As a Christmas present? I just want to play the games I cannot play on PC, such as Gran Turismo.
Is it worth it? Many people say no, but I am curious about your opinions.
Printable View
As a Christmas present? I just want to play the games I cannot play on PC, such as Gran Turismo.
Is it worth it? Many people say no, but I am curious about your opinions.
Multi-platform games tend to perform better on the 360, PS3 games are 60-70€, and there aren't many exclusive titles yet.
I'd say wait a little longer, there isn't a PS3 Gran Turismo anyway.
If you have to have blu-ray, yes. If you want a console, yes, but less yes then the 360. Going to be great but not quite there yet.
No, it's not worth getting. If you get it for free as a Christmas present, sell it while it's just new. Don't even take it out of the package.
Since your family seems to be well off price isn't that much of an issue. But the things you should look at are.
-Games, the PS3 has very few 3rd party exclusives these days. So unless the Sony first party stable really appeals to you don't bother.
-Blu-ray, are there enough movie titles you want to watch on BRD.
Exclusives will come eventually, Sony has over 15 houses working on them. And of course, Metal Gear Solid 4!
I really want a console now because I never had one before even though I desperately wanted one, so I want to choose which is the best, of course looking at the price/performance ratio. I don't want too much money, because I want to save it for later on.
Xbox 360 vs PS3. Long run, which is the best?
Depends, if you have a fast pc there is little reason to buy a xbox360, so I would say the ps3. But why not the Wii? Coolest of them all.
Edit
A lot of 360 games seem to be released on the PC at some point (and vice versa...), so if you've got a powerful pc you may want to keep that in mind. Longer run, while I think the PS3 will get more exclusives in the end, I think Sony is going to struggle to keep up with Xbox sales.
I'd recommend the Wii, if more games were to appear. I'm still waiting for good, 'normal' games using the Wii features well.
Let me keep it as simple as possible (i have had extensive experience with them now):
PS3: Limited Library
Xbox 360: 40% failure rate (don't even bring up those 65nm chips/modified heatsinks they don't work)
If you want an Xbox 360 you might as well get it now and push it to its limit, its just a matter of time before it RRODs (Red Ring of Death), Make sure to thank bill gates after you have sent it to the microsoft support center, never to see it again.
If you want a PS3 wait till the summer of 2008, get the 80GB model, and enjoy a less limited library and the added benefit of backwards compatability (PS2 games, they basically shoved a ps2 into that monster of a console, thats why its so BIG)
Or you could skip the PS3 and get a sexy new Gfx card for your PC...
To be honest, if money is not an issue why not have both?
I would if the wife was not so uptight about me squeezing to many things in the media center under the TV... :laugh4:
I am a big PC fan and the 360 a got at release is still running for me so I am pretty happy. But i have to say Gran Turismo 5 does look pretty sweet...
My money would be on the PS3. The Xbox is too much of a PC lite and Sony has better first party developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
My GFX card is pretty good atm(X700 ATI Radeon) and I just need to invest in 4GB of memory and the computer will run M2TW on max and other games like NFS Pro Street in high conditions, so no need for a hefty GFX card momentarily.
PS3 if you plan to hack office documents or Zip files.
Otherwise I don't know, guess the PS3 still though, but then it's the most expensive choice, games for it seem to be very expensive as well.
PS3 has few must-have games, and is too expensive even with the 100 dollar price reduction. I'd wait until Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out. If it's as good as they say, it might be worth picking up, along with Resistance: Fall of Man and Ratchet & Clank.
The PS2 is still churning out good games like hotcakes, though the 360 has the better title library for new games (Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Beautiful Katamari, Call of Duty 4, etc). If you want to invest in a Wii, grab Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda. Sadly, however, the Wii's library consists of mainly tech demos for the wiimote (WarioWare).
I have a PS3, aka the PSfree, which indicates why I got it. It's a PAL 60GB model, a kind which is no longer in manufacture. I got one of the cheaper revised hardware 360s last month to celebrate a promotion at work and because there was a nice bundle deal with the games I'm interested in. Yes, I have more consoles than sense.
As hardware:
It's nice. Mine's so silent I can hardly hear it, unlike my 360 aka that noisy thing! It feels and looks like it is well built; it's ... classy. Inbuilt battery in the controller last for around 20 hours gaming and takes half an hour to charge up, figures which are so impressive I still suspect I've repeatedly worked my times out incorrectly. There's currently no rumble in the controllers, so if you care about that then wait or resign yourself to needing to pick up a dualshock 3 later on. The 360's controllers use batteries but do have rumble, and are noticably heavier.
I would talk about all the nice PSP/PS3 connectivity features here if only Sony had stopped talking about them long enough to impliment them. Woops.
As a games platform:
The good games are only beginning to appear now. Mine's been used for PS2 games and the downloadable Super Stardust HD for since I acquired it in September. Ratchet and Clank, Folklore and Drake's Fortune are the first PS3 games to appear and appeal to me.
When a game is multiplatform you need to be quite careful. Sometimes the PS3 and 360 versions are very similar. Others the PS3 one suffers badly. The PS3 version of Assassin's Creed is a good example of this: tearing, slowdown, slightly worse graphics, sluggish controls.
A HDTV isn't necessary but I found it make a world of difference. Er, that could be related to me having a 14 inch portable TV and then moving to a 32 inch HDTV!
You may or may not care about the 360's achievements system, whereby you gain points for doing set tasks in games. The PS3 has nothing to rival this at present.
I can't speak about online multiplayer; I don't do it. The 360 and Live is probably better due to longer lifespan and Microsoft having far more experience at such things than Sony.
The online platsation shop has a two advantages IMO over the Live marketplace. Prices are in real money, not obscure points. You can pay the exact amount for any purchase so long as it comes to £5 or over, meaning you don't end up with money hanging around waiting to be used if you plan your purchases. Otherwise there is nothing much to care about between the two.
As a movie player:
Not tried any blueray disc on it yet, but it does a brilliant job upscaling and playing my DVDs. I wouldn't want to use my 360 as a DVD player; it's far too noisy.
Special note on backward compatibility:
The new PAL consoles don't have it, full stop, at all. They can't have it implemented later either as the remaining PS2 chips have been ripped out of the PS3. If you care at all about playing PS2 and PS1 games on your PS3 then either get one of the older models, or wait for yet another about face on policy by Sony.
Backwards compatibility on my model is nice. Games are upscaled so they look good on my HD tv. They load faster, and the PS3's disc drive is near silent in comparison to my PS2's, a pair of bonuses I didn't appreciate until I experienced them. You can create an emulated memory card on the PS3's hard drive and use this for old games; this vastly cuts memory card access times, making saving and loading your game a matter of seconds. Most games are supported; it's doubtful new ones will be added to the list.
For me the backwards compatibility is a large part of the PS3's appeal. I still have plenty of PS2 games to play, and as Kek says there is still plenty of life in the old console yet. This means the lack of new games doesn't matter much to me. If it didn't have backwards compatibility then there'd only be 3 games I want for it and thus I would not buy one.
Backwards compatibility on the 360 is more limited. No added features, quite a few unsupported games. To be fair I don't remember Microsoft ever promising much more than what's already there, unlike Sony.
My recommendation would be to look at the games. See which console has the most appealing exclusives and go with that. Never buy a console based on multiplatform titles unless said platform consistently gets better versions of them.
Don't overlook the Wii, impossible as they are to get presently. There's been a spate of excellent games recently, proper games, not tech demos, botched ports, and rushed cash ins on the console's unexpected popularity.
Wow Froggy, thanks for that excellent review. ~:medievalcheers:
The PS3 online is better in my opinion, not only does the xbox live require a yearly fee, but it has no dedicated servers so its you and your luck if you want proper latency.
Just throwing this out there to compliment froggy's review.
Ditto here, and as said there is still a lot out there for my PS2. I'm keeping my eye out on future price drops. My best guess is sometime after the xmas push they'll drop again.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
Also i bought my PS2 used from a gamestop and never had a problem. Another year or so and I should be able to pick one up there at 25% less then retail new.
Buy it, You'll thank yourself for getting it. Trust me.
From what I have read from game dev's the 360 is the better console, both in cost and performance. There are so many good games at, aswell, so much better than the XBOX had in it's first couple of years.
That being said, the PS3 is a very cheap Blu-ray player, which is why I bought that as well, solid investment as far as I can see. But :daisy: games atm. But Drakes Treasure look's good.
To be hones I have never liked the PS3, its odd controllers and clunky games (imho) have always been a big turn off.
Also once you get into online, the 360 rocks!