This is all subjective anyway. Buy a console for the games you want to play. Buy a console for whatever features you[i/] want/need or don't. Use a controller that [i]you like.
Looks like balls
Same here. I own all three but I play my PS3 the most. I have been through 2 360's already since launch.Ilocano wrote:
Just reminded me about our trip to Disneyland last weekend. We were at Microsoft's Home of the Future Innovention building. Quite a few RROD XBox's to be seen.FatherTed wrote:
wtf do you mean the xbox controller isn't responsive? try playing forza if you think we all have wallowy controls.
the triggers on the ps3 controller suck a dick - no throw at all
the buttons have no feel to them
the sticks are far too loose
the weight of the controller isn't enough
the shape of it is shit
the only thing i like about them is they seem to be durable, none of my PS2 controllers every broke. then again, none of my xbox controllers have ever broke either.
and before some smartass makes a comment about the xboxs reliability, mines never broke either.
BTW, I own all three consoles. XBox gets the most play in my house, but I already have had two RROD XBox consoles.
That's right because the 8800GTX ran cooler than the single slot 8800GT..Sup wrote:
smaller, hotter, more posibillities to overheat
so basically what you're saying is that the dualshock just sucks a little less than the 360 controllerKrappyappy wrote:
how is it odd to base my evaluation of a controller based on how it performs with the games i play?Poseidon wrote:
No, I don't play Tekken or SFIV or any other fighting game. I have no interest in them whatsoever.Krappyappy wrote:
you obviously don't play anything that requires the use of a d-pad, or rapid button sequences. [i.e. tekken]
of course tekken isn't available for the 360[yet], but any fighting game has the same issue.
the 360 has possibly the worst controller you can make for a good fighting experience.
To base a controller as a whole based on how it deals with one minor genre is pretty odd though.
fighting games require very responsive controls. most other games do not. no one gripes about the ps3 or 360 controller for GTA because it doesn't need super tight controls, and the differences are negligible anyway.
arcade stick > dual shock > 360 controller
nice argument..
Gamestop tried to give me 110$ for my old ps3 so i could trade up when it comes in =X looks like i keep my original ps3 X_X
well you asked.Red Forman wrote:
thank you for the lesson :rollseyes:aerodynamic wrote:
smaller means less cost of materials, smaller packeging thus less cost on packages, less weight on transport thus costs less.Red Forman wrote:
I have to ask, wtf is the point of the smaller, lighter thing? I mean, are you carrying it across the sahara everyday or something?
It makes everything cheaper.
Bwhahaha.Sup wrote:
it also pwns in number of broken unitsRed Forman wrote:
and xbox pwns ps3 in sales for what....2 years now?FatherTed wrote:
wtf do you mean the xbox controller isn't responsive? try playing forza if you think we all have wallowy controls.
the triggers on the ps3 controller suck a dick - no throw at all
the buttons have no feel to them
the sticks are far too loose
the weight of the controller isn't enough
the shape of it is shit
the only thing i like about them is they seem to be durable, none of my PS2 controllers every broke. then again, none of my xbox controllers have ever broke either.
and before some smartass makes a comment about the xboxs reliability, mines never broke either.
Surely if the X360 still outsells the PS3, even with a common view that they all fail and break... that makes an even bigger statement?RDMC wrote:
Bwhahaha.Sup wrote:
it also pwns in number of broken unitsRed Forman wrote:
and xbox pwns ps3 in sales for what....2 years now?
Think about what you're fanboyishly laughing about.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, but power consumption and heat generated are directly related. The heat is a bi-product of the energy consumption..Sup wrote:
I had mine replaced cos the first unit I got overheated itself. So honestly I'd rather see it consumes more power but doesn't overheat just like my gaming PCmtb0minime wrote:
But it consumes less power. Therefore, all remains equal..Sup wrote:
smaller, hotter, more posibillities to overheat
Actually, my phat PS2 has overheated a few times after long gaming sessions as opposed to my slim PS2 having never overheated at all during equally long, and in some cases longer, gaming sessions.
I always find that kind of funny. The PS3 gives you more technology for your money and doesn't break down as easily and it was still outsold almost 2:1 by the 360 last month.Uzique wrote:
Surely if the X360 still outsells the PS3, even with a common view that they all fail and break... that makes an even bigger statement?RDMC wrote:
Bwhahaha.Sup wrote:
it also pwns in number of broken units
Think about what you're fanboyishly laughing about.
It's like paying $300,000 for a lawyer and losing to someone who's representing themselves.
I think there was a poll somewhere saying something like only 3.8% of people who've gotten the RRoD regret buying their 360/will not buy another MS game console ever again.
You are pretty narrow minded. An 8800GTX would run hotter in a smaller case than in a bigger case, same with 8800GT.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
That's right because the 8800GTX ran cooler than the single slot 8800GT..Sup wrote:
smaller, hotter, more posibillities to overheat
*insert dozen "rolleyes" emoticons*
Console wars? On Bf2s? How funny
didn't noticedLucien wrote:
Console wars? On Bf2s? How funny
Interesting. I've been tossing up between getting a PS3 or 360, and this might just tip the scales in the PS3's favor.
A question though: how far will the 120GB drive get me? I know you need to install ~10GB worth of data for a modern PC game, is the PS3 the same? Or do you only need the HDD for saves, the rest of the space being intended for Demos/Movies/etc?
A question though: how far will the 120GB drive get me? I know you need to install ~10GB worth of data for a modern PC game, is the PS3 the same? Or do you only need the HDD for saves, the rest of the space being intended for Demos/Movies/etc?
I'm not sure but I think installs on the PS3 are mandatory with some games. I remember with GTA IV it was. With the 360, every game is optional (the option to install was added on as part of the NXE update last holiday).Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
Interesting. I've been tossing up between getting a PS3 or 360, and this might just tip the scales in the PS3's favor.
A question though: how far will the 120GB drive get me? I know you need to install ~10GB worth of data for a modern PC game, is the PS3 the same? Or do you only need the HDD for saves, the rest of the space being intended for Demos/Movies/etc?
Depends on the game. It's usually around the 4GB mark though. The 120GB will get you quite far. I'm still using my 40GB although it's almost full now.
It's not the same as a PC game when it comes to installing, only certain files are installed and not exactly the entire game like with a PC game. So that's why the file size is much smaller.
It's not the same as a PC game when it comes to installing, only certain files are installed and not exactly the entire game like with a PC game. So that's why the file size is much smaller.
Advantage of the PS3 (old one anyways, can't say for the new Slim version), is that you could replace your existing PS3 harddrive with a new 2.5 harddrive. I've read many cases where people have upgraded there 40/60/80/120 to 500GB. Plenty of storage at that point. And then you could always add external drives.Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
Interesting. I've been tossing up between getting a PS3 or 360, and this might just tip the scales in the PS3's favor.
A question though: how far will the 120GB drive get me? I know you need to install ~10GB worth of data for a modern PC game, is the PS3 the same? Or do you only need the HDD for saves, the rest of the space being intended for Demos/Movies/etc?
Disclaimer: I prefer my 360 over my PS3, despite 2 RROD's. Numbers of 360 exceeding PS3 could be in part, of people buying new 360's after the old one broke after warranty.
1) Whoever made that picture is fucking stupid because the Elite is now $300.
2) You can find WiFi adapters and 12 month XBL cards for much cheaper than what's listed. The 12 month card goes for around $35-40 (and is worth it in every aspect of the term), the wireless adapter goes for about $50-70 depending on where you look.
3) Even with all of that, even though I've said before you get more for your money with the PS3...the 360 and Wii still outsell it. What does that tell you? Sometimes it's not all about the hardware.
Yeah, I've been saying it for ages that the PS3 vs Xbox price argument doesn't work because when you break it down the PS3 is in a much more favourable light, even before the PS3 had this price cut and even before the Xbox had all of its price cuts.
That table is practically why I bought a PS3 a year and a half ago. Actually the main killer points for me (outside of games) was the blu ray/wireless and the web browser. And the reliability played a factor I'll admit. Although I'm glad I didn't get a 60GB because those were overpriced and unreliable.
Even with all your price cuts that you listed, the PS3 slim still works out cheaper. And after every year even moreso because of the annual subscription for Xbox live.
That table is practically why I bought a PS3 a year and a half ago. Actually the main killer points for me (outside of games) was the blu ray/wireless and the web browser. And the reliability played a factor I'll admit. Although I'm glad I didn't get a 60GB because those were overpriced and unreliable.
Even with all your price cuts that you listed, the PS3 slim still works out cheaper. And after every year even moreso because of the annual subscription for Xbox live.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-08-20 10:34:24)
.sup has been owned. very good point indeed.Uzique wrote:
Surely if the X360 still outsells the PS3, even with a common view that they all fail and break... that makes an even bigger statement?RDMC wrote:
Bwhahaha.Sup wrote:
it also pwns in number of broken units
Think about what you're fanboyishly laughing about.
O rly? I posted a fact.Red Forman wrote:
.sup has been owned. very good point indeed.Uzique wrote:
Surely if the X360 still outsells the PS3, even with a common view that they all fail and break... that makes an even bigger statement?RDMC wrote:
Bwhahaha
Think about what you're fanboyishly laughing about.
People still buy xbox according to Uzique even though so many break. What does that mean? In a PC world lots of people stopped buying MSI products because they break often but here the fanboy-ism is so strong they buy a unit that has a great chance of getting broken. Do you own an xbox? Because it seems some posts have deeply affected you- you became irrational and unable to think clearly.
Is that all you got? The early models had issues (as in lots of things that are new) and that is your only argument? Try explaining why ps3 has lagged far behind for over 2 years.
I'm not really here to debate. All I'm saying is xboxes tend to break far more often than PS3 consoles. Beats me why more xbox consoles have been sold.Red Forman wrote:
Is that all you got? The early models had issues (as in lots of things that are new) and that is your only argument? Try explaining why ps3 has lagged far behind for over 2 years.