Hello,
I have made a Poll to identify which the Public would like to Play Civilization Revolution on ( I have even put on Consoles on which I am not sure are coming out on e.g. PSP, PC----) PLEASE DONT HESITATE TO VOTE

I really never was interested in gaming on a DS. My son has one and playes it of course. But, I went out and bought Age of Kings, to get familiar w/ the DS, and have been playing it wherever I can.

A console is going to severely limit playing time because you can only play CivRev when you're home.

The Wii and DS would be my preferred options.

X.Box 360 and Wii are currently in the lead

I want to play this on my shoebox

lol, odd... very odd

I'm hoping DS. At least then I can play Civ on the go. (I don't have a laptop.):lol: :lol:

Why would you possibly play this on a ps2/ps3/wii/Xbox360? If you're doing that it means that your home so you can play on your computer on civ4 which is going to be infinatively better. The only reason I might ever buy this game is to play when I'm on public transport/away from home. DS for me.

Why would you possibly play this on a ps2/ps3/wii/Xbox360? If you're doing that it means that your home so you can play on your computer on civ4 which is going to be infinatively better. The only reason I might ever buy this game is to play when I'm on public transport/away from home. DS for me.

Play with/against friends.

Play hotseat/LAN/internet/e-mail/PitBoss

I'll get the DS version first and if that proves to be a fun game I'll get the Wii version when its released later on.

DS is just great when you've little free time to play games. I play it often while taking care of the kids and the like. Great little console for sure! Very excited a Civ game is coming out for it now.

I love my DS. Age of Kings, Picross, Advance Wars, and soon CivRev are what I do to pass the time at work. Today I'm going to pick up ChessMaster also.

Depending on what's different between the games, I might pick it up for 360 also. My friends don't want to get into Civ because it seems very overwhelming for people that don't play pc games. I hope to latch a few into enjoying the game and I might be able to get them to "upgrade" to cIV.

Wii - since i jhave one

i'm going to get an Xbox 360 or a wii for Christmas. I still haven't decided yet.

I love my DS. Age of Kings, Picross, Advance Wars, and soon CivRev are what I do to pass the time at work.
I got a DS and I got bored of it in like 3 weeks, I still have it to get Civilization Revolution on it though.

Since the only console I own is a Wii, my choices are limited. Still, the DS version sure is tempting.

The Pokémon Diamond + CivRev combo is the reason I want it. With some other stuff of course.

The DS - Civ in your pocket. Gotta love that.

I got a DS and I got bored of it in like 3 weeks, I still have it to get Civilization Revolution on it though.

I would get bored if I just had a DS as well ;) Get some more games - try Puzzle Quest, Elite beat agents or Phonix Wright

I'd like to play it on the PSP. :(

But I can tell you right now it's awesome on the 360 !

I'm expecting the Shoebox to get a price cut after Christmas; then I'll definitely be getting one. :yup: The graphics won't be up to much, but it's the gameplay that counts right?

Where's the iPhone? THAT'D rock!!!

Play hotseat/LAN/internet/e-mail/PitBoss

It's not the same as sitting in front of a 60 inch tv with your mates ;)

WHAT CONSOLE IS BETTER???? PRESS 1 FOR XBOX360 OR 2 FOR NINTENDO Wii, because I don't know what console to get. Command & Conquer 3 is on the Xbox360 yet---Super mario galaxy is on the wii---tough decistion. But I'm gonna let you decide, so vote for XBOX 360 OR Wii---aswell as voting for which console you would like to play Civilization Revolution on (because it is a Civilization Revolution forum and not a CONSOLES forum, lol).
P.S. That was the longest reply I have ever sent *phew* glad its over
(Boss:Its not over yet, you've still got another 2 paragraphs to write-get to work! Me: But boss Its supposed to be my day off and I have to get home to my new ferrari and Playstation 3 Boss: Then why are you asking for the public to vote for an Xbox or wii? Me:um...
The End)

Stay tuned for more BOSS & ME adventures in a few days
(sorry, but I want to make more)

I'd love to play on the DS, but Xbox360 will be the greatest to see.

I will be playing primarily on the DS, but the Xbox360's graphics are simply outstanding! :D

Will the only differences between the console games be the graphics?

To the best of my understanding, yes.

That is the plan, at least. And my limited playtesting showed that to be the case.

The DS and the Wii, they seem best suited to a Civ game, IMHO.

I think Xbox 360 will be the best because Civ started out on the MICROSOFT PC, and so it will go onto a MICROSOFT Xbox360!!!

You are rediculous...

The game engine is the same on all the consoles specified. The gameplay is identical on all of them. The only real difference is the graphics. Also, the XBox will have more/better interaction with Firaxis, for downloading the Game Of The Week, etc.

I can tell you right now it's awesome on the 360 !
The game engine is the same on all the consoles specified. The gameplay is identical on all of them. The only real difference is the graphics.
Both QFT. :yup:

DS is the only version I'll get but Nintendo tends to 'Nerf' games while n the transition between console to handheld.

DS definitely. Portable + touchscreen controls = win.

The DS by far. Can play anywhere, even online if close to a wireless network.

DS is the only version I'll get but Nintendo tends to 'Nerf' games while n the transition between console to handheld.

Nintendo has nothing to do with this. The CivRev team is doing all the coding, for all the consoles, all at the same time (except for the Wii -- and they'll be doing that as soon as they have breathing space).

The game engine is the same on all the consoles specified. The gameplay is identical on all of them. The only real difference is the graphics. Also, the XBox will have more/better interaction with Firaxis, for downloading the Game Of The Week, etc. PS3 and 360 will run in HD so it probably have a wider viewing area so you can see more on the screen at once.

breathing space.
Hitler 1939.

Cool thats nice to know

XBox 360 for me

I'd say PS2 or Wii if at all possible. It'll probably be better on the Wii (the Wiimote could prove interesting) but realistically I'd rather get it for PS2 since I'm far more likely to take that with me when I up roots.

If at all possible, of course...

I just bought a DS specifically to play Civ Rev. While I'm waiting, I'll kill some time with Advance Wars, Age of Empires & Anno 1701 when that comes out.

oooooo, the have AOE for DS?

AOE for the DS is quite different from the RTS version. Actually, it's more like Civ in that it is turn-based. For quite a while it was my favorite DS game.

oh, it's turn-based? what kind of AOE game is that?:confused:

It's actually a bit like Civ.

oh, I'll try it then.....

I picked up a DS at xmas just so I would be ready for this.

Love the zelda game and FF3. Will finish them and be prepared for the Revolution

I picked up a DS at xmas just so I would be ready for this.

Love the zelda game and FF3. Will finish them and be prepared for the Revolution

Same here - absolutely loved the Zelda game. Since Christmas, I've played through Zelda: Phantom Hourglass and working through Advance Wars: Days of Ruin. I've also got Age of Kings, which is quite fun and challenging.

In the US, Anno 1701 AD is coming out on March 4. I'm definitely grabbing it. It's been out in Europe for a while.

I'm disappointed CivRev is coming in June rather than April, but it's coming nonetheless. :D

I don't know what to get it for...I've got the 360, Wii and DS...I may get it for both 360 and DS lol. I love my Wii, but Game of the Week competitions and achievement points give the 360 my vote for CivRev over Wii, I think.

I don't know what to get it for...I've got the 360, Wii and DS...I may get it for both 360 and DS lol. I love my Wii, but Game of the Week competitions and achievement points give the 360 my vote for CivRev over Wii, I think.

Don't fret about it, especially since the Wii version is on "indefinite hold." If you get it for both the 360 and DS, then w/ my copy of the DS version, that may be enough to convince Firaxis to finish the Wii version. ;) :goodjob:

I don't know what to get it for...I've got the 360, Wii and DS...I may get it for both 360 and DS lol. I love my Wii, but Game of the Week competitions and achievement points give the 360 my vote for CivRev over Wii, I think. Also If you got a HDTV then Xbox360 more likely will show more on the screen at once (like the Civ4 on PC) which is another plus over SD Wii. With most PC games including Civilization even 1024 X 768 seems small to me compared to 1280X1024 plus.

you realize that the Wii is not entirely SD, just like the Xbox wasn't SD. There are component cables for the Wii, and it is capable of running a game in 720...there just havne't been any games that supported it yet.

In theory yes it's possible you could push the Wii to 720p but in reality I wouldn't count on it especially when they having to crunch the game down as it is now. Even with 360/ps3 specs which can run games in 1080p, most games are running in 720p.

Smash brothers will be pretty close to 720p, if it isn't(perhaps 720i or the resolution halo 3 was...648p or something weird like that)

Smash brothers will be pretty close to 720p, if it isn't(perhaps 720i or the resolution halo 3 was...648p or something weird like that) As far as I know SSBB is 480p in 16:9 format like a lot of other Wii games.

I'm sorry but the significant % of people that chose the WII, I have to ask what you are thinking. CIV REV is a serious game, and its quite well known that the WII is not a serious gamers platform. Its fun, don't get me wrong, I love exploiting the tennis serving flaw to my inlaws who start calling me cheap. But its not next gen, if you are going to play a serious turn piece stategy game for 5 hours (or like me, a lot longer using the 'keep on playing after victory' option) WII is not a platform that is built for this.

I'm sorry but the significant % of people that chose the WII, I have to ask what you are thinking. CIV REV is a serious game, and its quite well known that the WII is not a serious gamers platform. Its fun, don't get me wrong, I love exploiting the tennis serving flaw to my inlaws who start calling me cheap. But its not next gen, if you are going to play a serious turn piece stategy game for 5 hours (or like me, a lot longer using the 'keep on playing after victory' option) WII is not a platform that is built for this.

I don't own a Wii, so I don't have any dog in that fight, but your explanation doesn't even make any sense. By what standard is the Wii not a "serious gamers platform?" I have a Nintendo DS, which a lot of people would say is a kids' games platform, does that make it any less serious?

I'm sorry but the significant % of people that chose the WII, I have to ask what you are thinking. CIV REV is a serious game, and its quite well known that the WII is not a serious gamers platform. Its fun, don't get me wrong, I love exploiting the tennis serving flaw to my inlaws who start calling me cheap. But its not next gen, if you are going to play a serious turn piece stategy game for 5 hours (or like me, a lot longer using the 'keep on playing after victory' option) WII is not a platform that is built for this.

I have to agree w/ XL above. "Next Gen" is irrelevant here. Why would 5+ hours of gaming not work on a Wii? Because of the remote controls (wand & numchuk)? Do you think someone will get tired? On the off-chance they do, they can always use the wand as a traditional gamepad, which I think all my Wii games allow for.

And, as for serious strategy games, Advance Wars on the DS is... serious. Just give it a go on your console. Oh, I forgot, it's just on the DS. ;)

CivRev is a turn-based strategy game, not an ADHD first-person shooter.

According to Firaxis, the reason is not that the Wii is unsuited, just that they do not have the manpower in house to do another version simultaneously.

According to Firaxis, the reason is not that the Wii is unsuited, just that they do not have the manpower in house to do another version simultaneously.

We know. The above rancor has little to do with that, but more to do with shallow thinking.

I pick the Nintendo DS because I don't have any of the others except a PC.

I don't own a Wii, so I don't have any dog in that fight, but your explanation doesn't even make any sense. By what standard is the Wii not a "serious gamers platform?" I have a Nintendo DS, which a lot of people would say is a kids' games platform, does that make it any less serious?

First off, Nintendo DS is a different beast, its marketed to everybody, including my parents (brain drain, or whatever game they play).

Most that know gaming consoles know that the Wii isn't a serious gamers platform. Just look at the types of games that are being issued for the Xbox 360 vs the Wii. The most popular games for the wii are for the ones that utilzie the wand, for all other games they play like normal console games, which are not up to code with either the 360 or the PS3.

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

Your argument still doesn't carry any water. You're just stating a personal preference. There is no technical reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the Wii. My personal feeling however is there's no reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the PS2 as well. The graphics really aren't that great.

Now from personal experiences, I know many people that have either both, or all 3. The Wii gets used for social settings, but when everybody leaves and its time for hardcore gaming, fighting, sports games, etc., the 360 is the platform. I have 2, and when my wife wants me to stop gaming to watch tv in my main room, I ask her to play Wii Sports, as she likes that. Wii is fun, in a limited sense, but not a platform you want if you want to play hardcore shooter, or sporting simulation games. Wii, very cutesy.

You are correct in that more shooters are released on the 360/PS3. That's more to do with audience and their specific subcultures. However, it's difficult to get over your thought that the Wii isn't for serious gaming. Shooters are a niche that serious gamers choose to play, yet there are many other genres that serious gamers play.

As for sport games on the Wii, 2K8 Baseball is on sale beginning today. And, NCAA Football 2008 is set for release in August. There is a reason why these games are moving back to Nintendo.

As for sport games on the Wii, 2K8 Baseball is on sale beginning today. And, NCAA Football 2008 is set for release in August. There is a reason why these games are moving back to Nintendo.

.. because the Wii is selling very well obviously. However, do you think that the Wii will outsell the 360 in these gaming categories? What do you think the average games sold per console is? There are many reasons for this. Hey, I'm not the only one with this view, its commonly held within console gaming. You'll see many other opinions like the one below.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/07/22/nintendo-wii-not-in-console-war-with-xbox-360-and-ps3/

There is no technical reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the Wii. My personal feeling however is there's no reason Civ Revolution couldn't be developed for the PS2 as well. The graphics really aren't that great.

Read: I never stated what you are claiming I did. I never stated that there wasn't a technical reason for it being developed for the Wii. I lashed out for those who selected 'Wii' for the original question, being what console would people want to play/see CivR on.

If you have just a Wii, then I understand why you want to see/play it on the Wii. But if you have a Wii and another console 360/PS3, or you are buying a console to play it on, the obvious clear choice would not be the Wii.

.. because the Wii is selling very well obviously. However, do you think that the Wii will outsell the 360 in these gaming categories? What do you think the average games sold per console is? There are many reasons for this. Hey, I'm not the only one with this view, its commonly held within console gaming. You'll see many other opinions like the one below.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/07/22/nintendo-wii-not-in-console-war-with-xbox-360-and-ps3/

So, it's not because serious gamers bought a Wii? I don't think it's children and women buying those sport games.

Really. Yes there is a market for these no matter how small the sales number will relatively to be to the same games on the 360/PS3. But if your a serious gamer, you most likely are either buying a PS3/360, or a gaming PC, and not a Wii. Not to say that ALL serious gamers are buying non-wii/PCs, but seriously.

Why don't you do an internet search on the subject. I wonder what you will find. NOT

Not to say that ALL serious gamers are buying non-wii/PCs, but seriously.


:thanx:

I'm done. :hatsoff:

;)

At the risk of being kicked out of htis forum, you are an idiot. Per capita, I'd say only 1 out of 100 forumers here are idiots. Under your logic, forumers here are idiots.

At the risk of being kicked out of htis forum, you are an idiot. Per capita, I'd say only 1 out of 100 forumers here are idiots. Under your logic, forumers here are idiots.

Ouch. :(

Don't be so thin-skinned.

I just disagree with your generalization.

Ouch. :(

Don't be so thin-skinned.

I just disagree with your generalization.

Its either:

1) you are trying to hit my breaking point by purposely being obtuse
2) you actually have no clue about the console market and you either just have a WII and love it to death beyond reasoning, or just a PCer with no console knowledge either = and making resulting comments on it.

My generalization is correct, though not 100% appicable. But I am talking about the industry as a whole, which is very obvious, and not small immateral pockets who are die hard WII folks. IF you had both as well, you wouldn't be so 'thick' skulled.

Its either:

1) you are trying to hit my breaking point by purposely being obtuse
2) you actually have no clue about the console market and you either just have a WII and love it to death beyond reasoning, or just a PCer with no console knowledge either = and making resulting comments on it.

My generalization is correct, though not 100% appicable. But I am talking about the industry as a whole, which is very obvious, and not small immateral pockets who are die hard WII folks. IF you had both as well, you wouldn't be so 'thick' skulled.

I'm a serious gamer. Because I don't covet shooters, doesn't make me a non-serious gamer. Does "hardcore" equate shooters?

I only own a Wii, as well as a DS and a computer.

Therefore, serious gamers are attracted to the Wii. Perhaps I strayed from your point, but I thought it was that serious gamers only move toward the 360 and PS3 and that the Wii is not a serious gaming console. You also cited sport games as an indicator. In turn, I pointed out two sport titles, that are considered popular by serious sport gaming enthusiasts, that are already on the Wii or coming soon.

I've searched many links, and I see that the Wii and it's software are doing quite well compared to the 360 and PS3. I understand that there are folks who have a 360/Wii or PS3/Wii. I assume they do because of the multiple shooters available on the other two.

I can afford a 360 + a PS3. I don't dislike either of them.

What am I missing?

Wow, 2 sports titles you mentioned are 'coming' or already on the WII.
I fail 2 see your point. 2 you see mine?

Another indicator, go look at how many games sold per 360 vs Wii console? Do many WIIers get past the couple of games that use the wand or the guitar?

seem to be not the only one - try to find a board or blogger saying the opposite

http://boards.ign.com/rayman/b6180/151214542/p1/

or per CNET, hardly sounding like the gamer's choice

Conclusion: ... If you've been clamoring for an all-purpose next-generation multimedia box with blinding HD graphics, the Wii will be a disappointment. But Nintendo didn't intend to compete in that arena anyway: the Wii is focused squarely on delivering fun and innovative gameplay, leaving Sony and Microsoft to battle it out at the high end....


http://reviews.cnet.com/consoles/nintendo-wii/4505-10109_7-31355104.html

Conclusion: ... If you've been clamoring for an all-purpose next-generation multimedia box with blinding HD graphics, the Wii will be a disappointment.By that criteria, the Xbox 360 isn't serious either, unless you have a big backlog of unwatched HD DVD's :lol: But Nintendo didn't intend to compete in that arena anyway: the Wii is focused squarely on delivering fun and innovative gameplay, leaving Sony and Microsoft to battle it out at the high end....
Which makes the Wii a perfect target for Civ Revolution. Look at the leaders and advisors. They're all caricatures and the units are very cartoonish. Civ Revolution has been criticized by many as being too "kiddy" looking, which seems to match up with all you've said about the Wii.

For the record, I own a PS2, which I'll be replacing with a PS3 when I feel there's a good enough library of games to justify it, so don't try to make me out to be a Wii fanboy. All of this is academic though, since I just picked up my Nintendo DS so I can play Civ Rev on that :D

For the record, I own a PS2, which I'll be replacing with a PS3 when I feel there's a good enough library of games to justify it, so don't try to make me out to be a Wii fanboy. All of this is academic though, since I just picked up my Nintendo DS so I can play Civ Rev on that :D

Wii fanboy?

:mischief:

FYI - Media reports are that they are coming out with a blu ray player for the xbox 360 by as early as may, and later, a blu ray internal drive.

Doesn't matter for me though, I bought a panny blu ray b4 xmas. Plus, I doubt the HD external drive had the proper DTS and Dolby HD decoders.

I actually never called the Wii kiddy (more female friendly as its the only console except for a few games of MarioKart or Mario Party, that my wife enjoys playing), though I posted other bloggers opinion that stated such. Though the more popular games are kinda kiddy. The WII sports reminds me of the old NES days.

But for playing a long game of CivR (i always keep a game going long after a victory in the old CIV editions), I definately prefer my xbox controller than the WII's. Holding a rectangular block vs a better shaped controller for your hand, its no contest.

Wii fanboy?

:mischief:

There is nothing wrong with that.
I am a 'fan' of the Wii as it has its place in some circumstances.
Keeps guest busy.

wow...I won't even bother trying to quote all your silly generalizations, WankIT.

I think I'm about as hardcore a gamer as you can get...and I own a Wii, 360, DS, and PC(and if you want to get into older systems, I have a PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GB, GBA, Sega Genesis, Sega Game Gear, and almost bought a Dreamcast just for Skies of Arcadia until it was released on the Gamecube)...I think that for pure gaming, I'd pick the Wii to buy CivRev for(if it were coming out at the same time still). However, I likely would have gotten it for the 360 simply because I'm addicted to achievement points.

But to say that,
1) Anyone that would pick it for the Wii over the 360/PS3 is stupid and not a serious gamer
2) The Wii is not a system for serious gamers
3) Serious gamers are only serious gamers if they like a) shooters, b) sports games, and c)fighters
is to be extremely obtuse and ridiculous.

My responses are as follows:
1) The Wii is closer to the PC in terms of control scheme, and the PC is generally felt to have the best control scheme of any gaming system
2) If it isn't for serious gamers, then what do you call Metroid Prime 3(shooter, 90 metacritic rating), Resident Evil 4(shooter, 91 metacritic), Zack & Wiki(adventure, 87 metacritic, and best adventure GotY), Fire Emblem(strategy, 77 metacritic), Madden(sports, 81 and 76 metacritic, 07 called sports GotY over 360 and PS3 versions) Legend of Zelda(action/adventure, 95 metacritic), Mario Galaxy(adventure, 97 metacritic), Super Smash Brothers(fighting, 98 metacritic), No More Heroes(mature, bloody fighting/action, 84 metacritic), Guitar Hero 3(85 metacritic)? If those aren't for serious gamers, what is?
3) So strategy gamers aren't serious gamers? adventure game lovers aren't serious? And even if shooters/sports/fighting are the only genres that matter for serious gamers...what do you say to Metroid Prime 3, considered to have the best control scheme of any console shooter ever? or Madden 07 winning Game of the Year for the Wii, beating out the 360 and PS3 versions? or Resident Evil 4, selling over 1M copies on the Wii, over 18 months after its original release, and not available on the 360 or PS3? or the fact that Madden, NCAA, Tiger Woods, FIFA, MLB, and NBA are all coming to the Wii after ignoring the Gamecube for the last 2-3 years? or Super Smash Brothers, possibly the best fighting game ever(certainly the highest reviewed thus far)?

I find it highly ignorant, cocky, and ridiculous to claim what you have, especially since the consensus in the US appears to be that the Wii is just as serious a gaming machine as the 360(considering it has outsold the 360 every single month since its release, and is currently entirely sold out for its record breaking 64rd week in a row).

Yes, more games have been bought per system sold for the 360 than the Wii since launch, but that's for a few reasons...1) the 360 has more games and many good games at reduced prices due to being out longer, and 2) the Wii comes bundled with a game, while the 360 only did during the holidays.

If I recall, the 360 currently has an average of 7 games per system, while the Wii is at around 3(4 if you count Wii Sports)...I beat out both those averages, with around 15 games on the 360 and 6 on the Wii. But considering the 360 has more than 2x more games out than the Wii does, and has been out twice as long, if it were truly a more 'serious' gaming machine, it should have more than just a 7:3 ratio of sold games compared to the Wii.

If you are a serious gamer (i am not being sarcastic - am giving you the benefit of the doubt), I have one honest question for you,

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

Regarding the games per console sales, you think this will change, even as more titles come out for Wii? What are your honest opinions. We know what has happened, but lets talk what you think will happen.

wow...I won't even bother trying to quote all your silly generalizations, WankIT.

I think I'm about as hardcore a gamer as you can get...and I own a Wii, 360, DS, and PC(and if you want to get into older systems, I have a PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GB, GBA, Sega Genesis, Sega Game Gear, and almost bought a Dreamcast just for Skies of Arcadia until it was released on the Gamecube)...I think that for pure gaming, I'd pick the Wii to buy CivRev for(if it were coming out at the same time still). However, I likely would have gotten it for the 360 simply because I'm addicted to achievement points.

But to say that,
1) Anyone that would pick it for the Wii over the 360/PS3 is stupid and not a serious gamer
2) The Wii is not a system for serious gamers
3) Serious gamers are only serious gamers if they like a) shooters, b) sports games, and c)fighters
is to be extremely obtuse and ridiculous.

My responses are as follows:
1) The Wii is closer to the PC in terms of control scheme, and the PC is generally felt to have the best control scheme of any gaming system
2) If it isn't for serious gamers, then what do you call Metroid Prime 3(shooter, 90 metacritic rating), Resident Evil 4(shooter, 91 metacritic), Zack & Wiki(adventure, 87 metacritic, and best adventure GotY), Fire Emblem(strategy, 77 metacritic), Madden(sports, 81 and 76 metacritic, 07 called sports GotY over 360 and PS3 versions) Legend of Zelda(action/adventure, 95 metacritic), Mario Galaxy(adventure, 97 metacritic), Super Smash Brothers(fighting, 98 metacritic), No More Heroes(mature, bloody fighting/action, 84 metacritic), Guitar Hero 3(85 metacritic)? If those aren't for serious gamers, what is?
3) So strategy gamers aren't serious gamers? adventure game lovers aren't serious? And even if shooters/sports/fighting are the only genres that matter for serious gamers...what do you say to Metroid Prime 3, considered to have the best control scheme of any console shooter ever? or Madden 07 winning Game of the Year for the Wii, beating out the 360 and PS3 versions? or Resident Evil 4, selling over 1M copies on the Wii, over 18 months after its original release, and not available on the 360 or PS3? or the fact that Madden, NCAA, Tiger Woods, FIFA, MLB, and NBA are all coming to the Wii after ignoring the Gamecube for the last 2-3 years? or Super Smash Brothers, possibly the best fighting game ever(certainly the highest reviewed thus far)?

I find it highly ignorant, cocky, and ridiculous to claim what you have, especially since the consensus in the US appears to be that the Wii is just as serious a gaming machine as the 360(considering it has outsold the 360 every single month since its release, and is currently entirely sold out for its record breaking 64rd week in a row).

Yes, more games have been bought per system sold for the 360 than the Wii since launch, but that's for a few reasons...1) the 360 has more games and many good games at reduced prices due to being out longer, and 2) the Wii comes bundled with a game, while the 360 only did during the holidays.

If I recall, the 360 currently has an average of 7 games per system, while the Wii is at around 3(4 if you count Wii Sports)...I beat out both those averages, with around 15 games on the 360 and 6 on the Wii. But considering the 360 has more than 2x more games out than the Wii does, and has been out twice as long, if it were truly a more 'serious' gaming machine, it should have more than just a 7:3 ratio of sold games compared to the Wii.

First of all, seeing how you can read and recall so well, I never said picking the WII over the 360/PS3 was stupid. I've maintained, and this is my third time for those that cannot READ properly is that based upon this poll, I lashed out at those who wanted to play CivR on the WII over the 360/PS3. I've always maintained the WII has its place (I have one).

This is the last time I will restate what I've being saying, so you should calm down and actually read first before you spew.

Cmon, how old are you. IF you want to go tit for tat, my gaming has gone way before yours, to include my first machine, C64, then to the amiga before getting my PC, and my parents at the time were kind enough to get us the atari, and colecovision.

You bring up the control scheme. Yes, its very impressive, but it really is limited. When you play a lot of those games you mention, do you really use it, do you a throwing motion when you throw a touchdown in madden? No, you have to use it as a regular controller, and which of the 3 controllers would you rather use.


If your a serious PC gamer, do you buy a computer with an integrated graphics chip with shared memory or do you buy one with a Radeon, or etc.? Now this is a similar idea. Fine, you can be like me and buy a Wii for your wife, and/or to have a decent game of bowling or tennis, but when you want to play for hours on end, what do you go with?

I wish it was coming on the Wii, b/c I have one and I don't have any other current gen consoles.

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

An honest answer would be that it depends on the style of game and how it uses the motion control or the Wii.

I will put it this way if I had a choice between Metroid 3 on the Wii or 360 I would pick the Wii hands down. The way it captured the motion control is amazing and it is a great game.

With that said I was a little disappointed with some of the sports games, but if Pro Evolution Soccer is anything like the previews suggest it will have set the benchmark for other sports games to reach.

I could see Civ:Rev for the Wii have some great aspects that the 360 could do.

If you are a serious gamer (i am not being sarcastic - am giving you the benefit of the doubt), I have one honest question for you,

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

As Morpheus has already pointed out it depends on the game. For party games like Wii sport Wii is the winner. As for shooters while Metroid is nice for a change I still prefer a mouse on PC or relaxing on my couch without having to aim my controler at a bar on my TV. I really enjoyed CoD4 on my PS3 (normally I play FPS on PC) with DD5.1 surround sound even with the ps3 controller.

Now for Revolution Ps3/360 to me is the clear winner:
1) higher resolution mean you get a wider and better view as well as more information on the screen at once. (don't know if this game has split screen yet HDTV split screen has the resolution of at least 2 SD TV)
2) I found wi-fi isn't that good for online gaming so another plus for PS3/360.
3) The wii controller can act as a mouse substitute which some would see as a plus. But do I really want to keep aiming at that bar above my TV for a 3 to 5 hours for a TBS game?
4) Ps3/360 graphics will probably look better.

The only reason I can see anyone wanting this game on the Wii is that the only system they have. Of course in that case ,this reason alone beats all the others as I doubt Revolution itself will be a system seller.

If you are a serious gamer (i am not being sarcastic - am giving you the benefit of the doubt), I have one honest question for you,

A game comes out that you like for both the Wii and 360, which one do you buy it for?

Regarding the games per console sales, you think this will change, even as more titles come out for Wii? What are your honest opinions. We know what has happened, but lets talk what you think will happen.

It depends. If I think it will benefit from the motion controls, I'll give it a go on the Wii(assuming it is given a good production job). An example are Star Wars games...I'll gladly get them on the Wii instead if LucasArts makes it well, because using the Wiimote as a lightsaber is every sci-fi geek's dream! Madden? definitely the Wii. Major League Baseball 2k8? if they did a good job on the Wii version, then Wii it is. CivRev? If it were coming out on both, I'd really want to get it for the Wii, but I don't know for sure I would because it sounds like only the 360 version will have GotW.

First of all, seeing how you can read and recall so well, I never said picking the WII over the 360/PS3 was stupid. I've maintained, and this is my third time for those that cannot READ properly is that based upon this poll, I lashed out at those who wanted to play CivR on the WII over the 360/PS3. I've always maintained the WII has its place (I have one).

This is the last time I will restate what I've being saying, so you should calm down and actually read first before you spew.

I remember what you said, and I was rebutting your point that the Wii is not for serious gamers, and that it was not worth getting CivRev for it.

Cmon, how old are you. IF you want to go tit for tat, my gaming has gone way before yours, to include my first machine, C64, then to the amiga before getting my PC, and my parents at the time were kind enough to get us the atari, and colecovision.

You bring up the control scheme. Yes, its very impressive, but it really is limited. When you play a lot of those games you mention, do you really use it, do you a throwing motion when you throw a touchdown in madden? No, you have to use it as a regular controller, and which of the 3 controllers would you rather use.

Ah, I had an atari once....gave it away to get an NES instead...never had a C64 or Amiga though.

actually, the first time I've enjoyed a football game since Tecmo Super Bowl 3 in 1993 was when I played Madden on the Wii. I love the motion controls on it.

If your a serious PC gamer, do you buy a computer with an integrated graphics chip with shared memory or do you buy one with a Radeon, or etc.? Now this is a similar idea. Fine, you can be like me and buy a Wii for your wife, and/or to have a decent game of bowling or tennis, but when you want to play for hours on end, what do you go with?

Obviously, I'd get a NVidia card(Radeon is nowhere near as good yet costs more), but that's actually a quite different idea. For PCs, you can't play a game at all if you don't have a good enough graphics card. A console can play any game made for it...the argument is whether better graphics= better game. And that answer to that is not always. Many of the best games ever have not had great graphics, and are still great even today(Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, WoW, Civilization, and many more).

I actually bought the Wii for myself, as I did for my 360. My wife plays a few Wii games(Wii Sports and Rayman mainly), along with a few 360 games, but does most of her gaming on the PC. As for what system I go to if I want to game for a few hours? For me it depends on what game I want to play. I've spent hours playing Legend of Zelda...I've spent hours playing Mario Galaxy, and I'm going to spend hours playing Smash Brothers, starting Saturday night.

It depends. If I think it will benefit from the motion controls, I'll give it a go on the Wii(assuming it is given a good production job). An example are Star Wars games...I'll gladly get them on the Wii instead if LucasArts makes it well, because using the Wiimote as a lightsaber is every sci-fi geek's dream! Madden? definitely the Wii. Major League Baseball 2k8? if they did a good job on the Wii version, then Wii it is. CivRev? If it were coming out on both, I'd really want to get it for the Wii, but I don't know for sure I would because it sounds like only the 360 version will have GotW.
.

Ah ha. My first thoughts when the Wii came out was that the motion control was going to be more utilized. However, I will conceded that for the first generation for Nintendo for their control system is very good. And I will probably feel different when the next generation comes out with Wii2.



I remember what you said, and I was rebutting your point that the Wii is not for serious gamers, and that it was not worth getting CivRev for it.

.

I didn't say it wasn't worth getting CivR for it. I stated that if you already have a Wii and nothing else, then the answer is obvious. But, all things being equal, that I did lash out at those picking Wii.

For PCs, you can't play a game at all if you don't have a good enough graphics card. A console can play any game made for it...the argument is whether better graphics= better game. .

With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.


http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

If the controls are utilised properly, I always buy the Wii version over the 360 or PS3.

With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.

I hate to sounds like an ass, but it isn't always about the game maximizing the capabilities of the console. The reason why I don't like the PS3 or the 360 is b/c they require an HDTV in order to get better graphics than any other console on the market. A very close friend of mine purchased the 360 when it first game out and was extremely disappointed when he hooked it up to his older TV and the graphics looked worse than his original Xbox. However the Wii looks very good on a standard TV and looks even better on an HDTV.

I think it is like having a top of the line graphics card in your computer, but an old analog CRT monitor. The consoles are pushing the envelope faster than the TV market can handle. And, IMHO, it is hurting the sales of 360s and PS3s.

A very close friend of mine purchased the 360 when it first game out and was extremely disappointed when he hooked it up to his older TV and the graphics looked worse than his original Xbox. However the Wii looks very good on a standard TV and looks even better on an HDTV.

This sound like you getting a little carried away here. Downscaling works better in gaming than upscaling (except when it comes to text) unless you love those jagged edges. HDTV fixed pixels as well as it's sharpness in some ways makes a 480p image look worst than on a SD TV. A smaller HDTV does help makes flaws less noticeable though. A
So while Wii looks ok running on a 42" HDTV I can tell the image is upscaled especially with it comes to jagged edges as they are a lot more noticeable than on a SD TV.
There is nothing to keep any 480p image from looking dated especially to a PC gamer.

I've only seen both (Wii & 360) on an HDTV, and both look good. I know of a person that does use his 360 on a 480P TV, but I've never seen it. Then again, HDTVs have come down in price a lot.

This sound like you getting a little carried away here. Downscaling works better in gaming than upscaling (except when it comes to text) unless you love those jagged edges. HDTV fixed pixels as well as it's sharpness in some ways makes a 480p image look worst than on a SD TV. A smaller HDTV does help makes flaws less noticeable though. A
So while Wii looks ok running on a 42" HDTV I can tell the image is upscaled especially with it comes to jagged edges as they are a lot more noticeable than on a SD TV.
There is nothing to keep any 480p image from looking dated especially to a PC gamer.

actually, if you look at any of the reviews for pretty much every single 360 launch game, they repeatedly said that the games that were available on both the XBox and 360 looked better on the XBox if it was an SD TV.


With a console, game development is physically limited to its hardware capabilities, which if you look at the specs comparison, it is really no comparison. But the big question is if game developers can make full use of a consoles' capabilities.


http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

I don't believe for a second that the hardware capabilities of a console define how good a game will be. By that logic, Chrono Trigger is innately a worse game than any 360/PS3 game(even crap like Monster Madness or Bomberman: Act Zero) just because the hardware capabilities of the SNES are so much lower than that of a 360.

The hardware capabilities of a console define the limits for a game, and it is then up to the games themselves to stretch or reach for those limits. Hitting those limits doesn't mean the game will be great though. Lair got close to the PS3s current graphics 'limit', but it was a piece of junk...because it wasn't fun. Fun is the defining aspect of any game...and while graphics can definitely help(or hurt), they are only one aspect of whether a game is good or not.

As for the person that made that list...I have trouble believing that the numbers he came up with for the Wii's RAM and CPU speed are accurate because Nintendo has never mentioned anywhere what it is, because I have issues believing that the amount of RAM he claims the Wii has could even generate 2D graphics, much less 3D, and because he erroneously claims the PS3 will support 7 controllers, when it has been known for 2 years that it will only support 4.

Such an obvious oversight casts doubt(IMO) on any figures he comes up with that have not been publicly announced.

...
As for the person that made that list...I have trouble believing that the numbers he came up with for the Wii's RAM and CPU speed are accurate because Nintendo has never mentioned anywhere what it is, because I have issues believing that the amount of RAM he claims the Wii has could even generate 2D graphics, much less 3D, and because he erroneously claims the PS3 will support 7 controllers, when it has been known for 2 years that it will only support 4.

Such an obvious oversight casts doubt(IMO) on any figures he comes up with that have not been publicly announced.
I've read the ram is known because in stamped on the chip set so that seems solid. Some of the other specs is questionable yet they probably nothing to brag about which is why Nintendo is so quiet over them. For Nintendo to give out the wii's specs would only help advertise for the PS3/360. It really doesn't matter as we already starting to see huge leaps with PS3/360 in graphics and sound quality over the wii. This will only increase with time. Still the wii does have a little more ram than the X-box (64 ram total) which clearly could do games in 3-D.

Also you are the first I've seen to claim PS3 doesn't support 7 controllers. While I doubt many have 7 controllers anyways I have seen a few games that claim to support up to 7 controllers. I do know for a fact I can set my controller number from 1 up to 7 so I don't see why PS3 can't support 7.

hm, I'm surprised by that because Sony originally claimed it would support 7, then backed off of that statement publicly, at the same time that they announced it would only have 1 HDMI port, not 2.

I would have thought they'd announce it was 7 again if they had decided to go with 7 controllers...oh well, Sony is not known for smooth PR the last couple years:rolleyes:

edit: I think I'll retract my previous statement of doubt too, I was at Barnes&Noble last night and found a book that was written entirely about the Wii and it had the same info exactly for the CPU speed and RAM...

I'm surprised such a low amount of RAM can produce 3D graphics so smoothly...I'm also surprised it can run the same engine that powered Halo, Civ4, Final Fantasy XIII, and I've heared Unreal Engine 3 may be getting customized for the Wii as well.

I don't believe for a second that the hardware capabilities of a console define how good a game will be. .

Hey, I don't disagree. I agree that its 'the limit' as you stated. I believe though that 360/PS3 games will get better as developers have more time. Remember, most of us complained when we first got our xbox 360s that the graphics were hardly 'next generation' which is what they were advertising. The games coming out are getting much better in general.

But regardless, its already well known that PS3 has the most advanced hardware, followed by the 360, and then the Wii a distant third. I heard something like deveopers would not be able to make full use of the P3s capabailities for a long time.

Actually, Sony said that developers would never be able to make full use of the PS3.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061219-8455.html

wow.......that's harsh........and I bit cocky:mischief:

The Computer! :D

hehehehe.......but at what the graphics look like now.....my computer won't be able to handle it.....:badcomp:

hehehehe.......but at what the graphics look like now.....my computer won't be able to handle it.....:badcomp:
Wait a couple of years. It seems that Console games and Governments tend to get the best hardware :p.

yeah.....that's true.....

Rev for the computer would be fun, but on the DS would be awesome. CivRev will be the 2nd DS game I'll own! Next to, of course...


POKEMON!!!

360 mostly because of the xbox live features and the free Gamerpoints from pwning Noobs on there :D

I'm really undecided--whatever I pick means a new investment. Originally I thought the DS might be the go for use in my taxi, but the Playstation 3 with Blu-Ray is getting very attractive (no use in a cab 'tho).

I haven't been too inspired by the DS screenshots so far. However, I suspect the actual gameplay is much better.

So far the biggest hook--besides the great previews from DanQ and Padma--has been the line that this is the game Sid Meier always wanted to make. To quote Starcraft's Jim Raynor, "Sounds like fun."

I'm really undecided--whatever I pick means a new investment. Originally I thought the DS might be the go for use in my taxi, but the Playstation 3 with Blu-Ray is getting very attractive (no use in a cab 'tho).

I haven't been too inspired by the DS screenshots so far. However, I suspect the actual gameplay is much better.

Think about it Dude: Nintendo DS = Civ Rev EVERYWHERE!
Plus, the DS version will prolly cost like $30 instead of the $60 for the PS3/360.
Still, you should probably buy both a DS AND PS3. It's the only way to be sure!

wow.......that's harsh........and I bit cocky:mischief:

lol have you seen anything Sony has said for the last 2 years? They say nothing that []isn't[/i] cocky!

Think about it Dude: Nintendo DS = Civ Rev EVERYWHERE!
Plus, the DS version will prolly cost like $30 instead of the $60 for the PS3/360.
Still, you should probably buy both a DS AND PS3. It's the only way to be sure!

or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3.

Thanks XL--the truth is I'm a PS3 wannabee on a DS budget.

lol have you seen anything Sony has said for the last 2 years? They say nothing that []isn't[/i] cocky!



or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3. You mean Microsoft is working on blu-ray for Windows. http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206903001

"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company is working on Windows device driver support for Sony's Blu-ray high definition movie format. "

It's still up in the air if there will be a blu-ray player for the 360 as noted:
" Ballmer, however, made clear at Mix '08 that over the long term Microsoft sees the Internet, and not discs, as the primary vehicle for HD content access."

well I'm definitely in a quandry now. I can get it for the XBox360, but will probably have to fight my son for time, or I can just get it for the DS, which has the added advantage of being portable

TB: I have a similar quandry--do I really want my addiction available everywhere I go via the DS? Also, I play Civ3 and IV on a very large screen and get a kick out of planning my next session mentally whilst away from my study (Not much studying done!), so will I cope with those two tiny DS screens? Another factor is I might be able to get my wife to play multiplayer with another DS ... maybe that's slightly beyond reality.

or get a DS and a 360...since Microsoft is working on a blu-ray player for the 360, and I'd bet that they will be smart enough to make sure that a 360/Blu Ray player will be cheaper than a PS3.

I just read that MS will NOT be putting BluRay into the XBox 360, so PS3 is the way to go!

well certainly not into it, but I can't see any reason why they wouldn't work on an external drive like they had for HD DVD...they will lose market share against the PS3 which they really shouldn't lose(since the 360 is by far the better gaming machine right now) if they don't add an external player to it...and then they don't have to pay royalties to Sony for games, just for movies.

pfft, 360 just has more games right now. That doesnt make it a better gaming machine :P

when all the games that have come out on both systems have all been reviewed as being better for the 360, then it does :)

well, expect a change in that when more developers start creating games on ps3 and then port to 360...

Only reason they started creating for 360 before was because ps3 was not even released when they started with their games.

I just bought a DS last week and researved a copy of Civ Rev. It was the deciding factor between the DS and PSP. Now I can play Civ on the go :goodjob:

well, expect a change in that when more developers start creating games on ps3 and then port to 360...

Only reason they started creating for 360 before was because ps3 was not even released when they started with their games.

if you say so....most people continue to develop for the 360 then port to the PS3 because the 360 is easier and cheaper to develop on...I don't get why Sony refuses to improve the quality of their SDK/API...this time I've heard its even worse than the PS2's was.

http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html


I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

even if 360 adds a bluray they can not start making games on blu ray discs. Since then everyone would have to get a new 360. And thats where ps3 is going to get stronger then xbox 360. And if they add a external player I would not get it because it's ugly. Why not get a real blu ray player instead.

ps3 can stream content from a pc and at better support then xbox 360. Since xbox cant even play divx movies.

Later this year ps3 will start with downloadable hd movies. And additional content had been possible since day one.

ps3 is the gaming machine of the following 6-8 years :P

ps3 is the gaming machine of the following 6-8 years :P

In 6-8 years MS will no doubt have the next gen XBox on the market.

even if 360 adds a bluray they can not start making games on blu ray discs. Since then everyone would have to get a new 360. And thats where ps3 is going to get stronger then xbox 360. And if they add a external player I would not get it because it's ugly. Why not get a real blu ray player instead.

ps3 can stream content from a pc and at better support then xbox 360. Since xbox cant even play divx movies.

Later this year ps3 will start with downloadable hd movies. And additional content had been possible since day one.

ps3 is the gaming machine of the following 6-8 years :P

I still don't see how blu-ray discs automatically make the ps3 stronger than the 360...1 blu-ray discs costs more than 20 DVDs, thus it is still cheaper to just make a multidisc game, if you really need that much space.

As for getting a real blu-ray player as opposed to a Blu-Ray add-on...a blu-ray player is over $400, while an add-on will be less than $200...I'll take ugliness over $200 more bucks any day.

The 360 had an update that allows divx movies, and I highly doubt the PS3 has better networking with windows than the 360 does :lol:

even if it does, it has worse networking with other PS3s than the 360 has with other 360s. There's not a single game for the PS3 that I would want to buy if it was also available for the 360, simply because of the better quality networking, multiplayer, and online store.

Sony's been claiming they'll have downloadable movies for a couple years now, I doubt any release dates they mention until it actually goes online...as for 6-8 years from now...there'll be a new Wii and a new 360 by then, so I doubt Sony has the edge then.

yeah, Sony has been bragging for the past few years and so far, they're SUPER far behind in sales and the PS3 is too expensive

I still don't see how blu-ray discs automatically make the ps3 stronger than the 360...1 blu-ray discs costs more than 20 DVDs, thus it is still cheaper to just make a multidisc game, if you really need that much space.

As for getting a real blu-ray player as opposed to a Blu-Ray add-on...a blu-ray player is over $400, while an add-on will be less than $200...I'll take ugliness over $200 more bucks any day.

The 360 had an update that allows divx movies, and I highly doubt the PS3 has better networking with windows than the 360 does :lol:

even if it does, it has worse networking with other PS3s than the 360 has with other 360s. There's not a single game for the PS3 that I would want to buy if it was also available for the 360, simply because of the better quality networking, multiplayer, and online store.

Sony's been claiming they'll have downloadable movies for a couple years now, I doubt any release dates they mention until it actually goes online...as for 6-8 years from now...there'll be a new Wii and a new 360 by then, so I doubt Sony has the edge then.

I bet Im a bit lazy to switch discs ;) Blu ray is making it easier for developers to output full hd. If you are going to say that xbox 360 is having 1080p on all their games I answer with most games really does upscale from 720p to 1080p. Look at halo3 for example, halo3 runs at 640p(not even real high definition) but is listing 1080p.

The quality of games are kinda the same. some framerate issues because the developers has been lazy with porting. But that is getting better now. I dont think there will be much different now.

I dont really care about networking with windows, I dont use my ps3 to write documents and I can already play most movies and music from the network. All games I played online had no problem with lag or anything. Which xbox doesnt have either from what I have seen.

But anyway, for civilization it does not matter if you have xbox or ps3. It will be the exactly same game.


yeah, Sony has been bragging for the past few years and so far, they're SUPER far behind in sales and the PS3 is too expensive

You are blind, in usa ps3 is not as popular, but 2007 ps3 sold more then xbox 360 did worldwide.

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/02/rothbarts-rant-80-microsoft-screwed-up.html

"Let’s talk about numbers, shall we? Not just any numbers mind you, but sales numbers. Sales numbers that show Microsoft sold 7.73m Xbox 360’s in calendar 2007. While Sony sold 8.83m PS3s during that same period. The sources of these numbers are Microsoft and Sony"

Still xbox had a year longer to sell, so ps3 does have less consoles on the market.

Bantams;6635280']http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html


I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

I'm going to counter your rumor with a statement straight from M$:
Blu-ray for Xbox? No chance, says Microsoft (http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Blu-ray_for_Xbox_No_chance_says_Microsoft/551-87922-585.html)

Bantams;6635280']http://uk.gizmodo.com/2007/05/15/xbox_360_to_get_bluray_drive.html


I am 100% sure the 360 will have a add on blu ray player by Christmas 2008 if not before then

does the Ps3 allow for downloading Additional content and HD movies and is the ps3 capable of streaming content from a Pc?

360 wins i rest my case :p

Actually you can stream from a PC to a PS3 using the right software :)

This is a very useful thread for those, like me, who are 'in-console-able/console-less' at this time. The long lead-in to CivRev's launch is giving me ample time to decide whether to get a PS3, XBox 360 or NDS. Very difficult 'tho. CivRev looks good for a large-screen display, but then there's the portable aspect and the giant user-base of the DS. I think that it will eventually come down to longevity and whether the chosen console easily downloads new content for single-player as wells as supporting people playing in the same room.

You are blind, in usa ps3 is not as popular, but 2007 ps3 sold more then xbox 360 did worldwide.

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/02/rothbarts-rant-80-microsoft-screwed-up.html

"Let’s talk about numbers, shall we? Not just any numbers mind you, but sales numbers. Sales numbers that show Microsoft sold 7.73m Xbox 360’s in calendar 2007. While Sony sold 8.83m PS3s during that same period. The sources of these numbers are Microsoft and Sony"

Still xbox had a year longer to sell, so ps3 does have less consoles on the market.

um...I don't think anything someone says in a 'MS is screwed up' rant is going to be accurate.

How about we try these numbers:
MS sold 8 million 360s before the Wii and PS3 launched.

The current numbers for each system are as follows:
Wii: 20.7 million
X360: 17.8 million
PS3: 8.8 million

those are worldwide numbers, and provided by this site (http://nexgenwars.com/). Since Sony always states their 'shipped' numbers as 'sold' numbers, I believe that my numbers are more accurate for actual sales. Because of this, I'd say it looks like Sony sold 7 million systems in 2007, while MS sold 9.8 million since Sony's launch(which would give them roughly 8 million in 2007, which is very close to what your person said, he's just comparing the wrong numbers) So in 2007, both systems were fairly close, but handily destroyed by the Wii(in fact, it looks like the Wii sold as much as both of them combined in 2007)

But in the end, it is not the number of systems sold that will determine a winner(per se, that is) but the amount of money the companies make in this generation. At this point, I'd almost say Nintendo is the winner by default, as it is the only company to make a overall profit this generation...MS has made one the last 6 months, but hasn't caught up to its loss from the first 18 months. Sony has made a small profit once, and then only because they sold their credit card division for 3 billion bucks.

I think Sony will start to make money soon(on games, they are still hemorraging money from their console itself), but MS already is making money...I'm not sure either one will catch Nintendo though...they've already make multibillions of dollars, and it looks to still be increasing in speed.

I'm a total 360 freak.....IMHO the system is better, the online experience is solid and it's all American baby! However, there is NOWAY that CIV will be as good on the 360 OR PS3 than it is on the PC.......actually I'm excited about this because it's coming to the Nintendo DS (Yes I own a DS.....but, hey Microsoft has not developed a handheald yet).

CIV on the go.......CIV at work.......CIV on vacation.......CIV at my mother-in-laws house! Even if it is a scaled down version....NO PROBLEM I'LL TAKE IT! :goodjob:

I'm a total 360 freak.....IMHO the system is better, the online experience is solid and it's all American baby! However, there is NOWAY that CIV will be as good on the 360 OR PS3 than it is on the PC.......actually I'm excited about this because it's coming to the Nintendo DS (Yes I own a DS.....but, hey Microsoft has not developed a handheald yet).

CIV on the go.......CIV at work.......CIV on vacation.......CIV at my mother-in-laws house! Even if it is a scaled down version....NO PROBLEM I'LL TAKE IT! :goodjob:

Maybe they'll make Civ Rev for the ZUNE! :lol:

CivR will be good on all three systems. This is one game that will look great on whatever platform you own.




P.S. PS3 roxxors

My gaming clan might support this title. If we do, A centurian will be assigned the task of organizing a battleteam. If anyone is interested in playing this title competitively on the 360, follow the link below and check us out.

www.tooclan.com

TOO stands for "The Obsidian Order" - (A special part of Ancient Rome's famous Pratorian Guard) We have been around for approximately 3 years, have about 80 members:hammers::hammers:......and 26 Citizens:gold::gold:

I prefer the playstation 3 over the xbox, for 3 main reasons:

1) Sony have provided quality console entertainment for longer.
2) The PS3 has so much more graphical potential than any other system.
3) The Xbox360 is as ugly as sin.

I prefer the playstation 3 over the xbox, for 3 main reasons:

1) Sony have provided quality console entertainment for longer.
2) The PS3 has so much more graphical potential than any other system.
3) The Xbox360 is as ugly as sin.

1) I don't consider the PS2 to be a 'quality' system, when nearly 1/4 of all systems lasted less than 3 years before dying
2) The PS3 has 7 cpu's and a great gpu...the 360 has 3 cpu's and a great gpu...the biggest difference though is the bandwidth available in both for the cpu and gpu to talk...the PS3 has 800MHz. That's not enough enough for run of the mill P4 desktop computers to talk to the gpu. The 360 wins because of its higher bandwidth allowing the cpu and gpu to work closer to their potential(instead of waiting around forever for the bandwidth to transmit their information to each other like the PS3)

3) since when did looks matter? the PS2 and PS1 were pretty ugly too. Since the only two pretty consoles ever are the Wii and PS3, I'd say that #3 doesn't matter at all

I prefer the playstation 3 over the xbox, for 3 main reasons:

1) Sony have provided quality console entertainment for longer.
2) The PS3 has so much more graphical potential than any other system.
3) The Xbox360 is as ugly as sin.

I preferred ps3 over xbox due to all the japanese rpgs. Sadly today's consoles mostly bring FPSes as titles which imo are meant for mouse and keyboard really. Now the PS3 has functionallity for this and we can see it in UT3 which I own. However it seems the PS3 is giving a very limited share of the bus for reading mouse values as the mouse is lagging in UT3 and I really doubt they would let that pass if you could have a smooth mouse movement.

As of now there are actually more RPGs for the XBOX even though they are more western styled rpgs. Still if you look back at the PS1 and 2 there were so many great RPGs coming out exclusively for the PS systems. At least I get to play those with the backwards compatibility :P

I think the PS3 will bring more games that I like in the end anyway, many of the xbox exclusives (meaning not on PS3 or Wii) end up on PC and I've got a PC. But your three reasons on why the PS3 should be preferred are nothing that really matters for someone who should choose between the two consoles. But what does it matter? CivRev is coming on both now and they have said it will practically be the same game (except for video chat which isnt in PS3 due to GameSpy exclusive technology)

1) I don't consider the PS2 to be a 'quality' system, when nearly 1/4 of all systems lasted less than 3 years before dying
2) The PS3 has 7 cpu's and a great gpu...the 360 has 3 cpu's and a great gpu...the biggest difference though is the bandwidth available in both for the cpu and gpu to talk...the PS3 has 800MHz. That's not enough enough for run of the mill P4 desktop computers to talk to the gpu. The 360 wins because of its higher bandwidth allowing the cpu and gpu to work closer to their potential(instead of waiting around forever for the bandwidth to transmit their information to each other like the PS3)

3) since when did looks matter? the PS2 and PS1 were pretty ugly too. Since the only two pretty consoles ever are the Wii and PS3, I'd say that #3 doesn't matter at all

1) I didn't say ps2 was perfect, i said that sony has provided consoles taht worked and had good game for much longer than microsoft, stick with the devil you know.

2) What was that gibberish, the PS3 can produce much better quality of games graphically, this is a fact.

3) The look of the console is very important, would you buy a console that took up half you living room, and had dangerous spikes on it that could kill your children (extreme but you wouldn't purchase it)

I preferred ps3 over xbox due to all the japanese rpgs. Sadly today's consoles mostly bring FPSes as titles which imo are meant for mouse and keyboard really. Now the PS3 has functionallity for this and we can see it in UT3 which I own. However it seems the PS3 is giving a very limited share of the bus for reading mouse values as the mouse is lagging in UT3 and I really doubt they would let that pass if you could have a smooth mouse movement.

As of now there are actually more RPGs for the XBOX even though they are more western styled rpgs. Still if you look back at the PS1 and 2 there were so many great RPGs coming out exclusively for the PS systems. At least I get to play those with the backwards compatibility :P

I think the PS3 will bring more games that I like in the end anyway, many of the xbox exclusives (meaning not on PS3 or Wii) end up on PC and I've got a PC. But your three reasons on why the PS3 should be preferred are nothing that really matters for someone who should choose between the two consoles. But what does it matter? CivRev is coming on both now and they have said it will practically be the same game (except for video chat which isnt in PS3 due to GameSpy exclusive technology)

My three reasons were for why i would buy a PS3, they weren't meant for you or anyone else.

Why The 360 is best for me?

- I'm a working guy with a family....I almost always log onto these forums while at work. I've got maybe 2 hours a day afterwork before the wife and kids get home.....So ASAP I want to immediatly start shooting things and blowing stuff up. For me It's all about First person shooters. I'm talkin, Halo, COD2,3,&4, Frontlines, Battlefront, Gears of War, Battlefield, Bioshock, and so on. Microsoft has the drop on that game type. I'm just not the type to come home and load up some kinda fairy-dust japanation Final Fantasy GAY Micky Mouse hupla:nono:. I want a man's game on an American system....and the 360 delivers all the testosterone flavored goodness I can handle.

Why The 360 is best for me?

- I'm a working guy with a family....I almost always log onto these forums while at work. I've got maybe 2 hours a day afterwork before the wife and kids get home.....So ASAP I want to immediatly start shooting things and blowing stuff up. For me It's all about First person shooters. I'm talkin, Halo, COD2,3,&4, Frontlines, Battlefront, Gears of War, Battlefield, Bioshock, and so on. Microsoft has the drop on that game type. I'm just not the type to come home and load up some kinda fairy-dust japanation Final Fantasy GAY Micky Mouse hupla:nono:. I want a man's game on an American system....and the 360 delivers all the testosterone flavored goodness I can handle.

Then why are you on the Civ forums, i'm sure civ would come under the more of an intellectual gamer's choice, as does rpg games. Where as first person shooters are mindless violence releasing games.

Personally i enjoy a bit of both, sometimes i play games that make me think and/or have a nice story to them. (that gay mickey mouse hupula) and sometimes i jsut like to go nuts and let my trigger finger blast away everything in sight.

Why The 360 is best for me?

- I'm a working guy with a family....I almost always log onto these forums while at work. I've got maybe 2 hours a day afterwork before the wife and kids get home.....So ASAP I want to immediatly start shooting things and blowing stuff up. For me It's all about First person shooters. I'm talkin, Halo, COD2,3,&4, Frontlines, Battlefront, Gears of War, Battlefield, Bioshock, and so on. Microsoft has the drop on that game type. I'm just not the type to come home and load up some kinda fairy-dust japanation Final Fantasy GAY Micky Mouse hupla:nono:. I want a man's game on an American system....and the 360 delivers all the testosterone flavored goodness I can handle.

The PS3 doesn't have one single title released in the western world with what you are using your pink text for. As for FPSes, the PS3 has about the same amount of them. You would be surprised.

2) What was that gibberish, the PS3 can produce much better quality of games graphically, this is a fact.


um...no it isn't. Seriously, if you look at any gaming site other than Playstation Magazine or Sony's website, you'll see screenshots and reviews that state explicitly, over and over again, that games that have come out on both systems look better and play better on the 360.

The PS3 has a more powerful GPU and more CPUs than the 360...THAT is a fact. The 360 has more bus speed and bandwidth, allowing its GPU and CPU to talk faster, thus improving performance to equal or better than the PS3..THAT is a fact.

Just because you dont' understand the workings of computer systems, doesn't mean it is gibberish you can discard in favor of your preferred 'facts'

Why The 360 is best for me?

- I'm a working guy with a family....I almost always log onto these forums while at work. I've got maybe 2 hours a day afterwork before the wife and kids get home.....So ASAP I want to immediatly start shooting things and blowing stuff up. For me It's all about First person shooters. I'm talkin, Halo, COD2,3,&4, Frontlines, Battlefront, Gears of War, Battlefield, Bioshock, and so on. Microsoft has the drop on that game type. I'm just not the type to come home and load up some kinda fairy-dust japanation Final Fantasy GAY Micky Mouse hupla:nono:. I want a man's game on an American system....and the 360 delivers all the testosterone flavored goodness I can handle.

and...that is the reason why the Xbox had such a sorry lack of RPGs. Sure, FPS games are great...and if you want a lot of FPS games, the 360 is where its at...especially for multiplayer. However...I don't think I've ever heard of Final Fantasy being compared to Mickey Mouse(since when did Mickey Mouse visit a slumlord/pimp to try to gain access to the entrance for a world-killing energy-sucking megacorp?)

Sure, there's Kingdom Hearts...but that's an entirely different type of game for an entirely different audience....if you want a 'man's game', then try Mass Effect, Oblivion, Lost Odyssey, Eternal Sonata(it is more animated, but the entire game is about death). None of those could be considered gay mickey mouse type games....and they can also provide plenty of adrenaline.

I like FPS games, but my bread and butter games are strategy games and RPGs...games with story and substance will win the battle for my play time hands down....no matter what genre they are.

The PS3 doesn't have one single title released in the western world with what you are using your pink text for. As for FPSes, the PS3 has about the same amount of them. You would be surprised.

in the Western World, I believe the 360 has nearly as many shooters as the PS3 has total games...The PS3 does have more shooters than the PS2 did, but that isn't helping it when the 360 has more RPGs than the PS3 does.

For the PS3 to succeed, it will need to somehow keep Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity. I'd say that despite continuing to deny it is multiplatform, that Square Enix is seriously toying with the idea of putting it on the 360 also. Why else would they have already optimized FFXIII's graphics engine for the 360? That's the most expensive part of porting a game.

in the Western World, I believe the 360 has nearly as many shooters as the PS3 has total games...The PS3 does have more shooters than the PS2 did, but that isn't helping it when the 360 has more RPGs than the PS3 does.

For the PS3 to succeed, it will need to somehow keep Final Fantasy XIII exclusivity. I'd say that despite continuing to deny it is multiplatform, that Square Enix is seriously toying with the idea of putting it on the 360 also. Why else would they have already optimized FFXIII's graphics engine for the 360? That's the most expensive part of porting a game.

There are more than enough great FPSes for the PS3. There is no need for more seriously. And Square Enix has already warned Sony that they need to change their marketing if they would stay at Sony. And they did, with a new manager and PS3 sales are going really well :) I think they are happy. Their sales with FF after GTA is released will be enormous.

well......this argument pollutes every gaming site in the whole world.....

but if you look at the numbers: when your console is selling ON AVERAGE only 5,000 more a month than the old GBA, you gotta know it's not doing well

well......this argument pollutes every gaming site in the whole world.....

but if you look at the numbers: when your console is selling ON AVERAGE only 5,000 more a month than the old GBA, you gotta know it's not doing well

And what does numbers matter to us people who are satisfied?

Then why are you on the Civ forums, i'm sure civ would come under the more of an intellectual gamer's choice, as does rpg games. Where as first person shooters are mindless violence releasing games.

Personally i enjoy a bit of both, sometimes i play games that make me think and/or have a nice story to them. (that gay mickey mouse hupula) and sometimes i jsut like to go nuts and let my trigger finger blast away everything in sight.


As you can tell, I've been on the CIV forums for quite a while. Don't get me wrong I LOVE CIV. As a matter of fact if I could only have one game to play it would be CIV. I'm just saying that after a hard day at the office, dealing with one arse after another, it's nice to come home and destroy other gamers on XBOX LIVE....which brings me to another point.

If it were not for LIVE Play I probably would not bother with consols. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back. Microsoft got the drop on Sony as far as LIVE play goes and IMHO, XBOX LIVE continues to outclass Sony in that area.

First Person Shooters + XBOX LIVE = :goodjob:

As you can tell, I've been on the CIV forums for quite a while. Don't get me wrong I LOVE CIV. As a matter of fact if I could only have one game to play it would be CIV. I'm just saying that after a hard day at the office, dealing with one arse after another, it's nice to come home and destroy other gamers on XBOX LIVE....which brings me to another point.

If it were not for LIVE Play I probably would not bother with consols. It's the only thing that keeps me coming back. Microsoft got the drop on Sony as far as LIVE play goes and IMHO, XBOX LIVE continues to outclass Sony in that area.

First Person Shooters + XBOX LIVE = :goodjob:

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments.

And what does numbers matter to us people who are satisfied?

Nothing since you seem be diehard, but I just wanted to rub in....:p

In a pi$$ing war, everybody gets wet, which I'm sure most will agree is undesirable. XBox 360 has some very cool games, as does the PS3 and the Wii. All 3 consoles have some cool games, but very few of them are exclusives. If I had the time & money, I'd buy all of them.

There are a couple of determining factors that tilt in the favor of the PS3 for me. One is BluRay. The second is the controllers. We have an XBox at home and I detest the controller. I like the controller on the PS2 much better. Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

All that being said, if a person likes one console over the other, there's no need to insult them just because they like something different than you do. It doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't change anybody's mind.

Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

You might want to check on that. Not all PS3s have the backward compatibility hardware. It depends what country you are in and the model you buy. Some have no backward compatibility (the 40 GB models), others have software emulation (most the current crop - this is a mixed bag a lot of games work others don't), and the early models had the full PS2 chipset for full compatibility (AFAIK, the current models do not).

Go to http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/CompatibleStatus if you want to know about a specific title.

In a pi$$ing war, everybody gets wet, which I'm sure most will agree is undesirable. XBox 360 has some very cool games, as does the PS3 and the Wii. All 3 consoles have some cool games, but very few of them are exclusives. If I had the time & money, I'd buy all of them.

There are a couple of determining factors that tilt in the favor of the PS3 for me. One is BluRay. The second is the controllers. We have an XBox at home and I detest the controller. I like the controller on the PS2 much better. Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.

All that being said, if a person likes one console over the other, there's no need to insult them just because they like something different than you do. It doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't change anybody's mind.

Yes as warpstorm says, they have dropped the ps1 and ps2 support on the newer version. Imo its a bad move but I got hold of one of the earlier models, the 60 gb version so I still have that support. They do not make these anymore though. One problem with the 60 gb is that it sounds more than the new ones and consumes a bit more power since there is a smaller chip in the new versions.

As for playing with old controllers, the PS3 has support for usb. I don't know the specifics of what controllers work but I have a Thrustmaster with both the old PS connector and usb, and it works perfectly as another controller on the PS3.

i think he was comparing ps controllers to xbox controllers, and i agree, the playstation controller is so much easier for me to use, plus i think it looks better. And then theres siraxis motion control, that could have some interesting possibilites.

i think he was comparing ps controllers to xbox controllers, and i agree, the playstation controller is so much easier for me to use, plus i think it looks better. And then theres siraxis motion control, that could have some interesting possibilites.

My opinion is that the sixaxis function isn't very cool. The only game where it actually felt natural was Resistance where you have to shake it to get those alien bastards away from you. Otherwise it doesn't feel responsive enough. But maybe I'm spoiled after playing so much Wii.

yeah, the wii's motion-sensing is better, but there were two kinds of xbox controllers....I got the newer and better one......but if you got it in like the first two years it was out, you got this super huge controller......

Civfan333 brings up a good point, the current XBox 360 controller is a much better designed controller than the ones that came with the original XBoxes.

Since when is a PC a console? :hmm:

Since when is a PC a console? :hmm:

Since keyboard and a command line ;)

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments.

XBL Pros:

huge amounts of downloadable movies in HD
tons of demos
tons of great XBL Arcade games: new and old
lag-free multiplayer gaming with 10 million other users
the ability to avoid annoying 10-yr old kids in multiplayer
free XNA programming language for indie programming for XBL Arcade
everything is free except for XBL multiplayer
good interface
offline for less than 96 hours since its launch


XBL Cons:
Costs $4/month for XBL Gold, which lets you play online multiplayer...everything else is available for XBL Silver membership

PSN Pros:

a few demos
some downloadable music videos...
free multiplayer gaming with perhaps 1 million other users
download PS1 games
download a handful of smaller games


PSN Cons:

online gaming isn't always lag-free
very few worthwhile downloadable games compared to 360
no downloadable movies
network of users is a fraction the size of XBL
offline for over 2 weeks since its launch


Since the only thing on XBL you 'have' to pay to do is do multiplayer gaming, and since it only costs $4/month, I find it immensely more worthwhile for my gaming time than the PSN, as I'm more likely to find a good multiplayer matchup on XBL than on PSN.

In a pi$$ing war, everybody gets wet, which I'm sure most will agree is undesirable. XBox 360 has some very cool games, as does the PS3 and the Wii. All 3 consoles have some cool games, but very few of them are exclusives. If I had the time & money, I'd buy all of them.

There are a couple of determining factors that tilt in the favor of the PS3 for me. One is BluRay. The second is the controllers. We have an XBox at home and I detest the controller. I like the controller on the PS2 much better. Third is the fact that I can still play my PS2 games when I upgrade.


I would also buy all 3 if I had the money(and the PS3 had more games I wanted than just Uncharted...), but the 360 controller is not the XBox controller...it is smaller, lighter, and more responsive..it also feels much more natural for shooters than the PS3/PS2 controllers did.

i think he was comparing ps controllers to xbox controllers, and i agree, the playstation controller is so much easier for me to use, plus i think it looks better. And then theres siraxis motion control, that could have some interesting possibilites.

Sixaxis is WAY overrated. It sucks, to be honest. The only game so far to actually use it as the primary method of control was Lair...and it was a disaster. Sixaxis is in no way something you should consider a positive for the PS3 over another console....as for the xbox/Ps2/3 comparison...look to my above post also

My opinion is that the sixaxis function isn't very cool. The only game where it actually felt natural was Resistance where you have to shake it to get those alien bastards away from you. Otherwise it doesn't feel responsive enough. But maybe I'm spoiled after playing so much Wii.

agreed...Sixaxis was 'supposed' to beat the Wii for Sony...instead it is a mere gimmick that developers hate to include in their game, but Sony keeps pushing.

I keep hearing from XBOX users that Live is better than PSN but I never see any arguments. I think some of the Live hype is the fact you got to pay for it. American's have been taught you get what you pay for but I found out this isn't always true. Americans will often pay top dollar for junk.

I've seldom had that any trouble playing online with my friends with the PC nor PSN (play PC online more than PSN though). Even then it's problems with the game and nothing to do with online. When it comes to online PC still has the most advantage over any console.

I will not write a long post about why I feel like I feel but if we remove all the useless arguments that are very subjective, we are left with:

XBL Pros:
* tons of demos
* tons of great XBL Arcade games: new and old
* lag-free multiplayer gaming with 10 million other users
* free XNA programming language for indie programming for XBL Arcade

PSN Pros:

* a few demos
* free multiplayer gaming with perhaps 1 million other users
* download PS1 games
* download a handful of smaller games

Demos, more is better so I agree that the system that has more demos win here. However its not a big issue to me at least. Arcade games and the ability to make your own is a great thing which should be featured on PSN as well. About lag gameplay, I have never experienced any lag at all except for in Tekken which is a fighting game and thats when you play with people that are a long distance away. People define lag different, the usual description though is that you notice a delay in the game as your network packets are arriving with a noticable delay. Stuttering is not the only type of lag. I never see any Stuttering (except for Tekken) in PSN, the only thing that might happen is that things happen a bit after you do stuff when playing with people far away. This will of course happen on XBOX live as well if you do play with people far away. Now you live in America so I guess you have enough players to play with close to you. But all in all, there probably isnt any difference at all between the XBOX and the PS3.

The PS3 does offer some old games which is cool and good but as for old classics in xbox arcade its a minor detail.

The main thing with the online system is that you can play your games online and perhaps try new games with demos and you can do this in both.

Also the PS3 is newer so there is nothing strange with it having less demos and so on.

it's confusing on which you think is better overall.......

it's confusing on which you think is better overall.......

Haha :D I'm trying to be as open minded as possible. I'm not really interested in being able to say "This is better than this". I just haven't used Xbox Live and wanted to hear some arguments about all the hype about it and why its worth a monthly fee and now I commented on what I think :) It's strange because I don't know anyone with a 360 so I can't really try it out. I only had one who owned one but he got RROD and never went back (think they fixed it and he sold it or something). My online buddies from various online PC games have bought PS3s.

One obvious plus point that PSN does have over Live, is that as a free service, everyone is at least treated as an equal. With Live, silver account holders are actually penalized for not being prepared to shell out for their premium service.

M$ did themselves no favours at all with that one. A much wiser option, imo, would have been to offer additional rewards and bonuses to gold account holders. But hey, it is Microsoft when all's said and done!

Oh, and I am a silver account holder btw.

you know, there's not really any difference between taking away priorities and adding priorities, for different member groups, the effect's the same.

how is silver penalized?
With the original Xbox, you either paid, or you got nothing...adding silver was a great move on their part.

how is silver penalized?
With the original Xbox, you either paid, or you got nothing...adding silver was a great move on their part.

We're penalized by having to wait a week before we can download new demos, Thrallia. It's Microsoft's way of responding to the server overload problems that occured a few months ago, when the world and his wife decided to buy a 360! Consequently, (and with Live servers around the world bursting at the seams), Microsoft had to decide whether to invest in even more bandwidth, or economize on what they've got. Needless to say, they chose the latter!

http://www.unscripted360.com/2007/12/12/frontlines-demo-silver-members-wait/

Another reason to not buy a 360.

not really, the only way you could actually think that's a reason to NOT buy a 360 is if you have absolutely NO patience AT ALL......

We're penalized by having to wait a week before we can download new demos, Thrallia. It's Microsoft's way of responding to the server overload problems that occured a few months ago, when the world and his wife decided to buy a 360! Consequently, (and with Live servers around the world bursting at the seams), Microsoft had to decide whether to invest in even more bandwidth, or economize on what they've got. Needless to say, they chose the latter!

http://www.unscripted360.com/2007/12/12/frontlines-demo-silver-members-wait/

ooooh...well, since they bought more bandwidth as well(since you know..economizing what they have won't work when they number of people subscribing is still growing), I still don't see how you are penalized.

The very fact that silver exists means you aren't getting penalized. They could have left things the way they were, where you had to pay to get ANY access to XBL. So anything they are willing to give you on silver is a bonus...XBL was growing quickly on its own without needing to have a free section.

However, even waiting a week to download demos...big deal. Demos either come out well before the game comes out(in which case a week really doesn't matter, you can't play the actual game for awhile anyway) or it comes out after the game itself is already out(in which case a week doesn't matter, because if you really wanted to try it out ASAP you could have rented it from Blockbuster)

not really, the only way you could actually think that's a reason to NOT buy a 360 is if you have absolutely NO patience AT ALL......

or if you are a Sony fanboy :rolleyes:

yeah, That too....

ooooh...well, since they bought more bandwidth as well(since you know..economizing what they have won't work when they number of people subscribing is still growing), I still don't see how you are penalized.

The very fact that silver exists means you aren't getting penalized. They could have left things the way they were, where you had to pay to get ANY access to XBL. So anything they are willing to give you on silver is a bonus...XBL was growing quickly on its own without needing to have a free section.

However, even waiting a week to download demos...big deal. Demos either come out well before the game comes out(in which case a week really doesn't matter, you can't play the actual game for awhile anyway) or it comes out after the game itself is already out(in which case a week doesn't matter, because if you really wanted to try it out ASAP you could have rented it from Blockbuster)

You seem to be ignoring the basic principle that having any previously enjoyed privilege taken away from you, is, by definition, being penalized, Thallia. And Microsoft are all too aware that making people wait before they can get new demos, is a very good incentive to buy a gold account. Plus of course, it does come with the added bonus of easing the load on the servers when new demos do hit Live.

I tend to think that with Microsoft, what they don't say is often far more revealing than what they do. And one statistic you'll never hear them boasting about, is the ratio of silver account holders to gold. A figure widely believed by the media, to be much bigger on the freebie side of the colon, than it is on the paying! Which is perfectly understandable when you think about it, as online gaming certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. Plus of course, you also have the 'can't afford to pay/won't pay on principle' chunk of Live's 10,000,000 plus subscribers. Making it no great leap of faith to suggest that gold account holders may be the minority.

And if that is the case, then Microsoft's actions in widening the gulf between silver and gold, only serves to give Sony even more ammunition to use against them, in the 'which is better' war of the networks.

hello, the only differences between Silver and Gold membership that I see, is that one's free and you pay for the other one, and you can't play multiplayer with silver.........not much.....

or if you are a Sony fanboy :rolleyes: OR a PC gamer. Actually I think it's a good point for anyone likes to play online. First you already have to pay for broadband then $50 a year just to play multiplayer on 360. Now multiply this by 5 year (life of a console) equals $250. Now the 360 is getting a little expensive to an online gamer when compare to PS3, Wii and PC (For $250 you can get a good graphic card) online.
Again compare to Revolution PS3 & DS vs 360. With DS and PS3 I don't have to pay nothing extra in order to play multiplayer.

I'm seldom play online on a console but there are times I do. I don't care to pay extra every time I'm in the mood to play online so I see this a good reason to avoid 360.

but then there's the whole 400$ just to buy a PS3.....and it doesn't even play well for old PS1 and PS2 games.....

but then there's the whole 400$ just to buy a PS3.....and it doesn't even play well for old PS1 and PS2 games.....
Even the PS2 was a piece of junk compared to the quality of the PS3. So while the PS3 was more expensive, time has shown it was very well made(a very good blu-ray player as well as upscaling DVD) . This time it was the 360 that was a pile of junk compare to both Japanese consoles. This is one of the few cases where you actually do get what you pay for.
Since I still had 2 PS2 I didn't want the extra ps2 hardware in my PS3 since this produces more heat and cause the fans to run more. As far as PS1 so far I had no problems running them.

You seem to be ignoring the basic principle that having any previously enjoyed privilege taken away from you, is, by definition, being penalized, Thallia. And Microsoft are all too aware that making people wait before they can get new demos, is a very good incentive to buy a gold account. Plus of course, it does come with the added bonus of easing the load on the servers when new demos do hit Live.

I tend to think that with Microsoft, what they don't say is often far more revealing than what they do. And one statistic you'll never hear them boasting about, is the ratio of silver account holders to gold. A figure widely believed by the media, to be much bigger on the freebie side of the colon, than it is on the paying! Which is perfectly understandable when you think about it, as online gaming certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. Plus of course, you also have the 'can't afford to pay/won't pay on principle' chunk of Live's 10,000,000 plus subscribers. Making it no great leap of faith to suggest that gold account holders may be the minority.

And if that is the case, then Microsoft's actions in widening the gulf between silver and gold, only serves to give Sony even more ammunition to use against them, in the 'which is better' war of the networks.

So...you'd rather have less demos with no time delay from anyone else, with less quality games to choose from, than be delayed by 1 week for a demo?

Microsoft doesn't boast about the ratio of paying versus non-paying, but they really don't need to...I agree...it is what Microsoft doesn't say that is important, and I believe they said sometime after Halo 3 came out that there were over 5 million paying members to XBL...they didn't say the ratio of silver:gold...but knowing the approximate total and approximate gold, tells us the approximate ratio...which is actually about 1:1.

Also, there's probably people like me, who've bought a gold membership, and haven't activated it yet. I got one in January, but haven't had a chance to activate it yet because I rarely get much time to play this semester...next year will be less busy as I'll be a senior and not have as much to deal with(my senior project should be finished before the fall semester is half over)

OR a PC gamer. Actually I think it's a good point for anyone likes to play online. First you already have to pay for broadband then $50 a year just to play multiplayer on 360. Now multiply this by 5 year (life of a console) equals $250. Now the 360 is getting a little expensive to an online gamer when compare to PS3, Wii and PC (For $250 you can get a good graphic card) online.
Again compare to Revolution PS3 & DS vs 360. With DS and PS3 I don't have to pay nothing extra in order to play multiplayer.

I'm seldom play online on a console but there are times I do. I don't care to pay extra every time I'm in the mood to play online so I see this a good reason to avoid 360.

You have to pay for broadband for any online gaming...360, PS3, DS, Wii, or PC. Besides...anyone without broadband is living in the stone age of the internet...and paying just as much as those with broadband are.

its actually 50 bucks for 13 months...so over a 60 month period, you are paying $240. Not a big difference, but its enough of one to mention...after all 10 bucks is enough to buy another game for the 360. And compare it to the PS3 and Wii...Wii, much as I love it, has crap online play. Most games do not support it, and of the ones that do, there's only a handful that are worth playing online(Mario Strikers, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, possibly Madden)

Now PS3...it is free, sure, but again, Sony has screwed it up with their entire mentality toward online. They do not host the servers...the company that makes the game does. That means after a company decides the game has been out long enough, they'll stop supporting the servers, and the game will no longer be online playable. Also, there are less games worth playing online for it...right now and for this year, the only ones I'm aware of are LittleBigPlanet, Warhawk, GT5, and perhaps Full Auto 2.

Now, with the 360...not only does Microsoft host all the servers, thus ensuring that no matter how old your game is, as long as the 360 is a viable system(read: until the next Xbox is at least a year old), you'll be able to play that game online, as long as there are others who also are wanting to play online. Additionally, there are a TON of great, online games for it: Halo, Forza, Gears 1, Gears 2, Frontlines, GRAW, Splinter Cell Conviction.

There are, of course, the games that are out on both PS3 and 360, but there's no need to mention them, as except in a few cases(Orange Box, GRAW, Rainbow Six Vegas) they are at least close to each other in terms of connection quality(though not necessarily in multiplayer quality).

In my opinion, the very fact that there is not really a 'shelf' life for multiplayer gaming in 360 games makes it worth the $240 over 5 years...IF you even have a gold membership that entire time, which I'm sure many, like myself, will not have.

Even the PS2 was a piece of junk compared to the quality of the PS3. So while the PS3 was more expensive, time has shown it was very well made(a very good blu-ray player as well as upscaling DVD) . This time it was the 360 that was a pile of junk compare to both Japanese consoles. This is one of the few cases where you actually do get what you pay for.
Since I still had 2 PS2 I didn't want the extra ps2 hardware in my PS3 since this produces more heat and cause the fans to run more. As far as PS1 so far I had no problems running them.

um..the PS2 itself was a piece of junk compared to the Gamecube and Xbox...it sold better because of the quantity of games that were available on it. This generation, the roles are reversed(so to speak). Technologically, the 360 and Wii are 'pieces of junk' compared to the PS3, but they are both outpacing the PS3 because of games.

Sure, you get what you pay for in terms of technological progress...but in terms of value and fun...the 360 and Wii both beat the PS3 hands down right now. I mean...seriously, what PS3 exclusives make it worth $400? Uncharted is good, but not worth $460. Unreal wasn't that good, from what I've heard(and will be out on the 360 soon anyway). Lair was a disaster, Heavenly Sword was a nice 4-6 hour diversion(definitely a rental, not a purchase). And everything else worth playing is available on the 360 also. MGS4 will be great, as will FFXIII...but it is still possible they both come out on the 360 too(although MGS would almost certainly be a timed exclusive if it did come to the 360 eventually).

I have a PS2 now, myself...but it is dying(as they are wont to do, after 3-5 years of use...mine is just past 5 years of use after being refurbished), so I have no use for a PS3 that cannot play my PS2 games. Especially when the only game that I could get for the PS3 that I can't get for the 360 that I am interested in is Uncharted. After your PS2 dies, what will you do with your PS2 games? Find another 3-5 year old PS2 that still runs? and hope it lasts you awhile? I'd rather wait until Sony figures out again that Backwards Compatibility is an important feature(the biggest reason why the PS2 outsold the Gamecube and Xbox at first is because it was the only system that was BC...now Sony has the only system that isn't) and until they have enough games to make it worth the price.

For now, my 360(15 games owned other than downloadable titles) and Wii(6 titles other than downloads) are much more worth the price paid for them than a PS3 would be...even with paying $4/month for online multiplayer.

Note: paying $240 over 60 months for online added onto the price of the 360 is $640...not much more than the cost of the only PS3 that was fully BC...and paying over 5 years rather than all at once is usually the preferred method of cash extraction.

@ Thrallia
My son played Socom 2 on the PS2 for years even after Socom 3 came out. If a game continues to be played online it seems to continue get support. He also had no trouble find his friends to team up with Socom and even played ladders. Now games like last year Madden will lose support when this years version is out but I sure Madden fans will want to play the latest version.
I have no problems playing old game online on my PC either without extra cost. With 360 online gaming is all or nothing. Either you pay or can't play online period including Revolution. Revolution will be one of these few games I will play online every now and again so I'm very thankful I don't have to pay extra every time I'm the mood to play online.
*****
I don't know what you meant that the Wii is junk? For it's outdated hardware, it may be a little overpriced but so far the Wii is holding up very well.

As you seems to agree with me you have to pay more for the 360 plus online gaming co than with the PS3 plus online plus Blu-ray which also upscaled DVD in the long run especially when you minus PS3 BC which also minus heat.

Now if you are a RPG fan you pretty much have no choice but to get a 360. 360 does have more RPG than both ps3/wii put together.

So...you'd rather have less demos with no time delay from anyone else, with less quality games to choose from, than be delayed by 1 week for a demo?


I'm sorry, you've lost me there. How would silver being put back to how it used to be have a negative effect on the release of demos, or the quality of games?

Microsoft doesn't boast about the ratio of paying versus non-paying, but they really don't need to...I agree...it is what Microsoft doesn't say that is important, and I believe they said sometime after Halo 3 came out that there were over 5 million paying members to XBL...they didn't say the ratio of silver:gold...but knowing the approximate total and approximate gold, tells us the approximate ratio...which is actually about 1:1.

Also, there's probably people like me, who've bought a gold membership, and haven't activated it yet. I got one in January, but haven't had a chance to activate it yet because I rarely get much time to play this semester...next year will be less busy as I'll be a senior and not have as much to deal with(my senior project should be finished before the fall semester is half over)

And therein lies my point! They don't brag about it, because there's nothing to brag about. In fact, it must be a big embarrassment to them that even with the millions that signed up for gold when Halo 3 was released, the best they could achieve was approximate parity between silver and gold. Hence, my earlier point about widening the gulf between the two factions, and feeding Sony the ammo. One thing we can be sure of though; if there ever does come a day when gold does exceed silver, Microsoft will be singing about it to anyone who'll listen! :)

I am most definitely getting CivRev for the 360 and probably going to shell out for the DS version as well. I can't install Civ on my work laptop (no optical drives and no graphics capability), and there are bad weather days where we flight instructors can't do anything but sit around because of no flying, so thus the DS version will keep me intrigued and entertained for a long time to come. I can't wait for the beginning of June!

And, is it just me, or did this thread get sidetracked into a discussion of Microsoft vs. Sony in the console wars?

Since it has been..... I sell both consoles at my secondary job, and we sell a lot of both, but it has been trending towards the 360 now that Sony stupidly dropped the only PS3 worth owning for many gamers with PS2's (the 80 GB)! Explain that one to me.

hello, the only differences between Silver and Gold membership that I see, is that one's free and you pay for the other one, and you can't play multiplayer with silver.........not much.....

Right.. Not much difference...Are you asleep or something.

Multiplayer or no multiplayer, i'd say taht's one hell of a difference.

Microsoft have been trying to destroy conusmer surplus for decades, i mean come on £200 for vista. Now there doing the same thing with thier xbox market, micro junkies do yourself a favour trade in your xbox and go with a console sold by a decent corporation.

but then there's the whole 400$ just to buy a PS3.....and it doesn't even play well for old PS1 and PS2 games.....

The idea of buying a PS3 is to play PS3 games.

I am most definitely getting CivRev for the 360 and probably going to shell out for the DS version as well. I can't install Civ on my work laptop (no optical drives and no graphics capability), and there are bad weather days where we flight instructors can't do anything but sit around because of no flying, so thus the DS version will keep me intrigued and entertained for a long time to come. I can't wait for the beginning of June!

And, is it just me, or did this thread get sidetracked into a discussion of Microsoft vs. Sony in the console wars?

Since it has been..... I sell both consoles at my secondary job, and we sell a lot of both, but it has been trending towards the 360 now that Sony stupidly dropped the only PS3 worth owning for many gamers with PS2's (the 80 GB)! Explain that one to me.

The PS3's 80GB is a form of price discrimination. I'll explain this to you, they release a super ps3 with lots of uneeded extras, so they can get maximum price out of consumers, and then release cheaper versions without the thrills for regular customers, and the shoddy versions for the customers who jsut don't have lots of spare funds. Hence getting maximum profits, because they don't cut out the lower spenders, nor do sell low and miss out on profits and the top enbd of the market.

The reason why they have stopped selling the 80GB is because most of the people who would buy an 80GB already have, so to continue production would be quite a big potential f**k up. :goodjob:

The reason why they have stopped selling the 80GB is because most of the people who would buy an 80GB already have, so to continue production would be quite a big potential f**k up. :goodjob:

Which, roughly translated equates to Sony having to tighten its purse strings following the $1.1 billion dollar losses they were reporting on the PS3, in October of last year.

@ Thrallia
My son played Socom 2 on the PS2 for years even after Socom 3 came out. If a game continues to be played online it seems to continue get support. He also had no trouble find his friends to team up with Socom and even played ladders. Now games like last year Madden will lose support when this years version is out but I sure Madden fans will want to play the latest version.
I have no problems playing old game online on my PC either without extra cost. With 360 online gaming is all or nothing. Either you pay or can't play online period including Revolution. Revolution will be one of these few games I will play online every now and again so I'm very thankful I don't have to pay extra every time I'm the mood to play online.
*****


sure, if its a big game, sometimes it will last longer online...but can your son still play socom 2 online? I doubt it. If it had been a game on a MS system, they'd be able to play it online until the death of the console. MechAssault was playable from the launch of XBL until the death of the Xbox. CoD2 will be playable from the launch of the 360 till the death of the 360. That's a longer lifespan than any game will have on either the PS2 or PS3.

I don't know what you meant that the Wii is junk? For it's outdated hardware, it may be a little overpriced but so far the Wii is holding up very well.

I don't see the Wii as overpriced(especially when it is much cheaper than the alternatives), nor do I consider it junk...I was saying that it is 'junk' technologically compared to the PS3(at least, Sony wants you to think that), but I think it is on par with either the 360 or PS3 technologically. And it is more than holding up lol Nintendo has already sold well over 20 million of them, along with having developed 14 games that have sold over 1M copies each. They've made more money already this generation than MS and Sony are likely to make combined over this entire generation.

As you seems to agree with me you have to pay more for the 360 plus online gaming than with the PS3 plus online plus Blu-ray which also upscaled DVD in the long run especially when you minus PS3 BC which also minus heat.

Now if you are a RPG fan you pretty much have no choice but to get a 360. 360 does have more RPG than both ps3/wii put together.

um...360 also upscales DVDs. It also plays games in 1080p, if you have a tv that supports it. And I don't see how no PS2=less heat is a good trade-off. I'd rather put up with the extra 2-3 degrees C and be able to junk my dying PS2. I did agree that if you paid for every possible month of the 360's online over its expected lifetime, the PS3 is cheaper...by a whole 40 bucks. If you were getting into it now however, 3 years=36 months*4 bucks=$144+$350=$494, making it cheaper than the last PS3 version worth buying...and you get a heck of a lot more games, better games, better online support, etc. Not to mention, if you go for the cheapo, pointless 40GB PS3, that extra $94 you spent on your 360 also provides for BC with tons of your xbox games(in addition to the already mentioned better online and more games).

I think Blu-Ray is a waste of time right now anyway...upscaling DVDs looks nearly as good, and costs $50 for a player to do that(or you can use your 360).

I'm sorry, you've lost me there. How would silver being put back to how it used to be have a negative effect on the release of demos, or the quality of games?

I was actually comparing silver to the ps3 online...it has less games and demos, lower quality games, but you get the demos at the same time no matter who you are.

And therein lies my point! They don't brag about it, because there's nothing to brag about. In fact, it must be a big embarrassment to them that even with the millions that signed up for gold when Halo 3 was released, the best they could achieve was approximate parity between silver and gold. Hence, my earlier point about widening the gulf between the two factions, and feeding Sony the ammo. One thing we can be sure of though; if there ever does come a day when gold does exceed silver, Microsoft will be singing about it to anyone who'll listen! :)

It doesn't matter whether the ratio is 1:1, 2:1, or 1:2(or bigger in either direction), XBL is a success simply because of the fact that it is so much more expansive, omnipresent, and more widely supported on the 360 than the PSN is for Sony.

Microsoft have been trying to destroy conusmer surplus for decades, i mean come on £200 for vista. Now there doing the same thing with thier xbox market, micro junkies do yourself a favour trade in your xbox and go with a console sold by a decent corporation.

Right...Windows has always cost ~200 for the full operating system. Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP all cost the same amount on release as Vista does. How are they destroying consumer surplus by charging the same amount for their OS over a 20 year period? Especially since it is the omnipresent OS, one that is essentially required in order to be compatible with the majority of software/games/etc. They could charge a whole lot more for it if they wanted to(oh, and the reason they charge for Office now, rather than packaging it for free like they did through 95? Not their idea...blame that on Corel et al. that decided to sue MS for 'monopoly' on word processing...now instead of getting it for free, we have to pay for it...that's Corel's fault, not MS)

How is MS 'doing the same thing with their xbox market'? The 360 is cheaper than the PS3! MUCH cheaper! if I recall, it is ~250 in the UK, while the PS3 is ~400.

I'd consider MS a much more 'decent' company than Sony...MS doesn't hold press events in Greece where they sacrifice goats. They don't put up posters in the UK of a white woman holding a black woman by the throat. They don't graffiti the sidewalks and walls of businesses in Los Angeles. They don't blatantly lie to you about why they aren't using rumble technology in their new controllers(and then expect you to continue to believe the previous lie when they change their minds about rumble in their new controllers). They don't outright say that they'd sell 5 million systems even if they never made a decent game for the system(which, btw, they were right about...you just don't say it publicly!). They don't say BC is very important to us, and we are the only company that supports it, then get rid of it completely, saying no one cares about it and if you do you are living in the past. They dont' say when they get rid of BC that the reason is because not enough games for their current system are selling, so they aren't makign enough money off of you.

The idea of buying a PS3 is to play PS3 games.

Really? I thought the idea was to get it as a cheaper Blu-Ray player. Since you know...there's not really any games for it worth spending money on.

The PS3's 80GB is a form of price discrimination. I'll explain this to you, they release a super ps3 with lots of uneeded extras, so they can get maximum price out of consumers, and then release cheaper versions without the thrills for regular customers, and the shoddy versions for the customers who jsut don't have lots of spare funds. Hence getting maximum profits, because they don't cut out the lower spenders, nor do sell low and miss out on profits and the top enbd of the market.

The reason why they have stopped selling the 80GB is because most of the people who would buy an 80GB already have, so to continue production would be quite a big potential f**k up. :goodjob:

you have fallen 100% for Sony's PR...the 80GB PS3 didn't have a 'lot of unneeded extras' it held everything that the original 60GB held...just a bigger hard drive(for the same price as the 60GB was).

Then they release a cheapo 40GB version of the system, toned down(only 2 USB ports, no BC) and cut off $100 off the price...then they get rid of the 80GB quietly, without publicly telling that they no longer support a BC version of their console. If they did, the public would go crazy.

They have no 'low spenders' there are no low spenders this generation so far...oh, and that no frills version? yeah...it can't play a full band in Rock Band...only 2 USB ports means you can play a max of 2 instruments at a time.

As far as profits go...Sony hasn't made any yet...in fact, they are still losing money on every single system they make and sell. Selling systems at a higher price, and still losing money, compared to your competitors is a very bad way of doing business. They've already had to sell off their stake in the Cell processor, their credit card division, and some of their stock in order to stay solvent in the PS3 division...that's over $4 billion that they've lost in a little over a YEAR...they will not make that back this generation...so no matter what else happens, they've lost this time around.


Since it has been..... I sell both consoles at my secondary job, and we sell a lot of both, but it has been trending towards the 360 now that Sony stupidly dropped the only PS3 worth owning for many gamers with PS2's (the 80 GB)! Explain that one to me.

They dropped the 80GB because they lost $250 on each one of those systems they sold. The 40GB only loses them $150-200, so it makes good 'fiscal' sense to drop the one that loses them more money...but in the end it only hurts them, because there are a ton of people who will not buy a 40GB because of lack of BC...me included.

The store I work in sells the systems in the following ratio, Sony:Microsoft:Nintendo format. 1:3:8.

I think that about says it all...even with Blu-Ray winning the next-gen format war, the PS3 is not catching the 360 because of a lack of decent games.

the 360 is not a cheaper platform if you count the rediculous multiplayer costs.

as to rest of the crud you jsut came out with, well i jsut can't be tossed to argue with you, your intitled to your own flawed opinion.

It doesn't really matter how much the ratio is between Gold/silver memberships.......the whole point of silver is to make you want to play multiplayer MORE so then you pay them money for the subscription.......

the 360 is not a cheaper platform if you count the rediculous multiplayer costs.

as to rest of the crud you jsut came out with, well i jsut can't be tossed to argue with you, your intitled to your own flawed opinion.

ridiculous to spend $4/month to play hundreds of games online? Tell that to MMO fans who pay $10-15/month to play ONE game.

And if you had read my post, you'd see that from this month until the end of the 360/PS3 generation(historic generation length, that is) the 360 is $494, while the 80GB PS3 is $499. That means the 360 is the cheaper platform...and getting cheaper compared to the PS3 each month you wait to buy a gold membership.

And if you want to go by 'bang for your buck' please, tell me how many games you own for that PS3? 3? 4? 5? That means you've spent $680-$800 for a system and 3-5 games...are those games worth it? Are there enough games worth buying for the PS3 to make it worthwhile to spend that kind of money on it?

For the 360, it takes less games to be worth it, because your investment is less. 360 and 3-5 games is $490-650...and you are a lot more likely to find 3-5 worthwhile games for the 360 than you are for the PS3 at those price ranges.

well there are several flaws to your logic, a) there are no more 80 gb's and anyone stupid enough to buy one deserves to lose money, plus i would only go for a 40 gb (that £300 over here). b) i don't own a ps3 i'm going to buy one either when civ rev comes out out or within the next month. So i won't be paying full whack for it (coz im smart) and im waiting till there are some "worthwhile" games, such as FFXIII , Prototype, Civ Rev, GTA IV.

So overall i would end up spending less than an xboxer, and yet all those negatives about PS3's not having any good games (which is rubbish by the way) wouldn't effect me.

c) Plus how can an xbox and 3-5 games have a minimum cost lower than your already stated total cost for jsut the console 490 < 494, you need to learn how to count, tahts probably where your going wrong.

Sony claims they underestimated how much 80gb would sell compared to 40gb model so there is a shortage of 80gb model until the MGS4 bundle appears in June. I remember reading there could a 80gb GTA4 bundle yet this could be just a rumor. If you are planning to buy either game than the 80gb model only cost an extra $40. ( USA)

well there are several flaws to your logic, a) there are no more 80 gb's and anyone stupid enough to buy one deserves to lose money, plus i would only go for a 40 gb (that £300 over here). b) i don't own a ps3 i'm going to buy one either when civ rev comes out out or within the next month. So i won't be paying full whack for it (coz im smart) and im waiting till there are some "worthwhile" games, such as FFXIII , Prototype, Civ Rev, GTA IV.

So overall i would end up spending less than an xboxer, and yet all those negatives about PS3's not having any good games (which is rubbish by the way) wouldn't effect me.

c) Plus how can an xbox and 3-5 games have a minimum cost lower than your already stated total cost for jsut the console 490 < 494, you need to learn how to count, tahts probably where your going wrong.

a) I don't see how you'd be 'stupid' to buy the 80GB...in my opinion, you'd be stupid to buy the 40GB, thanks its many reduced features(no BC being the biggest)

b)You mention CivRev, GTA4, Prototype, and FFXIII as the games that will make it worthwhile...you do realize that only one of those is a PS3 exclusive, the others will be available on the 360 as well, and likely as good or better than the PS3 versions. And if you are buying in the next month...how exactly does that make it not cost full price? You think there will be sales on the PS3 when GTA comes out??? Not likely! Additionally...while three of those games are going to be coming out this year, FFXIII(the only 'exclusive') is not only not coming out this year, but Square Enix has development of it on hold. They don't like the PS3...that's why all their games are coming out on the Wii, DS, and 360. And that's why I doubt FFXIII stays exclusive.

Even if they were all out right now, and all exclusives, how do you end up paying less than a 360 owner? Let's take the price for those 4 games($240) and add them to the price for the consoles...
360(without Gold)=$510-590
PS3=$640-740
360(with Gold for 1yr/2yr/3yr)=$560-640/$610-690/$660-720

looks to me like the 360 wins...and that's not including the fact that for GTA, Microsoft has lined up exclusive downloadable content that Rockstar says will add anywhere from 4-12 hours of gameplay.

c)A 360 and 3-5 games doesn't include XBL Gold. You don't need it to play games, and there's plenty of games worth getting for the 360 that aren't multiplayer anyway, so no need for a Gold membership.

Yes, the PS3 has a bunch of games on it, some of which are worth buying or playing...but the vast majority of the worthwhile ones are available for the 360 as well, usually cheaper and higher quality too. That's why I say the PS3 isn't worth buying right now. If you've already bought one, then go for those multiplatform games on the PS3...but if you still haven't bought a system, the 360 is by far the better deal right now, and I don't see any way for the PS3 to catch up in the foreseeable future.

To buy a PS3 or an Xbox

Your calculations show the PS3 to be of equal cost to the xbox.

PS3 is a beautiful system (Pro for PS3)

Xbox is a noisy (Con for Xbox)

Most ps3 games are not exclusive anymore (neither a pro or a con, its has no effect on me)

Most xbox exclusive games are sh*t (Con xbox)

Xbox is ugly (con for xbox)

Ps3 is quiet (pro for PS3)

PS3 logo on games bpxes is attratice (Pro for PS3)

Xbox logo on game boxes is ugly (con for xbox)

I don't like monthly gaming bills, such as for mmos and for xbox live (con for xbox)

I don't like microsoft (con for xbox)

Xbox has several extra features for civ rev (pro for xbox)

Now lets count them upo and see which console is the best for me.

Xbox pros: 1
Xbox Cons: 6
Xbox Score: -5

PS3 Pros: 3
PS3 Cons: 0
PS3 Score: 3

PS3 Score > Xbox SCore

I'm buying a PS3.

a) I don't see how you'd be 'stupid' to buy the 80GB...in my opinion, you'd be stupid to buy the 40GB, thanks its many reduced features(no BC being the biggest) ...

many reduce features? While being thankful you need to include "thanks for it reduce heat." As any 360 fan should know by now heat is a console worst enemy so not having ps2 BC hardware is a huge plus since I hoping my PS3 lasts for many years.

Also I totally disagree that upscale DVD looks almost as good as Blu-ray. That's like saying there isn't much difference in running as PC game in 800x600 resolution compared to 1600x1200.
A good upscale dvd player (or a HDTV with enhanced scaling) helps to keep the image from looking like crap on a LCD compared to a CRT.

i don't find the missing BC to be a problem, why buy a ps3 to play ps2 games, jsut hang on to your old ps2. simple.

many reduce features? While being thankful you need to include "thanks for it reduce heat." As any 360 fan should know by now heat is a console worst enemy so not having ps2 BC hardware is a huge plus since I hoping my PS3 lasts for many years.

Also I totally disagree that upscale DVD looks almost as good as Blu-ray. That's like saying there isn't much difference in running as PC game in 800x600 resolution compared to 1600x1200.
A good upscale dvd player (or a HDTV with enhanced scaling) helps to keep the image from looking like crap on a LCD compared to a CRT.

Well, considering I have a 42" plasma and a DVD player that upscales to 1080i, and at work we have a 42" plasma and a Blu-Ray player, I think I'm in position to judge for myself how much better Blu-Ray looks compared to upscaled DVD...and I'd say it does look better...but not $400 better. I got my DVD player for $50, so I find the cost to enter the Blu-Ray camp excessive for a minor improvement in video quality. True, the sound is much better, but since I have only regular tv speakers, I don't need better sound yet.

i don't find the missing BC to be a problem, why buy a ps3 to play ps2 games, jsut hang on to your old ps2. simple.

yeah....and what about when your PS2 dies? Mine will die within a year...so should I pay another $130 just to get another PS2? Or should I try to find a PS3 with BC still somewhere in the internet void?

To buy a PS3 or an Xbox

Your calculations show the PS3 to be of equal cost to the xbox.

PS3 is a beautiful system (Pro for PS3)

Xbox is a noisy (Con for Xbox)

Most ps3 games are not exclusive anymore (neither a pro or a con, its has no effect on me)

Most xbox exclusive games are sh*t (Con xbox)

Xbox is ugly (con for xbox)

Ps3 is quiet (pro for PS3)

PS3 logo on games boxes is attratice (Pro for PS3)

Xbox logo on game boxes is ugly (con for xbox)

I don't like monthly gaming bills, such as for mmos and for xbox live (con for xbox)

I don't like microsoft (con for xbox)

Xbox has several extra features for civ rev (pro for xbox)

Now lets count them upo and see which console is the best for me.

Xbox pros: 1
Xbox Cons: 6
Xbox Score: -5

PS3 Pros: 3
PS3 Cons: 0
PS3 Score: 3

PS3 Score > Xbox SCore

I'm buying a PS3.

*shrug* go for it, I'm not the one that will be complaining in a couple years about the lack of worthwhile games :p However, I should point out, having been around both systems when they are running...they emit the same amount of noise and heat. Also, if you don't do 'monthly fees'(which XBL isn't necessarily...I pay $50 for 13 months of live whenever I run out, and activate it when I get around to playing online again...thus far, I've actually only paid $50 for a total of 18 months of online), then the 360 is cheaper...but considering your personal opinions in your pro/con list, PS3 is still the system for you.

Well, considering I have a 42" plasma and a DVD player that upscales to 1080i, and at work we have a 42" plasma and a Blu-Ray player, I think I'm in position to judge for myself how much better Blu-Ray looks compared to upscaled DVD...and I'd say it does look better...but not $400 better. I got my DVD player for $50, so I find the cost to enter the Blu-Ray camp excessive for a minor improvement in video quality. True, the sound is much better, but since I have only regular tv speakers, I don't need better sound yet.
It doesn't have to look $400 better if you own a PS3. The fact PS3 has a good Blu-ray player is an extra.
Also A good 42" HDTV is going to cost a lot more than $400 so you could say the same with HDTV. SD TV stations still looks the best on a CRT. If someone is going to spend a lot of money on a good HDTV then might as well spend a little more to get the best HD quality.

hm...true, if it is a PS3, it doesn't need to be $400 better, but the games for the PS3 better make up the difference in quality(I'd say the quality is worth $200), and IMHO, they don't yet. Someday they will...and when they do, I'll get myself a PS3 also.

Don't go thinking I'm a fanboy or something, I'll eventually own all three consoles, and I'll enjoy them all...I just think Sony screwed up this time around and needs a better plan next time.

Wii was my first choice but since that's on hold I'll probably go with a PS3 version.

ok, in the end..........I'd like to say this...... Sony fanboy's like waving $.14 cents a day in front of all microsoft fans......and the fact that until the PS3 gets better exclusive games and gets a GOOD price drop, I won't get one

ok, in the end..........I'd like to say this...... Sony fanboy's like waving $.14 cents a day in front of all microsoft fans......and the fact that until the PS3 gets better exclusive games and gets a GOOD price drop, I won't get one
The point wasn't about being a Sony fan. If Sony charged just to play Revolution multiplayer I would feel the same about them. In fact I find PC games often allows more players on a map than console version and yet without a charged. Of course Microsoft is also trying to push the same thing with PC gamers but I doubt it will sell.
In the end this does increase the cost of the 360 in the long run so it's not necessary cheaper than the PS3.

If you're so strapped for cash that $.14 will break the bank then I don't think you should be buying consoles right now.

its not really about the cost of xboxlive its more to do with the fact that its an arsey thing to charge for, you already have to pay for broadband or god forbid dial-up, you shouldn't have to pay some lame money making charge for microwank too.

uh.........$.14 cents a day is not the most bank breaking thing to pay for.........

No, no, you see it's because of evil M$ empire keeping humble mom & pop (And their sweatshop workers) companies like Sony down.

omg, you'd have to be REALLY REALLY REALLY (goes on for a LONG TIME) REALLY REALLY stretching the truth to call a HUGE company like Sony a mom&pop company......it wasn't even founded by a mom and pop

its not really about the cost of xboxlive its more to do with the fact that its an arsey thing to charge for, you already have to pay for broadband or god forbid dial-up, you shouldn't have to pay some lame money making charge for microwank too.

um...you have to pay for broadband to use the PSN also...why aren't you getting mad at Sony for not paying for your internet access?

and again...the reason you pay $.14 per day for XBL is because it is BETTER than PSN! It is much more than $4/month better than PSN! You can actually find someone to play a game against! And there's no lfespan forhow long you can play a game online like there is for Sony. You like Madden 07 and don't want to upgrade to Madden 08/09/10? go for it! On the PS3? no can do...wanna play online, you gotta have the newest version!

No, no, you see it's because of evil M$ empire keeping humble mom & pop (And their sweatshop workers) companies like Sony down.

by what stretch of your admittedly Sony-fanboy dominated imagination do you see Sony as being a mom and pop company? That's one rich mom and pop....they are worth over 60 billion bucks...you do realize that Sony is bigger and worth more than Microsoft is...don't you?

And...uh...Sony is FAR from humble :lol:...that's about the most oxymoronic thing I've heard, a humble Sony :lol:

um...you have to pay for broadband to use the PSN also...why aren't you getting mad at Sony for not paying for your internet access?

I have never once mentioned that i don't like paying for broadband, i think its rediculous the microwank are making people pay extra for absolutely no reason. If sony did the same thing , i'd think there jerks too.


and again...the reason you pay $.14 per day for XBL is because it is BETTER than PSN! It is much more than $4/month better than PSN! You can actually find someone to play a game against! And there's no lfespan forhow long you can play a game online like there is for Sony. You like Madden 07 and don't want to upgrade to Madden 08/09/10? go for it! On the PS3? no can do...wanna play online, you gotta have the newest version!

I'm sure PSN will get all those little nifty things such as a decent friends list in its own time, PSN home (if it ever gets released) is about 1 billion times better than any xbo live feature.

Rofl, You know theres a very good reason why people are supposed to update thier games, it's to stop bug abusing, to keep things fair, and to get the full potential out of your game.

Plus if you have segments of the Madden or watever user groups slpit up becasue some people haven't updated, then your limiting who people can play against. Sony have got it all right on that one.

I heard today that the Home Open Beta is pushed back till Fall '08. :(

by what stretch of your admittedly Sony-fanboy dominated imagination do you see Sony as being a mom and pop company? That's one rich mom and pop....they are worth over 60 billion bucks...you do realize that Sony is bigger and worth more than Microsoft is...don't you?

And...uh...Sony is FAR from humble :lol:...that's about the most oxymoronic thing I've heard, a humble Sony :lol:


Wow, you realy are bad at detecting sarcasm. That's the 2nd time now.

and you're really bad at spelling!:rolleyes: yay! come on oatse, you're just bashing thrallia while desperately trying to protect your comments.......

I think many of you XBox 360 users are in the USA and patriotically support Microsoft. Having followed this forum for the past few months I'm leaning towards the PS3 once more. I saw a great video review on CNET.com (sorry no link) that made me think that it's OK to wait until CivRev actually hits the stores and then follow a few more reviews. Built-in wireless and power are significant plusses for me.

IMHO the PS3 is the best looking of the three--just need to spend more time in Harvey Norman (major retailer here) cross-checking the actual games. I'm am still very grateful to all those who posted details of their favourite systems.

andAnd you're really bad at spelling!:rolleyes: yay! come on oatse Oatse, you're just bashing thrallia while desperately trying to protect your comments...

I am not bashing him nor trying to protect my comments, you're futilely defending someone that's not even under attack so you can score some brownie points.

I'm going to be called a Nintendo and Microsoft fanboy for this but here goes. The PS3 is by far the worst console. All it has going for it is that it's a blu ray player. It has no library, and has one promising game coming out, MGS4. Home is gimicky as heck and you might as well play second life. Are you really going to want to spend anytime in that lobby when you have an actual game worth playing, I mean I know the few select good games you have won't last forever, but come on. Its graphics aren't all that impressive when compared against the 360. Both are awesome with a slight, non warranted 100 dollar price difference, edge to Sony. The only way I can see myself getting a PS3 is if I won one.

For the record I have a 360, Wii (yes I know its either gimicky or pointless since I use a game cube controller for Super Smash Bros), PS2, DS, and a PC so I have some perspective on differences. But I guess it doesn't matter what game difference these systems have once revolution comes out. :)

Yes, I completely agree rabid...........WOW oatse, I didn't know you actually cared about capitalization since you're still working on spelling........but man, whatever...it doesn't matter, they're all ok consoles, and THAT'S the end......they're all good consoles, so don't bash people because of your personal opinions.;)

I'm going to be called a Nintendo and Microsoft fanboy for this but here goes. The PS3 is by far the worst console. All it has going for it is that it's a blu ray player. It has no library, and has one promising game coming out, MGS4. Home is gimicky as heck and you might as well play second life. Are you really going to want to spend anytime in that lobby when you have an actual game worth playing, I mean I know the few select good games you have won't last forever, but come on. Its graphics aren't all that impressive when compared against the 360. Both are awesome with a slight, non warranted 100 dollar price difference, edge to Sony. The only way I can see myself getting a PS3 is if I won one.

For the record I have a 360, Wii (yes I know its either gimicky or pointless since I use a game cube controller for Super Smash Bros), PS2, DS, and a PC so I have some perspective on differences. But I guess it doesn't matter what game difference these systems have once revolution comes out. :)

there are pleanty of good games coming out for ps3, mgs4 doesn't even make my list for the best games i want to purhase for my ps3. to name a few prototype, FFXIII, Civ Rev (I mean come on how could you miss that.)

And PS Home, is going to be a cool version of second life, whats wrong with that.

pfff... bloody fanboy

Yes, I completely agree rabid...........WOW oatse, I didn't know you actually cared about capitalization since you're still working on spelling........but man, whatever...it doesn't matter, they're all ok consoles, and THAT'S the end......they're all good consoles, so don't bash people because of your personal opinions.;)

I'm a bad speller? Or are you just grasping at straws for a pitiful and altogether childish way to attack me?

Really, if you think someone calling Sony a Mom & Pop company is really stretching it then chances are it's sarcasm, I thought calling Microsoft the "evil m$ empire" was a big enough hint.


Edit: Oh, and yet another FF game is not a good enough reason for me to toss $600 into the trash to buy a fancy blu-ray player and Civ Rev is also coming out on a much better console (Xbox 360).

I don't see why I should buy the console equivalent of the iPhone so I can play yet another Japanese RPG about girls with mysterious powers, evil mega corporations that are destroying the earth, why nature is better then science, and everything else they can rehash.

...you do realize that Sony is bigger and worth more than Microsoft is...don't you?


Urm....sorry Thrallia, but that's simply not true. Forbes.com lists Microsoft as having a market value of $289 billion, while Sony weighs in at $44 billion. Which isn't too shabby, but still a fair bit behind both Microsoft, and Nintendo. :)

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=SNE

there are pleanty of good games coming out for ps3, mgs4 doesn't even make my list for the best games i want to purhase for my ps3. to name a few prototype, FFXIII, Civ Rev (I mean come on how could you miss that.)

And PS Home, is going to be a cool version of second life, whats wrong with that.

pfff... bloody fanboy

I said Civ revolution was coming out for the PS3 learn to read. Also does anyone even play second life? Why would you when you have, you know, decent games. FFXIII hasn't even shown gameplay footage yet, and the cinematic wasn't all that impressive to me. If your not looking forward to MGS4 then why did you even buy a PS3?

hm...now you see, the only benefit the PS3 has over MS was FINALLY mentioned by someone...built-in wifi. The 360 doesn't have it built in, unfortunately(not that it mattered to me, I got the wifi adapter thrown in for free...)

And Schuesseled, try mentioning PS3 EXCLUSIVE titles, when talking about what games are coming out...otherwise, 360 people will say the exact same titles...and add a lot of extra.

The only three exclusives that are decent and coming out this year for the PS3 are Haze, MGS4, and LittleBigPlanet...meanwhile there's a lot of exclusives coming to the 360, Ninja Gaiden 2, Lost Planet 2, GTA4 DLC, Fable 2, and a bunch of others(don't have time to look through games lists right now)

Please recognize the point in not mentioning multiplatform games...I haven't yet, every single game I've mentioned in support of any of the 3 systems were exclusives, yet I've still thrown out more games than you have.

I can't really think of any games besides MGS4 and the littlebigplanet that I would want to get for the PS3...................

hm...now you see, the only benefit the PS3 has over MS was FINALLY mentioned by someone...built-in wifi. The 360 doesn't have it built in, unfortunately(not that it mattered to me, I got the wifi adapter thrown in for free...)

And Schuesseled, try mentioning PS3 EXCLUSIVE titles, when talking about what games are coming out...otherwise, 360 people will say the exact same titles...and add a lot of extra.

The only three exclusives that are decent and coming out this year for the PS3 are Haze, MGS4, and LittleBigPlanet...meanwhile there's a lot of exclusives coming to the 360, Ninja Gaiden 2, Lost Planet 2, GTA4 DLC, Fable 2, and a bunch of others(don't have time to look through games lists right now)

Please recognize the point in not mentioning multiplatform games...I haven't yet, every single game I've mentioned in support of any of the 3 systems were exclusives, yet I've still thrown out more games than you have.

only a fool would buy a console purely on what exclusive content it had, why?, because if you buy a ps3, you really shouldn't care what exclusive content an xbox has, becasue your never gonna see or play it. and vice versa.

When a nub says that mgs4 is the only decent ps3 game, i can correct him by pointing out all the fantastic non-excsluive games.

now lets see, the three ps3 games you mention, all sh*t, though msg4 may be okay, hard to tell really, it's become so complicated.
The xboxs games you've mentioned are all terribly rubbish, and why would a ps3 gamer ever care about the exclusive content that xbox is getting for gta.

please regonise the point in ending your exclusive only focused boring life.

When you go into a shop, do you only think about purchasing exclusive games, no of course not, so don't be so thick.

only a fool would buy a console purely on what exclusive content it had, why?, because if you buy a ps3, you really shouldn't care what exclusive content an xbox has, becasue your never gonna see or play it. and vice versa.


So only a fool buys a console for it's games?

Yeah, why buy a console for exclusives when you can buy games for it that are appearing on much less expensive consoles with a much better future ahead of them, you plebs. :rolleyes:

Really, why should someone buy a PS3 when you yourself said the games on it are ****.

The PS3 must include some kind of mind-control device along with the built in grill, time machine, and other things that only serve to up the price.

Wow... If I don't buy a system for the games what do I buy it for? Cause it looks nice out on my lawn? To brag to friends? To talk to people on Home?
If I'm going to buy a system I buy the ones with the best games. Think about it, non exclusive games are non exclusive because I can buy them too. Can you buy Gears of War, Halo 3, or the other exclusives I get to enjoy whenever I feel like it while you clutch your PS3 to your chest, rocking back and forth, trying to convince yourself that your purchase was justified. That Lair and Heavenly Sword weren't garbage. That better days await Sony's chosen people. I'm sorry friend but its no wonder you bought a PS3 without thinking about how few exclusives you had. You probably heard the words, "most powerful gaming machine," and ate every piece of garbage Killzone 2 told you was sweet magical candy. :rolleyes:

So only a fool buys a console for it's games?

Yeah, why buy a console for exclusives when you can buy games for it that are appearing on much less expensive consoles with a much better future ahead of them, you plebs. :rolleyes:

Really, why should someone buy a PS3 when you yourself said the games on it are ****.

The PS3 must include some kind of mind-control device along with the built in grill, time machine, and other things that only serve to up the price.

actually i said that someone else said that the games on the ps3 were ****, try listening.

And maybe your starting to get the point, you buy a console because of the games that are out or are gonna be out on it, whether these games are exclusive or not won't matter to you, when your buying the console.

Exactly, you just proved my point. There's no reason to buy a PS3 because the games for it suck and the only games that are worth buying for it are on other consoles. So give me one good reason to shell out the cash for the PS3 (PoS3 as I call it, FU2 as my friends call it) when the only games I want for it are on the 360. It has to be better then "Sixteen cents man!" or telling me that I'd have a nice doorstop.

only a fool would buy a console purely on what exclusive content it had, why?, because if you buy a ps3, you really shouldn't care what exclusive content an xbox has, becasue your never gonna see or play it. and vice versa.

When a nub says that mgs4 is the only decent ps3 game, i can correct him by pointing out all the fantastic non-excsluive games.

now lets see, the three ps3 games you mention, all sh*t, though msg4 may be okay, hard to tell really, it's become so complicated.
The xboxs games you've mentioned are all terribly rubbish, and why would a ps3 gamer ever care about the exclusive content that xbox is getting for gta.

please regonise the point in ending your exclusive only focused boring life.

When you go into a shop, do you only think about purchasing exclusive games, no of course not, so don't be so thick.

when you are looking at BUYING a system, you want to know what the differences between them are...what does one system have that another doesn't? How does naming multiplatform games help differentiate between them?

If all the PS3 exclusive games will be crappy as far as you are concerned, then why the heck get a PS3? For a paperweight? For games you could have gotten for cheaper on the 360?

I haven't said the ps3 exclusive games are crappy, i quite like one of them actually, and am really looking forward to playing it. On the other hand i hate the xbox exclusive games, i hate the xbox itself, and the xbox controller, so im just gonna stick with a PS3.

Exactly, you just proved my point. There's no reason to buy a PS3 because the games for it suck and the only games that are worth buying for it are on other consoles. So give me one good reason to shell out the cash for the PS3 (PoS3 as I call it, FU2 as my friends call it) when the only games I want for it are on the 360. It has to be better then "Sixteen cents man!" or telling me that I'd have a nice doorstop.

Then don't buy a PS3, i wouldn't want you on the PSN anyway.

So you don't have a real reason why anyone should buy a PS3? It's good to know even you acknowledge that there is no excuse to buy one except to let people know you have money to waste.

Incorrect, theres no reason for you to buy a PS3, it would be a waste of a perfectly good console. There are pleanty of reasons for everyone else to get a PS3, just not for you, in fact i think they should bring a law out, forbidding you from purchasing a PS3.

Are you done with your juvenile insults or are you going to give a reason why anyone should buy a PS3 over an Xbox360? (and none of that .16 cents stuff)

A PS3 is a perfectly good Blu-Ray player in addition to playing games.

Well Schuesseled is a blind stupid fanboy for Sony so what do you expect. His only defense seems to be saying that the system is great. Maybe the PS3 is decent, but it will take someone with a higher IQ then their shoe size to argue it effectively.
The PS3's only redeeming quality is that it has a blu ray player, and a good one at that from what I understand. It seemed as though Sony designed it specifically to be a blu ray player first and a console second to beat Toshiba's HD DVD in the DVD format wars.

I don't appreciate your insults rabidveggie.

And for the record my I.Q is probably far higher than yours.

If you can't say anything nice, don't open your trap.

I'm amazingly bored with constantly reminding people of the benefits of a PS3, I've said them countless times throughout this thread. If you really want to know why you should buy a PS3, either look through the thread or be quiet.

What for all its awesome non exclusive content? As for insults you've had a few yourself you little hypocrite and you have yet to show me that your IQ is in the triple digits.

As for insults you've had a few yourself you little hypocrite

I think you mean to say, "you've given out a few yourself". Besides I haven't insulted anyone, I simple said that i wouldn't want Oatse to get a PS3, that's not an insult, it's an opinion.

and you have yet to show me that your IQ is in the triple digits.

That's rich, coming from a guy who chooses a nickname like "rabidveggie".

Your entitled to your obviously flawed opinion, but keep it to yourself.

That's enough. If you children can't play together, I'll send you all home.

Thread closed, infractions given.