Xbox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii (all discussion here please)

krudler

As for being into indie games, some of those games turn out to be the best ones of the year e.g. Super Meat Boy and Limbo, so it's hardly something to scoff at.

this, not to mention stuff like Hydrophobia and Shadow Complex, Meat Boy is one of the best games I've played in ages, and the best platformer since the SNES days

sarumite

gizmo wrote: »

Which is bull**** given the other exclusives on the platform.

True....I guess I was just making an off hand comment that MS have lost their way a bit on exclusives. Though XBLA is worth it alone.

NunianVonFuch

gizmo wrote: »

Because it's a centralised service which MS have to run and which therefore costs money. Unlike on the PC where the servers are, generally speaking, not paid for by any specific publisher. It's this service which people enjoy and praise so often when it comes up. Would I prefer it to be free? Of course I would, however that doesn't make me blind to the fact that it costs money to maintain such a service and someone always has to pay for it.

I disagree. It's pretty much the same as steam or any other hosting website. They charge because they can. Most of the online games are hosted by the players too, with only EA running their own servers at no extra cost to the player.

gizmo

NunianVonFuch wrote: »

I disagree. It's pretty much the same as steam or any other hosting website. They charge because they can. Most of the online games are hosted by the players too, with only EA running their own servers at no extra cost to the player.

Steam, or to be more precise Valve, have alternate forms of revenue though which can be used to pay for the services it provides. I'd wager they're doing quite well from it too. As for the running of the servers, while the actual games are hosted by players, there are various Live services being used along the way too. I don't disagree on the "they charge because they can" line in theory, I'm simply adding the fact that they also have running costs related to said services.

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

PSN Cloud Saves will be PSN+ only, calling it now.

A dev had said it a while ago.

gizmo wrote: »

As for the file size limit rubbish, well lets look at PSN then which, it seems, does not have a file size. What games have come out which really pushed past the 2GB limit? ...yep, that'd be none, certainly so when looking at those which aren't also available in boxed form.

If a developers release a game that big there is not much sense in having it only as a download, the file limit is not that big of a deal but Live has it as devs don't pay for it but on PSN they do pay per 1GB.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

If a developers release a game that big there is not much sense in having it only as a download, the file limit is not that big of a deal but Live has it as devs don't pay for it but on PSN they do pay per 1GB.

That wasn't my point, I was referring to the fact that listing the filesize limit on XBLA as a con for the service was silly.

As for the issue of releasing these titles as a download only title, I don't really think devs mind too much about the filesize, I mean if their game gets popular they're still going to be nailed either way in the long run.

Outside of that, look at Shank, a fantastic looking game which was definitely too short to be released as a standalone game. That hit the 2GB limit no problem. Then look at Wipeout HD, a game which could (and indeed was) released as a standalone, cut price title, and that only weighed in at around 900MB on release.

TerrorFirmer

Obviously each console has it's own advantages depending on what you want in a console, these constant replies of 'x is rubbish' or 'y has better games' are entirely relative....

For example, if someone said they were a hardcore FPS gamer, you'd hardly recommend a wii, but if someone hasn't specified a particular want, who is anyone to dismiss another console? While the type of gamer I am means I would never be satisfied with a wii, I've had some brilliant fun on it, and can see why countless others consider it the best in terms of what it offers them.

I've got a 360, wouldn't be bothered with either the wii or the ps3 in the slightest, but it doesn't mean I don't accept they're good consoles and I know several people that would definitely see far greater appeal owning to the genre of games they enjoy in the ps3 over the 360.

I'm an FPS/Action junkie, and I feel the 360 is far superior in that regard, for both its games and controller. In particular I think Halo is the finest MP first person game around since Unreal Tournament in 1999....and Xbox live is unquestionably superior. Again, who are people to say that 'oh, those features aren't worth paying for'....I happen to think they are. It's great being able to finish up games whilst simultaneously casually talking to your friends who are living abroad. Xbox live is fantastic, it works, and offers enough that I'm actually entirely happy to hand over money for it. I find the 360 controller much better for the FPS, really dislike the PS3 analog and shoulder button combo and have done since the Ps2, though it didn't stop me owning one!

One thing the 360 falls slightly fall on, and whilst it doesn't matter to me, I can see why it would to others - the media ability. The ps3 is definitely champ there, no doubt.

The 360 is also a lot more accessible in the sense that preowned prices are ridiculously cheap - a few months back I got the 120GB elite with wifi, game and xbox live for E100.

What you need to be asking yourself before you ask which console is better:

What sort of games will I be playing? How important is media functionality? How important are community and online features?

I was very disappointed in their last E3 conference - where they showed Gears 3, which looked great, and Halo Reach and Call of Duty which I know a lot of people love, and then they went straight on to Kinect. Is that where all their money is going now

Well, Halo and Gears are the consoles biggest exclusive money maker, and Call of Duty generates it's biggest revenue overall by a huge margin. I understand why you might feel a little sidelined, but as the consoles biggest two titles, it's only natural they get the most coverage...it is a business overall, shaped by market demand.

Magill

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Obviously each console has it's own advantages depending on what you want in a console, these constant replies of 'x is rubbish' or 'y has better games' are entirely relative....

For example, if someone said they were a hardcore FPS gamer, you'd hardly recommend a wii, but if someone hasn't specified a particular want, who is anyone to dismiss another console? While the type of gamer I am means I would never be satisfied with a wii, I've had some brilliant fun on it, and can see why countless others consider it the best in terms of what it offers them.

I've got a 360, wouldn't be bothered with either the wii or the ps3 in the slightest, but it doesn't mean I don't accept they're good consoles and I know several people that would definitely see far greater appeal owning to the genre of games they enjoy in the ps3 over the 360.

I'm an FPS/Action junkie, and I feel the 360 is far superior in that regard, for both its games and controller. In particular I think Halo is the finest MP first person game around since Unreal Tournament in 1999....and Xbox live is unquestionably superior. Again, who are people to say that 'oh, those features aren't worth paying for'....I happen to think they are. It's great being able to finish up games whilst simultaneously casually talking to your friends who are living abroad. Xbox live is fantastic, it works, and offers enough that I'm actually entirely happy to hand over money for it. I find the 360 controller much better for the FPS, really dislike the PS3 analog and shoulder button combo and have done since the Ps2, though it didn't stop me owning one!

One thing the 360 falls slightly fall on, and whilst it doesn't matter to me, I can see why it would to others - the media ability. The ps3 is definitely champ there, no doubt.

The 360 is also a lot more accessible in the sense that preowned prices are ridiculously cheap - a few months back I got the 120GB elite with wifi, game and xbox live for E100.

What you need to be asking yourself before you ask which console is better:

What sort of games will I be playing? How important is media functionality? How important are community and online features?



Well, Halo and Gears are the consoles biggest exclusive money maker, and Call of Duty generates it's biggest revenue overall by a huge margin. I understand why you might feel a little sidelined, but as the consoles biggest two titles, it's only natural they get the most coverage...it is a business overall, shaped by market demand.

How exactly does having "Halo" make the xbox 360 far superior when it comes to FPS/Action ??? The only other big exclusive in that genre is Gears right ?

So on one hand you have Halo and Gears of war and on the other hand you have Killzone/Resistence/Uncharted (Which are all better singleplayer games imo)and a couple of other decent action games... i fail to see how that would make the xbox "far superior".

Both consoles have their big titles, both have great games(Lets be honest, the PS3 has more tho ) and both have some pro's and con's outside of the actual games. Just go with whatever.

TerrorFirmer

Magill wrote: »

How exactly does having "Halo" make the xbox 360 far superior when it comes to FPS/Action ??? The only other big exclusive in that genre is Gears right ?

So on one hand you have Halo and Gears of war and on the other hand you have Killzone/Resistence/Uncharted (Which are all better singleplayer games imo)and a couple of other decent action games... i fail to see how that would make the xbox "far superior".

Both consoles have their big titles, both have great games(Lets be honest, the PS3 has more tho ) and both have some pro's and con's outside of the actual games. Just go with whatever.

I never said it makes it far superior, I said 'I feel...', hence, my own opinion. To be fair, without Halo, the Xbox would never have made it, Halo alone shifted the xbox original, and Halo 2 cemented it. I had one when no-one else did, and the only thing ps2 owners, and my friends, would begrudingly admit was the infalibility of Halo MP.

I agree wholeheartedly, that while I love Halo SP because I love the universe, it's pretty shallow and repetitive amongst other things. But it's the MP I'm hopelessly addicted to, ever since Halo original way back when! If Halo was merely an SP driven game, it'd be forgettable. But realistically, in this day and age, most people buy games for both portions, online and offline, the former more predominately at this stage. I remember when I first got Black Ops, I tore into the SP and loved it, but for days afterwards, every friend on my list had still only played online, SP hadn't been touched!

What I was actually saying was, that for me, the Xbox is all about Halo. Sure, I play Call of Duty, sure I play other games, but the only thing that ties me exclusively to the xbox is Halo itself, without it, I've no doubt that the PS3 would hold far greater sway. Gears, I consider excellent, but I could take it or leave it, it's one game amongst many and its loss...I'd get over. But Halo is entirely different.

I'm not saying that Halo is the sole reason for anyone to buy an Xbox, but I feel it can offer a huge amount as a single game, much more then most other games, to those that are very into their first person shooters....

I've played Killzone and I did enjoy it, though I felt it was extremely lacking in comparison to Halo on the original consoles, Killzone 2 was actually the only reason I was going to buy a PS3, but it just doesn't have the longevity of Halo in regards to MP...though I'm not ruling it out, and there are plenty of advantages to owning a PS3 aside of games. I played Halo original split screen with a few friends a while ago for a laugh, and even though the graphics are ragged, the game a little clunky, and the framerate a little suspect, it's still Halo, and it still feels strikingly familiar, almost as if you're playing Reach on a lesser machine.....I couldn't say the same about any other FPS really going back to their predecessors, particularly killzone, the original was good but with regards to MP totally forgettable.

I was never saying that Halo or Gears were the reason to actually own an Xbox for everyone, but, if you're a serious FPS fan, it's certainly, in the case of Halo, a very strong reason to own a 360 alone. I have 20 games on my shelf, the vast majority of which have never been played, simply because it just seems a chore to start them when faced with the prospect of playing Halo online instead.

I just don't think the PS3 has anything that can absolutely rival Halo in general....sure, there's games like Black Ops, but thats multiplatform, just talking about exclusives. And that's not to say Killzone isn't great...I really enjoyed it, and I do believe that I'll yet get a ps3 to enjoy KZ3. Don't get me wrong - if you're give or take on FPS titles, if you enjoy Beat em ups, RPGs, and the like - I wouldn't even try to convince you that the Xbox is better, or superior. Just on the topic of FPS titles, because I'm sure there are plenty people out there that, just like me, virtually play nothing but. Just looking at my shelf, the only non FPS titles are Gears 1 and 2.....

Magill

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I never said it makes it far superior, I said 'I feel...', hence, my own opinion. To be fair, without Halo, the Xbox would never have made it, Halo alone shifted the xbox original, and Halo 2 cemented it. I had one when no-one else did, and the only thing ps2 owners, and my friends, would begrudingly admit was the infalibility of Halo MP.

I agree wholeheartedly, that while I love Halo SP because I love the universe, it's pretty shallow and repetitive amongst other things. But it's the MP I'm hopelessly addicted to, ever since Halo original way back when! If Halo was merely an SP driven game, it'd be forgettable. But realistically, in this day and age, most people buy games for both portions, online and offline, the former more predominately at this stage. I remember when I first got Black Ops, I tore into the SP and loved it, but for days afterwards, every friend on my list had still only played online, SP hadn't been touched!

What I was actually saying was, that for me, the Xbox is all about Halo. Sure, I play Call of Duty, sure I play other games, but the only thing that ties me exclusively to the xbox is Halo itself, without it, I've no doubt that the PS3 would hold far greater sway. Gears, I consider excellent, but I could take it or leave it, it's one game amongst many and its loss...I'd get over. But Halo is entirely different.

I'm not saying that Halo is the sole reason for anyone to buy an Xbox, but I feel it can offer a huge amount as a single game, much more then most other games, to those that are very into their first person shooters....

I've played Killzone and I did enjoy it, though I felt it was extremely lacking in comparison to Halo on the original consoles, Killzone 2 was actually the only reason I was going to buy a PS3, but it just doesn't have the longevity of Halo in regards to MP...though I'm not ruling it out, and there are plenty of advantages to owning a PS3 aside of games. I played Halo original split screen with a few friends a while ago for a laugh, and even though the graphics are ragged, the game a little clunky, and the framerate a little suspect, it's still Halo, and it still feels strikingly familiar, almost as if you're playing Reach on a lesser machine.....I couldn't say the same about any other FPS really going back to their predecessors, particularly killzone, the original was good but with regards to MP totally forgettable.

I was never saying that Halo or Gears were the reason to actually own an Xbox for everyone, but, if you're a serious FPS fan, it's certainly, in the case of Halo, a very strong reason to own a 360 alone. I have 20 games on my shelf, the vast majority of which have never been played, simply because it just seems a chore to start them when faced with the prospect of playing Halo online instead.

I just don't think the PS3 has anything that can absolutely rival Halo in general....sure, there's games like Black Ops, but thats multiplatform, just talking about exclusives. And that's not to say Killzone isn't great...I really enjoyed it, and I do believe that I'll yet get a ps3 to enjoy KZ3. Don't get me wrong - if you're give or take on FPS titles, if you enjoy Beat em ups, RPGs, and the like - I wouldn't even try to convince you that the Xbox is better, or superior. Just on the topic of FPS titles, because I'm sure there are plenty people out there that, just like me, virtually play nothing but. Just looking at my shelf, the only non FPS titles are Gears 1 and 2.....

So in other words, you love halo I've no problem with that, alot of people do. But i think its one of those games, like cod, that have huge numbers that like the game and huge numbers that don't. I personally don't really like it(It was fun for a while), i suppose when halo was first getting big online i was still playing cs and TF2 (Which IMO are far superior to halo). So yeah... i wouldnt say that halo is a must have for FPS lovers because its really not.

GothPunk

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Well, Halo and Gears are the consoles biggest exclusive money maker, and Call of Duty generates it's biggest revenue overall by a huge margin. I understand why you might feel a little sidelined, but as the consoles biggest two titles, it's only natural they get the most coverage...it is a business overall, shaped by market demand.

I think you've missed my point. COD 7, Halo Reach, Gears 3 and Fable III were the only games they showed before moving on to Kinect and finished with the reveal of the 360 S. The previous E3 had a plethora of games - Rock Band Beatles, Forza 3, Shadow Complex, Crackdown 2 and that's not including all the Kinect stuff and FPS stuff they still managed to show in 2009 compared to 2010. In comparison to Nintendo and Sony's line up at E3 2010, they were a joke.

As I said before, I realise that people like myself may be in the minority, and I'm not so selfish as to suggest Microsoft should cater to me and not go after the Kinect crowd, but (BUT!) I hope that they don't forget that there are people out there who bought their console for games like Fable 2, Lost Odyssey, Crackdown, Forza etc and not Halo 12 or Generic Shooter: Just Like a Movie! 17. They seem content to try and score timed exclusivity on DLC instead and put all their money behind Kinect than put more money and time into Fable III and stop it being a disappointment (try and tell me that game wasn't rushed). They have closed a lot of their first party studios.

Please spare me the 'they're a business line' - I know that, we all know that, it's Microsoft for flips sake! I'm just disagreeing with a strategy that is perhaps too narrow in focus - the PS2 was (is?) a beast as it is all things to all people. You don't get to 150 million consoles sold by focusing solely on FPS and the casual crowd.

Besides, one day the FPS bubble is going to burst. I think Microsoft realises that by trying to expand the Xbox audience with Kinect.

fivestar

Kiith wrote: »

How many times do i have to post this picture before you all realise what your missing...

The four player american football on the dreamcast was absolute class! especially after a few drinks. Can't remember the name of it but think it may have been by capcom, proper arcade style bashing each other up.. oh the memories :)

jaykhunter

Kiith wrote: »

How many times do i have to post this picture before you all realise what your missing...<pic of dreamcast>

Kiith? As in...

Grayditch

Xbox vs PS3 vs Wii and someone posts a Dreamcast. That never gets old. Nope.

jaykhunter

Grayditch wrote: »

Xbox vs PS3 vs Wii and someone posts a Dreamcast. That never gets old. Nope.

Ha! What never gets old is PC gamers coming in to console threads & haranguing us about PC's vast superiority!

ShadowHearth

i dont want to makea new thread here, but i have a feeling there will be alot of xblender fanboys.

i got old xbox360 one of the first ones, and i want to new shaped one as it got wireless in it. Having a cable(20m) from my modem in office, to bedroom with tv is a real pain in a hole. I remember wireless adaptors, but they were allways waaaay overpriced.


My xbox is 20 gb with 1 controller. I want to get any xbox with wireless, dont care about size of hdd, as long as its atleast 20 gb. So it can be cheapest non arcade xbox.

So how much i will have to drop in with my xbox to get newer one?


thanks lads.

p.s. oh yeah i got ps3 too, and had Wii. so ill skip your fight

jaykhunter

Yeah, the price of those wireless adapters are a crock of sh!t. Best just ring up gamestop/game with what you have and ask them. I'd imagine you'd get maybe 80-100e store credit; that's my guess.

ShadowHearth

jaykhunter wrote: »

Yeah, the price of those wireless adapters are a crock of sh!t. Best just ring up gamestop/game with what you have and ask them. I'd imagine you'd get maybe 80-100e store credit; that's my guess.

80-100 would be great to be honest... presume console would be around 250eu?


i will drop in to shop next weak, will get more info. thanks

gizmo

Grayditch wrote: »

Xbox vs PS3 vs Wii and someone posts a Dreamcast. That never gets old. Nope.

Exactly! If you're going to post a console that cleans the other three out of it then at least post a pic of the SNES.

Gummy Panda

jaykhunter wrote: »

Ha! What never gets old is PC gamers coming in to console threads & haranguing us about PC's vast superiority!

lol consoles

ShadowHearth

okay, update, i emailed local gamestop.

i was told that they do not take 20gb older xboxes anymore. new slim xbox is 219 eu with 4gb card...

i presume old hdd do not connect to slim line xblenderS? as i dont care about the size of hdd at all. i just need a damn wirelless...

HooterSnout

I loves my old ass 360 20GB with it's humongous brick of an adapter that means the TV stand won't fit flush against the wall. Got the Wii also. They are different products, love them both but I'd have to go with the Xbox. Tons of games, and I like the design of the dashboard. Sony products aren't allowed in my house.

ShadowHearth

HooterSnout wrote: »

I loves my old ass 360 20GB with it's humongous brick of an adapter that means the TV stand won't fit flush against the wall. Got the Wii also. They are different products, love them both but I'd have to go with the Xbox. Tons of games, and I like the design of the dashboard. Sony products aren't allowed in my house.

you miss alot m8, sbox is great, but ps3 is really good too, alot of exclusive games on it.


best bet to have all of them

F1ngers

HooterSnout wrote: »

Sony products aren't allowed in my house.

May I ask why?

HooterSnout

It stems back to Final Fantasy 7. I blame Sony for stealing my beloved Squaresoft away from me and have never forgiven them since.

Retr0gamer

Should have just bought a PS1.... Well a few PS1's because they are awful and kept breaking just like everything from Sony with a laser in it.

Hank Scorpio

gizmo wrote: »

Exactly! If you're going to post a console that cleans the other three out of it then at least post a pic of the SNES.

This. Im also very dissapointed by crysis2, whatever it might not be the full settings in the beta - but its taken a huge step backwards compared to warhead and crysis1. Its a console game with a few shiny dx11 effects, for shame crytek, for shame.

Jazzy

after using a playstation 3 and xbox 360 i enjoy the ps way more. designed beautifully and is great to use. games wise im not too fussed. any shooters i play on the pc so the ps pad suits me better then the 360

richymcdermott

gizmo wrote: »

Exactly! If you're going to post a console that cleans the other three out of it then at least post a pic of the SNES.

Screw the snes , Sega megadrive all the way baby :P

gizmo

richymcdermott wrote: »

Screw the snes , Sega megadrive all the way baby :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY