Why can the PS3 do this but the 360 can't? [Archive]

Mint

24-11-2009, 12:29 PM

I have temporarily swapped my PS3 with my dads mate for his 360. He wanted to try the PS3 out and I thought that if they are so similar (like some 360 owners say) then why not? So with the release of Uncharted 2 I thought I might as well buy it for the 360 then just trade it in for the PS3 version when I get my PS3 back. So I went to Game and was shocked to see that it is only for PS3's. I really wanted to play it as I loved the first one. I could of sworn that I saw it advertising for the 360 but obviously not... So I've been looking around trying to find out why it isn't on the 360 and Naughy Dog (the people that made Unchared 1/2) have said that the 360 is nowhere near powerful enough to play Uncharted 2. This official link explains why, isn't much to read btw.

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2009/08/28/uncharted-2-playing-beyond-the-xbox-360/

The sequel to my all time favourite game is out and I can't get it. :(

I want my PS3 back.

Closed by Jamesy (Forum Moderator): Due to arguments.

Kevin

24-11-2009, 12:48 PM

GommeInc

24-11-2009, 01:09 PM

I always thought it common gaming knowledge that NaughtyDog only release titles on the Sony Playstations? Jak and Daxter, Uncharted and a few others :S Even the adverts just show a PS3 and/or PS3 game case... And as you said, the game is just too powerful for the 360 :P Most PS3 exclusives are exclusive for some reason or another :P

It's been out for ages too!

Mint

24-11-2009, 01:13 PM

Your question is the answer

But if they are so similar how come the 360 is nowhere near powerful enough to play this game? Similar my ass. I'm so pissed off, I want to play this game so much but I can't because I'm stuck with this piece of ****.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 01:14 PM

Jord

24-11-2009, 01:23 PM

One word.

Money

PS3 Paid Money for it to be a PS3 Exclusive

Mint

24-11-2009, 01:27 PM

Firstly, I've never heard any 360 owners say a 360 is so similar to a PS3. They are usually saying 360s are better. As you mentioned, the PS3 is more powerful but that's as far as the argument goes in favour of Sony's console.

As for your question, why are you so shocked? There are plenty of console-exclusive titles and always have been :S.

Nah at school and outside of school people who have 360's have said things like "PS3's aren't even better they are just the same" The typical argument for when you have just bought something cheaper and you are trying to make them think that yours is just as good as theirs. I knew the PS3 had the upper hand in pretty much everything else (excluding online, thats the only things the 360 wins) but I expected the 360 to at least match the PS3's power but it turns out the 360 is nowhere near as powerful!

But oh well, I'll have my lovely Playstation 3 back soon. I suppose I could get Forza Motorsports as that does look quite good and it is a 360 exclusive. Lets just hope this 360 has enough power for it. :rolleyes:

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 01:37 PM

adaym

24-11-2009, 02:40 PM

One word.

Money

PS3 Paid Money for it to be a PS3 Exclusive
... and Sony paid them to say the 360 is inferior.

I think sales of games and consoles prove which is better. I have no problem with people buying the PS3 as it is a decent console - I just prefer, as do the majority, the 360.

Mint

24-11-2009, 03:12 PM

I don't know how you can say it is superior in every way but online. The PS3's power is the only thing that is superior to the 360 :S.

For example, when I buy a 360 game, it doesn't have to install it. Then it doesn't have to download updates almost every time I turn it on. Then when I want to play online it actually works (thinking about FIFA 09 here mainly). I believe the 360 is backward compatible (even though I didn't have an original XBOX so no old games, where as I got rid of about 50 or so PS2 games when I realised they were useless to my PS3).

I could go on but I've had this argument far too many times especially with my mates who don't even seem to ever put forward a valid argument. Instead they just blank out everything say. The fact of the matter is I own both consoles AND I WAS A PLAYSTATION FAN BOY so I have no reason to be biased towards the 360 yet I have found it is the better console. I did find it funny how they all had trouble with their PS3 copies of Modern Warfare 2 :P.

Blu-Ray is about the only thing they can come up with but don't even try to use that to argue with me. I barely own any DVDs even though I have about 6 devices that can play them, so do you really think I'm going to start buying movies that can only be watched on one device (which I'm thinking about trading in anyway! :P)?

I could easily come up with a list of many stronger reasons as to why the PS3 is far superior but I'm not looking for a PS3 vs 360 argument here. Obviously you are going to be quite upset about finding out how weak the 360 is in comparison to the PS3 but it's a fact your going to have to live with. If the power of the console matters so much when making games then I really am glad that I chose the PS3 (although I chose it for many other reasons than the power). The exclusives for the PS3 are really starting to get good now. More people can afford the PS3 with the release of the slim, they are finally admitting that they the PS3 is better and switching over to it. Now so many people I know have changed to PS3 and I can play them online. :D

Let's get back to the main point of this thread though. They are both the latest games consoles released at pretty much the same time and are very similar. What I don't understand is why the PS3 is so much more powerful? It sounds as if the 360 doesn't even come close? :S The 360 is a really good console and there's no doubt that if there was no PS3 to compete with it then everyone would be more than happy to buy it. I'm just really annoyed that I can't play Uncharted 2 because the 360 lacks the power.

And to thyflux, the amount of sales are obviously going to be greater for the cheaper product. The PS3 might be better but not by much, so the majority are obviously going to choose the console that is almost as good as it's competitor but much cheaper. And lol at you saying that Sony have paid Naughty Dog to say that the PS3 is better, it's a fact. Sony may of paid them to make exclusive games but that doesn't mean they could of made Uncharted 2 for the 360, the 360 can't handle it.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 03:16 PM

... and Sony paid them to say the 360 is inferior.

I think sales of games and consoles prove which is better. I have no problem with people buying the PS3 as it is a decent console - I just prefer, as do the majority, the 360.

Not to shoot myself in the foot here (:P) but sales can't really paint a valid picture of what is actually best as the can be (and are) influenced by price and people's preconceptions.

adaym

24-11-2009, 03:20 PM

I could easily come up with a list of many stronger reasons as to why the PS3 is far superior but I'm not looking for a PS3 vs 360 argument here. Obviously you are going to be quite upset about finding out how weak the 360 is in comparison to the PS3 but it's a fact your going to have to live with. If the power of the console matters so much when making games then I really am glad that I chose the PS3 (although I chose it for many other reasons than the power). The exclusives for the PS3 are really starting to get good now. More people can afford the PS3 with the release of the slim, they are finally admitting that they the PS3 is better and switching over to it. Now so many people I know have changed to PS3 and I can play them online. :D

Let's get back to the main point of this thread though. They are both the latest games consoles released at pretty much the same time and are very similar. What I don't understand is why the PS3 is so much more powerful? It sounds as if the 360 doesn't even come close? :S The 360 is a really good console and there's no doubt that if there was no PS3 to compete with it then everyone would be more than happy to buy it. I'm just really annoyed that I can't play Uncharted 2 because the 360 lacks the power.

And to thyflux, the amount of sales are obviously going to be greater for the cheaper product. The PS3 might be better but not by much, so the majority are obviously going to choose the console that is almost as good as it's competitor but much cheaper. And lol at you saying that Sony have paid Naughty Dog to say that the PS3 is better, it's a fact. Sony may of paid them to make exclusive games but that doesn't mean they could of made Uncharted 2 for the 360, the 360 can't handle it.Have you got proof from an unbiased source?

Oh, and on the 'sales' part - I said games and consoles.

MW2 is the biggest game of the year; let's see which console people have bought it for:
http://www.play.com/Games/Games/6-/TopSellers.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/videogames//ref=sv_vg_h__8

Hmm. Hard to argue really.

Mint

24-11-2009, 03:24 PM

Not to shoot myself in the foot here (:P) but sales can't really paint a valid picture of what is actually best as the can be (and are) influenced by price and people's preconceptions.

You have actually spoken some sense here. :P If I wanted to buy a console but had to pay with my own money then despite being a PS3 fan boy I would buy a 360. I'm not sure about that now with the PS3's being a lot cheaper but the amount of money I would of saved makes up for it not being as good. So yeh there you have it, I'd be perfectly happy to own a 360, why? Because they honestly aren't that much worse than PS3's. But I didn't have to buy the console so obviously I'm going to ask for the better one. :P

Have you got proof from an unbiased source?

Oh, and on the 'sales' part - I said games and consoles.

MW2 is the biggest game of the year; let's see which console people have bought it for:
http://www.play.com/Games/Games/6-/TopSellers.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/videogames//ref=sv_vg_h__8

Hmm. Hard to argue really.

Wow, I'm actually surprised at how close it is. Like I have already said, more people will of chosen 360's over PS3's because they are so much cheaper but only a little bit inferior, the amount of cash you save makes up for it being an inferior product. If more people own a 360 then more people are going to purchase Modern Warfare 2 on the 360. :P But yeh I really am genuinely surprised at how many people have bought it for PS3, it must be because of the introduction of the slim.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 03:41 PM

... Obviously you are going to be quite upset about finding out how weak the 360 is in comparison to the PS3 but it's a fact your going to have to live with.
...
The exclusives for the PS3 are really starting to get good now. More people can afford the PS3 with the release of the slim, they are finally admitting that they the PS3 is better and switching over to it. Now so many people I know have changed to PS3 and I can play them online. :D
...
What I don't understand is why the PS3 is so much more powerful? It sounds as if the 360 doesn't even come close? :S The 360 is a really good console and there's no doubt that if there was no PS3 to compete with it then everyone would be more than happy to buy it. I'm just really annoyed that I can't play Uncharted 2 because the 360 lacks the power. ...

Firstly, how is it obvious I wouldn't be happy if that was the case? :S I said I used to be a PS fan boy and I also own both consoles. Those two facts together mean I'm either impartial or I'd prefer the PS to win. However I have already stated I prefer the 360 based on a rational evaluation.

What exclusives? There's this and Gran Turismo 5 that's worth talking about. On the other hand the 360 has things like Episodes of Liberty City for instance. If you really want to look into it, I believe there are a fair few more 360 exclusives than PS3.

How is it so hard to understand the PS3 is a more powerful console??? I don't know how it compares to an XBOX Elite but from the face of it, the PS3 costed around £500 while you could pick an XBOX up for around £200 or something like that. Sony's break even point was so high that despite that stupidly high price tag, they were actually making a loss on each console at the beginning!!! Of course it's going to be an outstanding machine from a performance perspective. However my opinions are based mainly around the overall experience of using each machine. I experienced a lot more annoyances with the PS3 which is why I have found myself spending a lot more time playing my 360 and thus claiming it is the better console.

scottish

24-11-2009, 03:47 PM

I could easily come up with a list of many stronger reasons as to why the PS3 is far superior but I'm not looking for a PS3 vs 360 argument here. Obviously you are going to be quite upset about finding out how weak the 360 is in comparison to the PS3 but it's a fact your going to have to live with. If the power of the console matters so much when making games then I really am glad that I chose the PS3 (although I chose it for many other reasons than the power). The exclusives for the PS3 are really starting to get good now. More people can afford the PS3 with the release of the slim, they are finally admitting that they the PS3 is better and switching over to it. Now so many people I know have changed to PS3 and I can play them online. :D

Let's get back to the main point of this thread though. They are both the latest games consoles released at pretty much the same time and are very similar. What I don't understand is why the PS3 is so much more powerful? It sounds as if the 360 doesn't even come close? :S The 360 is a really good console and there's no doubt that if there was no PS3 to compete with it then everyone would be more than happy to buy it. I'm just really annoyed that I can't play Uncharted 2 because the 360 lacks the power.

And to thyflux, the amount of sales are obviously going to be greater for the cheaper product. The PS3 might be better but not by much, so the majority are obviously going to choose the console that is almost as good as it's competitor but much cheaper. And lol at you saying that Sony have paid Naughty Dog to say that the PS3 is better, it's a fact. Sony may of paid them to make exclusive games but that doesn't mean they could of made Uncharted 2 for the 360, the 360 can't handle it.

You keep on going on about power, but do you have any proof or anything

I mean someone could easily make a game, xbox 360 only and say only reason its not on ps3 is because ps3 graphics isn't capable of playing the game, or something similair to that?

adaym

24-11-2009, 03:52 PM

Wow, I'm actually surprised at how close it is. Like I have already said, more people will of chosen 360's over PS3's because they are so much cheaper but only a little bit inferior, the amount of cash you save makes up for it being an inferior product. If more people own a 360 then more people are going to purchase Modern Warfare 2 on the 360. :P But yeh I really am genuinely surprised at how many people have bought it for PS3, it must be because of the introduction of the slim.
It does the same job, though. The game, MW2, will play the same on both consoles, the same. Yes, more people buy the 360 but not because it's cheap, because it's a preference. It's like buying a crap Thailand electronic television like Sanyo or something - it's crap, no one buys it. You want quality like Sony vs Panasonic. They both do the same thing and at the same quality but for some reason Sony think it's good for them to charge more.

They both do the same thing, 360 is cheaper so people go for that. Sony, if you like, is a more 'trusted' brand. I have no quarms with people buying a PS3 but when they come out with useless drivvel that they cannot in any way back up with facts, it gets on my nelly.

I've provided facts about MW2, you've yet to provide facts on Uncharted 2.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 03:58 PM

As for MW2, everyone I know who has it on PS3 couldn't even get online with it at launch.

dbgtz

24-11-2009, 04:02 PM

One word.

Money

PS3 Paid Money for it to be a PS3 Exclusive

No Sony own naughty dog. Also ps3s cost more to make.

adaym

24-11-2009, 04:05 PM

No Sony own naughty dog.
Well that's it then - discussion over. Makes me laugh this 'more powerful than'.

Firehorse

24-11-2009, 06:59 PM

Have you got proof from an unbiased source?

Oh, and on the 'sales' part - I said games and consoles.

MW2 is the biggest game of the year; let's see which console people have bought it for:
http://www.play.com/Games/Games/6-/TopSellers.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/videogames//ref=sv_vg_h__8

Hmm. Hard to argue really.

That is not a valid argument. More people have purchased the game for the 360 because the 360 is a cheaper console, particularly because of this there are more teens and children who own one and buy this sort of first person shooter game. If the stats included age then there would probably be like 50% more people under 15 who buy it for the 360.

Points for and against both consoles:

xBox

Cheap
Large Selection of Games
Sky
Comfortable controller
Built Cheaply (More likely to overheat)
Disk Scratching is fairly common
Less Powerful
Paid For Network Features
Basic Features Only (Pay extra for wifi etc)
PS3

Good Build Quality
Large Selection of Games
More Powerful (System is futureproof for years)
Full HD (1080p, xBox is 1080i)
Free Network Features
More Expensive
Occasionally freezes
3 Minutes Needed to Install a Game Before Playing

As for MW2, everyone I know who has it on PS3 couldn't even get online with it at launch.

That is nothing to do with the console itself. That is a server side problem, if anything it just shows there were more people using the PS3 version than they expected.

kk.

24-11-2009, 07:07 PM

That is not a valid argument. More people have purchased the game for the 360 because the 360 is a cheaper console, particularly because of this there are more teens and children who own one and buy this sort of first person shooter game. If the stats included age then there would probably be like 50% more people under 15 who buy it for the 360.

Points for and against both consoles:

xBox

Cheap (read the basic features thing)
Large Selection of Games
Sky+ others
Comfortable controller
Built Cheaply (More likely to overheat)
Disk Scratching is fairly common
Less PowerfulHow this is a bad point i dont know. Do you notice the power?
Paid For Network Features which means much better service.
Basic Features Only (Pay extra for wifi etc) which makes it to about the same price as ps3, so not really a bad point
PS3

Good Build Quality
Large Selection of Games
More Powerful (System is futureproof for years) Yet it wont be since theyll release a new one..
Full HD (1080p, xBox is 1080i) its very rare to see a game in 1080p but on the back of my MW2 copy it says 1080p
http://www.xbox.com/en-au/support/xbox360/manuals/xbox360specs.htm

Free Network Features which is worse
More Expensive true, but as above, xbox extras make it the same price
Occasionally freezes
3 Minutes Needed to Install a Game Before Playing this is less of a problem now. Whats 3 minutes anyway.

That is nothing to do with the console itself. That is a server side problem, if anything it just shows there were more people using the PS3 version than they expected.

also the xbox is cheaper to run power wise

Robbie

24-11-2009, 07:13 PM

xBox is 1080i

All games supported at 16:9, 720p, 1080i and 1080p, with anti-aliasing

http://www.xbox.com/en-au/support/xbox360/manuals/xbox360specs.htm

kk.

24-11-2009, 07:16 PM

http://www.xbox.com/en-au/support/xbox360/manuals/xbox360specs.htm

you well stole my link :'(

Firehorse

24-11-2009, 07:20 PM

also the xbox is cheaper to run power wise

Afraid its not. Unless you're talking about the PS3 Fat which isn't manufactured anymore.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10318727-1.html can't find any stats like this for the 360 but reading around i'm hearing it averages at around 175-220W

kk.

24-11-2009, 07:43 PM

the majority of ps3 owners have an original ps3 and so the majority pays more to run. I too cannot find any statistics for the 360.

scottish

24-11-2009, 07:45 PM

http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5480&ts=1172056422

kk.

24-11-2009, 08:42 PM

http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5480&ts=1172056422

the study i read said the xbox is somewhere in between the ps3 and wii actually

Firehorse

24-11-2009, 08:43 PM

http://www.hardcoreware.net/image.php?src=5480&ts=1172056422

Fat PS3 and even so theres barely any difference in power usage on that chart. 10W difference will barely cost you 50p more to run per year.

Lost_Addict

24-11-2009, 09:46 PM

Thats like asking why is halo 3 only on xbox 360?

it's an exclusive, both consoles have it, it will never change

End.

Black_Apalachi

24-11-2009, 10:20 PM

Some edits.

... Points for and against both consoles:

xBox

Cheap
Large Selection of Games
Sky
Comfortable controller
Built Cheaply (More likely to overheat)
Disk Scratching is fairly common
Less Powerful
Paid For Network Features
Basic Features Only (Pay extra for wifi etc) But XBL is INFINITELY better than PSN and you can play music while doing anything
PS3

Good Build Quality
Large Selection of Games
More Powerful (System is futureproof for years)
Full HD (1080p, xBox is 1080i)
Free Network Features
More Expensive
Occasionally freezes
3 Minutes Needed to Install a Game Before Playing This is unacceptable imo and it can take longer, also requires far too many updates.
...

Andeeh

24-11-2009, 10:22 PM

hahaha this is funny stuff. people can get what console they like no need to argue the case, let bygons be bygons

Firehorse

25-11-2009, 11:38 AM

Some edits.

How has wifi got to do with the network features? Also its still paid for (£40 a year - big ripoff). For use just to chat to friends i'd use msn which btw is also by microsoft. And music isn't exactly a big use, some ps3 games allow you to play your own music while playing and anyway i'd just play music using something called a stereo.

Whats wrong with updates? Installing just means that you will have shorter load times since it loads from the hard drive and updates fix bugs and other issues. If you don't want to update just disconnect your internet or something when you load the game.

kk.

25-11-2009, 12:05 PM

Typical fan boy? ^

Mint

25-11-2009, 01:36 PM

As for MW2, everyone I know who has it on PS3 couldn't even get online with it at launch.
Yes that was really annoying. There were many more people than expected online so the servers were overloaded and crashed.

Well that's it then - discussion over. Makes me laugh this 'more powerful than'.
Umm no... Even if it was a company owned by Sony that said the PS3 is more powerful, it's still a well known fact. It's a shame a lot of you 360 fan boys can't see the extras on Uncharted, there's like 5 videos running you through how they made it and they make it very clear how they took advantage of the PS3's power.

also the xbox is cheaper to run power wise
Only an Xbox owner could be bothered about the cost of electricity to run their console. :P

the majority of ps3 owners have an original ps3 and so the majority pays more to run. I too cannot find any statistics for the 360.
Pays more to run? The difference of running costs between these 2 machines every year could be found in a homeless persons begging cup outside of the local supermarket.

the study i read said the xbox is somewhere in between the ps3 and wii actually
What!? So you are saying that the Wii cost less to run than the PS3 and 360?! Right, I'm selling my PS3 and getting a Wii.

Fat PS3 and even so theres barely any difference in power usage on that chart. 10W difference will barely cost you 50p more to run per year.
Yeh exactly lol

Thats like asking why is halo 3 only on xbox 360?

it's an exclusive, both consoles have it, it will never change

End.
But if you asked "Would it be possible to play Halo on the PS3 if it wasn't a 360 exclusive?" You would expect the answer to be yes. Not to be "No, the PS3 isn't powerful enough".

Some edits.
In them edits, you said that the 3 minutes it can take to install parts of a game is unacceptable. Is this because of the running costs going to waste? :rolleyes: If not then I don't see how you can be unhappy about it, it's going to save you a lot of time in the future by loading levels faster.

scottish

25-11-2009, 01:47 PM

Yes that was really annoying. There were many more people than expected online so the servers were overloaded and crashed.

coz ps3 network is free so sucks.

Umm no... Even if it was a company owned by Sony that said the PS3 is more powerful, it's still a well known fact. It's a shame a lot of you 360 fan boys can't see the extras on Uncharted, there's like 5 videos running you through how they made it and they make it very clear how they took advantage of the PS3's power.

if you knew there was videos bout it and stuff why the hellare you complaining bout it then, seems like a thread just trying to boost how good the ps3 is, and failing.

Only an Xbox owner could be bothered about the cost of electricity to run their console. :P

or anyone who pays bills

But if you asked "Would it be possible to play Halo on the PS3 if it wasn't a 360 exclusive?" You would expect the answer to be yes. Not to be "No, the PS3 isn't powerful enough".

or they coud make up some useless crap about an aspect of the xbox 360 being better than the ps3?

i don't think you've given any proof of how the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox360 yet, just the one bloke?

Black_Apalachi

25-11-2009, 02:04 PM

How has wifi got to do with the network features? Also its still paid for (£40 a year - big ripoff). For use just to chat to friends i'd use msn which btw is also by microsoft. And music isn't exactly a big use, some ps3 games allow you to play your own music while playing and anyway i'd just play music using something called a stereo. ...

The thing is though, surprisingly I don't even feel annoyed that I'm paying to play online because when I use the PSN, it's just so frustrating and annoying. XBL is clearly more reliable and it's a lot more satisfying to use.

I don't chat to friends.. don't know where that one came from.

Music isn't a big use? I could say the same about Blu-Ray considering I have no Blu-Ray movies while music is a big use to me, actually. Telling me to use an alternative means to provide a basic function just screams a big flaw in your argument for which is the better console. Furthermore, Sony marketed the PS3 as a media centre rather than just a games console so you would think music was kind of a given. Oopsy.

I guess that points me towards another reason why I favour the 360, when I bought the two machines, I bought them as games consoles. The XBOX focuses on this sole aspect while the PS3 tries to be so much more, maybe Sony were just biting off more than they could chew by trying to make it do everything. Then again, maybe you prefer the PS3 because of all the singing and dancing, whereas, like I say, I just want to play games.

... In them edits, you said that the 3 minutes it can take to install parts of a game is unacceptable. Is this because of the running costs going to waste? :rolleyes: If not then I don't see how you can be unhappy about it, it's going to save you a lot of time in the future by loading levels faster.

What? :S No, it's because no other games console I've ever played on in the history of time as ever had to install the game. I would be impressed if once installed, the disc was no longer needed, but I don't expect to buy a game which I'm excited to play and have to wait for it to sort itself out. I don't see how it speeds up loading or whatever because I don't have any trouble with other games on other consoles. I've just been playing MW2 on the 360 for instance, and from turning it on, I was in a multiplayer match within a few minutes.

As for the PS3, it amazes me how Sony went from best games console imaginable with the PS2 to such an over-priced disappointment. I really regret trading in my PS2 and all the games.

Mint

25-11-2009, 02:27 PM

coz ps3 network is free so sucks.

That's the type of pointless, non backed up reply I'd expect from a primary school kid. Technically you have just said that the servers reached their maximum number of players online and crashed because the PS3 online is free so it sucks. :S First of all, PS3 network were not expecting so many people to be online, if they knew how many more people would of been online they would of increased the size of the servers (or whatever you call it) and everything would of been fine. The same could easily happen on the 360 if they underestimated the amount of people online. When a server gets overloaded, it crashes, no matter what console it is on. You pay more money for a PS3 so some of that money goes towards online making it not so much free, at least it's a 1 time fee though. ;)

if you knew there was videos bout it and stuff why the hellare you complaining bout it then, seems like a thread just trying to boost how good the ps3 is, and failing.

I played on Uncharted 2 yesterday and was watching some of the videos. I made this thread to ask that if they are so "similar" then how come the PS3 is so much more powerful?

or anyone who pays bills

The difference is like 50p per year for god sake lmao.

or they coud make up some useless crap about an aspect of the xbox 360 being better than the ps3?

If they came out with something that was actually true then why not?

i don't think you've given any proof of how the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox360 yet, just the one bloke?

It's a fact that the PS3 is more powerful, I think you are the only person in this thread that won't accept it. I don't have a clue about teraflops, cells, threads, processors etc so I'm hardly going to come out with all the facts so take a look at all the specs yourself. I have had it explained to me, watched videos comparing the official specifications, compared the specifications myself and have read things from official, reliable sources to find out that the PS3 is more powerful. Hell, we even have Xbox 360 fan boys in this thread admitting that the PS3 is more powerful. :P

scottish

25-11-2009, 02:34 PM

coz ps3 network is free so sucks.

That's the type of pointless, non backed up reply I'd expect from a primary school kid. Technically you have just said that the servers reached their maximum number of players online and crashed because the PS3 online is free so it sucks. :S First of all, PS3 network were not expecting so many people to be online, if they knew how many more people would of been online they would of increased the size of the servers (or whatever you call it) and everything would of been fine. The same could easily happen on the 360 if they underestimated the amount of people online. When a server gets overloaded, it crashes, no matter what console it is on. You pay more money for a PS3 so some of that money goes towards online making it not so much free, at least it's a 1 time fee though. ;)

Shame i'm in uni then... 'non backed up post' you're still not given any proof that its more powerful etc? just some guys word?

PS3 network is known to suck, obviously XBL you pay for it and evidently get better service.

Obviously the the most awaited game of the year or whatever it was came out ALOT of people would be getting it and playing multiplayer.

So anyone with sense could tell ALOT of people will be online, yet they still never done nothing, somehow every other platform managed to cope, lol

if you knew there was videos bout it and stuff why the hellare you complaining bout it then, seems like a thread just trying to boost how good the ps3 is, and failing.

I played on Uncharted 2 yesterday and was watching some of the videos. I made this thread to ask that if they are so "similar" then how come the PS3 is so much more powerful?

i still have no proof tha its MUCH MORE powerful?

or anyone who pays bills

The difference is like 50p per year for god sake lmao.

And you notice the extra power? clearly :S

or they coud make up some useless crap about an aspect of the xbox 360 being better than the ps3?

If they came out with something that was actually true then why not?

Proof i'm waitin

i don't think you've given any proof of how the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox360 yet, just the one bloke?

It's a fact that the PS3 is more powerful, I think you are the only person in this thread that won't accept it. I don't have a clue about teraflops, cells, threads, processors etc so I'm hardly going to come out with all the facts so take a look at all the specs yourself. I have had it explained to me, watched videos comparing the official specifications, compared the specifications myself and have read things from official, reliable sources to find out that the PS3 is more powerful. Hell, we even have Xbox 360 fan boys in this thread admitting that the PS3 is more powerful. :P

Link me to specs. link me to videos comparing the specs. Link me to realiable sources to find out that the PS3 is more powerful.

On another note to finish this;

PC is the best.

kk.

25-11-2009, 03:47 PM

You say it's more powerful and so more powerful = using more power. A ps3 if left on (they never did clear up how ie standby etc) can cost £70 a year. On top of that you have things on standby.

And I actaully own both so I wouldn't even bring that into it, I also owned a ps3 first so you know, you can tell I prefer/ed ps3 to 360. In all honesty, they're both the same for gaming and that's all that matters

Inscribe

25-11-2009, 04:01 PM

people buy ps3's just to show of they have money, imo.

Firehorse

25-11-2009, 04:12 PM

The thing is though, surprisingly I don't even feel annoyed that I'm paying to play online because when I use the PSN, it's just so frustrating and annoying. XBL is clearly more reliable and it's a lot more satisfying to use.

I don't chat to friends.. don't know where that one came from.

Music isn't a big use? I could say the same about Blu-Ray considering I have no Blu-Ray movies while music is a big use to me, actually. Telling me to use an alternative means to provide a basic function just screams a big flaw in your argument for which is the better console. Furthermore, Sony marketed the PS3 as a media centre rather than just a games console so you would think music was kind of a given. Oopsy.

I guess that points me towards another reason why I favour the 360, when I bought the two machines, I bought them as games consoles. The XBOX focuses on this sole aspect while the PS3 tries to be so much more, maybe Sony were just biting off more than they could chew by trying to make it do everything. Then again, maybe you prefer the PS3 because of all the singing and dancing, whereas, like I say, I just want to play games.

What? :S No, it's because no other games console I've ever played on in the history of time as ever had to install the game. I would be impressed if once installed, the disc was no longer needed, but I don't expect to buy a game which I'm excited to play and have to wait for it to sort itself out. I don't see how it speeds up loading or whatever because I don't have any trouble with other games on other consoles. I've just been playing MW2 on the 360 for instance, and from turning it on, I was in a multiplayer match within a few minutes.

As for the PS3, it amazes me how Sony went from best games console imaginable with the PS2 to such an over-priced disappointment. I really regret trading in my PS2 and all the games.

Instead of repeating yourself over and over that xbox live is better than playstation network why don't you actually explain what is so much better about it? Or are you just being a fool saying its better because its paid for. Its been proven that sometimes the cheap things in life can be a lot better than the expensive.

Blu-ray is more than just for movies. It holds 6 times what a dvd can and therefore can store much bigger and higher quality game files without them needing to be compressed as much either.

Oh and the PS3 can play music btw, you're saying it as if it can't play it at all.

What on earth are you going on about singing and dancing? I bought a PS3 for gaming and it does it very well.

If you cannot wait 3 minutes for a game to install then god help your amount of patience.

I am not saying the 360 is a bad games console, its good for a cheaper console and I would have bought it over a fat PS3 but for what the PS3 costs now and how much more it offers it is today the better option for new buyers.
And you are most certainly a very eager 360 fanboy, theres no denying it.

You say it's more powerful and so more powerful = using more power. A ps3 if left on (they never did clear up how ie standby etc) can cost £70 a year. On top of that you have things on standby.

And I actaully own both so I wouldn't even bring that into it, I also owned a ps3 first so you know, you can tell I prefer/ed ps3 to 360. In all honesty, they're both the same for gaming and that's all that matters

A PS3 doesn't cost £70 a year on standby. Even the fat one didn't use any more than 2W on standby. A light bulb on average is 60W and if you left that on the entire year it wouldn't cost you more than £20.

Lost_Addict

25-11-2009, 05:34 PM

I'm not going to deny the Ps3 is more powerfull i just simply prefer the xbox360

people will always have consoles they prefer more i can't see why people can't just accept there as good as each other in there own ways my console history went

PS1
PS2
Xbox360

so it's not because im a microsoft fanboy i just prefer it.
aghhh these arguments are so useless and annoying

scottish

25-11-2009, 06:02 PM

PC owns both so :P

PaulMacC

25-11-2009, 06:04 PM

dbgtz

25-11-2009, 08:05 PM

The PS3 can output better graphics but few games do use 1080p, infact the only one I can think of is that I think GT5 is 1080p native?
Also I'm sure Xbox has sky player rather then sky itself? If it does it can be countered with BBC iPlayer.

MW2 is 600p (I'm thinking).

kk.

25-11-2009, 11:39 PM

Black_Apalachi

26-11-2009, 04:22 AM

Instead of repeating yourself over and over that xbox live is better than playstation network why don't you actually explain what is so much better about it? Or are you just being a fool saying its better because its paid for. Its been proven that sometimes the cheap things in life can be a lot better than the expensive.

Blu-ray is more than just for movies. It holds 6 times what a dvd can and therefore can store much bigger and higher quality game files without them needing to be compressed as much either.

Oh and the PS3 can play music btw, you're saying it as if it can't play it at all.

What on earth are you going on about singing and dancing? I bought a PS3 for gaming and it does it very well.

If you cannot wait 3 minutes for a game to install then god help your amount of patience.

I am not saying the 360 is a bad games console, its good for a cheaper console and I would have bought it over a fat PS3 but for what the PS3 costs now and how much more it offers it is today the better option for new buyers.
And you are most certainly a very eager 360 fanboy, theres no denying it. ...

I'm not repeating myself, however with responses like this I am forced to as you clearly haven't read my post at all (bar the first line).

I clearly don't favour XBL with the ideology that 'more expensive = better' :rolleyes:. I WILL BE REPEATING MYSELF HERE: Like I said the PSN frustrates me too much with it's general poor reliability. Where as I've never experienced problems with XBL, despite using it a lot more than the PSN. I'm a student, of course I prefer the cheaper option where possible.

I WILL BE REPEATING MYSELF HERE: I know the PS3 can play music, but if you read my post you would have noticed I mentioned playing music while gaming.

'If you cannot wait 3 minutes for a game to install then god help your amount of patience.'

You are seriously having a technological debate and making a comment like that? :S Speed is one of the fundamental vital aspects of technology. If I've been playing on a PS2 for almost a decade by inserting a disc and playing, I do not expect to get to 2009 and purchase the brand new console to find it has gone a step backwards in terms of how long it takes for a game to start.

Again, IF YOU HAD READ MY POST you would know I am nothing like a '360 fan boy'. I have owned PlayStations all my life, I still have never played on an original XBOX and I only bought the thing because it was cheaper and I still later went on to also purchase a PS3. SORRY I REPEATED MYSELF THERE BUT MAYBE IF YOU READ MY POST I WOULDN'T NEED TO.

If I have both consoles, and I make an informed judgement based on playing both of them, how the hell can that make me a fan boy? It's the complete opposite!!!!! Fan boys are people who claim one is better than the other without basing it on any experience of the other console. I said I used to be a PS fan boy so I'm clearly not a 360 fan boy!!! Oh my daysssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eusa_wall

kk.

26-11-2009, 12:37 PM

Can I just say to anyone that says it... It's not called a 'fat' ps3. It called the original ps3. Angers me so much lol

Neil

26-11-2009, 12:51 PM

xBox

Less Powerful

PS3

Large Selection of Games
More Powerful (System is futureproof for years)

Ok I'd just like to kill your argument right here.

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/xbox360/

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/ps3/

Clearly shows that the 360 is a better built and more powerful console, all the PS3 has over the 360 as far as hardware is concerned is graphics and the console is so poorly built it can't even use that to the fullest.

Also the "large selection of games"? The 360 has a much larger selection, so the PS3 loses in that regard.

Also I'm sure Xbox has sky player rather then sky itself? If it does it can be countered with BBC iPlayer.

No it's not "Sky Player" it's Sky as in the TV service, you can get quite a few channels on it as far as I know.

Firehorse

26-11-2009, 04:16 PM

You are seriously having a technological debate and making a comment like that? :S Speed is one of the fundamental vital aspects of technology. If I've been playing on a PS2 for almost a decade by inserting a disc and playing, I do not expect to get to 2009 and purchase the brand new console to find it has gone a step backwards in terms of how long it takes for a game to start.

Installing means that it adds game files to the hard drive which also means that it loads games very quickly. i've played many of the top games on the ps2 and could remember waiting like 2 minutes to load one level. Also on PS3 its as simple as inserting a disk and playing, install only happens once.

Ok I'd just like to kill your argument right here.

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/xbox360/

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/ps3/

Clearly shows that the 360 is a better built and more powerful console, all the PS3 has over the 360 as far as hardware is concerned is graphics and the console is so poorly built it can't even use that to the fullest.

Also the "large selection of games"? The 360 has a much larger selection, so the PS3 loses in that regard.

No it's not "Sky Player" it's Sky as in the TV service, you can get quite a few channels on it as far as I know.

No, even there the ps3 is more powerful. Bigger numbers doesn't mean that an xbox will run better. They're both uniquely laid out and the ps3 has separate RAM for the graphics. Slightly lower numbers mean nothing.

scottish

26-11-2009, 05:13 PM

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/comparisons/xbox-360-vs-ps3-gpu/

Black_Apalachi

26-11-2009, 05:30 PM

Installing means that it adds game files to the hard drive which also means that it loads games very quickly. i've played many of the top games on the ps2 and could remember waiting like 2 minutes to load one level. Also on PS3 its as simple as inserting a disk and playing, install only happens once. ...

I understand and accept that. But with all the additional updates on top of that which I found to be very regular, it makes it feel very sluggish and frustrating.

Neil

26-11-2009, 05:42 PM

No, even there the ps3 is more powerful. Bigger numbers doesn't mean that an xbox will run better. They're both uniquely laid out and the ps3 has separate RAM for the graphics. Slightly lower numbers mean nothing.

Are you an idiot?

The link below your post once again proves you wrong, it's actually been a known fact the PS3 was less powerful than the 360 since the release and you can't sit and deny that because it's just the truth, Sony rushed the console, put whatever they could in to make it work and still haven't got a better console, admittedly if they had less on screen the PS3 can defiantly push out better graphics but only then, guess you'll have to wait another gen before Sony can actually beat Microsoft, hopefully they'll give up by then so arguments like this go away.