So, the 360 enthusiasts say Xbox Live is better than PSN. They're right. But, Sony will be expanding it into an ITunes-like media store and will be releasing HOME and will still make it free to all. So that debate will be even.
They also say the 360 game library is better right now. They're right. But, PS3 has 300 games coming out in the next year, including some very top choice exclusives. So, that debate will be even too.
They say the 360 has better graphics. It looked to me that PS3 launch with the same graphics, but have already surpassed the 360 with games like Heav.Sword and Lair.
So, lets have some fun and answer the question: When the 360 fanboys run out of excuses, what will they use to justify their system as the next-gen leader?
I think they'll stop making reasonble and logical excuses and simply resort to the tried and true argument of: "PS3 sux, iT's 2 expensve. Got nO Halo. GEt a XbOx 360. Biitcheez"
2007-10-16 02:55:20 · 9 answers · asked by Kong 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Games & Gear ➔ PlayStation
Bear in mind. I got all three consoles. And though I like my 360 and Wii, I love my PS3. It seems to me that Playstation has such a bright future, that every anti-Sony argument seems like excuse-making. It's like those fowarded emails that go around that "Prove" how much better Larry Bird was than Michael Jordan. They were both legends, but c'mon, we all know who was the best.
2007-10-16 02:58:03 · update #1
It sounds like you aren't being too serious and just trying to have a bit of fun. If so, here goes...
The new XBox excuse will be that it comes in multiple colors!.
Or the 360 has a sleeker design than the PS3.
Or the PS3s shiny exterior collects too many fingerprints.
Or the Halo microphone is better than the Warhawk microphone.
All of these are true and could provide for hours of hardcore debate among the super gaming elite.
2007-10-16 05:41:13 · answer #1 · answered by Comfy! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I hate when people are labeled as "Fan Boys" just because they like one console or another.... With that said, let me answer your question.
I guess I was a huge "fan boy" of the playstation/ps2 for a very long time, in fact, I did not get a xbox until about 6 months before the 360 came out. I was not, not buy a xbox because I just thougt they secked, I guess I just never saw the need.
I did get the 360 upon release, and despite some of the many issues it has, I LOVE the system. Yes, live is $60 a year, but to me it's worth it, it helps keep SOME of the BS off the system (knowing that some parents will not get it for their kids)
When the PS3 was released, I had EVERY intention of getting one the night it came out, but due to the way it was launched, I was not lucky enough to get a pre-order. So I waited and waited and listened to the people that did get one. There were really no technical issues with the product, but the lack of release titles, and the high price then started to change my mind to just keep waiting. To this day I still have not purcased one. With Sony always changing what they are offering (20G, 60G, no 20G... 120G 80G now a 40G) SONY PLEASE STOP! You are confusing your customers!
Yes I am very interested in HOME and what that will have to offer and there are some very interesting games on the horizon that might just make me finally get one, but for now I still see no reason to drop the $$$.
No matter what, there will always be "FAN BOYS" of both systems... or all three if you include the Wii. And like you said, in the end it will probably come down to the same old fall back of "it just sux" IMO both systems are going to be around for a long time, both will have good and bad points so the argument will never be won!
BTW.. Ratchet & Clank will probably be what gets me to finally buy :)
2007-10-16 10:12:32 · answer #2 · answered by Warbuff 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess you could call me a fan-boy, but its mostly because the arguments for the PS3 just aren’t there either.
First Xbox live, yes you have to pay for it. But lets do the math. 49.99 for a year of xbox live (actually that’s for 13 months). $50 / 365 = 0.14 cents a day. I think any PS3 owner would pay .014 cents a day to have what Xbox live does. Free compared to 14 cents a day isn’t a comparisons for the quality of what you are getting.
Next game library. Yes PS3 games well finally start to come out, but how long have these companies had to work on these games? The development cycle is longer then it is for the Xbox 360. Yes in time PS3 well catch up, but why buy a PS3 now. I have no hurry because I have to wait for developers to catch up (Maybe by next Christmas). The main example now sounds like Unreal Tournament 3 has been pushed back to 2008 (another one of the 300 games coming out). We all know that if this game was planed to be released on Xbox 360 (like BioShock was) it wouldn’t of had this delay. Is the delay worth it? Not for the PS3. By the time the Libary and developers start to get in the grove. Xbox 720 well be out.
Graphics—I do think the PS3 probably does have more potential to have better graphics, but that trade off is longer development time (or games that aren’t finished). Example Madden 08. Maybe PS3 would have better graphics, but not as good of frame rate. They had to make a trade off somewhere, and it wouldn’t surprise me this well happen on and off. (I often wonder if the next burnout game has been caught in this problem with developing for the PS3). I'm sure they would have liked to have this game out this year!
The funny thing is, the reason PS2 was so much better wasn’t because of graphics (the Xbox had better graphics then PS2). It wasn’t because of any online gaming (PS2 hardly had any). What made the PS2 better, more games (and exclusive titles). Now that xbox 360 is following that pattern people still think its going to loose? What kind of argument is that?
2007-10-16 12:00:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's simply a matter of opinion. Each console excels in some areas while lacking in others. Play whichever console you find enjoyable. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have a very close eye on everything their counterpart does. You can be sure that once Sony upgrades their online service to mirror Xbox Live, Microsoft will come up with another upgrade or innovation (which they probably have planned already) to one-up Sony. Keep in mind that competition creates innovation and be happy that you have a choice and a variety. There's no need for a heated debate.
2007-10-16 10:04:18 · answer #4 · answered by DirtyStallis 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They'll claim it has a longer warranty, which in fact it does, three years for the 'Red Rings of Death' whereas Sony only provides a one year warranty.
Of course with the 360, you'll have to actually use the warranty whereas the PS3 will not.
Can be the only claim that they'll make other than only console you can play Halo 3 on.
2007-10-16 10:27:21 · answer #5 · answered by scooterge558 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i have to agree with everything you said, i get tired of hearing that the 360 has all this stuff, cuz by next spring, the ps3 will have more, and better games and features such as playstation home
2007-10-16 11:29:12 · answer #6 · answered by Beersch 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To be honest - I like that competition. Companies compete, invent new stuff, new exclusives, new gadgets for consoles. It's good, that there are 3 major companies competing with each other. Otherwise it would be boring. You have choices: Wii for all-family fun, 360 - for kids, PS3 - for serious gaming.
2007-10-16 11:12:07 · answer #7 · answered by Bull Goose Loony 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That the 360 has tons of different SKINS you can get for it while the PS3 only comes in BLACK?
Who knows.....
â«âªâ«âª
2007-10-16 11:20:03 · answer #8 · answered by ♫-Musikman-♫ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
just saying that those 300 games are games that are to eb realeased world wide we in teh us will probably see about 50 games. and techniquely the wii is the leader in sales followed closely by 360 and then the ps3
2007-10-16 10:34:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋