Coming from a person who owns PS1 and PS2, I could not detect any visible improvements in PS3 over XBOX 360, the latter being at least £200 cheaper than the former. Does anyone else feel the same way?
2007-04-03 05:14:58 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Games & Gear
Visibility wise the 360 and ps3 graphics are pretty close at this time. Remember though, the 360s been out for over a year and developers have had time to work with and tweak the settings to find what looks amazing. You give the ps3 the same amount of time, and well...also, for all those who just come out and bash the ps3, state some actual facts and not some fanboy BS. The 360 STILL has hardware/cooling problems to date(3 of my friends are on their 2nd or 3rd 360), their online play is not free, they dont offer a web browser and now they're introducing the 360 elite so you can get the things that the ps3 has(HDMI,bigger harddrive,shiny black exterior) for $479 w/out a next gen dvd system. So $479 for a black 360 with a bigger hard drive,and an hdmi port and cables. Addin the subscription to xbox live, and you're over 500 for a console that offers online play, but no actual online surfing, no next gen movies, and a hardware system thats among the faultiest ever released. But yea, sure, the ps3 still sucks.....
Also for the ps2 sales beating the ps3 sales: do you even know how many ps2 games have been released? did you maybe stop to think that God of War 2 is a ps2 game and that might have something to with it too? did you know that in japan ps2 sales beat 360 sales(so what does that say)? The number of people who have a ps2 FAR outnumber those who own a ps3. To put it another way, take the amount of people that have ever bought a 360 and original xbox and you might be around the number of ps2s ever sold.
2007-04-03 08:21:06 · answer #1 · answered by chaosnstride 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just give the developers time to get the feel of the development tools and unlock the full power of the PS3, it takes developers time to utilise the full capacity of the graphics engine in a console so give them about 6-12 months and the graphics in the PS3 will look much better than those in the 360. Also the reason the 360 is cheaper is cos it has been out longer (Why dont people seem to be grasping this concept?!)
2007-04-03 20:48:05 · answer #2 · answered by Jason A|retired 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sucks.
Right now, the Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii are the only choices.
Xbox 360 is cheaper, has been out for a year, has way more games, has equivalent graphics to the PS3 and doesn't force you to buy HD-DVD if you don't want it.
Nintendo Wii is in a category of its own, with lesser graphics but more interactive fun value, and it's the cheapest.
PS3 is $200 more expensive, has very few games, forces you to pay for the Sony-exclusive Blu-ray player as part of it, and doesn't look any better than the Xbox games.
2007-04-03 15:50:47 · answer #3 · answered by LT 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can the PS3 suck when it has the Sixaxis Motion Sensor controller, the best game engine, Blu-ray, and the best line of games? The Xbox 360 is the same as the Original Xbox to me. The only thing different about the 360 is game graphics and thats all. At least the PS3 will enable you to play games like you have never played them before, like the Nintendo Wii with a motion sensor controller. I have a PS3, and it is the best.
2007-04-03 15:22:07 · answer #4 · answered by AdrianClay 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone I know that has gotten a PS3 has basically not played it at all. The games suck, are usually only 1 player, and other than good graphics aren't overly fun to play over and over again.
Games I buy for my 360 I still play. Heck I still play games from OG Xbox.
Another thing.....PS2 games are outselling PS3 games. I know there are way more PS2s out there, but wouldn't you think that PS3 games would be selling out? HA
2007-04-03 14:31:42 · answer #5 · answered by lil_puppydog 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the ps3 has up to 7 players (according to wollworths)
it has more memory (except the newest xbox) it has been longer in development and the playstation seires has been in longer production so they know what they are doing (ps1 the the ps2 then the xbox)
2007-04-03 13:59:47 · answer #6 · answered by greg12332003 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
although the ps3 is a slightly more powerful machine it is no better than the 360 (also the 360's internet is miles better)
i would only buy one because it has hd dvd, bluray an dvd player in it (blu ray dvd player by themselves cost up to £900) but there is still fault with the technology in them and some ps3's are alredy breakin down bcause of this
2007-04-03 12:59:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
just spent £2000 on new full hd tv, thought id swap from 360 to PlayStation 3 for the only reason it plays the blue-ray DVDs. wish i hadn't bothered! cant beat the xbox, should have just waited to buy the blue-ray player on its own.
2007-04-03 14:19:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i say the wii all the way than xbox 360 or ps3
2007-04-04 09:28:40 · answer #9 · answered by mysterynobody 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a ps3 and a 360, the 360 in my opinion is miles better.
The 360 has a better feel to it, I wish I never bothered with the PS3 now.
2007-04-03 12:17:50 · answer #10 · answered by fatgirlssmell 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋