Posted by BboyEatsbacon

Think About This:

The last time Sony was hacked, it was hacked by the largest exploiting group in the world. They were also taking several security precautions while they were down to prevent the exploits from occurring again. If I remember correctly, last time I heard about XBL being hacked, it was by some....thirteen year old?
I believe Sony being hacked and taken down for nearly a month crucially depleted it's reputation, but I can't blame them, I would take extreme precautions if Lulzsec (Anonymous Division) hacked a company that I owned as well.

They were hacked by a bunch of teenagers with nothing better to do.

It was via SQL injection on one of sony's websites....thats pretty pathetic.
And it wasn't just once. It was multiple times. Even after the sony network came back up, they were hacked...again.

Its not the fact of whether they were hacked or not. Everyone gets hacked eventually.
Its the fact that they were storing password, user data, billing info, all unencrypted.
It just shows how much they really value you as a customer. They don't even have the respect of the people paying them mounds of money to take some simple precautions against the easiest type of database hack.
They couldn't even do that.

In fact, Nintendo was hacked by lulsec. But they actually had security in place to stop them from doing any harm.  

Posted by BboyEatsbacon

Think About This:

The last time Sony was hacked, it was hacked by the largest exploiting group in the world. They were also taking several security precautions while they were down to prevent the exploits from occurring again. If I remember correctly, last time I heard about XBL being hacked, it was by some....thirteen year old?
I believe Sony being hacked and taken down for nearly a month crucially depleted it's reputation, but I can't blame them, I would take extreme precautions if Lulzsec (Anonymous Division) hacked a company that I owned as well.

So you're gonna judge a console on who hacked it or how long it was hacked?
Wow... You suck when it comes to decision... No offence..  

Posted by Maikeru

So you're gonna judge a console on who hacked it or how long it was hacked?
Wow... You suck when it comes to decision... No offence..

So it's okay for you to judge the 360 because of who hacked it, but not the PS3... lol. Seriously. LOL.  

Posted by Dusty

So it's okay for you to judge the 360 because of who hacked it, but not the PS3... lol. Seriously. LOL.

Im referring to all consoles...
You don't judge a console just because somebody hacked it  

Posted by Maikeru

Im referring to all consoles...
You don't judge a console just because somebody hacked it

You seem to be making the same conclusions on your end, I don't see the problem?

Anyways, most of the hack is going towards Sony, not the PS3... but the PS3 is a product of Sony so of course it's gonna suffer as well.  

Wtf??? At school every where thats going on -.-  

Posted by Jax

I'd say PS3 cause you get free Internet. Xbox, you gotta pay.

internet isn't free unless you're leeching off your neighbor's wifi or something lol  

LOL PS3. You have to pay to go online, PS3 controls are easier, better graphics etc.
Go suck on the red ring of death Xbox ;)  

Posted by Thunderstørm

controls are easier,

I don't understand this. I grew up on the PS1(still have my old PS1 dual shock controller because I like the weight of it, and the stiffness of the analog sticks) and then played the hell out of the PS2... I can play my 360 flawlessly without problems. Why do people have problems going from one controller to another so much? Button layout is virtually the same, the only difference is analog position, and I don't have a problem with that either.

Posted by Thunderstørm

better graphics etc.

This debate will never end will it? People have compared the hardware of the 360 and PS3 and they both accel at different things. If I recall correctly, the 360 was capable of more powerful cpu processing and AI and the such. I will give that the PS3 can pull off better graphics, especially in exclusive games developed for the PS3, but developers tend too be too lazy for the PS3 to really call that a benefit. Most multi-platform games tend to look better on the 360 than PS3(google comparisons if you want) because developers half-ass the PS3 version most of the time. It sucks for the PS3, but blame the developers. If developers actually took advantage of the more powerful graphics for the PS3 this would be different, but they don't.

Posted by Thunderstørm

Go suck on the red ring of death Xbox ;)

This has been covered, but glad to see you'd like to relish in your own fanboyism a little more.  

\

Posted by Thunderstørm

LOL PS3. You have to pay to go online, PS3 controls are easier, better graphics etc.
Go suck on the red ring of death Xbox ;)

Agreed who wants pay to go online? You already got Wi-Fi  

neither, both are going to become obsolete soon enough (new consoles are in the pipelinez). both have outdated hardware (mostly the gfx department) and are currently the bottlenecks for just about every game

you're better off spending monies towards a new PC  

Posted by Crono

neither, both are going to become obsolete soon enough (new consoles are in the pipelinez). both have outdated hardware (mostly the gfx department) and are currently the bottlenecks for just about every game

you're better off spending monies towards a new PC

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.

The entire original team that created the xbox is gone from microsoft, so, they'll be starting with an inexperienced team.
Sony is too busy with the Vita (Which I havn't even heard anything about lately...is it out yet?)
Nintendo is going to launch WiiU late next year. So...until then, the choices for new generation consoles are 3DS, Vita, or PC games.  

Posted by Thunderstørm

LOL PS3. You have to pay to go online, PS3 controls are easier, better graphics etc.
Go suck on the red ring of death Xbox ;)

Red rings of death?
what is this 'Back to the Future' ?? lol
that might've been a valid point like 3-4 years ago

Posted by Crono

neither, both are going to become obsolete soon enough (new consoles are in the pipelinez). both have outdated hardware (mostly the gfx department) and are currently the bottlenecks for just about every game

you're better off spending monies towards a new PC

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.  

Posted by Dusty

I don't understand this. I grew up on the PS1(still have my old PS1 dual shock controller because I like the weight of it, and the stiffness of the analog sticks) and then played the hell out of the PS2... I can play my 360 flawlessly without problems. Why do people have problems going from one controller to another so much? Button layout is virtually the same, the only difference is analog position, and I don't have a problem with that either.



This debate will never end will it? People have compared the hardware of the 360 and PS3 and they both accel at different things. If I recall correctly, the 360 was capable of more powerful cpu processing and AI and the such. I will give that the PS3 can pull off better graphics, especially in exclusive games developed for the PS3, but developers tend too be too lazy for the PS3 to really call that a benefit. Most multi-platform games tend to look better on the 360 than PS3(google comparisons if you want) because developers half-ass the PS3 version most of the time. It sucks for the PS3, but blame the developers. If developers actually took advantage of the more powerful graphics for the PS3 this would be different, but they don't.


This has been covered, but glad to see you'd like to relish in your own fanboyism a little more.

Firstly, I like the controllers for the PS3 better because of the shape and feel of it, compared to an Xbox controller.
Secondly, I know the Red Ring thing has been covered, I was just using it as a joke from the popular Youtube series called the 'Online Gamer' (I recommend it to those who want a good laugh and can handle a bit of swearing)
In conclusion, I believe the PS3 and Xbox 360 are very much alike (in terms of graphics, etc. Basically what Dusty just said. I think it just really depends which console you have. I think the only distinct difference between the 2, is that you don't have to pay to go online on PS3?
So which one do I buy?
If you are willing to pay to go online? Xbox
If you want to go online for free? Play Station

PS: John J Johnson, why the hell would you start a thread with this knowing there would be a flame war and you already have an Xbox 360?
/threadclose?  

Posted by Thunderstørm

I think the only distinct difference between the 2, is that you don't have to pay to go online on PS3?
So which one do I buy?
If you are willing to pay to go online? Xbox
If you want to go online for free? Play Station

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...