pushed back 4 months or more. Hell Battlefield and Brothers in Arms for almost a year now.

So while Sony may have the superior power, their coding is making it very difficult for programmers, and the gamers are suffering for it.

Systems

I've heard those arguments and they are over exaggerated by people. The PS3 as pretty much as Nvidia GF 7800GTX and performs as such. That proc is pretty much a standard CPU, in fact they say it may hit regular computers soon. That being said the only thing complex about the PS3 would be the multiple cores and requirements for a developer to use them right.

This goes right to what I was saying before about it being like an Intel Quad core proc. There are only a few software programs that use it now (like CAD) but this is the future of computing and the future of procs.

Software needs to be designed for it whether it be the Cell proc or the Dore 2 duo quad cores.

But the point is... what’s a more potent computer after this is done, a single core P4 chip or a 4 core / 9 core core 2 duo / Cell proc. I run folding on my 8 core Xeon workstation at work and it can do a work unit in less then 4 hours. My P4 system does one every 48 hours. But the folding client is optimized for multiple cores now.


No doubt, the next iteration of the Xbox with have multiple cores and they will be able to thank the cell proc for preparing developers. But by this time, the PS3 will be hitting stride and most Xbox owners will be needing to buy a new system.

Refefer

Silverti wrote: »

I've heard those arguments and they are over exaggerated by people. The PS3 as pretty much as Nvidia GF 7800GTX and performs as such. That proc is pretty much a standard CPU, in fact they say it may hit regular computers soon. That being said the only thing complex about the PS3 would be the multiple cores and requirements for a developer to use them right.

The big let down with the Cell is not the matter that it is a vastly powerful processor, but that it's an absolute b*tch to program efficiently. Multi-threaded processing is generally fairly easy to do, so long as you design it from the ground up with that in mind; however, getting 6 different cores running efficiently is a real pain, probably making the 360's 3 core processor look like heaven in comparison.

The cell has more potential power, but earns you a headache trying to tap it.

acsubie

i have both systems, purchased 360 on a whim just to play Bioshock and Halo3, both of which were big let downs! PS3 has a slew of new games coming out just in time for the holiday season, not to mention the drastic price drops recently, no doubt it will be a hot ticket items for Xmas

sbpolk

I just bought a 360 to add to my PS3..... the games seem like they will be very fun. However, I tried the music feature against the PS3, and the PS3 absolutely SMOKES the 360 audio wise... I could not believe how much better it sounded!

lanion

I like my bluetooth headset and free online play... I use my PS3 much more. Although the 360 is certainly still around for Bioshock, Mass Effect. It also runs quietly and I'm not afraid it is going to die any second.

bdaley6509

My 360 is seeing about twice as much action than the PS3 (aside from Blueray). I love both systems, though. Gonna be a great holiday for gamers.