Posted by Jazz

Its not that simple really.

Its more like...are you willing to sacrifice quality for a free service?
Or pay for a higher quality service.

And on that note, if your willing to pay for higher quality service, do you pay for live or PSN+? (Is psn+ even better quality? probably not...)

Then there are also console specific games...if you like the exclusives on xbox better, get an xbox.
But price is also a factor. PS3 is still expensive. So, I would probably never buy one...

to be honest, i don't really care if it comes with internet or not. I just look at what the console has to offer.. and what i meant by what the console has to offer is by the quality and the games... not the random stuff you don't need like football or Hulu in a console...

I buy a console to play games.. I buy a PC to use the internet, create games, and talk to my friends... Why do i need all this random garbage im never gonna use? They're completely 100% optional but they're not needed at all  

That's really the only reason people like ps3. Just because u get free Internet and it has better graphics. Xbox 360 offers more content than the ps3 that's why we pay for our Xbox live every year.  

Posted by John J Johnson

That's really the only reason people like ps3. Just because u get free Internet and it has better graphics. Xbox 360 offers more content than the ps3 that's why we pay for our Xbox live every year.

Actually the PS3 offers the same amount as 360 in the gaming perspective. Just both have different exclusives and different plans  

Posted by Rexx

the consoles are "bottlenecks" for every game?
no...more money is made off games for the consoles, thus more of the dev budget goes toward the console version.
Why do you think Valve started putting their titles on consoles?
They got tired of people pirating the sh*t out of their games and losing money.

They're a bottleneck in the sense that devs are limiting the quality of games to what they can manage on a console. Consoles are selling better, and are more popular, thus developers only bother to make the games for the consoles and the PC gets a ****ty port of it. So even though PCs are years away from what the consoles can manage, PC gamers aren't getting to see it because they're still getting 360/PS3 graphics because that's what the games are made for.  

Posted by Maikeru

Actually the PS3 offers the same amount as 360 in the gaming perspective. Just both have different exclusives and different plans

Exclusives are becoming a thing of the past.
A new Metal Gear Solid title coming to Xbox is a testament to that and when Final Fantasy 13 was announced for Xbox 360 was huge.

Microsoft also has the money to expand their range of content within Xbox live whereas Sony does not.  

Posted by Rexx

Exclusives are becoming a thing of the past.
A new Metal Gear Solid title coming to Xbox is a testament to that and when Final Fantasy 13 was announced for Xbox 360 was huge.

Microsoft also has the money to expand their range of content within Xbox live whereas Sony does not.

The new Metal Gear Solid has now been confirmed for both consoles now..
and Final Fantasy 13 was announced for 360 greatly but was superior on the PS3 due to quality (whereas the 360 version had 3 discs). The same will apply for Final Fantasy 13-2 (Hope it doesn't)...

And expand range of content? what type of content? movies? shows? weather? other things that aren't related to games?

I only bought my PS3 so it can play games.. If i needed to do any of that, i have a laptop.. so pretty much that expanded range of content is kinda pointless.. Unless you come up with a situation where someone has a PS3/360 and no computer...

Speaking of which, PS3 has a browser... 360 doesn't...
That makes the PS3 special in some way according to what you're saying now right?  

Posted by Rexx

Exclusives are becoming a thing of the past.
A new Metal Gear Solid title coming to Xbox is a testament to that and when Final Fantasy 13 was announced for Xbox 360 was huge.

Microsoft also has the money to expand their range of content within Xbox live whereas Sony does not.

They're not really. Console makers will always pay to have their own first-party developers at hand(Sony Computer Entertainment America, for example), and will always shell out money to exclusive rights. Why? Because most of the time what really sells a console is what games it's offering. Do you think PS3 would have sold at all if it weren't for games like MGS:4 in its early years? Sometimes people really have to have that one game on a console, and may just buy the entire console for it. They know this. It would be financial suicide for consoles to just forget about exclusive titles, especially when consoles like the PS3 and 360 offer a very similar experience. And even if they're not, when they're even remotely the same, developers will dumb down the game to work on the least powerful console and the more powerful console ends up with the same exact game anyways, regardless of being capable of much more(360 and PS3 are good examples of this, where PS3 usually gets games that look horrible compared to games like MGS4 or God of War 3, because games are made to be playable on the 360).  

Posted by Dusty

They're not really. Console makers will always pay to have their own first-party developers at hand(Sony Computer Entertainment America, for example), and will always shell out money to exclusive rights. Why? Because most of the time what really sells a console is what games it's offering. Do you think PS3 would have sold at all if it weren't for games like MGS:4 in its early years? Sometimes people really have to have that one game on a console, and may just buy the entire console for it. They know this. It would be financial suicide for consoles to just forget about exclusive titles, especially when consoles like the PS3 and 360 offer a very similar experience. And even if they're not, when they're even remotely the same, developers will dumb down the game to work on the least powerful console and the more powerful console ends up with the same exact game anyways, regardless of being capable of much more(360 and PS3 are good examples of this, where PS3 usually gets games that look horrible compared to games like MGS4 or God of War 3, because games are made to be playable on the 360).

But if it doesn't pack it all into one disc, don't they usually try to put it all in on three discs for the 360? (Final Fantasy 13, LA Noire,etc.)  

Posted by Maikeru

But if it doesn't pack it all into one disc, don't they usually try to put it all in on three discs for the 360? (Final Fantasy 13, LA Noire,etc.)

I don't see the relevance?  

Posted by Jazz

Its not that simple really.

Its more like...are you willing to sacrifice quality for a free service?
Or pay for a higher quality service.

And on that note, if your willing to pay for higher quality service, do you pay for live or PSN+? (Is psn+ even better quality? probably not...)

Then there are also console specific games...if you like the exclusives on xbox better, get an xbox.
But price is also a factor. PS3 is still expensive. So, I would probably never buy one...

Uh No? Dusty just proved that the PS3 an Xbox excell at different things in terms of graphics, etc. He also said that PS3 has the potential to be better than the Xbox, graphics wise etc. So yes it is that simple. Oh how much is an Xbox now? PS3s now are under $300  

Xbox 360...love it and use it everyday with little downfalls other than the 60$ a year for live  

Posted by Jazz

I agree about the PC thing, but new xbox and playstation probably won't be anytime in the near future.
And if they are, then they'll be rushed, and probably be a terrible product.

We can apparently be expecting them late 2013/early 2014. It's kind of sad that consoles are released so slowly now compared to the 90's, where we progressed through like 3 generations of "bits" with fierce competition.

Posted by Rexx

the consoles are "bottlenecks" for every game?
no...more money is made off games for the consoles, thus more of the dev budget goes toward the console version.
Why do you think Valve started putting their titles on consoles?
They got tired of people pirating the sh*t out of their games and losing money.

Yes, the consoles bottleneck the progression of graphics and more complex gameplay because of the hardware restrictions on the consoles ranging from performance to controller limitations. What I posted has nothing to do with game sales.

"Valve started putting their titles on consoles" <-- complete nonsense. Valve is going stronger than ever.  

Posted by Dusty

They're not really. Console makers will always pay to have their own first-party developers at hand(Sony Computer Entertainment America, for example), and will always shell out money to exclusive rights. Why? Because most of the time what really sells a console is what games it's offering. Do you think PS3 would have sold at all if it weren't for games like MGS:4 in its early years? Sometimes people really have to have that one game on a console, and may just buy the entire console for it. They know this. It would be financial suicide for consoles to just forget about exclusive titles, especially when consoles like the PS3 and 360 offer a very similar experience. And even if they're not, when they're even remotely the same, developers will dumb down the game to work on the least powerful console and the more powerful console ends up with the same exact game anyways, regardless of being capable of much more(360 and PS3 are good examples of this, where PS3 usually gets games that look horrible compared to games like MGS4 or God of War 3, because games are made to be playable on the 360).

of course Sony has Soe and Microsoft has Microsoft games.
I was talking about the third party exclusives who originally pledged their loyalty to the Ps3 but then went multi console..im guessing Sony didn't pay them off enough?

@above sorry I misunderstood what you meant by bottlenecking I retract what I said earlier :p
But also you can't say Valve hasn't profited by putting their games on consoles.

Posted by Maikeru

The new Metal Gear Solid has now been confirmed for both consoles now..

Yes thank you for restating the point that was being made

and Final Fantasy 13 was announced for 360 greatly but was superior on the PS3 due to quality (whereas the 360 version had 3 discs). The same will apply for Final Fantasy 13-2 (Hope it doesn't)...

um no, Square made previous Final Fantasy games for the previous Playstations so it makes sense that they would continue with the PS3, quality has nothing to do with it.

And expand range of content? what type of content? movies? shows? weather? other things that aren't related to games?

I only bought my PS3 so it can play games.. If i needed to do any of that, i have a laptop.. so pretty much that expanded range of content is kinda pointless.. Unless you come up with a situation where someone has a PS3/360 and no computer...

Does it hurt to have the extra stuff available? No not really, the consoles are powerful machines and can offer many other things besides gaming.
I have a laptop, windows phone, and iPod yet I still play my Xbox almost every day..again, the extra content is a commodity, its not needed yet its nice to have available.

Speaking of which, PS3 has a browser... 360 doesn't...
That makes the PS3 special in some way according to what you're saying now right?

I never said anything about a web browser..and a web browser isnt "content" its a utility.
But even that supports my argument, a web browser isnt needed but its nice to have, right?

You dont need to justify why you got a PS3, I don't care. I'm glad you're in love with your PS3 and its games.

Posted by Maikeru

Why do i need all this random garbage im never gonna use? They're completely 100% optional but they're not needed at all

Exactly, its optional. Whats wrong with that?

if you want a straight up, bare bones online gaming service go play games on your PC  

Posted by Rexx

of course Sony has Soe and Microsoft has Microsoft games.
I was talking about the third party exclusives who originally pledged their loyalty to the Ps3 but then went multi console..im guessing Sony didn't pay them off enough?

Who knows, the contract could have only been for a few years. I don't know the details of these exclusivity contracts but I'm pretty sure you just can't "break" them. If Sony paid for exclusive rights to Metal Gear Solid then Konami has no choice but to oblige. If its namesake is appearing on another console then it must be part of the agreement.  

Posted by Thunderstørm

Uh No? Dusty just proved that the PS3 an Xbox excell at different things in terms of graphics, etc. He also said that PS3 has the potential to be better than the Xbox, graphics wise etc. So yes it is that simple. Oh how much is an Xbox now? PS3s now are under $300

Do you have short term memory loss or something?

I was replying to your post in which you said that the only difference between the two consoles was the price of online.

I never made that claim, I simply took what you said, and ran with it.