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

noodler

Jazzy wrote: »

i remember when i used to be into the big console debate and all that back in teh day and such. but no offence to anyone posting in here, but i find the whole subject so utterly boring its become unreadable.

"Then again, people swear by DTS-HD or HD DD in BR soundtracks." the f**k is that?

"Indeed, however these are also lossless codecs just like FLAC" ????

at the end of the day, the only thing that will ever seperate the consoles for me is the games they have. and if i can get it on the pc then i wont care at all

Ah here, for the love of god.


So if you don't understand something the rest of us shouldn't discuss it?

Come off it, I am learning here.

EDIT: Couldn't help the little PC comment at the end then could you? .......fanboy!

Jazzy

no im not saying that. im saying how i used to care and now totally dont to the point of boredom.

and yes, the pc is better then ANYTHING when it comes to gaming. fhact

Retr0gamer

To be honest a loseless codec like flac compresses the audio by so little that it's wouldn't work for MGS4. There would need to be a loss in audio quality. I'm actually surprised MGS4 takes up 30 Gb when Kojima was moaning there was no space left on the disc?

I_p_freely

Ok, I must admit that I have yellow dog linux on my playstation so I have just checked the file sizes of a few of my games.
MW2 = 7.2 GB
MGS4 = 30 GB
infamous = 6.9 GB
Batman AA = 6.6 GB

when I get more PS3 exclusive games back (my brother got a slim for X-mas, lent him a few games) I will check the file size of the rest.

Still my original point was for future games which will try to out-do present and past games will need the extra head room.

Retr0gamer

Adding extra discs was never a problemin the previous two generations. Even for open world games we have seen massive worlds like in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and GTA IV fit on a single DVD 9.

gizmo

I_p_freely wrote: »

Ok, I must admit that I have yellow dog linux on my playstation so I have just checked the file sizes of a few of my games.
MW2 = 7.2 GB
MGS4 = 30 GB
infamous = 6.9 GB
Batman AA = 6.6 GB

These statistics only prove what has been said earlier. There you have a PS3 exclusive using less than or nearly equal space as two multi-platform titles. I am interested in how much space other games use though, especially since there were repeated claims that both Uncharted titles used the full capacity of a single layered BR disc.

I_p_freely wrote: »

Still my original point was for future games which will try to out-do present and past games will need the extra head room.

While extra room may be required in the future the question is, is it enough to justify the inclusion of BR in the console this generation for games? Looking at figure such as the above I would say the answer is still no.

I_p_freely

gizmo wrote: »

While extra room may be required in the future the question is, is it enough to justify the inclusion of BR in the console this generation for games? Looking at figure such as the above I would say the answer is still no.

I think thats since the PS3 and Xbox are priced similarly at the moment (with Sony finally making some profit from it) and from what someone said above about EA reaching the limits of the Xbox and not the PS3 then i would say that yes, it is justified to include BR in current gen consoles, the next generation of consoles are due to arrive 2013 and the PS3 has a lot more life in it, one of the reasons being the use of BR.

NTMK

I_p_freely wrote: »

I think thats since the PS3 and Xbox are priced similarly at the moment (with Sony finally making some profit from it) and from what someone said above about EA reaching the limits of the Xbox and not the PS3.

Sony still are losing money on it about $34 per console(not including packaging or accesories) probably even more now that the cell processor may not be used in the next generation and sony invested heavily in it

The VP of EA said that the have maxed out the limits of the xbox and are still learning the limits of the PS3 but until sony allow developers full access to its processor then it wont be realised (explaining why 1st party games are excellent like U2, GT and MGS4(3rd party but Kojima had full backing from sony) and 3rd party games sometimes arent as good as their xbox counterparts (i.e Bayonetta and Orange Box).

it wont hurt microsoft as there is only 2/3 years until the next gen
and DVD9's are cheaper than BR so multiple discs are not a problem

gizmo

While I have to say my opinion of EA as a publisher has improved dramatically over the past few years it still doesn't stop me from saying this regarding the maxing of the 360 capabilities quote, he's full of ****e.

Simple example - he said that before CryEngine 3 has been released. :rolleyes:

I_p_freely wrote: »

I think thats since the PS3 and Xbox are priced similarly at the moment (with Sony finally making some profit from it) and from what someone said above about EA reaching the limits of the Xbox and not the PS3 then i would say that yes, it is justified to include BR in current gen consoles, the next generation of consoles are due to arrive 2013 and the PS3 has a lot more life in it, one of the reasons being the use of BR.

I think you're missing the point somewhat here. I'm not saying that one DVD9 should be the limit here, far from it in fact. I'm saying that Sony, from a games perspective, would have been better off sticking with DVD rather than tacking on a $125 piece of hardware initially and one which still adds $66 to the price of each new PS3. The file sizes of the games out currently justify this and with the amount of time left in the consoles life cycle combined with the cost in developing enough content to approach making it worthwhile, you have an argument which is pretty hard to refute.

As Retr0gamer said above...

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Adding extra discs was never a problemin the previous two generations. Even for open world games we have seen massive worlds like in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and GTA IV fit on a single DVD 9.

So why should it have been a problem with the PS3? The simple answer is, Sony had a new format they wanted to push and after the success of the DVD in the PS2 they knew they'd be on a winner if they included it on the PS3. This is on top of oft repeated line that they wanted to build some sort of all-in-one entertainment centre, a boast which they stopped making once they realised people were buying it as a games machine which had the added benefit of playing their movies.

noodler

gizmo wrote: »

Sony had a new format they wanted to push and after the success of the DVD in the PS2 they knew they'd be on a winner if they included it on the PS3. This is on top of oft repeated line that they wanted to build some sort of all-in-one entertainment centre, a boast which they stopped making once they realised people were buying it as a games machine which had the added benefit of playing their movies.

I actually thinking Sony marketing the machine a bit better recently and actually telling the average Joe what else a ps3 can do for the price helped sales as well as the better games line up.

It could be fanboyism but there are people all over the internet who claim to have bought one primarily as a BR player.

partyatmygaff

I have a feeling Sony will win this console war just as they did with the PS2 and PS1.

They beat Microsoft and Toshiba with Blu-Ray which is very slowly replacing DVD which doesn't really mean a huge amount for games but for Sony as a corporation it means royalties. Any blu-ray disc made or any blu ray drive made means money for Sony and the rest of the Blu-Ray association. HD-DVD never stood a chance all because of the PS3. If Microsoft put in a HD DVD drive into the 360 then the format would have won and Blu Ray and the PS3 would be put a serious disadvantage.

noodler

If I could have a BR drive or a DVD drive then I would prefer a BR drive.

Could Sony not have just put their games on DVD then? And use the BR drive for movies?

Granted slower read times have to be tackled with extra HDD space but I don't mind that personally. Would the new FF be on multiple DVDs if it were a 360 exlusive?

gizmo

noodler wrote: »

I actually thinking Sony marketing the machine a bit better recently and actually telling the average Joe what else a ps3 can do for the price helped sales as well as the better games line up.

That's what they did initially and they fell flat on their face. Then they pushed the games capabilities and got some good exclusives out and it picked up. Finally the console is at a reasonable price, has a wider range of exclusives and they can now go back to pushing it's additional capabilites in order to trump the 360.

noodler wrote: »

It could be fanboyism but there are people all over the internet who claim to have bought one primarily as a BR player.

As Bluray players go, the PS3 is one of the best simply due to the fact that its firmware can be upgraded over time. Add in the fact that at its release it was nearly the same price as most high end BR players and it made sense for people to pick one up.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have a feeling Sony will win this console war just as they did with the PS2 and PS1.

It's quite tough to call actually. If the PS3 does win it then I would wager it'll be on the strength of it's performance in Japan where it is creaming the 360. Microsoft's console is still #1 in North American and in Europe you see the PS3 having the lead at the moment. What is also interesting is comparing the performance of the consoles this generation as opposed to the previous generation. I mean, a year or two after the release of the original XBox if you told people that it'd be this close this generation they'd probably laugh at you.

noodler wrote: »

Could Sony not have just put their games on DVD then? And use the BR drive for movies?

Well this is what we were debating above. With regards Games, there has thus far been no need for Bluray discs. Even with the file sizes of current games there is still no need as they could have simply added another disc for future titles which is what was done in the preceding generations.

rizzla

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have a feeling Sony will win this console war just as they did with the PS2 and PS1.

Nintendo have already won this console generation and they did it with inferior fire power.

It's a close call for second though.

noodler

I disagree completely regarding the way the PS3 was marketed originally. I think the adverts were abstract and nobody outside of the interest loop wou;d have a clue exactly what it was that made the PS3 so expensive.

I think the new ads that came witht he Slim are far more straight forward and to the point.

Is it possible for someone to make a game for dvd on PS3? Or can the DVD drive on it only be used for films?

partyatmygaff

rizzla wrote: »

Nintendo have already won this console generation and they did it with inferior fire power.

It's a close call for second though.

Nintendo might be winning for now. The next gen of consoles isn't due for at least 2-3 years so its still undecided who's going to win this war. Sony are starting to pick up a bit and the price is dropping. Once it reaches around €200-250 sales will start to fly. The main thing the Wii has going for it is its low price and for some its ease of modding.

freeze4real

This might be off topic bit it's worth a shot. Will a ps3 slim or fat bought in the USA work in Ireland.

Will I have to buy any transformers for it.

Weepsie

Above, it should work and you would need a transformer and whatnot. Though it may be a bit pointless, the price difference isnt as large as it was with the falling euro, plus there is a chance with something so alrge you'd get hit with import tax/excise. If it were not region free then there'd be a point,

The Wii has won hands down to posts above the last however. as long as 3 years ago they were making $50 profit on each console sold. even if microsoft or sony managed to match there sales, even though they are 30 and 35 million behind respectively as of last month, they'd still struggle to have made as much money and still have lost. The fact that both MS and sony are adding on motion sensing too, shows that theyve lost in the innovation stakes as well.

Patsy fyre

Xboxs onlines service is way better. Couldnt believe how bad the ps 3 was when playing at a friends house! Plus xbox has the sky player which is excellent!

Kiith

Weepsie wrote: »

The Wii has won hands down to posts above the last however. as long as 3 years ago they were making $50 profit on each console sold. even if microsoft or sony managed to match there sales, even though they are 30 and 35 million behind respectively as of last month, they'd still struggle to have made as much money and still have lost. The fact that both MS and sony are adding on motion sensing too, shows that theyve lost in the innovation stakes as well.

The problem with the Wii is that Nintendo dont seem like they are bothered anymore. Developers are pulling out of making proper Wii games, as they just dont sell (Deadspace Extraction and Mad World for example). And the amount of utter **** that is shoveled into the market is incredible. Nintendo are definitely going to see a huge drop in sales (i think they already have?) in the next few years, unless they start doing what we know they can do.

Kev_ps3

Patsy fyre wrote: »

Xboxs onlines service is way better. Couldnt believe how bad the ps 3 was when playing at a friends house! Plus xbox has the sky player which is excellent!

Hate this crap. Only thing xbox has over ps3 is cross game chat. I prefer ps3 online tbh, easier to use and the messaging feature is used alot more which suits me.

WolfForager

Patsy fyre wrote: »

Xboxs onlines service is way better. Couldnt believe how bad the ps 3 was when playing at a friends house! Plus xbox has the sky player which is excellent!

TROLL BE GONE!! OUT I SAY!!

gizmo

Patsy fyre wrote: »

Xboxs onlines service is way better. Couldnt believe how bad the ps 3 was when playing at a friends house! Plus xbox has the sky player which is excellent!

This is almost as silly as this...

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Only thing xbox has over ps3 is cross game chat. I prefer ps3 online tbh, easier to use and the messaging feature is used alot more which suits me.

While it's true that the PSN has caught up with the XBL over time, actually saying the former is better and/or easier to use is insane.

DOC09UNAM

the new xbox 360 will blow both of them out of the water, especially when kinect comes out and the new metal gear solid game designed for it comes out... then we will have an easy winner.

Weepsie

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

the new xbox 360 will blow both of them out of the water, especially when kinect comes out and the new metal gear solid game designed for it comes out... then we will have an easy winner.

i dont see how exactly. The new 360 is basically built in wireless, touch sensitive buttons, flash drive support and integrated harddrive and itll be quieter. so its gonna be much the same as the ps3 in those respects.

The new metal gear solid is multi format too so thats not gonna be much different. And Kinect and move are so far not showing much in the way of originality. I have both, think theyre basically the same overall, just got both so i could play certain games on each. People should really be looking at the software rather than devoting themselves to a brand essentially.

Slugs

Weepsie wrote: »

i dont see how exactly. The new 360 is basically built in wireless, touch sensitive buttons, flash drive support and integrated harddrive and itll be quieter. so its gonna be much the same as the ps3 in those respects.

The new metal gear solid is multi format too so thats not gonna be much different. And Kinect and move are so far not showing much in the way of originality. I have both, think theyre basically the same overall, just got both so i could play certain games on each. People should really be looking at the software rather than devoting themselves to a brand essentially.

I'd say there's been some hardware improvements on the inside... Can't wait for someone to dissect it and let us know.

Weepsie

it'll still probably be largely neglibile. More efficient and less likely to suffer an untimely death are probably the most important things. maybe some extra technology is hidden inside for 3d games who knows

Slugs

doubt they can take anymore bs after the RROD fail. It was a planned bug that went horribly wrong for them. I expect they thought it would take 3 years to kick in, instead it was accelerated by poor design. They deserved to suffer for it, and now they learned their lesson... I hope...

Captain Chaos

Slugs wrote: »

I'd say there's been some hardware improvements on the inside... Can't wait for someone to dissect it and let us know.

Yeah, they have shrunk the the CPU and GPU die cast down to 45nm from the 65nm it was in the Jaspers and 90nm in the very first 360s.

So less noise, heat and power requirements.

And yes the 360 can do 3D with the correct TV. Crysis 2 will be 3D capable on PC, 360 and PS3.

Weepsie

Planned bug. that's not something i could believe. I do believe theyve gotten off quite lightly though. considering people are going to court over sont's removal of the OS support. Im surprised MS didnt get some hefty fines or there where was more of a backlash as they quite clearly put something that wasnt fit for its purpose on the market essentially. Sill i bought 2, never got that, got all the other problems. It will still most likely oan out as both will be fairly level. Anyone who wants to play Halo REach, will probably already have a 360 i believe, slots of people waiting for Gran Turismo to buy a PS3, just like lots waited for FF XIII until that was made multi format and people just went and got whatever they preferred.

The Wii does have Both MArio Galaxy games so it probably is a bit better