Page 1 of 2

PS3 or 360?

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:46 am
by Vocaltremors
I know this question has been asked before, but since I'm ready to make a purchase, I wanna get some opinions. Here's my take....I already have an extensive PS1 and PS2 collection, and I know the PS3 is almost fully backwards compatible. My Xbox collection is quite large as well, but hardly, if any, of my games will run on the 360. I am not so concerned about online play, especially since The Evil Empire charges for the service whereas the Sony service is still free, as far as I know. My biggest question is graphics, I've heard from quite a few people that hands down, the PS3 has better graphics that the 360, so I'm leaning towards a PS3. Another issue is Bluray...I know thru the trade mags, bluray outsells HD DVD almost 2 to 1 and I've still yet to see an HD DVD burner on the market, but should this be a concern in regards to format wars? I also know that one of my fave games is going to be a PS3 only game...I love the Metal Gear series.....so, let's hear from people who have played on both systems and tell me what you think. Again, I'm leaning towards PS3, but I still have some time to make a decision.

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:31 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote: My Xbox collection is quite large as well, but hardly, if any, of my games will run on the 360.



Which games do you have that will not run for the 360? The current list is over 300 games supported on the 360. The list appears to have most games that were worth buying on the Xbox.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:39 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:The Evil Empire charges for the service whereas the Sony service is still free, as far as I know.


Xbox Live is a once a year fee for all titles released on the 360 for Multiplayer Live matches. As far as I know Sony is not charging, but the individual publishers can for their titles. This could ultimately mean you are playing more overall for PS3 games if you play a lot of MP games. I am not 100% sure on how this will all shake out for them. But it is not cheap to buy and host servers.

I addition you are getting the same quality and consistency from any title on Xboxlive, PS3 will be dependant on each publisher.

My 2 completely biased cents. :)
4G

Hmmm...

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:42 pm
by ZXRO
Currently there isn't a lot of titles on the PS3 worth playing. It is a nice solution to the blu-ray issue, as it is a better player than most of the $800+ stand alone players on the market.

The online service is free, but incredibly slow and unreliable. The PS3 system updates take FOREVER to download, and you can't do anything while they are downloading. The user interface is terrible and not the least bit user friendly. The system is also large, heavy, and glossy, which means it is prone to fingerprints and scratches. The controllers won't charge unless the system is on. You also have to buy an HDMI cable separate, as Sony doesn't provide one. Sony is also horrible when it comes to first gen hardware. The current controllers also don't vibrate, so you will have to buy the new ones when they come out. Buying stuff on their online service takes forever, you have to go through a lot of screens. You are forced to agree to a EULA every time you download an update. Some games have load times that are way to long. The blu-ray cases aren't the same size as DVD, so you will need to buy some sort of new entertainment furniture.

However, the PS3 graphics are pretty. By no means do they "blow away" the 360, but they are very nice. The on/off/eject buttons are awesome. The main dashboard UI has some nice features. The new Metal Gear is coming out for it some time next year. There is definitely potential there.

The 360, on the other hand, has a very user friendly UI. Updates take a matter of seconds, and install automatically. Content is easy to find and purchase. The UI is customizable. The online service, while not free, is stable, fast, and reliable, for only the cost of 1 game for 13 months service. Every game is supported for online. The controllers vibrate, and charge when the system is off (providing you purchase one of the rechargeable options. The system is smaller. The games come in normal DVD size boxes. There are currently more games out for it, and more games worth buying. There is also a lot more content to purchase on their online service, including classic games, extra content for new games, television shows, movie trailers, game videos, etc. You can even rent high definition movies. The 360 is also cheaper.

The downside to the 360 is it doesn't function as a next gen movie media player. You can purchase a HD-DVD player for it for 200 dollars. The actual system is kind of loud, but no louder than the PS3. Some people complain of their systems dying, but these complaints are getting rarer.

I would say get a 360 now, and get a PS3 next year when there are more games out. Or hold off longer, and see what format wins the next gen movie wars, if you are concerned with that.

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:13 pm
by Vocaltremors
Thanks ZXRO for your candid input....I was chatting with Skankdrummer and he says that MGS 4 is coming out on 360, but from everything I have read, Konami and the guy who makes it have been steadily saying that it will be a PS3 Only title..... I'm still thinking PS3 because I just don't see the HD DVD winning this format war....not with the way disc sales are, and HD DVD just doesn't hold the same capacity of information as a Bluray. BD DL discs hold 50 gigs of info compared to 30 gigs on a HD DVD DL disc. As for the updates taking forever...hell, that's what the middle of the night is for... also, as for HDMI cables...I don't need them... I use the Neoya X2VGA 2 to run straight into my PC monitor at home via component cables...http://www.x2vga.com... thanks goes out to Drew for turning me on to this product!!! Also, I was just checking out Gamefly.com, and there are hella games that I'd wanna play on PS3...but I guess it all what your interested in playing.
As for the comment about backwards compatibility on the 360, I have looked for ever game I have on the list... only Munch's Odysee is on the list, otherwise, it's a no go.

Blu-Ray...

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:09 pm
by ZXRO
Well then I think you have found your system. One thing to consider about these format wars, tho, is that Sony has an abysmal history when it comes to their proprietary media. Betamax. Minidisc. UMD. All failures.

It's still way too early to tell. Personally I think downloadable media is the future, but no one knows for sure. Pick one and run with it and hope you don't end up with a fancy paperweight in 2 years.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:32 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:Thanks ZXRO for your candid input....I was chatting with Skankdrummer and he says that MGS 4 is coming out on 360, but from everything I have read, Konami and the guy who makes it have been steadily saying that it will be a PS3 Only title..... I'm still thinking PS3 because I just don't see the HD DVD winning this format war....not with the way disc sales are, and HD DVD just doesn't hold the same capacity of information as a Bluray. BD DL discs hold 50 gigs of info compared to 30 gigs on a HD DVD DL disc. As for the updates taking forever...hell, that's what the middle of the night is for... also, as for HDMI cables...I don't need them... I use the Neoya X2VGA 2 to run straight into my PC monitor at home via component cables...http://www.x2vga.com... thanks goes out to Drew for turning me on to this product!!! Also, I was just checking out Gamefly.com, and there are hella games that I'd wanna play on PS3...but I guess it all what your interested in playing.
As for the comment about backwards compatibility on the 360, I have looked for ever game I have on the list... only Munch's Odysee is on the list, otherwise, it's a no go.


The one major thing Sony has going for them in regards to Blue Ray is Sony Pictures. They own a ton of movies that they can force onto Blue Ray. That may help them win the war, but it is still unknown.

The reality of it is; the difference between a 30 gig HD DVD and a 50 gig Blue Ray disc is not that big. What do the extra 20 gigs get you? More special features? The movies themselves are not that large. Roughly 20 gigs I believe.

BTW out of curiosity, what games do you have that are not backward compatible? I believe (just me) that backward compatibility is purely a marketing thing. I know a ton of people with a PS2 that played MAYBE 1 or 2 PS1 games on it. When there are so many new games out, most people just buy them instead of playing outdated ones.

It really comes down to which console maker you like Microsoft or Sony. The one thing I don't get is the Evil Empire label people give Microsoft when Sony is worse for a lot or reasons.

Does Bill Gates giving billions to charity not even register to people? I would like to know your or anyone else reasons. It seems like the popular thing to say, but I never hear anyone say why.

4G

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:59 pm
by Oof
I dont know much about the 360. But I do love my PS3.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:37 pm
by Vocaltremors
Ok, here are some titles for the Xbox that I can't find on the list:

Gun
Sega GT/Jet Set Radio
The Punisher
MVP Baseball 2003,2004 and 2005
Legacy of Kain : Defiance
DOA:Extreme Beach Volleyball

I have plenty more on the shelf that I can't play.... If they are on the list, let me know....I might of missed them. I know Gun was released for the 360 as well, but why should I have to buy the 360 version?

Hmmm...

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:36 pm
by ZXRO
Is there something wrong with your current Xbox? Is it broken? If so, you might want to buy a used or refurbished one. From my experience, even the games that are backward compatable don't run quite right. Forza Motorsport, for example, is buggy as shit played over 360. At least mine is. Buy a next gen system to play next gen games. You will find yourself playing the old and busted games less and less.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:40 pm
by ZXRO
4G wrote:It really comes down to which console maker you like Microsoft or Sony. The one thing I don't get is the Evil Empire label people give Microsoft when Sony is worse for a lot or reasons.

Does Bill Gates giving billions to charity not even register to people? I would like to know your or anyone else reasons. It seems like the popular thing to say, but I never hear anyone say why.

4G


Word. I work at the so called "Evil Empire" myself. Boy, for being evil, they sure do take care of their employees. Hey everyone! At the Evil Empire lunch is cheap, soda is free, and the paychecks are big. All aboard!!!

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:24 am
by Vocaltremors
ZXRO wrote:Is there something wrong with your current Xbox? Is it broken? If so, you might want to buy a used or refurbished one. From my experience, even the games that are backward compatable don't run quite right. Forza Motorsport, for example, is buggy as shit played over 360. At least mine is. Buy a next gen system to play next gen games. You will find yourself playing the old and busted games less and less.

Nope, both old systems work fine, but because of space availability, I have to remove one of the systems when I upgrade. So, with that in mind, it sounds like I'm better off going with the PS3.
As for the comments about The Evil Empire, sure I know they take care of their employees very well.....they call that "brain washing". It's great that you guys are happy wilst the rest of the world is getting screwed over. All Hail Darth Gates.

Uh huh...

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:07 am
by ZXRO
:rolleyes:

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:16 am
by Vocaltremors
ZXRO wrote::rolleyes:

Yep, that's right...I expected a response like that from a Bill-bot.....

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:11 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:Nope, both old systems work fine, but because of space availability, I have to remove one of the systems when I upgrade. So, with that in mind, it sounds like I'm better off going with the PS3.
As for the comments about The Evil Empire, sure I know they take care of their employees very well.....they call that "brain washing". It's great that you guys are happy wilst the rest of the world is getting screwed over. All Hail Darth Gates.


What exactly has Bill done that made you think this way. I am asking not to be a dick, just to understand. You do know he gives away billions to charity and will give away 90% or more of his fortune to charity when he dies right?

I think the brain washing is the other way around. People make comments like this all the time, but never have anything to back it up.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:13 am
by 4G
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Read through this a little bit and then show me the Charity page for the Head of Sony and what they are doing to help the world. :)

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:15 am
by 4G
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html

Where the Money Goes

$1 billion over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students through college and some kinds of graduate school.
$750 million over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.
$350 million over three years to teachers, administrators, school districts and schools to improve America’s K-12 education, starting in Washington State.
$200 million to the Gates Library Program, which is wiring public libraries in America’s poorest communities in an effort to close the “digital divide.”
$100 million to the Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, which will accelerate delivery of lifesaving vaccines to children in the poorest countries of the world.
$50 million to the Maternal Mortality Reduction Program, run by the Columbia University School of Public Health.
$50 million to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, to conduct research on promising candidates for a malaria vaccine.
$50 million to an international group called the Alliance for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.
$50 million to a fund for global polio eradication, led by the World Health Organization, Unicef, Rotary International and the U.N. Foundation.
$40 million to the International Vaccine Institute, a research program based in Seoul, South Korea.
$28 million to Unicef for the elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus.
$25 million to the Sequella Global Tuberculosis Foundation.
$25 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which is creating coalitions of research scientists, pharmaceutical companies and governments in developing countries to look for a safe, effective, widely accessible vaccine against AIDS.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:16 am
by 4G
My point is he does not just take care of his employees.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:49 am
by Vocaltremors
4G wrote:My point is he does not just take care of his employees.


Ok, let's be honest with ourselves....do you really think he gives all this money to philanthropic causes because he does it out of the goodness of his heart. Don't be nieve...he gives it because the government gives him a tax break for doing so. I can almost guarantee that if the government said that they were going to stop allowing a deduction for donating to a non profit charity, he'd stop giving. The rich don't get rich by being frivolous with their money. Why do you think almost every single multi million dollar sports star has a foundation or charity they are involved with. Here's why:
1) TAX BREAK
2) POSITIVE PUBLIC RELATIONS SPIN

It's all about perception and it's all about the rich keeping more money in their own pocket.
Another point I'd like to make is why does he farm out most of his work to "contractors" and not make them full time employees with benefits and the like? Because that would cut into the bottom line, or more importantly, his profit margin....

Right...

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:57 am
by ZXRO
Because you must be evil if you are concerned about your company's profit margin. I believe that is pretty much standard practice in business.

What are you? A mac user? Linux? What?

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:01 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:Ok, let's be honest with ourselves....do you really think he gives all this money to philanthropic causes because he does it out of the goodness of his heart. Don't be nieve...he gives it because the government gives him a tax break for doing so. I can almost guarantee that if the government said that they were going to stop allowing a deduction for donating to a non profit charity, he'd stop giving. The rich don't get rich by being frivolous with their money. Why do you think almost every single multi million dollar sports star has a foundation or charity they are involved with. Here's why:
1) TAX BREAK
2) POSITIVE PUBLIC RELATIONS SPIN

It's all about perception and it's all about the rich keeping more money in their own pocket.
Another point I'd like to make is why does he farm out most of his work to "contractors" and not make them full time employees with benefits and the like? Because that would cut into the bottom line, or more importantly, his profit margin....



I encourage you to do some research on this if that is what you believe. And you still have not given reasons why he is evil.

From the same article above:

Before he began giving money away, people complained that he was a miser. Now that he is giving money away, they complain that he’s doing it too late, that he isn’t giving enough, that he hasn’t a clue about what he’s getting into, that the projects he is financing are too conservative, too liberal, too big, too small, too safe, too risky, too conventional, too splashy. top of page

Or they say he’s only doing it to avoid taxes, or to expand Microsoft’s markets, or, especially, to improve his image in light of the government’s high-profile antitrust suit.

“Bill Gates can’t win,” says Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation and a longtime adviser to Gates on the subject of philanthropy.

“It’s like 19th-century anti-Semitism. If the **** didn’t mix into German society, people said they had a parochial, shtetl mentality. If they did mix, people said they were trying to pass. More important than why he’s doing this is what he’s doing. The proof will be in the pudding.”

In January, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation edged past Britain’s Wellcome Trust to become the largest in the world, with assets of $21.8 billion. Even the greatest philanthropists of the past did not give away as much in real dollars over their entire lifetimes as Gates has at the age of 44.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie made gifts amounting to $350 million before he died in 1919 -- a sum that would be worth about $3 billion in today’s dollars; and the $540 million that John D. Rockefeller dispensed before his death in 1937 would amount to more than $6 billion today—less than a third of the Gates total so far. As a percentage of the gross national product, Gates’s gifts do not yet match those of his predecessors, but he is just getting started.

That Gates began adding to the foundation in huge ($5 billion) increments over the past 14 months, as the government prosecution took its damaging course, led to a widespread conviction that his philanthropy was just part of a public relations campaign. Then, on April 3, Federal District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated the law with “predacious” anticompetitive behavior, and the stock market knocked $80 billion off the company’s value.

Gates himself reportedly lost $12 billion to $14 billion that day, but the foundation’s endowment remains intact: its donations come in the form of Microsoft stock and are immediately converted to cash. What effect, if any, the lawsuit will have on future contributions to the foundation is unclear. Microsoft intends to appeal, and the battle could go on for years.

Gates has always said that, like Carnegie, he will give away most of his fortune before he dies. He plans to make sure his children are well taken care of but doesn’t want to leave them the burden of tremendous wealth.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:06 am
by Vocaltremors
ZXRO wrote:Because you must be evil if you are concerned about your company's profit margin. I believe that is pretty much standard practice in business.

What are you? A mac user? Linux? What?

No, as a business, you have to be concerned about your profit margin, however, why not give back to the people that help him amass his fortune and keep him where he is. Microsoft produts are all ready expensive enough, so I don't see why he couldn't afford to hire on full time all the contractors and offer them the whole line of health benefits and the like. If you really cared about people, then you would want to take care of the people who have made and currently make you your money, first and foremost, right?

As for my OS or my PC, what relevance does that have to this discussion? However, to satisfy your curiousity, I currently run Windows XP Professional on a Gateway Select.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:13 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:No, as a business, you have to be concerned about your profit margin, however, why not give back to the people that help him amass his fortune and keep him where he is. Microsoft produts are all ready expensive enough, so I don't see why he couldn't afford to hire on full time all the contractors and offer them the whole line of health benefits and the like. If you really cared about people, then you would want to take care of the people who have made and currently make you your money, first and foremost, right?

As for my OS or my PC, what relevance does that have to this discussion? However, to satisfy your curiousity, I currently run Windows XP Professional on a Gateway Select.


First he employs over 60,000 permanent people. Contractors are used to help do work that is temporary such as a production spike. There is not enough work to keep them around full time. If he did it would be like Boeing where they have constant lay-offs. In my group we go through cycles where we need addtional help, but only for a few months at a time. If those people were all full time, I would have to worry about losing my job every year when the schedule calms down.

Contractors make a good amount of money as well, it is not like they are paid minimum wage. They also get OT for over 40 hours of work, FTE's do not.

In reality a contractor can cost a lot more than an FTE during a crunch phase.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:14 am
by Vocaltremors
4G wrote:I encourage you to do some research on this if that is what you believe. And you still have not given reasons why he is evil.

From the same article above:

Before he began giving money away, people complained that he was a miser. Now that he is giving money away, they complain that he’s doing it too late, that he isn’t giving enough, that he hasn’t a clue about what he’s getting into, that the projects he is financing are too conservative, too liberal, too big, too small, too safe, too risky, too conventional, too splashy. top of page

Or they say he’s only doing it to avoid taxes, or to expand Microsoft’s markets, or, especially, to improve his image in light of the government’s high-profile antitrust suit.

“Bill Gates can’t win,” says Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation and a longtime adviser to Gates on the subject of philanthropy.

“It’s like 19th-century anti-Semitism. If the **** didn’t mix into German society, people said they had a parochial, shtetl mentality. If they did mix, people said they were trying to pass. More important than why he’s doing this is what he’s doing. The proof will be in the pudding.”

In January, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation edged past Britain’s Wellcome Trust to become the largest in the world, with assets of $21.8 billion. Even the greatest philanthropists of the past did not give away as much in real dollars over their entire lifetimes as Gates has at the age of 44.

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie made gifts amounting to $350 million before he died in 1919 -- a sum that would be worth about $3 billion in today’s dollars; and the $540 million that John D. Rockefeller dispensed before his death in 1937 would amount to more than $6 billion today—less than a third of the Gates total so far. As a percentage of the gross national product, Gates’s gifts do not yet match those of his predecessors, but he is just getting started.

That Gates began adding to the foundation in huge ($5 billion) increments over the past 14 months, as the government prosecution took its damaging course, led to a widespread conviction that his philanthropy was just part of a public relations campaign. Then, on April 3, Federal District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated the law with “predacious” anticompetitive behavior, and the stock market knocked $80 billion off the company’s value.

Gates himself reportedly lost $12 billion to $14 billion that day, but the foundation’s endowment remains intact: its donations come in the form of Microsoft stock and are immediately converted to cash. What effect, if any, the lawsuit will have on future contributions to the foundation is unclear. Microsoft intends to appeal, and the battle could go on for years.

Gates has always said that, like Carnegie, he will give away most of his fortune before he dies. He plans to make sure his children are well taken care of but doesn’t want to leave them the burden of tremendous wealth.


Yeah, I read the article, but the proof is in the pudding, and your not going to convince me otherwise. Burden of tremendous wealth...what a line. Must really suck to be that rich......NOT! It's not like Bill has ever had to worry about where his next meal was coming from or have to live paycheck to paycheck, as he was pretty much born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:21 am
by 4G
Vocaltremors wrote:Yeah, I read the article, but the proof is in the pudding, and your not going to convince me otherwise. Burden of tremendous wealth...what a line. Must really suck to be that rich......NOT! It's not like Bill has ever had to worry about where his next meal was coming from or have to live paycheck to paycheck, as he was pretty much born with a silver spoon in his mouth.


So he is evil becuase he is rich and successful? Thats why you hate him? What about Sony then? The head of Sony is not poor either. Does that make him evil?