Civilization Wars: Battle of the Console's

Civilization Wars:Battle of the Console's

  • Playstation.2

    Votes: 9 3.5%
  • Playstaion Portable (PSP)

    Votes: 14 5.4%
  • PC (Personal computer)

    Votes: 41 15.9%
  • Nintendo Wii

    Votes: 41 15.9%
  • Nintendo DS

    Votes: 54 20.9%
  • Playstation.3

    Votes: 28 10.9%
  • X.Box 360

    Votes: 52 20.2%
  • Playstation.1

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Atari

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • A shoebox

    Votes: 16 6.2%

  • Total voters
    258
Status
Not open for further replies.
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/
 
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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom