Why can the PS3 do this but the 360 can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kk.

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.

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

PC owns both so :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stutoman

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

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.

---

Most games are not even 720p. Modern Warfare 2 for example is something like 650p.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

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).

---

Both output the dame graphics, but one may be able to have a better draw distance in some games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stutoman

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stutoman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil

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.