Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PS3 might be a bad choice

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 10, 2006 12:52:34 PM

Everyone is crazy about the release of PS3 but main thing it supports mainly all things but one of the main thing Ps3 can deliver heavy display and smooth at 1080p or 1080i but mainly everyone has a television of 480i so playing on it is just nothing but wasting time.If the original fun of PS3 has to be taken then an HDTV has to be bought which should cost aroung 2000$.So it would create a bigggg hole on your pockets.Better buy a PC and spend time on it.

Now the question is PC's dont have 8 cores running at 3.2 ghz.

Hey but remember it is mainly the pc's which gave rise to Ps3 and again in pc's you could change the pixels you could have 1600*1200 pixels which supports intense gaming.For that a good monitor is reqd. but a good GPU also needed well one time investment.But in a pc you could change parts but when you would go to a sony service center TELL HIM TO GIVE A CORE OF MORE SPEED.

Verdict: Well it depends upon you all which to buy but the major thing is what you buy.My opinion is to buy a 19 inch CRT of Viewsonic which has 3-4 ms response time.OR you could select a CRT with good refresh rates.AND A GPU

High End- Nvidia GeForce 7900
Mid range-Nvidia GeForce 6800GS
Low-Level-Nvidia GeForce 6600Gt

I dont like Ati so i dont recommended them.

I AM NOT A PC DEALER SERIOUSLY. When PS1 was release i bought it at a high price but it is a junk.I bought a pc of amd xp2000+ but today also at good settings it gives 40 frames per second with my geforce 6600gt.

More about : ps3 bad choice

July 10, 2006 1:15:15 PM

Is English your native language? Your post looks like it ran through Google translator.
July 11, 2006 8:40:20 AM

hello english isnt my native language i just know
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
July 11, 2006 11:00:12 AM

Well; posting 3 times does NOT help you.
July 11, 2006 11:58:54 AM

WELL COULD YOU HELP ME IN THIS MATTER FLUFFIt is a very tough descison to take.AND I MISTAKENLY Posted it 3 times.
July 18, 2006 9:33:55 AM

cant wait to see sony get stomped into the ground on this ps3 junk they are pushing out like crack
July 19, 2006 2:16:03 PM

not sure what your getting at cause the Xbox360 has the same issues with resolutions.....

if your asking whether to go with PC or PS3 then its personal choice.
July 19, 2006 3:36:44 PM

Quote:
I dont like Ati so i dont recommended them.
I love how your personal opinion turns into a non recommendation because "you don't like them". Try pulling some facts in if you are going to act like you know what you are talking about.

Quote:
I AM NOT A PC DEALER SERIOUSLY.
Gee, you think?
July 19, 2006 6:01:16 PM

First, the PS3 will NOT delivery 1080p smoothly. Sorry, it won't.

Second, Blu-Ray will die. The media is too scratch and smudge sensitive. (read the reviews and you'll see.)

Third, PS3 has multiple cores, but no cache memory on those cores, so they are basically wasted space. Those cores will spend time idleing waiting for data to be delievered that the bus can't keep up with. The 360 with only 3 cores, but good cache runs exactly the same in performance according to the developers. Multi core is a mixed bag anyway, as the system has to spend so much time "housekeeping" the extra cores, that it looses performance.

Last, Nobody is going to spend $600 on a PS3. $600 can get you a good gaming PC (if you know what you are doing), or an Xbox360 PLUS a Wii together. Why waste money on a system that will suffer and loose in the marketplace?
July 19, 2006 10:53:58 PM

wait the xbox360 doesnt play games smoothly at the highest resolution it can manage, ive seen a list somewhere of some games running at 17fps, let me see if i can find it.....ill check tomoorow to late now.
July 20, 2006 12:03:12 AM

Quote:
wait the xbox360 doesnt play games smoothly at the highest resolution it can manage, ive seen a list somewhere of some games running at 17fps, let me see if i can find it.....ill check tomoorow to late now.


Exactly, you prove my point. PS3 won't do any better. I predict the vast majority of games will barely reach 720p, much less 1080i or even 1080p. Both the 360 and the PS3 have virtually identical video processors, as nVidia and ATI rarely get much better than the other. The PS3's GPU processor was finalized over 1 year ago, so already it's old hardware even before the PS3 hits the streets. Consoles have always had frame rate problems through history anyway, so it's not real news.
July 22, 2006 2:22:40 PM

well if the fact is WE cannot play on XBOX 360 smoothly and the blue ray disk is scrath sensitive,THEN it is better to buy up a pc rather than buying up a console
July 22, 2006 5:30:02 PM

Quote:
well if the fact is WE cannot play on XBOX 360 smoothly and the blue ray disk is scrath sensitive,THEN it is better to buy up a pc rather than buying up a console


The fact is you CAN play on the 360 smoothly, just not at 1080. The PS3 can't do it either. It takes everything a $500 video card can do in a PC to play games over 1000 lines, so why should we expect a console to do the same for less (or more in the case of the PS3)? The 360 plays all it's game quite well at 720. This makes all the hype by Sony on the PS3 a waste of time and money for both them and their consumers.

The PS3 is DOA, worthless and the wrong console for the modern gamer. Most modern hard core, and even most medium core gamers will own both a PC worth gaming on and a good console. For the price of the PS3 you can have both the equally capable 360 AND a Wii. It's not rocket science for consumers to figure out what the better choice is.
July 24, 2006 1:57:11 PM

well this PS3 is only creating a tension among the people with it's 7SPE's.If someone bothers to buy up a pc then without wasting time and money should buy up a GPU(ATI x1800GTO or nVIDIA 7600GT)coz the DX10 would be nearly released after a year and by that time you would have completely utilised your PC :wink:
July 29, 2006 11:00:30 PM

Quote:
well if the fact is WE cannot play on XBOX 360 smoothly and the blue ray disk is scrath sensitive,THEN it is better to buy up a pc rather than buying up a console


The fact is you CAN play on the 360 smoothly, just not at 1080. The PS3 can't do it either. It takes everything a $500 video card can do in a PC to play games over 1000 lines, so why should we expect a console to do the same for less (or more in the case of the PS3)? The 360 plays all it's game quite well at 720. This makes all the hype by Sony on the PS3 a waste of time and money for both them and their consumers.

The PS3 is DOA, worthless and the wrong console for the modern gamer. Most modern hard core, and even most medium core gamers will own both a PC worth gaming on and a good console. For the price of the PS3 you can have both the equally capable 360 AND a Wii. It's not rocket science for consumers to figure out what the better choice is. Well it sounds like you bought a 360 and wasted your money, just get a radeon x1900xt for the same price. I love fps games and its harder to play a shooter with a joystick than it is to play with a mouse and and wasd. But if you already have a nice 42 inch lcd or plasma that suports 1080i/p then its worth getting a ps3.
July 30, 2006 2:31:10 AM

Well i taking up an x1900xt does'nt solves the prob,a motherboard is necessary,a cpu and then the GPU.So it is'nt so easy
July 30, 2006 2:14:03 PM

Quote:
Well it sounds like you bought a 360 and wasted your money, just get a radeon x1900xt for the same price. I love fps games and its harder to play a shooter with a joystick than it is to play with a mouse and and wasd. But if you already have a nice 42 inch lcd or plasma that suports 1080i/p then its worth getting a ps3.


He he, sorry dude, but you wasted your money if you own a plamsa. There is no 42" plasma on the market today that has native resolution of 1080. Your res is probably at best 720. Most under 50" plasma are only 480 lines resolution. You have demonstrated the average consumer, and that this consumer has no idea what they are buying most of the time. A PS3 in your case would be a complete waste of time and money as your display can't even show the full resolution they state it can do.

BTW, I do own a 360. And a X1900XTX card. Both do great. But they are still worlds apart in playability for games of certain genre. I will also own a Wii when they come out. At the same cost of a PS3 I will own 2 consoles very much worth owning.

The PS3 is a bad choice. Very bad.
July 30, 2006 2:35:43 PM

Why, do you have PS3 and have you tried playing it? Where do you get this info from? Is there any review regarding from an actual PS3 console? I do own a 360 myself but I'm waiting PS3's launch and see what it can do.
July 30, 2006 5:29:05 PM

Quote:
Why, do you have PS3 and have you tried playing it? Where do you get this info from? Is there any review regarding from an actual PS3 console? I do own a 360 myself but I'm waiting PS3's launch and see what it can do.


Like most here, my opinion is based on the data given by Sony. I have over 3 decades in IT, computing and chip design as my backing for knowledge. I have 2 degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Plus over a decade in consumer eletronic design and support.

So, IMHO: The PS3 will be a good machine, but not any better than the 360 in terms of raw processing power. Definatley not worth the premium Sony commands. Also, the consumer premis that 1080p is better than 1080i is basically wrong. Plasma, LCD and DLP type displays do not display interlaced images. They process the entire frame before displaying it so progressive will gain zero in terms of better display ability for the PS3 or Blu-Ray. Misinformation seems to be Sony's only gain these days. So much so it's sickening to those few who have real knowledge of modern electronics.

The PS3 will only "be able to do" what the programmers can get it to do. So far the developers are not happy with the PS3 design. Zero cache on the multi-core processors give little room for speed and flexbility. That and Sony has a bad reputation for development tools. Good stuff will come to the PS3. Just not that good overall. Spend money wizely and you'll be not looking at the PS3.
August 5, 2006 11:36:56 PM

lets all just get both, that will solve it! its only under 1 grand/ question for u nerds, i saw a few lcd's in a flyer advertising 1080 p, westington or sumthing like that. is it worth buying or should i wait for a better brand 2 come out with 1080 p? and NARG wut kind of tele does display interlaced images?
August 6, 2006 1:39:52 AM

Quote:
lets all just get both, that will solve it! its only under 1 grand/ question for u nerds, i saw a few lcd's in a flyer advertising 1080 p, westington or sumthing like that. is it worth buying or should i wait for a better brand 2 come out with 1080 p? and NARG wut kind of tele does display interlaced images?


CRT types. Tubes and older rear projection. That style display is what interlaced was invented for. Interlacing the display allowed TV makers from the early years to make them cheaper (actually to make them period as speeds of analog components were just not up to full 300 lines of resolution for TV back then.) And it allowed the TV broadcasters to build transmittion equipment easier and cheaper. Even early computer displays in the 1980's relied a lot on interlacing to achieve higher resolutions (600 lines and up) due to the slow speed of components at that time. It's only in the past 2 decades that electronics have been able to keep pace with the higher resolutions and the speed of the electron beam (in those old tube types) to display a progressive 1000 lines and up picture. That same problem of the amount of power and speed needed still affects us. That's why HDTV is 1080i at best. There's just not enough bandwidth to support better in our cable, airwaves and satelite infrastructure.

Since LCD, DLP and Plasma type displays don't use the sweeping electron beam to build a picture, they don't even fall in the same arena as what would need a interlaced picture. They build frames fully one at a time, even though being fed an interlaced image. Still inputing the data to that frame and transmitting over the air makes for easier times if it is interlaced, in that the data can move slower and cheaper. So to state the a display of 1080p is better than a display of 1080i on any of the LCD, DLP, Plasma or similar "non sweeping" displays is utterly wrong. Both displays will build each frame one at a time and display them at the same rate. The end result is exactly the same.

1080p is a waste of time, money and computing power at this point in time. Another 20 years and it may be worth every cent, as by then it will cost very little in terms of money and computing power to display such images. By then, HD-DVD will be fully progressive as will most likely the majority of large screens sold. Today, 1080p screens make up 1% of the market. So why waste your money now? By the time it's worth getting MS, Sony, Nintendo and whomever will be making machines that will take advantage of these display without loosing other abilities.

1080p today is only a marketing ploy to get you to want to spend more money that you really need to in order to get proper results. It only affects the bottom lines of the companies building the equipment, as they get to write a larger sale in their books.

I hope that helps you understand.
August 8, 2006 1:26:46 AM

Quote:
lets all just get both, that will solve it! its only under 1 grand/ question for u nerds, i saw a few lcd's in a flyer advertising 1080 p, westington or sumthing like that. is it worth buying or should i wait for a better brand 2 come out with 1080 p? and NARG wut kind of tele does display interlaced images?


CRT types. Tubes and older rear projection. That style display is what interlaced was invented for. Interlacing the display allowed TV makers from the early years to make them cheaper (actually to make them period as speeds of analog components were just not up to full 300 lines of resolution for TV back then.) And it allowed the TV broadcasters to build transmittion equipment easier and cheaper. Even early computer displays in the 1980's relied a lot on interlacing to achieve higher resolutions (600 lines and up) due to the slow speed of components at that time. It's only in the past 2 decades that electronics have been able to keep pace with the higher resolutions and the speed of the electron beam (in those old tube types) to display a progressive 1000 lines and up picture. That same problem of the amount of power and speed needed still affects us. That's why HDTV is 1080i at best. There's just not enough bandwidth to support better in our cable, airwaves and satelite infrastructure.

Since LCD, DLP and Plasma type displays don't use the sweeping electron beam to build a picture, they don't even fall in the same arena as what would need a interlaced picture. They build frames fully one at a time, even though being fed an interlaced image. Still inputing the data to that frame and transmitting over the air makes for easier times if it is interlaced, in that the data can move slower and cheaper. So to state the a display of 1080p is better than a display of 1080i on any of the LCD, DLP, Plasma or similar "non sweeping" displays is utterly wrong. Both displays will build each frame one at a time and display them at the same rate. The end result is exactly the same.

1080p is a waste of time, money and computing power at this point in time. Another 20 years and it may be worth every cent, as by then it will cost very little in terms of money and computing power to display such images. By then, HD-DVD will be fully progressive as will most likely the majority of large screens sold. Today, 1080p screens make up 1% of the market. So why waste your money now? By the time it's worth getting MS, Sony, Nintendo and whomever will be making machines that will take advantage of these display without loosing other abilities.

1080p today is only a marketing ploy to get you to want to spend more money that you really need to in order to get proper results. It only affects the bottom lines of the companies building the equipment, as they get to write a larger sale in their books.

I hope that helps you understand.Yes thank you, i still want 1 :) , well lets say I buy an lcd that supports 1080 p and it actually lasts 20 years.....Is it not worth spending a few extra bucks to future proof? One more question, you sound like you know alot more about what your talking about than the idiots at futureshop or bestbuy working on commision, what tele do you own and would recomend? I bought a 40 inch lcd sony and the noise it made when on low volume was anoying even after fooling with the backlight so i returned it and im shopping around. thanks
August 8, 2006 3:44:27 AM

I'd go for that 20 year idea, but they seem to keep making them better about every 5 years or so. 1080i will be strong for at least 20 years too. I currently own a Samsung 60" DLP. Last years model, so I'm already outdated. Wanted to wait for the LCD driven DLPs available soon, but my old set died too soon. I first got a Panasonic DLP which had black levels like no other set I've seen (almost perfect), but the SDTV picture was gawd aweful, so I bit the bullet and paid the extra for the Samsung. Samsung get's super high ratings from a lot of sources, including many of the TV techno forums where they know much more than I about TVs. Sony and Samsung both seem to get a lot of high recommendations, but the Samsungs usually cost much less, which tells me Sony's are over priced. Today? I'm 100% not sure, but definately check out the Samsung DLP sets. http://www.dlptvreview.com/dlptv/samsung-hls5087w.html
August 13, 2006 3:43:35 AM

cool the resolution is great, is it always higher on dlps? but thats way to big for my room, I need something in the 32-40 inch range.
August 13, 2006 6:17:02 PM

LCD tv's would be your market then.
August 15, 2006 3:21:52 PM

Quote:
wait the xbox360 doesnt play games smoothly at the highest resolution it can manage, ive seen a list somewhere of some games running at 17fps, let me see if i can find it.....ill check tomoorow to late now.


ummm i have takin my 360 and played it on my fathers 50" sony SXRD at 1080ip. it ran like a dream. if it starts to get to hot, it will slow down a bit.
the ps3 might have the same heat issue, with 7 cpus, but a LOW bus size might keep it cool. i not sayin to much about the ps3 yet. it still could rock at about $600... ya thats alot
August 15, 2006 3:41:30 PM

Quote:
ummm i have takin my 360 and played it on my fathers 50" sony SXRD at 1080ip. it ran like a dream. if it starts to get to hot, it will slow down a bit.
the ps3 might have the same heat issue, with 7 cpus, but a LOW bus size might keep it cool. i not sayin to much about the ps3 yet. it still could rock at about $600... ya thats alot


Um... bus sizes have nothing to do with heat. Buses don't generate heat, only processing chips (CPU, GPU, etc) and power inverters generate heat. One of the reasons the Xbox360 uses an external power brick, to keep heat out of the machine. PS3 will most likely do the same thing.

And, the resolution you run at no your display will have little affect on heat generation too. Both machines will not get "too hot" if run in open air environments i.e. don't put them in a stereo cabinet or similar enclosure, leave them in the open on a shelf or on the floor.

Also, price rarely demonstrates potential in a device. No matter what a salesman may tell you (they prefer to sell more expensive devices because they make more commission, that's why the higher priced items get more air time and mouth from salespeople.) The architectures between the 360 and PS3 are extremely identical. Where one has pluses, the other has similar pluses in other components. The Blu-Ray stupidity is the only reason the PS3 is so much more expensive. And, that gains them nothing as most games barely go above 1 gig in storage needs (minus all the demos and b.s. you don't need to make a game good.) Have you seen an Xbox, Xbox360 or PS2 game take more than 1 DVD yet? Nope, so point should be understandable. Blu-Ray is a waste and poor design on Sony's part. Blu-Ray will go the same way as all other Sony attempts at market domanance in media.
August 15, 2006 4:51:48 PM

Quote:
ummm i have takin my 360 and played it on my fathers 50" sony SXRD at 1080ip. it ran like a dream. if it starts to get to hot, it will slow down a bit.
the ps3 might have the same heat issue, with 7 cpus, but a LOW bus size might keep it cool. i not sayin to much about the ps3 yet. it still could rock at about $600... ya thats alot


Um... bus sizes have nothing to do with heat. Buses don't generate heat, only processing chips (CPU, GPU, etc) and power inverters generate heat. One of the reasons the Xbox360 uses an external power brick, to keep heat out of the machine. PS3 will most likely do the same thing.

And, the resolution you run at no your display will have little affect on heat generation too. Both machines will not get "too hot" if run in open air environments i.e. don't put them in a stereo cabinet or similar enclosure, leave them in the open on a shelf or on the floor.

Also, price rarely demonstrates potential in a device. No matter what a salesman may tell you (they prefer to sell more expensive devices because they make more commission, that's why the higher priced items get more air time and mouth from salespeople.) The architectures between the 360 and PS3 are extremely identical. Where one has pluses, the other has similar pluses in other components. The Blu-Ray stupidity is the only reason the PS3 is so much more expensive. And, that gains them nothing as most games barely go above 1 gig in storage needs (minus all the demos and b.s. you don't need to make a game good.) Have you seen an Xbox, Xbox360 or PS2 game take more than 1 DVD yet? Nope, so point should be understandable. Blu-Ray is a waste and poor design on Sony's part. Blu-Ray will go the same way as all other Sony attempts at market domanance in media.

i never ment to say buses make heat, what i ment by that was b/c the buses are smaller = cpu(s) not going as fast = less heat, well in thery. i admit, i'm no computer god but i had built my own pc (now baddly out dated)

and yes u need to keep the 360 & the power brick in the open. i found this out myself when i was using my dads t.v. I had left it there overnight in a stereo cabinet, with the doors OPEN, powered on to download some demos. he closed the dorrs after i left,,,, I came back and it was locked up from the heat. Hear is my thing. We really don't know how the ps3 will heat up. untill we get are hands on one, we're just guessin

on the blu-ray issue, i don't know of to meny pro's or con's of using but all i hear is bad things about it
August 15, 2006 6:05:56 PM

Thanks for the clarification. You are correct.

I think it can be assumed that the PS3 will be at least as hot as the 360 since both use the same processor core running at the same speed. And both use similar GPU chips too. I'm amazed at how much noise the 360 produces, and hope that Sony is smart enough to figure out how to keep the PS3 quieter. The only way I see them doing that is by sending the heat to the casing, which would likely cause some (like human perception) issues. 'course I keep my 5.1 system cranked up while playing my 360 so I really don't notice the fan noise much :) 

FYI, Here's a quick and dirty good/bad between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, read them if interested:

Blu-Ray touts 2 advantages. More space and 1080p. But those only plusses are actually bad points.

On space, in Movie storage Blu-Ray stores 9 hours HD content in it's largest format, HD-DVD stores 8 (from Sony's Blu-Ray web site.) Only 1 hour difference, so what? On SDTV resolutions HD-DVD actually stores more hours. Go figure. In Gigabytes, it's more in data storage than HD-DVD but at a cost of protection of the data. More on that later.

1080p is a nice idea for a feature, but it's really not that important. Most current high end, large screen televisions don't actually display an interlaced picture. It's techinically impossible for them to do so. DLP, Plasma and LCD actually process any incoming picture wether interlaced or progressive and display it one frame at a time. They only make them interlaced because it's easier and cheaper to do. So any argument Sony has over progressive being better is null and void for the majority of modern large screen televisions. Also progressive displays currently make up about 1% of the market. Eventually they'll grow in number, but now progressive is just not worth the extra $$$ or frustration. DVD was never designed to show progressive pictures, yet today progressive players exsist. HD-DVD will also eventually produce progressive players. But only when the price and the market is right. That's not today.

Last, the main reason Blu-Ray is a very bad choice. The extra storage gained in Blu-Ray is done at a price. Not just $$$ price but in disc longevity and protection. Blu-Ray gets it's extra storage by reducing the protetive layer of plastic over the data layer by 80%. This gets the laser (same laser that's used in the HD-DVD BTW) closer to the data layer so it can be compacted more to store more data. This opens the door to a ton of problems. If you aren't alarmed by that, you should be. Sony states they have a new plastic that is stronger, but in real life that coating is not that great. Reviewers have found that even simple minor finger prints render Blu-Ray discs unplayable. I would never trust my movies, games or data to such a bad standard. HD-DVD uses similar standards to the tried and true DVD disc format. The lasers are focuses similarly too. Blu-Ray players actually require two lasers to read both Blu-Ray and DVD/CD discs because of the changes to the laser. HD-DVD is just a better design for life of your data and production of the material. Both in rigidity to damage and in costs.

Why did Sony do this? In order to gain control over the market, that's why. Sony has a long history of being unable to create a new media format and make it stick. They are taking their campains to higher levels now with Blu-Ray. They want so badly to control the market in something that they will settle for bad engineering in order to get it.

Anyway that's my view on Blu-Ray. May it die a quick and painful death.
August 15, 2006 6:45:43 PM

wow if all that information is ture ... blue-ray ftl.
August 22, 2006 1:57:54 AM

I have had a HDTV for over a year... Got a 37" for 989.99 at costco...thinking of selling that to my mom and getting the new 42" LCD. I cant wait for the ps3! I think i might sell my 360. Not many good games out. what it has been almost a year and 3 or 4 games are worth buying...I will be in line like a idiot on the first day for a ps3. :lol:  Come join me! :twisted: YAY -$1ooo.δδ
September 8, 2006 6:47:51 PM

Just to clarify:

Microsoft is going with HD-DVD for movies only - not for games.

The XBOX360 has a max capacity of ~ 9 gigs for the games.

PS3 will have ~ 50 gigs for the games.

9 gigs are plenty for now, but the PS has in the past been made for the long haul. Look at the life span of the original XBOX compared to the PS2... With the advances being made, how long will 9 gig be enough?

If Blu-Ray dies a quick and painful death, the PS3 can play standard/game DVDs just like the 360.

"there are already rumours of Xbox 360 games in development that take up four DVDs" - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/xbox360_vs_ps3/
A rumor started by Sony??? Who knows...

With the PS3s are being made a bit more future-proof (1080p, larger capacity blu-ray, larger harddrive) I'm going to wait and get the PS3.

$599 is a lot, but compared to $399 for the XBOX 360 - but the PS3 has some advantages that make teh $200 difference worth it:
Plays Blu-ray movies out of the box - Xbox will have an add-on for the HD-DVD player - cost not determined yet...
1080p - my Samsung HLS5087w has 1080p resolution.
HDMI out of the box. Slightly better than component.
WiFi out of the box - Xbox 360's wifi adaptors cost ~$85
100% backwards compatible with PS2 AND PS1 (Yes - I still play the PS1 Crash Team Racing and Crash Bash)
60 GB harddrive vs. XBOX360's 20 GB.
FREE Online world - PS3's online world is supposed to be modeled after Xbox Live - difference is, Xbox Live has a subscription cost.

Xbox 360 adavantages:
Lower initial costs.
With a year head-start, will have more games when PS3 launches.
Games developed for both systems will most likely be built to the lowest common denominator (720p, able to fit on a single DVD, etc.)

Before you label me a total PS fanboy - I own both a PS2 and original XBOX. The XBOX blows the PS2 away (Dolby 5.1, stronger processor, higher video rez, etc.) - if a game comes out for both, I buy the Xbox version - But - the games usually look exactly the same on both - and the PS2 is 5+ years old.
September 8, 2006 7:36:31 PM

Quote:
Just to clarify:

Microsoft is going with HD-DVD for movies only - not for games.

The XBOX360 has a max capacity of ~ 9 gigs for the games.

PS3 will have ~ 50 gigs for the games.

9 gigs are plenty for now, but the PS has in the past been made for the long haul. Look at the life span of the original XBOX compared to the PS2... With the advances being made, how long will 9 gig be enough?


Just to clarify. Well, duh!

I dare you to find a PS3 game after it hits the store that requires more than 2 gigabytes of data. I dare you. The average PS2 game was less than 500 Megabytes, and most Xbox360 games never made it above 1 gigabyte. 9 gigs is way too much. There has yet to even be a game released on dual layer DVD so nothing over 4 gig has been released yet, even on the Xbox360. PS3 is no different and will NOT require that much room, now or ever.

Quote:

If Blu-Ray dies a quick and painful death, the PS3 can play standard/game DVDs just like the 360.


Bzzzzt! Sony is not going to allow any games for the PS3 to be on anything other than Blu-Ray. They've got their reputation (HA!) on the line here. Real result will be more expensive games. It was bad enough that Xbox360 pushed the game prices to $60, the PS3 is expected to push them to $75 and higher!

Quote:

With the PS3s are being made a bit more future-proof (1080p, larger capacity blu-ray, larger harddrive) I'm going to wait and get the PS3.


Future Proof? Give me a break. The PS3 is functionally and power equivilent to the Xbox360. In fact in terms of technology it's already over 1 year old. The PS3 is outdated even before it hits the streets! Get a life guy!

Quote:

$599 is a lot, but compared to $399 for the XBOX 360 - but the PS3 has some advantages that make teh $200 difference worth it:
Plays Blu-ray movies out of the box - Xbox will have an add-on for the HD-DVD player - cost not determined yet...
1080p - my Samsung HLS5087w has 1080p resolution.
HDMI out of the box. Slightly better than component.
WiFi out of the box - Xbox 360's wifi adaptors cost ~$85
100% backwards compatible with PS2 AND PS1 (Yes - I still play the PS1 Crash Team Racing and Crash Bash)
60 GB harddrive vs. XBOX360's 20 GB.
FREE Online world - PS3's online world is supposed to be modeled after Xbox Live - difference is, Xbox Live has a subscription cost.

Xbox 360 adavantages:
Lower initial costs.
With a year head-start, will have more games when PS3 launches.
Games developed for both systems will most likely be built to the lowest common denominator (720p, able to fit on a single DVD, etc.)

Before you label me a total PS fanboy - I own both a PS2 and original XBOX. The XBOX blows the PS2 away (Dolby 5.1, stronger processor, higher video rez, etc.) - if a game comes out for both, I buy the Xbox version - But - the games usually look exactly the same on both - and the PS2 is 5+ years old.


First 1080p is NOT what you think it is. 1080p is a sales tool. 1080p will drag a PS3 down in frame rate so hard it won't be able to play anything worth playing at that resolution. It takes a $500 video cards on PCs to display over 1000 lines at decent frame rates. 1080p will be here in the future, but there will be a PS4 out before it's a viable product. And, BTW, the Xbox 360 will do 1080i. It's not limited to 720p. 1080i is better anyway because it takes only the processing power equvilant of 540 lines which equates to better frame rates and better play. LCD, DLP and Plasmas show this as progressive anyway, because these TV's are physically unable to produce an interlaced picture. 1080p is done only with TV's with the extra expense of high speed hardware to decode the picture fast enough. All these TV types have the same display ability and do it one screen at a time, so even the term "progressive" and "interlaced" is not a denominator for their functionality. Only the ability for the decode units before the display part is done. I dare you to display a 1080i and a 1080p signal on your DLP TV and try to tell the difference. You won't be able to. I have a Samsung 60" DLP, and there is no difference at all because functionally, the display doesn't do interlaced image production.

Next, HDMI is unfortunately a dying standard. I personally don't like this, but the manufactures already have a new connectivity method that will replace HDMI soon. So how is HDMI a plus? The only plus HDMI has anyway is that it is a single plug rather than multiple plugs. AND GET THIS: HDMI will be REQUIRED to play Blu-Ray movies! While that doesn't affect you, owning a capable TV, this will affect a LOT of people, reducing the sales of PS3, and making a real dent in the number of games that will become available for the PS3. Blu-Ray is just bad bad bad.

Wi-Fi is not for the serious gamer. Can't believe you even call that a plus. Plug in or loose. Who needs 100ms more of lag? Wireless is great if you need it, but if you don't why pay for it? I'm glad the Xbox360 doesn't require I pay for something I don't use.

60 Gig over 20 Gig is not an issue. It's just Sony trying to justify their lateness and price. Larger hard drives will become available for the Xbox360 when needed. I haven't seen where the PS3 has interchangable hard drives? You can easily add more hard drive space to an Xbox360. So who's got the better setup here?

Xbox Live is free unless you want value added stuff. PS3's online will have pay services too. It won't be 100% free. Your point on that is moot.


Side by side the PS3 and Xbox360 are equal in all aspects of power and capability with the only realistic notable exception for the Blu-Ray drive. Which seems good until you realize how bad the Blu-Ray media is. Re-read the link I posted above and you'll see why trusting your game collection to this bad media will be the death of Sony. Or I guess you'd like it if you game died in the middle for a simple sudge mark on the disc.
September 8, 2006 9:42:20 PM

I can tell by your reply that you are very open-minded when it comes to comparing the pros and cons of the PS3 vs the 360.

Apparently the PS3 is all cons, the 360 is all pros.

You are right - I should get a life.

Whatever.

I like the Xbox and have considered buying a 360 instead of the PS3 (or buying both), but for me the extra $200 for PS3 makes more sense. I'll buy the 360 when it drops in price to $200 or so, and has a ton of exclusive games...

You throw out a lot of numbers and "facts" but I don't see you backing ANYTHING up.



Here is what I found about the 9gb DVD limit:

From a developer:
http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/0-0-2006-1031.html

Nothing like swapping discs when going from one GTA IV city to the next:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7112.cfm

"According to Game Informer, nearly every developer they talked to at X05 expressed difficulties fitting their launch titles onto a single disc":
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/04/certain-highly-anticipated-xbox-360-title-filling-four-discs/

"Toriyama and Versus producer Shinji Hashimoto defended the decision to release FFXIII on the PS3. According to Hashimoto, the development staff determined that one DVD would not be enough for the type of visual expression they were attempting to make. ":
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/710/710761p1.html

Apparently I'm not the only person who differs with your guess on that subject.



Here are the sizes of some of the games for the ORIGINAL Xbox:
http://fileforums.com/showthread.php?t=43604

>=6GB
6.19GB - PAL - Rallisports Challenge 2

>=5GB
5.97GB - PAL - Ninja Gaiden
5.67GB - PAL - Terminator 3 : Rise of the Machines
5.41GB - PAL - Metal Gear Solid 2 - Substance
5.41GB - NTSC - Metal Gear Solid 2 - Substance
5.80GB - PAL - Max Payne
5.24GB - PAL - Project Gotham Racing 2
5.11GB - NTSC - Brute Force
5.11GB - PAL - Brute Force
5.05GB - NTSC - Street Hoops

>=4GB
4.96GB - PAL - Street Hoops
4.88GB - PAL - Shenmue 2
4.88GB - PAL - Silent Hill 2: Restless Dreams
4.79GB - PAL - Enter The Matrix
4.68GB - NTSC - Enter The Matrix
4.63GB - NTSC - Genma Onimusha
4.60 GB - PAL - NRL Rugby Leaue
4.46GB - PAL - Sega GT + Jet Setradio Future (massive Pack Disc)
4.42GB - PAL - Shadow Ops Red Mercury
4.41GB - PAL - Fallout : Brotherhood of Steel
4.39GB - NTSC - Halo 2

So at 6gb they are coming close to the 8gb usable ceiling.

I think I can meet your "dare" and find a PS3 game bigger than 2gb when released.

Quote:
"Wi-Fi is not for the serious gamer. Can't believe you even call that a plus. Plug in or loose. Who needs 100ms more of lag? Wireless is great if you need it, but if you don't why pay for it? I'm glad the Xbox360 doesn't require I pay for something I don't use."


True - it has 100ms of lag - but I've played a lot of FPS with wireless and haven't noticed the missing 100ms - but if you plan on getting wireless for the 360, you should factor that ~$85 into the price difference. I will use the WiFi on the PS3.


Quote:
Xbox Live is free unless you want value added stuff. PS3's online will have pay services too. It won't be 100% free. Your point on that is moot.

You need to read this:
http://www.ps3land.com/article-378.php

By the way - the terms you use like: "Well, duh!", "I dare you" and "Bzzzzt!" - they really don't support your argument - they tend to hinder it. They make me think I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with a ten-year-old.
September 10, 2006 11:24:58 PM

Further clarifications:

I want to make sure everyone makes the 360/PS3 choice based on accurate info. Not just Narg's half-truths...

Quote:
Narg Wrote:
Reviewers have found that even simple minor finger prints render Blu-Ray discs unplayable.


This was close to the truth of the early versions of the blu-ray - back when they had to keep them in a caddy to protect them.
Now the blu-rays are coated with a protectant that actually makes them superior to HD-DVD.


The link Narg posted was written by the xbox team (slight bias?) and simply said:
"Easy to Damage: Because Blu-ray discs are encoded near the very top layer of the disc with limited protection, the data is literally at higher risk to damage. Conversely, HD DVD maintains physical protection similar to standard DVD."

Not quite the doom and gloom Narg preached:
Quote:
Or I guess you'd like it if you game died in the middle for a simple sudge mark on the disc.


I looked for them in Google ("blu-ray" +smudges) and I found was this:

"TDK’s DURABIS coating technology makes recordable Blu-ray Discs possible, as it provides protection to the recording layer, which is very close to the disc surface. DURABIS technology resists scratches, which can cause recording and playback errors. The coating also resists other common contaminants such as fingerprints and dirt. Because the DURABIS coating technology rapidly discharges static electricity, the discs also resist the accumulation of dust. Eliminating the need for a cartridge will contain manufacturing costs, keeping Blu-ray Disc pricing in line with today’s standard recordable DVD discs. With DURABIS coating technology allowing bare Blu-ray Discs, the format will instantly feel familiar to consumers. "
http://www.physorg.com/news2615.html

"Blu-ray Discs were originally released in Japan in April of 2003 with a protective cartridge. The cartridge was necessary in order to protect the recording material, which is manufactured close to the Blu-ray Disc's surface in order to realize the disc's high density recording capabilities. TDK pioneered hard coating technology, eliminating the need for cumbersome cartridges. Every TDK Blu-ray Disc includes DURABIS, the world's most advanced and most protective hard coating formulation. DURABIS increases the scratch resistance of Blu-ray Disc media by a factor of 100, as demonstrated in rigorous testing. DURABIS also resists fingerprints to help eliminate errors caused by disc surface smudges. Because the DURABIS coating technology rapidly discharges static electricity, the discs also resist the accumulation of dust, a potential source of recording and playback errors. TDK Blu-ray Discs provide absolute reliability for perfect recording and playback every time."
http://www.cddvdking.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=908

"Verbatim’s products have a ScratchGuard coating and will withstand finger print smudges as well as being dirt and dust repellant. They are also less sensitive to ultraviolet light and have successfully passed the ‘steel wool’ test - this involves a steel wool cloth being rubbed against our Blu-ray discs to simulate possible day-to-day hazards.”
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/verbatim_blu_ray_q306/

This article actually mentions that the Blu-rays are more durable than HD-DVDs:
"Because the Blu-ray standard places data so close to the surface of the disc, early discs were susceptible to dust and scratches and had to be enclosed in plastic caddies for protection.
The coating, developed by TDK Corporation under the name "Durabis", allows BDs to be cleaned safely with only a tissue — a procedure that can damage current CDs and DVDs. Presumably HD DVDs are similarly frail, as they are manufactured by the same process as the older optical media. Bare BDs with the coating are reportedly able to withstand attack by a screwdriver. [7] TDK has used the same coating on their current range of "Scratchproof" DVD media. Recently, TDK has made the DURABIS2 coating, which can withstand being ground with both Sandpaper and steel wool. It will be used on the Blu-ray exclusively. "
http://www.answers.com/topic/blu-ray-disc

Apparently the coating works well enough that Blu-ray decided not to use the caddys as they had originally planned.




Quote:
Narg Wrote:
Next, HDMI is unfortunately a dying standard. I personally don't like this, but the manufactures already have a new connectivity method that will replace HDMI soon.


I could not find anything to back this up...

If HDMI does become obsolete, PS3 still has the ability to play games and the blu-ray movies - at 1080p over component: http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/22/studios-wont-downgrade-hd-video-for-now/

Funny thing, rumors have it that the 360 may be adding an HDMI port: http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/08/hdmi-port-coming-to-the-xbox-360/

I googled "HDMI OBSOLETE", "HDMI DYING", this is what I found:

"Most new consumer devices are equipped with single and dual HDMI connectors at both the source and display. HDMI is expensive, but there will soon be plenty of HDMI solution providers allowing electronics manufacturers to add HDMI compatibility at a relatively low cost. Lower cost and the strong push for protecting digital content will cause HDMI to dominate in the consumer market."
http://www.planetanalog.com/columns/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188702168

I did find where HDMI 1.2 will be obsolete when HDMI 1.3 comes out on Oct. 6th (1.3 is backwards compatible with 1.2) - the PS3 will have HDMI 1.3 (http://www.ps3portal.com/ps3/article/313.html):

"This spec (HDMI 1.3) isn't a little better. Its stunningly better and a huge change.
A new impressive color spec, xvYCC, that encompasses a MUCH larger color space with better gamma. 16 bits PER COLOR for a 48 bit space. 4:4:4 RGB and support for 1920x1080@120hz. ALL AT THE SAME TIME !
A whopping 10.3Gb/sec max. With room to grow further.
W-O-W
AND if that was not enough DTS-HD, SACD and DVD-Audio support. "
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/games/PS3-bad-choiceftopic-96153-days0-orderasc-25.html

Here is an HDMI 1.3 Q&A:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/HDMI13specificationQA.php

Quote:
Narg Wrote:
AND GET THIS: HDMI will be REQUIRED to play Blu-Ray movies!


That is simply not correct - at least not until 2010 - at that point it looks like HDMI will be required for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/22/studios-wont-downgrade-hd-video-for-now/


My breakdown of the two systems:

Both systems will have gorgeous looking games - great fun to play.
A large number of the same games will be available for both systems. They will mostly look and play the same on both systems.
Both systems will have a number of games exclusive to their system only.
These exclusive games could be enough for some people to choose one system over the other.
You cannot make a bad choice - they are too close to call, IMHO.

Differences.
PS3 costs $200 more than the 360.
PS3 includes Blu-Ray out of the box. PS3 is meant to be a 1080p movie player as well as a game machine.
360 can upgrade to HD-DVD (for playing movies only) (for $200-$250)
360's DVDs have a max usable space of ~8gb
8gb may not be enough for some of the next-gen games.
PS3's Blu-ray have a max usable space of ~25gb-~50gb
PS3 has WiFi out of the box
360 can add WiFi for ~$85.
360 is available now.
360 will have more games available for it than the PS3 when the PS3 launches.
360 might have a decent price drop at the PS3 launch.

PS3 has the capability for 1080p games -
no launch titles at 1080p as of yet.
Hopefully in the future.
All launch titles will be at 720p or 1080i - same as 360.

Developer's creating games for both 360 and PS3 will most often use the lowest common denominator - 720p or 1080i - not 1080p. I would expect only the PS3 exclusive titles to run in 1080p in the future.



I'm leaning towards the PS3 for these reasons:
The PS3 seems to be geared more for a longer life-cycle. This follows with what we've seen with the XBOX and PS2. The XBOX was released a long time after the PS2, but the XBOX upgrade (the 360) was released well before the PS2 upgrade (the PS3).
Higher storage capacity of the Blu-ray vs. the DVDs. I'm worried that as the games get larger 360 users will have to swap discs or developer's will have to cut features out.
The Blu-ray movie player. *IF* you plan on using the 360/PS3 as a HD movie player, the 360's add-on HD-DVD player negates the price difference. I'm looking forward to watching a movie in full 1080p HD.
The *ability* to output at games 1080p may not be utilized for a while, but it will be nice to have when/if it is used.

If the 360 has a big price drop before the PS3 launch I might throw all of the above out and get the 360 now and wait to get the PS3 after a price drop...


Just my thoughts...
September 15, 2006 10:42:32 PM

I would just go for the ps3 if I had to pick one, its only 200$ .... 200$ is nothing if your getting a better system then its worth it......but I would wait on both because of that 1080p crap. I think im only getting a system when 1080p realy comes out and looks good/works well. Email me at irok_2ky@hotmail.com if you wanna share my lottorie winnings, i got more than i can spend.
September 30, 2006 4:56:04 AM

Quote:

Just to clarify. Well, duh!

I dare you to find a PS3 game after it hits the store that requires more than 2 gigabytes of data. I dare you. The average PS2 game was less than 500 Megabytes, and most Xbox360 games never made it above 1 gigabyte. 9 gigs is way too much. There has yet to even be a game released on dual layer DVD so nothing over 4 gig has been released yet, even on the Xbox360. PS3 is no different and will NOT require that much room, now or ever.


Resistance:Fall of Man is over 20 gig already. Does that meet your "dare"?

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/blu+ray/insomniac-explains-resistances-20gb-disc-199788.php
October 21, 2006 9:02:24 PM

One thing that concerns me that Blu-ray is very easy to damage. Blu-ray is more sensitive then HD-DVD. Which means I'll have to watch out where I put them, but mostly my friends won't be extra careful.

I prolly buy Xbox 360 in couple of months, depend how Gear of War goes :) 
Just a rumor that the price of X360 may decrease in couple of months, we'll see.

I don't know if I'm right, but I've heard that HD-dvd can go up to 30gig with dual layer.
October 21, 2006 9:08:53 PM

Quote:



I'm leaning towards the PS3 for these reasons:
The PS3 seems to be geared more for a longer life-cycle. This follows with what we've seen with the XBOX and PS2. The XBOX was released a long time after the PS2, but the XBOX upgrade (the 360) was released well before the PS2 upgrade (the PS3).
Higher storage capacity of the Blu-ray vs. the DVDs. I'm worried that as the games get larger 360 users will have to swap discs or developer's will have to cut features out.
The Blu-ray movie player. *IF* you plan on using the 360/PS3 as a HD movie player, the 360's add-on HD-DVD player negates the price difference. I'm looking forward to watching a movie in full 1080p HD.
The *ability* to output at games 1080p may not be utilized for a while, but it will be nice to have when/if it is used.

If the 360 has a big price drop before the PS3 launch I might throw all of the above out and get the 360 now and wait to get the PS3 after a price drop...


Just my thoughts...


Seems to me that you only cares about the device material, but what about games ?
October 21, 2006 10:28:34 PM

True - I do tend to lean a bit more towards the devices...

Reason is (for now) I'm only going to own one next-gen system.

Each system will have it's own exclusive "killer" games - and they will be a very good reason to buy one system over the other. Gears of War looks incredible. Resistance: Fall Of Man looks like it could be great. Both will have some unbelievable exclusive games that will make the owners of other systems jealous.

BUT - A lot of the games that come out, will come out for both systems - and will play exactly the same on both systems. Xbox owners (myself included) were very surprised to see the same game get the same reviews and same scores on both systems - and have the same gameplay and visuals. This is because the developers wrote the games to work on the weakest system (the PS2) and ported to the stronger system.

Right now, the only PS2 games I buy are PS2 exclusives. If they come out for both systems I buy the Xbox version. Reason: Xbox is the better system. The hardrive is head and shoulders above the memory cards. Dolby 5.1 rocks.

I feel that the PS3 will be better than the 360, in the same way that the Xbox is better than the PS2.

The prices on the systems are just about the same:
$499 for the PS3 w/o wifi and w/o memory card readers (still has USB readers) vs. $399 for the Xbox 360 Premium.

PS3 has HDMI - as does my tv - on my tv HDMI looks much better than component
PS3 has Blu-ray for games and movies
Xbox 360 has a $200 add-on HD-DVD player for movies only.
PS3 has free online gaming (MMORPG will cost, but the majority of shooters should be free) After playing for free on the PS2, I couldn't spend the $50/yr for an Xbox online membership.

The Blu-rays are supposed to be MORE difficult to damage than standard DVDs: http://www.physorg.com/news2615.html

You really won't be disappointed with either the 360 or the PS3. Both will have a ton of great games - I just see the PS3 having the more future-proof hardware...
October 22, 2006 12:01:35 AM

u are a moron narq, resistance fall of man wich is a launch game takes up 23gb, and oblivion is also gonna be a launch game...and guess what? its also gonna take advantage of the space so it dosnt hav to compress everything lik on dual layer dvds

console sys will eventually render at 1080p, and unless every game rite now wich is running at 720p is getting around 20 fps or under ur arguements about consoles being inferior are fud

console gaming essentially is cheaper then pc gaming, and u dont need an hdtv for it to look good
October 24, 2006 11:26:03 PM

I'd probably get a PS3 for many of those reasons plus the fact that it's much quieter/I like the design better. The PSP/PS3 connectivity is also a very nice bonus for those that have a PSP. The controller worries me, but the whole motion-sensing thing could actually be useful

But not until after the first price drop and a couple must-play AAA titles.
October 29, 2006 1:51:56 AM

Quote:
Have you seen an Xbox, Xbox360 or PS2 game take more than 1 DVD yet? Nope, so point should be understandable. Blu-Ray is a waste and poor design on Sony's part. Blu-Ray will go the same way as all other Sony attempts at market domanance in media.


PS2=star ocean 2 DVD's
Xbox360= dual layer DVD's game image takes up 7gb (i know because i back up my 360 games)
November 30, 2006 6:13:29 PM

Quote:
First, the PS3 will NOT delivery 1080p smoothly. Sorry, it won't.

Last, Nobody is going to spend $600 on a PS3. $600 can get you a good gaming PC (if you know what you are doing), or an Xbox360 PLUS a Wii together. Why waste money on a system that will suffer and loose in the marketplace?


LooooooooooooL how about the people spending $2000+ on them right now heheh

I know your post was before the release date of PS3 but i think you might be a little off in hindsight :) 
November 30, 2006 6:17:23 PM

also, surely the PS3 and 360 being next generation consoles are planning for the future, anyone who thinks that just because right now certain games dont take up more than one DL disc is only thinking about current situation not the future where much larger sized images of games are going to be coming.

How would a company look if they only planned for sales in the current market and dont think ahead...they would be crazy.

as for blu ray vs hd dvd who knows what will happen really, it is still to be seen and i guess we will find out if blu ray goes the way of beta max :) 
November 30, 2006 7:17:28 PM

Quote:

as for blu ray vs hd dvd who knows what will happen really, it is still to be seen and i guess we will find out if blu ray goes the way of beta max :) 


We already know. If you check sales on Amazon, HD-DVD is outselling Blu-Ray 2 to 1. Blu-Ray discs are already showing problems and people are starting to move away from them.
!