Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comparing the PS3 and 360

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the apples-and-oranges dept.

119

Yahoo! Games is running a piece comparing the PS3 and 360. They look at the hardware, software, and HD offerings for Sony and Microsoft's next-gen consoles. From the article: "Unlike the last generation, where Sony clearly held a commanding lead, the next generation of gaming is going to be a much closer race between the behemoths of Microsoft and Sony. Though there were many skeptics last fall, the past eight months have shown the Xbox 360 to be a very capable system and more than powerful enough to challenge the PlayStation 3. Microsoft also believes it will have 10 million units in the global marketplace before Sony even leaves the gate. So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

cancel ×

119 comments

Simple Answer (2, Insightful)

Jokerz17 (681197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543509)

I already own a 360.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543636)

Agreed! This comparison is simple:

As of right now,
1) you can purchase and play a 360
2) you can not purchase or play a P3

-Rick

Re:Simple Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543781)

1) you can purchase and play a 360

For sufficiently independently wealthy values of "you".

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543994)

As compared to everybody else, who can only afford a PS3...?

Re:Simple Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15544093)

*cough* false dilemma! *cough*

Try to keep up. The PS3 is already out because it is not avialable. It could be $100 and as the earlier poster pointed out, you still couldn't buy it. That does not mean the XBox 360 is affordably priced. In fact it has nothing to do with whether the XBox 360 is affordably priced.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544139)

It's an article comparing the two. And "affordable" is relative. Comparing it to the prices and capabilities of competitors (present and future) has everything to do with what makes it particularly affordable and to who.

Re:Simple Answer (2, Insightful)

vandon (233276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544324)

Which do I plan to buy first?
A Wii

Re:Simple Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15544365)

Yes, the article is comparing the two. So you do have some level of reading comprehension. Try to catch up with the conversation, now.

Affordability is not relative to the cost of two items. That's absurd. Is a BMW affordable because it is priced less than a Ferrari? We don't have enough data to determine whether it is affordable or not. All we can say is that a BMW is more affordable than a Ferrari, but that's not really saying anything other than a BMW costs less than a Ferrari. It doesn't really tell us whether people can afford to pay for a BMW. In the same way, we can say an XBox is more affordable than a PS3.

Affordability is the relationship between how much an item costs and how much people can pay. It is independent of the relationship between competitive items. Even in a direct comparison, an XBox and a PS3 can both be affordable and they can both be unaffordable - regardless of relative price differences.

So, regardless of what the PS3 is priced, the XBox 360 may or may not be affordable. Which was the original point: the XBox 360 is quite expensive. It's just that in your rush to turn this into an XBox 360/PS3 holy war, you've missed this point.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544759)

Affordability *IS* relative! At least in the common usage of the word.

Is a $500 '75 Chevy Caprice 'affordable'?

Yes- because most people base that term on the relative cost of other cars. The $500 car is considered 'affordable'.

Of course, not everyone has $500.

I don't think we are using the word 'affordable' as an absolute. Because to someone with absolutely no money will find that nothing with a cost is 'affordable'.

Affordable is relative.

Re:Simple Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15545094)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and your trying to agree with me, but it seems like you read the first few words of my post and then responded rather than reading the entire thing.

Of course affordability is relative. I never, ever said affordability was not relative. The dispute is relative to what.

I said that affordability is the relationship between cost and ability to pay (i.e. its relative).

You agree with me. You said:
I don't think we are using the word 'affordable' as an absolute. Because to someone with absolutely no money will find that nothing with a cost is 'affordable'.

That's exactly what I said.

The other poster is claiming that affordability was relative to the cost of competitive items. In other words, he was arguing that because the XBox 360 costs less than the PS3 it is affordable. That's absurd. If you can only spend $200, neither the XBox 360 or PS3 is affordable, even though one is less expensive than the other. And so we don't need to know the price of the PS3 to determine whether or not the XBox 360 is affordable. We only need to know the cost of the XBox 360 and folk's ability to pay.

So, again, the price of the PS3 is not at all relevant to the original point that the XBox 360 is also not affordable.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

L0k11 (617726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545435)

Most of the time it can be more affordable to buy a new car.

A $500 car is going to cost you a few grand a year in maintenence.

Car analogies dont work. Actually the Wii could be like buying a 4cylinder Honda/Accura - it does not have the raw grunt but if its light enough you'll get decent performance and as a bonus games (gas) will be cheaper.

See, they really dont work very well.

Re:Simple Answer (3, Insightful)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543730)

In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found about it was the controller. It really felt nice. Aside from that, I was disinterested in the console as a whole. It was big. It crashed a bunch (until we put it on a better platform), and it didn't have any decent games.

Now, they've got an impressive lineup. Fight Night, Burnout, Table Tennis, and Geometry Wars (o, how I am e'er addicted to you, geometry wars) make the system worth it. Although, I still think my friend is an idiot for justifying the 500$ he spent to get the system when it was still sold out everywhere.

so, being that you already own a 360, are you implying that you wouldn't purchase a ps3, no matter how strong the offering of launch titles?

Re:Simple Answer (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543779)

In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.

Ia gree, but you need to add that the initial supply was miniscule for the first 3 months or so. The shortage wasn't so much that it was popular just that it was in short supply. durring all periods the 360 was on sale it was out sold by the Ps2 and the prev xbox.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544061)

In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$ had plenty of room for error. The units sold out anyway, and they still had nearly a year to come out with something interesting before Sony even has a chance to threaten them.
You just described the PS2's launch.

Personally, I didn't think microsoft had it in them to put out a decent piece of hardware. The first month my friend had his, the most impressive thing I found about it was the controller. It really felt nice. Aside from that, I was disinterested in the console as a whole. It was big. It crashed a bunch (until we put it on a better platform), and it didn't have any decent games.
Wow, PS2's launch again...

Now, they've got an impressive lineup. Fight Night, Burnout, Table Tennis, and Geometry Wars (o, how I am e'er addicted to you, geometry wars) make the system worth it. Although, I still think my friend is an idiot for justifying the 500$ he spent to get the system when it was still sold out everywhere.
An impressive lineup less than six months after launch? I can't help but think that this is more than could be said about the PS2...

so, being that you already own a 360, are you implying that you wouldn't purchase a ps3, no matter how strong the offering of launch titles?
So, after the PS2 and PSP (I honestly don't even remember any PS1 launch titles) launches you're actually expecting a good launch for the PS3? When has Sony ever had an impressive launch lineup?

Re:Simple Answer (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544589)

So, after the PS2 and PSP (I honestly don't even remember any PS1 launch titles) launches you're actually expecting a good launch for the PS3? When has Sony ever had an impressive launch lineup?

I never expected something so good out of microsoft, so anything's possible. the 360 has impressed me more than anything microsoft has ever done. Although, it still (even after the dashboard update) feels like a kludgy microsoft product in some ways. namely the strangely placed buttons, and weird behavior of controls (namely so many selectable things and the behavior of the shuffle button).

I'm also not familiar with the PS2's launch, since my friend had the japanese system and I was only interested in tekken at the time.

the psp had a great launch! what are you talking about? I mean... the UMD games were lacking (the golf game was GREAT and LUMINES!), but I mean... as a videoplayer (memory stick, not UMD... *gag*) the thing was spectacular and the NES emulator made it worth it. it's a great little device.

Re:Simple Answer (3, Insightful)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544664)

Well silly me for assuming that a gaming machine's launch should be evaluated on its performance as a gaming machine. Also, unintentional uses can't really be credited as successes on Sony's part.

But I'm quite disappointed with the 360. The Xbox really appealed to me and it just seems that the 360 represents another step in the loss of the charm of console gaming. If the PS3 gains significant popularity, that'll be another few steps but at least Nintendo knows what it's doing.

But yes, anything is possible.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545096)

The things MS did that impressed me the most were 1) scroll wheel 2) decent optical mouse

Both of these came to my attention from MS and I think they were at least partially responsible for them.

Re:Simple Answer (0, Flamebait)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544869)

I'm sorry, we didn't understand - what with Sony cock stuck in your mouth it's hard to make out what you're saying.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544976)

It's nice to know that you didn't even read my post.

Aside from noting that the PS2's controller was unimpressive (since it was a recycled design, not necessarily knocking it), I pretty much noted that anything negative that could be said about the 360 launch goes double for the PS2's launch, and look where that landed Sony.

I even went so far as to note that the PS2 didn't have a notable library six months after launch while the 360 does and further stated surprise in expecting anything different for the PS3. While I did agree that anything is possible, I felt that the rest of the post made my stance clear.

Re:Simple Answer (1)

RoadDoggFL (876257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544997)

Argh, got my posts mixed up. I referenced comments I made in reply to a previous reply to my earlier post. My mistake, though I still feel that my stance was clear.

Re:Simple Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15545123)

> In my opinion, the 360 had a completely uninteresting launch. The lineup of games weren't so good, but it didn't really matter. M$
It would be nice if Slashdot had a filter that automatically removed all posts from my personal view containing all non-quoted instances of "M$". I do that already, but it would be easier if an automatic system did it for me. If you are so immature as to resort to name-calling in an uncreative way (what, are they somehow evil because they make money?), why should I read the rest of your post?

Re:Simple Answer (1)

LordHotDog (831575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543735)

As do I, and I plan on getting a PS3 as well as a Wii

No blu-ray (2, Funny)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543514)

One has blu-ray, one does not.
That makes the choice obvious to me.
Why buy a standalone blu-ray player for a thousand when I can get a PS3 that does the same plus more for 600?

25GB per layer... yummeh.

Re:No blu-ray (4, Insightful)

harrkev (623093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543721)

This assumes that one WANTS to buy blu-ray. I, for one, do not welcome our HDCP overlords that come riding in on the back of HDMI.

Thanks, but I'll pass for this lifetime.

Re:No blu-ray (5, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543752)

This makes sense if:

1. You can afford $600
2. You have an HD tv
3. You are in the market for a game console
4. There is a catalog of available movies for BR
5. You are in the market for a HD video player

I think a very small segment of the population fits these criteria. Personally I would only buy a PS3 to use as a video player if I knew for a fact that BR would be the winner. BR could bomb and you would have to go buy a standalone HD-DVD video player anyway.

Re:No blu-ray (2, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545134)

That's $500, dude.

$600 just gets you a flash reader, Wi-Fi, HDMI and a silver logo.

None of which (not even HDMI) are necessary for HD on the PS3.

Re:No blu-ray (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543806)

Why buy a standalone blu-ray player for a thousand when I can get a PS3 that does the same plus more for 600?

Because integrated devices generally suck. Go back to the PS2 in 2000. Why would you buy a $500 stand-alone DVD player when you can buy a PS2 for $300 that does the same plus more? Because the PS2 was a horrible DVD player. Do you really expect the PS3 to be a great Blu-Ray player?

Of course, that's assuming you buy into Blu-Ray at all, or that you must be an early adopter of the format. Personally, I'm going to wait it out. I may eventually buy a PS3, but it won't be for Blu-Ray. I may eventually buy a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, but not until the format war shakes itself out, prices drop to a sane level ($500 or less, preferably $300 or less), and the available library of movies grows. Until then, my $100 upconverting DVD player looks awesome at 720p (via HDMI), as does my Xbox 360 at 720p (component). My TV doesn't do 1080p, because a) 1080p is still too expensive, and b) nothing uses it yet (TV upscale/de-interlace generally sucks, so if I have to do conversion I'd rather it be done at the player level, like an upconverting DVD player).

Re:No blu-ray (4, Interesting)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543870)

Because Blu-Ray will go the way Betamax went and you'll end up with a useless Blu-Ray player that you'll have to replace every 6 months cause it'll be as reliable as the PS2's DVD player?

(and 25GB per layer? Who cares when the access times and transfer speed don't even reach DVD's. )

Re:No blu-ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15544050)

I think Blu-Ray will be a complete non-issue for this entire generation regardless of whether it becomes an adopted standard or not. The fact is that DVD was one of the fastest adopted formats and it took 5 years from its initial release (1998 in North America) to become the dominant rental (2003 DVD surpassed VHS in rentals) or purchase platform. What this means is that, even with the explosive growth that DVD had, Blu-Ray would only be a factor in sales after the generation was well established; when you add into the equation that there are two potential formats this time, and that HDTVs just surpassed conventional TVs in sales (and that TVs are typically replaced when they break, so it will be 5 years before most people own an HDTV), that most HDTVs sold are only 1080i or 720p TVs, and that videogame machines usually are not played on the big expensive TV in a house (meaning people won't take advantage of the PS3's capabilities) you'll see that Blu-Ray is not an important feature.

Re:No blu-ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15545751)

I'll just buy a better blu-ray player in a couple of years when there's an blu-ray library and the players cost like $100-200.

Re:No blu-ray (1)

Duds (100634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547292)

Or just not buy either since the format is doomed as a platform for anything but games anyway.

This is pointless! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543539)

The PS3 is vaporware until it hits final production status in the ramp up to release. Let's compare today's Honda Civic hyrbrid with the future hyrbrid offerings of GM based on speculation of performance values pulled out of someone's ass! huzzah! Look! Honda wins! But GM catches up well! Full story on Dvorak's blog tomorrow!

One word... (4, Insightful)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543542)

Wii!

Re:One word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543645)

yep!

I think you mean... (2, Funny)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543924)

Oui.

d^_^b

Re:I think you mean... (1)

GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544319)

Ni!

No! (1)

Troglodyt (898143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547103)

No, 'cause I am a big boy now!
*BOOM*

One reply (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545271)

It's down the hall on the right.

Multiple Choice (2, Insightful)

roguenine19 (901001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543556)

I'm going with c) None of the above.

I think it's interesting that the Wii isn't included, especially because the current best guess is that it will be launching before the PS3. I wonder if it's because the writer recognizes that it's truly something unique and different, or if he's just discounting it because of Nintendo's image problems in the previous generation.

Re:Multiple Choice (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543804)

The writer DID mention the Wii at the end of the article, but while the 360 and Ps3 are direct competitors with similar specifications going after the same audience, Nintendo is targeting a completely different market with the Wii and intends it to be complementary to the other two consoles, and not a direct competitor. Thus, any "360 vs. Ps3 vs. Wii comparisons" wouldnt really be appropriate.

Re:Multiple Choice (2, Insightful)

Rydia (556444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15546238)

That argument is silly. The only market segment Nintendo is actually abandoning is the "hardcore gamer" segment, which is really small anyway. Nintendo can say all they want about how they don't want to compete directly, but at the end of the day, they are, and perhaps even using the non-competition rhetoric to insulate themselves from any putative slugfest.

Re:Multiple Choice (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543989)

Not really.. since the article was "xbox 360 vs ps3" including Wii in there would seem a bit odd. it's nice it got that paragraph at the end as it is.

if the article was "next gen console war" then NOT including Wii in there would be insulting.

Re:Multiple Choice (1)

UberMench (906076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544473)

I think that it IS because the Wii will be something unique and different. I'm generally a Sony backer, and I will indeed be picking up a PS3 on launch day, but I will most likely also pick up a Wii a.s.a.p. simply because there is nothing else like it.

Which One? Simple (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543578)

The one with the most impressive "jiggle physics" in Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 2

From the article (5, Funny)

jugglerjon (559269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543585)

This means that unless you pre-order, chances are good the only place you'll be able to find the PlayStation 3 in November is on eBay (at an insanely high cost)

So they'll have them at retail cost?

Paying more (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543662)

People were paying far more than the PS3 retail for 360's for the whole month of December.

If you thought $500 was "insane", try more like $800 - or $1k. Not an insignificant number of 360 consoles were going for that much.

I can answer that (2, Insightful)

skam240 (789197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543596)

"So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

That's easy. You buy the one that isnt ridiculously over priced.

Ah, that would be the PS3 then? (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543941)

If you look at what is in the PS3 vs the 360 then the 360 seems to be a bit expensive for its hardware. At least spec wise the PS3 delivers a lot more.

A 100.000 dollar mercedes is more expensive then a 20.000 dollar lada but it is still the lada that is overpriced.

Off course this has nothing to do with gameplay but for now it seems that if you want gameplay you are in luck, the cheapest console will be the one with the better gameplay. Offcourse that is not saying the Wii is not overpriced. Nintendo has the most overpriced consoles of all, the proof? MS and Sony subsidise the early consoles, Nintendo does not and makes a profit on them, if that isn't overpricing them I don't know what is.

Perhaps you meant "That's easy. You buy the one that isnt ridiculously expensive."

In that case,might I introduce you to the humble PC. Cheapest console of them all, you already got one after all since you post here. Can't get much cheaper then 0 dollars. Oh and you it is fully backwards compatible with other consoles even. Strange enough neither the 360 or the PS3 or the Wii allow me to play old games not off their brand. Silly.

Re:Ah, that would be the PS3 then? (1)

skam240 (789197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544132)

Of course I could have meant the Wii as while the price hasnt officially been officially announced the prevailing word on the street is that it will be priced at 250.

Furthermore, from what I've seen, the big justification for the PS3 having a substantially higher price to the 360 is the Blu-ray player on the PS3 (of course the PS3 has a few other edges over the 360 but they do not amount to anything too substancial). I would suggest that the few extra hundred dollars for this media player is not worth it for the following reasons:

-It is for a media format which is not yet an official standard and may never be.
-It is for a media format for which there is no substantial media library to purchase from and it is unlikely that one will form in the next few years (it took the DVD market quite some time to build up to its now impressive library).
-DVD is still a thoroughly adequate media format to sit with until the new standard media format is decided and some would suggest that neither of the new formats offer enough to the casual consumer to encourage a rapid change over to the new format.

For these reasons the PS3 is in fact overpriced.

XBox 360 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543605)

By the time I get around to scraping up the money for one of these two, X360 will be almost certainly still be cheaper, will have Halo3, and will support most of my old Xbox games. No real decision needed there.

It's Simple... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543616)

The Wii

Not a two-horse race (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15543621)

"So the question becomes: Which system do you buy?"

The Nintendo Wii, of course. ;)

The one (4, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543678)

That renders GTA4 in the best possible fidelity with the least possible load-times and disk swaps.

Unless they release it for the Wii with nunchuck controller support for the baseball bat. Then all bets are off.
But I'm not holding my breath - because - well, I like oxygen...

Chainsaws and 1080p. Mmmmmmmalllllarghhhhdrool.

Re:The one (2, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543782)

Unless they release it for the Wii with nunchuck controller support for the baseball bat. Then all bets are off.

So you're saying that EB was lying to me when I paid $20 to reserve Grand Theft Auto: Animal Crossing?

Re:The one (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547380)

Grand Theft Auto: Animal Crossing

*vroom* *squick*

My solution is the best (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543749)

Just buy them all. :)

Re:My solution is the best (1, Funny)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543794)

So, I have to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwhich?

Re:My solution is the best (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543933)

So, I have to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwhich?

From which part of "buy them all" did you get "choose"?

Re:My solution is the best (1)

harrkev (623093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543939)

Unfortunately, not everybody can do this. My family and I share this crazy additction to this "food" stuff. We are also partial to "housing." Getting all three models with a couple of games for each would put you out close to $2000.

Re:My solution is the best (2, Funny)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544808)

My family is also addicted to 'food' and 'housing'. That's why we have 'jobs'.

Don't bother with TFA... (4, Informative)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543763)

The article is next to useless if you've done any reading about the PS3 or 360 in the last year; you'll know it all anyway. You can basically sum up the advantage of the PS3 over the Xbox is that the Bluray drive is able to store quite a bit more data. The 360 does have the advantage of a mature on-line experience with Xbox Live, besides the price advantage.

There is a much better article at Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] that goes into a little more detail about the visual differences from the point of a game developer. Visually, what does a game designer say the difference is going to be between a 360 and the PS3? None. Hardware wise, the 360 and PS3 are actually pretty evently matched, and considering that there are still going to be a lot of cross platform games even if one machine had a decided advantage over the other game studios aren't going to push that advantage given the time and cost involved in just getting a game out the door in the first place.

According to game developers, side by side you aren't going to be able to see a difference between the two systems playing the same game. Pretty much what I expected.

Re:Don't bother with TFA... Not to mention.. (1)

shidarin'ou (762483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544045)

That the article gets several points wrong (such as the upgradability of the low end PS3 compared to the upgradability of the 360 (it switches them around). Kinda annoying to see something like that pop up in an article that's trying to compare the two it mixes up.

Re:Don't bother with TFA... (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545858)

If the hardware is pretty much the same, then how come Sony is putting uber-expensive cell processors that nobody knows how to program for? If MS hardware gets the same power, is cheaper, and is easier to develop for, then doesn't that make the 360 a lot better?

Re:Don't bother with TFA... (1)

Sux2BU (20893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15546850)

Yes, but this is Slashdot so we'll have to bash the 360 because it's Microsoft. :P

All of the above (3, Interesting)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15543817)

Well, sort of. I don't live in my parent's basement, so I can afford all of these systems. I will most likely be getting a Wii if it does not turn out to be too gimicky.

I'm guessing for anyone not obsessed about japanese RPGs that the 360 and PS3 will be very similar with their scope of games, so for most people it will be a Wii plus either the 360 or PS3.

While I can afford it, $500-600 is still a large chunk of change, so Sony better be putting something up OTHER than blu-ray to get my money. Perhaps something similar to live arcade, but with much more content.

Most people likely won't care about blu-ray. Most people I've talked to stated that they would buy 1, maybe 2 movies in blu-ray format if they had a player. Plus, I can't be the only one waiting for $50-$100 combo HD-DVD/blu-ray players (after seeing sony's implementation of DVD on the ps2, I think I'll pass on having the ps3 as my sole player).

Re:All of the above (1)

theelectron (973857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544070)

Plus, I can't be the only one waiting for $50-$100 combo HD-DVD/blu-ray players


I'm waiting with you.

Re:All of the above (1)

zeroduck (691015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544595)

I'll wait for $99 HD sets while I wait for the $50 next gen players.

Re:All of the above (1)

Acqu13sce (877253) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547738)

I believe that Sony has a clause in the licensing of Blu-Ray that prevents anyone from creating a combo HD-DVD and Blu-Ray player

Re:All of the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15547782)

then they can go fuck themselves.

Re:All of the above (1)

VitrosChemistryAnaly (616952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547783)

I don't live in my parent's basement, so I can afford all of these systems.
I live in my parents' basement so I can afford those systems you insensitive clod!

Under the hood? (2, Interesting)

miikrr (799637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544119)

Sony's comanding lead in last generation had nothing to do with the PS2's hardware prowess, it was the software that gave it the comanding lead. The Gamecube and Xbox were far more powerful than the PS2, so why isn't this a comparison of the Wii and the 360 as to fit in with the analogy?

360 vs nothing (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544158)

So they are comparing a machine that exists, and is on the market, against a machine that "exists" on paper.....

tell me... what are you more afraid of?
1- the terrorist threatening you with a gun on your head?
2- the "terrorist" threatening you by saying he has a gun?

i think i'm more scared of real objects that can kill you instead of words that can be a load of BS.... so i would put money on the win of the Xbox 360 because it is presently a machine that EXISTS!

Re:360 vs nothing (1)

Twisted64 (837490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544608)

Damn you, tabbed browsing! I was going to post something insightful and awesome right here in this reply box, but by the time I finished reading the other articles and got back to this tab, all I can think is that I totally agree with you - which I was going to say anyway, but in a much cooler way. How about I... give you some statistics for my comment which will be posted later, and people can judge how good it will be, and rate this comment accordingly :)

Re:360 vs nothing (1)

zeroduck (691015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544616)

So you're saying that the PS3 is a terrorist with a gun to my head? Where's George Bush when you need him?

It's pretty straightforward (1)

TheBiGW (982686) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544657)

You can get the 360 now and you know what you're getting. It is well documented and understood with a robust list of good games coming in the latter part of the year.

PS3 will be on first gen games when it launches in November and at present no one really knows how the thing will work, seeing as no-one (not even developers) has seen the final production model yet.

So if you want a new games console now, get the 360. If you can wait 9 months for the dust to settle ask this question again then.

Now just wait a minute (3, Interesting)

Icepole4 (978286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544695)

Saying the 360 wins because the PS3 doesn't "exist" might be the dumbest thing I've heard all year. That's like being a millionaire and saying I'm gonna get that new Honda Civic because the new Porche 911 hasn't come out yet. :-/ Come on, as in every console war the games will decide the winner...PERIOD! Do not pass go, do not collect $10,000, the games will decide. If I had my guess, MS and the 360 is going to get trounced by Sony and Nintendo. Not that it is a bad system, but where are the must have games? I'm not talking about the games we slasdotters/PC gamers/techies enjoy. I am talking about games that the general public will buy a system to play. There are none, and the 360 sales figures reflect that. Beyond release day and a month after the 360 became an afterthought. Love 'em or hate 'em Sony is right in their assumption that no matter what the price the first 5 million are going to sell just because it's a playstation. MS had a chance to cut into that market with the 360 and they haven't even dented it. Myself and most everybody else will plop down their 500-600 and get the playstation. Let's be honest guys, the only reason people are complaining the price is because they know they are getting the PS3 and didn't count on parting with that much money to have one. The Wii will pick up the Nintendo fanboys and the 13 and under crowd, leaving MS with.... Their only hope IMO is to get Halo 3 out on PS3 release day or at the very least before MGS4 and make sure that it is one of the best FPS of all time. If not I don't see how they can compete in the long run. Which is sad because competition is great for us consumers.

Re:Now just wait a minute (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545324)

>Come on, as in every console war the games will decide the winner...PERIOD!
>Do not pass go, do not collect $10,000, the games will decide.

Okay...

>Love 'em or hate 'em Sony is right in their assumption that no matter what the
>price the first 5 million are going to sell just because it's a playstation. [...]
>Myself and most everybody else will plop down their 500-600 and get the playstation.
>Let's be honest guys, the only reason people are complaining the price is because
>they know they are getting the PS3 and didn't count on parting with that much money to have one.

So are they buyin it because they like the games (which, oh yeah, like the system, don't even exist yet) or because they're one of Sony's fanboys? You say one thing at the beginning of your post, and then spend the rest contradicting it. If MS follows through with their prediction of having 10 million units in the market before the PS3 even ships, then Sony is going to have some work to do. As it stands right now they're telling people that they've enjoyed the pleasure of waiting... what... an extra year and a half? Just to spend more money on something that looks exactly the same playing exactly the same games? And you're telling me that anyone that does that is doing it just so they can play MGS4? I don't think there are many people for whom playing MGS4 0MGRIGHTNOW is worth 600 dollars. If Microsoft DOES have the kind of market penetration they're predicting, then any studio would be an idiot to sign an exclusive contract with Sony when they'd have 10 million customers already eager and waiting with 360s.

The old stalwarts like Squaresoft are going to make Final Fantasy LXVIII for Sony and Sony alone, but what else will they have for exclusive games? I used to think that Playstation was the system to go for if you wanted quality RPG-sytle games (ie: Resident Evil), but now Xbox has given us Knights of the Old Republic (and yes, the second one blew) and Jade Empire (which is the reason KoTOR2 blew). Both of those games were incredible. Xbox also has Halo, which is for Microsoft what the FF franchise is for Sony. There are going to be plenty of titles to look forward to on the 360, and how many more great titles that MIGHT have been Sony exclusive are they going to steal just because they have market penetration, and the producer would be stupid not to at least do a dual release?

If you're really trying to say that Sony is going to win (as if it's possible for one console to win in the first place) because they've got some kind of magical game advantage (which is unknowable, since the system doesn't exist yet), then you're taking some pretty big logical leaps.

Re:Now just wait a minute (1)

Icepole4 (978286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545739)

You make valid points let's break it down

>Quote:
So are they buyin it because they like the games (which, oh yeah, like the system, don't even exist yet) or because they're one of Sony's fanboys?

They are buying based on past history. The PS2 was and is a great system. Many people are going to buy based on their experience with the PS2, and with their domination of the last generation a lot of consoles sold at launch will be sold on that and that alone.

>Quote:
If MS follows through with their prediction of having 10 million units in the market before the PS3 even ships, then Sony is going to have some work to do.

Notice the word play here, "predict having 10 million units in the market" Heck MS could ship 10 million mousepads to stores and have them in the market, the question is are they selling? Stats show the 360 is moving out of stores at or below the rate of the PS2 with game sales down 10%, no matter how you slice it when you are trying to bring down Sony that's not gonna cut it.

>Quote:
And you're telling me that anyone that does that is doing it just so they can play MGS4?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...yeah, how many people bought Xbox's because of Halo? I know I did. People will buy a system for a truly great game.

>Quote:
If you're really trying to say that Sony is going to win (as if it's possible for one console to win in the first place) because they've got some kind of magical game advantage (which is unknowable, since the system doesn't exist yet), then you're taking some pretty big logical leaps

Not really its called basic economics. The market leader always has a huge advantage thanks to a larger number of satisfied customers and brand loyalty (see Honda/Apple). Honda could put out a dump truck and people would buy becuase it's a Honda. Apple could put out a rubber duck that holds 20 songs and people would buy. I'm not saying Sony has that kind of brand loyalty but they have got a lot of it.

Games will be mostly the same for both consoles...true, but IMO the exclusives MGS, DMC, SOCOM, etc and the PS2 will tip the scale to Sony. How? A lot of the people buying their first PS2's now are not going to run out and get the PS3 at 500-600, But with continued support of the PS2 these people will have plenty to play and enjoy until the price drops. Which builds brand loyalty, further expands Sony's market, and endears these people to the PS3 when the price falls. MS on the other hand has all but abandoned the Xbox...alienating those who currently own one without the means to get a 360 and not allowing those curious to buy a cheaper console before stepping up to the 360 a year or two later. That may be MS's fatal mistake...who knows... but that's my opinion.

Wii and PS3 (1)

strider2k (945409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544798)

Wii is 100% for sure. If SSBB came out on launch day, I'll get it on launch day no questions asked. Since it is not, I am 75% likely to get it due to Zelda:TP, Wario Ware (very fun games for the gf and her sibs) and other blockbuster franchises.

As for the PS3, it's mainly to feed my JRPG cravings. If the PS3 bombs and rpg developers move to Wii, then that'll be 1 less system to buy. If the rpg developers move to the 360 (shudders), I'll be forced to buy a 360. I'm hoping MistWalker pulls a Capcom (RE4) and release Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey for the PS3 (or the Wii).

So in summary, the Wii for the franchises and PS3 for the JRPGs.

Re:Wii and PS3 (1)

icroak (663353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544931)

>i> If the rpg developers move to the 360 (shudders)... ...and the developers making the same exact game on the 360 instead of the ps3 is bad how? Nobody even has a ps3 yet so it's not like you'd have to switch.

Ummm... (1)

faust2097 (137829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15544844)

The 360 is selling slower than the original Xbox even now that the supply issues have been resolved. Don't forget Microsoft got their 23% marketshare with a blank check [to the tune of $8 billion in expenses and $4 billion in sales] and nowadays MS management has promised that the 360 will be consistently profitable after the middle of next year.

The PS2 looks like it's going to be the dominant console of 2006 [yes, I said 2] and the 360 is increasingly looking like yet another Dreamcast.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15545057)

... MS management has promised that the 360 will be consistently profitable after the middle of next year.

Or perhaps more accurately, "MS management has consistently promised that the 360 will be profitable after the middle of next year." ?


MS is good at setting up moving targets. :)

Re:Ummm... (1)

FinkEDink (982867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545668)

I think if you took the time to look at all the things the 360 offers now and is going to continue to offer, you would be a little more hesitent to call it the next Dreamcast. It offers the best online experience out of any console so far, with over 2 million current members. The arcade feature in itself offers hours of fun. And then when you consider the games on the list for coming out this year.. Gears of War, Mass Effect, FEAR... I think the Xbox 360 offers a very strong opponent for the PS3 to face off against. I won't go into the Wii right now, but I think it was left out of the comparison because it is more likely to appeal to everyone and will be more affordable. The chance of owning a Wii and another console is much higher than a PS3 and an Xbox 360. Basically, I would appriciate people holding their tounges rather than just bash the 360 because they like to play Japanese imports which the 360 doesnt carry many of at the moment.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15546780)

You're a fucking idiot.

Comparisons to the Dreamcast aren't coming out because the console doesn't have features. The Dreamcast had features, the XBox 360 has features. The comparisons are coming out because the 360 is selling at just over the rate of castor oil smoothies.

Does it matter? (1)

GeneralCern (653651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15545346)

Does it really matter anymore? My theory is that due to the massive budgets that modern game development requires, publishers want to maximize their audience by going cross-platform. Sure, each console has its one or two "mascot" exclusives, but most of the game last generation ended up being either cross-platform, or ported to the PC.

Note: I am not counting Nintendo in this, as the Wii control scheme probably makes porting games to other systems counter-productive.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15545992)

You mean the same Wii that can also use GameCube controllers? :)

Non Fan-boy opinion (0)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15546807)

I buy every major console release in every generation. I am not an overt fan on any one system or company.

First off, I don't think the Wii should be in the same discussion as the PS3 or XBox 360. I may happen to buy one if there are games I want to play on the console. However, the cold hard facts are that graphics sell games. A game that looks good will be talked about, and purchased. If Nintendo is smart, they will use style over polygons with the Wii so that their titles will look good. But at the moment, the Wii does not strike me as being next-generation when it is only now approaching the pixel-power of the Xbox, a current-generation console.

If you want to draw a truly fair comparison between the 360 and the PS3, I'm not sure why people compare a $300 price-point to a $600 price point. The $300 360's features do not compare to the $600 PS3. It is an obvious manipulative tactic.

A considerably more fair comparison is the $400 360 which has a HDD to the $500 PS3. Neither unit has HDMI, and both have HDDs. The 360 is out today, is very tangible, has a decent selection of games, and is cheaper. The PS3 has more power, has Sony's name behind it (for better or worse), is likely to offer free online play (and likely to charge however for most if not all downloadable content) and can play hi-def movies.

I am a fan of BluRay. I like having more storage from a PC perspective. I like pushing 1080p. I fully admit that some of Sony's formats in the past have been bad. (Beta was good, but lost despite being a superior format. MiniDiscs were good, but never marketed well. Their audio file format I think was called TRAC or something, and was pretty stupid. UMD is new and the jury is still out. For a few months everyone loved it. If a PSP-redux comes out and UMD burners come out, the format could be salvageable). The fact remains that most of the industry is lending support to BluRay. There are only a total of 7,000 HD-DVD players sold so far in the world. Sony will likely ship 3 million PS3's in 3 months. That will be the end of that format war right there. Movie companies are going to release movies on a format that exists in people's homes. And while BluRay discs were supposed to be more expensive, right now BluRay movies cost the same as HD-DVD movies. Those are the facts.

I'm not sure why the anti-Sony crowd acts like BluRay is the only technology that will downsample if the movie industy decides to be dicks. That applies to both HD-DVD and BluRay. We'll see if the industry keeps to their promise and doesn't include the DRM tags until 2010. By then HDMI-equipped TVs and cheap players should be common anyway. If you want a hi-def movie player, the PS3 is a bargain. If you don't care, the 360 might be more appealing.

If you don't even own a HDTV, then I don't think you're getting the most out of either the 360 or the PS3 and perhaps you should stick with the current generation which is MUCH cheaper. (PS2 is currently outselling the 360. Maybe there is a reason).

Re:Non Fan-boy opinion (2, Insightful)

lochlan m (982920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547048)

But at the moment, the Wii does not strike me as being next-generation when it is only now approaching the pixel-power of the Xbox, a current-generation console.
Are you serious? The Wii's controller is going to revolutionize gaming. It is going to open new markets and change the way we think about video games. In my opinion, the Wii is, in a way, the only console that should be considered "next-gen". Polygon counts and massive storage do not make games any more fun. The thing that makes a game console good is the software and the way that you interact with it. Just look at the Nintendo DS, which is outselling the PSP 8:1 right now in Japan. It has less processing power, an inferior graphics processor, and far less storage capacity. And, yet, it is (in my eyes) the clear victor in the handheld market. Your post really spoke to me, particularly this line:
However, the cold hard facts are that graphics sell games. A game that looks good will be talked about, and purchased.
I think a great deal of gamers would agree with you. However, IMHO this is because the gaming market hasn't really been cracked in the way that it potentially could be. Console games today are marketed to an 18-24 year old, because 10 years ago the PS1 found success in that market which until then didn't really exist. Before then, video games were thought of as more of a kid's toy. You know who isn't playing console games? Women, young or old. Anyone over 40. (sure there are exceptions but generally speaking, this is true). Yet, a lot of these people are buying cell phone games or playing minesweeper. I think that when the Wii comes out it's going to have an effect somewhat similar to the PS1, opening new markets and broadening the "gamer" demographic.

Re:Non Fan-boy opinion (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547138)

UForce.

Virtual Boy.

Super Scope Six.

R.O.B.

PowerPad.

PowerGlove.

I can go on.

I've enjoyed many a Nintendo game over the years, though my N64 and GameCube largely gathered dust over the years. I love the concept of force feedback and an analog control. Both were very poorly executed by Nintendo with the N64.

I have a special flight-stick I bought 10 years ago at a computer show. It has floating ball bearings that can sense how you move it through the air. You move the flight stick to the left in air, and your shop moves to the left. So I've been playing with a controller like this for some time. I loved it with X-Wing for about a month, and then it got old.

Nintendo's Wii controller requires you to setup two sensors on the side of your TV which I don't care for. And I'm not sure that game designers will know how to implement this well. Meanwhile, Sony's attempt at copying the technology is both better and worse. The sensor is much more simple. Some feel it is weak. However the advantages are two fold. One, it is in a normal controller than I already enjoy as opposed to a remote shape that I'm concerned about when playing normal games, especially using the virtual console. Secondly, the sensor is in the controller rather than attaching two sensors to my TV.

I'm still reserving judgement until I play with both in my hand. However, 4 years from now, we might either look back and call the Wii a fad/gimmick or pure brilliance. Both are very much distinct possibilities.

Re:Non Fan-boy opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15547913)

That's nice that the Wii is broadening the market, but you're talking to young males here. We're already gamers, the market broadening has no effect on us - hell, it could reduce the amount of games coming out that are designed for us, as publishers chase the new money.

I'm deeply looking forward to Mario Galaxy, WarioWare SM, Sonic Wild Fire, and Monkey Ball Wii. But if the Wii marks the end of that kind of game coming from Nintendo (+Sega) I'll be pissed off.

p.s. Wii will have nicer graphics than the xbox, it's cube*1.5 and a cube was as graphically powerful as an xbox.

Which One will I Buy? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15546825)

Well, let's see here...

On the one hand, we have a console from a corporation whose products I would never purchase (new). On the other hand, we have a console from another corporation whose products I would never purchase (new).

So, if I were to ever get around to buying a new console (even though I still have so much on older consoles to catch up on...Saturn, Dreamcast, etc), I would have to go with Nintendo, despite the idiotic name they gave their new console.

Or, I'll pick up a used PS2 and/or XBox once they start showing up at the thrift stores.

Re:Which One will I Buy? (1)

Troglodyt (898143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547255)

Why are you not willing to buy the products of MS or Sony?
Are the people at Nintendo really better? Remember the price fixing? [bbc.co.uk]
Corporations will always be corporations, that doesn't mean the developers at sony computer entertainment or microsoft games are asses..

Easy answer (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547300)

Which ever one has the games you like.

If you like western style games (very easy FPS, racing, movie tie-ins) get an XBOX 360. If you like Japanese style games (difficult RPGs, 2D/3D fighting games, anime tie-ins) get a PS3.

Re:Easy answer (1)

infiniter (745494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547962)

I agree, but I'd extend it to whichever ones has all of the features you like.

For me, the 360 is an easy choice because:
a.) It's out now.
b.) It has lots of nice sports games, and I like sports games.
c.) I don't have to pay $200 extra for a BluRay drive that I won't use.
d.) I like Halo. Everyone I know likes Halo. There's only one console that has Halo.

If I was in a different situation - namely, a much more affluent situation - I'd go PS3. I don't really see how one is "superior" to the other, they're just suited to different sets of desires.

SACD and Blu-Ray (1)

sciencecneisc (980820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547323)

PS3 offers both Super Audio CD and Blu-Ray reading and I think that makes it less of a commodity. Wii and Apple position themselves as charging a premium for good design quality and special features and I'm glad Sony is adding unique/first to market technologies to their mix. I personally can't wait to try the SACD I ordered from Amazon.com (Switchfoot) but my the entry fee is at least $100 for a player of not so great quality...it's being sold at TigerDirect and discounted and all but I don't think a Pioneer for $100 is going to compare to what Sony, king of SACD, puts into the PS3. I'd buy the PS3 just for Blu-Ray and SACD if it were a little cheaper, assuming neither were crippled but of course it'd be a bitch to even acquire the device amidst the crowds and fans waiting in the queue. 360's HD DVD doesn't seem as special of a format compared to Blu-Ray and SACD.

Doubt it... (0, Flamebait)

kosh_mdh (669644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547326)

"neck and neck for visuals" Thats a joke, right? "...the two bohemoths [Sony and Microsoft]" Microsoft isnt a bohemoth in the games industry, its a little fish.

Re:Doubt it... (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547491)

"neck and neck for visuals" Thats a joke, right?

Well, the 360 has a modern ATI GPU and the PS3 has a modern Nvidia GPU. Exactly how much difference do you expect there to be?

Do you think that the PS3 GPU is going to produce massively better graphics because it has the mighty Cell driving it? Why? How? Explain yourself, boy.

Re:Doubt it... (1)

kosh_mdh (669644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547527)

Well ive read the white papers and seen the test results comparing the Cell to other top range CPUs and the thing takes them appart in applications involving media and poly pushing.

Also PS3 will have a built in PSU.

but im not talking specs...

...i used my eyes to look at the difference.

XBOX360 graphics, in my opinion, have been laughable so far. I wouldnt call it a next-gen console, its .5 at best.
Ive read some of the things Microsoft has in its graphics R+D, its 10 years ahead of its 360. The only glimpse of nextgen graphics in the 360 titles is:

1: the dirty but functional motion blur in gotham 2: the paralax mapping in perfect dark (though it was implemented incredably badly and looked terrible)


What havent i seen in 360 that i think should be standard in nextgen consoles:

1: proper texture filters, texture filtration in console games is aweful to look at.
2: anitaliasing as standard (as it is in all the modern GPUs they say theyre using.
3: Unified HDR (non of this tonemapping = HDR rubbish)
4: Some sort of motion blur (wether post filter or whatever) to fix the naffness of refresh rates.


But what did we get? Games that are 99% old generation just with everything on.

over priced rubbish :D (1)

Pablo El Vagabundo (775863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547548)

I'm getting a Wii. Nintendo have done a superb job this time round and I think that deserves my money.

Plus I haven't got an extra few hundred to spend for an xbox/ps3.

Here in Ireland it is all about the second hand games market. The GC did poorly here and the lack of second hand games showed.

This time around I think the Wii will capture 50%+ of the market and that means loads of second hand games.

I might get a ps3 in a few years, but only if they have some really really good games and their controller is decent. Dual shock sucks donkey balls.

Pablo.

like comparing SUVs... (1)

dlc3007 (570880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15547794)

Just like reading an article comparing a Hummer with a Ford Excessive. I don't really care which one has more power and uses more gas because I have no interest in owning either of them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...