Whatever it is, it's clearly not as strong as what you're smoking. Own one, and then make an informed opinion, please.
I have to own one to know it's ugly as sin? No, I have to have seen one in the flesh to have an informed opinion about its appearance. And I have. And my opinion is that it is horrid. Of course you are welcome to disagree - as I said I just find that odd because we are talking about a piece of consumer electronics, the same "genre" of product as Macs, and the PS3 aesthetic is a long way from that of Macs.
I'm not sure the PS3 is a failure, at this point. I'm not a serious gamer, but I did get one. It's the best value, given that it has blu-ray function and a ton of extensibility. In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite, and now that HD-DVD has bit the dust there's not a whole lot of secondary (or primary) value. The PS3 may well have tipped the format war in Sony's favor, and they stand to make a lot of money, now, due to the Blu-ray victory. Beyond those two, the Wii is completely uninteresting to those of us who like to play high-budget games.
I'm not sure the PS3 is a failure, at this point. I'm not a serious gamer, but I did get one. It's the best value, given that it has blu-ray function and a ton of extensibility. In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite, and now that HD-DVD has bit the dust there's not a whole lot of secondary (or primary) value.
The 360 never had a HD DVD player, so I don't get your point.
In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite, and now that HD-DVD has bit the dust there's not a whole lot of secondary (or primary) value. The PS3 may well have tipped the format war in Sony's favor, and they stand to make a lot of money, now, due to the Blu-ray victory.
If it's for movie watching, some stores (Amazon is one I think) are refunding XBox 360 HD-DVD drives and Microsoft may make a Blu-Ray drive addon for their 360 when prices come down enough to make it worthwhile. You can actually get a 360 (£160) and a standalone Blu-Ray player (£120) for less than a PS3 (£299).
The XBox is still half the price of the PS3, there are more games, better exclusives and it plays the games common to both better. Games are being ported to the PS3 and coming out worse or ones that are developed for both have more issues on the PS3 than the XBox regarding lighting, textures, lag etc.
Online play on the XBox is better despite having to pay for it.
I'd say that next Christmas, it's possible for the PS3 to be better value than the Xbox but right now, all it has really is Blu-Ray, which isn't a major selling point for people who buy a console for games. That's not enough to make it a PS3-lite.
In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite
The PS3 has a small but significant performance *disadvantage* when it comes to graphics.
True Story:
Some developers create titles for both platforms. Typically the 360 version looks better, simply because the GPU on the 360 has more texture bandwidth, and can handle higher resolution textures. The PS3 can do this, but it causes slowdown.
You might notice that many PS3 textures are a bit noisy looking. They sparkle a bit.
When Sony come to approve the titles, they will not allow the PS3 game to be released if the PS3 version looks visibly worse than the 360.
Guess what the developers do to make the two titles appear at the same visual quality?
The 360 never had a HD DVD player, so I don't get your point.
It was an accessory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The XBox is still half the price of the PS3, there are more games, better exclusives and it plays the games common to both better. Games are being ported to the PS3 and coming out worse or ones that are developed for both have more issues on the PS3 than the XBox regarding lighting, textures, lag etc.
Other than cost, this is inherently debatable. It really depends on what you like, and I'm not really seeing that there's a quality-control difference in the games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The PS3 has a small but significant performance *disadvantage* when it comes to graphics.
I'm aware that the 360 has a slightly better graphics card. The difference is pretty marginal.
The 360 is a PS3-lite for the same major reason the PS2 was an XBox-lite: total feature-set. The PS3 offers a greater range of media capabilities, through built-in functions and its much better development environment. Plus, it has bluray built-in. If you're interested only in playing games, the 360 may be a better value for you, but the added cost of the PS3 is easily justifiable for anyone who is interested in using the console for things other than games, in addition to games.
I've just learned I can stream media from my Mac to a PS3. The PS3 can be my Blu-ray player and my AppleTV. I'm in the market for one right after Christmas and I don't have any plans on playing games on it at all.
Other than cost, this is inherently debatable. It really depends on what you like, and I'm not really seeing that there's a quality-control difference in the games.
A number of popular games have had major problems with lag, textures, low draw distance. You can see some of these things in the video here:
For gaming, you certainly aren't getting a better experience so the PS3 isn't worth twice the amount.
Microsoft now have Netflix on the 360 and I'm sure you can stream movies from your computer to the XBox too so it really comes down to Blu-Ray.
You can pick up a Blu-Ray player and a 360 cheaper than a PS3 though and they can be used independently.
If you wanted an all-in-one device, the PS3 is a good option and I prefer the appearance to the 360 but I still think the 360 is better value for money. The games are consistently cheaper too and there are far more preowned titles available.
No, it's not unusual. Watts measures the rate of heat production, heat itself is an energy flow and therefore measured in Joules. Perhaps you are thinking of temperature being measured in degrees or in Kelvin? (Hint: heat != temperature)
No, it's not unusual. Watts measures the rate of heat production, heat itself is an energy flow and therefore measured in Joules. Perhaps you are thinking of temperature being measured in degrees or in Kelvin? (Hint: heat != temperature)
To be sure, but the point I'm making is that the air coming out of the consoles is around the same temperature. As tested here.
People have this erratic believe the PS3 will make your room too hot, when, in reality, it makes the room no hotter than the XBox 360. In fact if we to go even further you can see the PS3 faired even better than the 360 did over at Geek(dot)COM, when they did those extensive, extreme temperature tests.
People have this erratic believe the PS3 will make your room too hot, when, in reality, it makes the room no hotter than the XBox 360. In fact if we to go even further you can see the PS3 faired even better than the 360 did over at Geek(dot)COM, when they did those extensive, extreme temperature tests.
Just because the air coming out has about the same temperature, it doesn't mean that the PS3 heats the room the same amount as a 360. You need to look at the rate at which air is being blown out the back of the PS3 vs. the 360.
The PS3, as demonstrated by the power consumption numbers, does produce more heat than a 360. Neither the 360 or the PS3 would make particularly good room heaters though (you really need at least a couple of kilowatts for that).
Summary: Very small test, but the PS3 was actually cooler, barely.
If you read my post properly you'd understand what I was saying.
The PS3 uses more power and consequently puts out more waste heat. But the PS3 has better heat dissipation, and manages to be quieter and run cooler. The 360 puts out less power but still sounds like a 747.
The PS3 dumps heat better due to this:
Unfortunately, excellent thermal engineering does not a great games console make.
I find that the PS3 is likely a better value proposition over the life of the console vs the 360 given the limited track history of the two competing platforms. In our family we have all the recent past and present consoles: XBox, PS2, Gamecube, Wii, XBox360, PS3 (I actually have a Dreamcast too somewhere...).
I bought my nephew Rock Band for his PS2. He bought an extra guitar and Rock Band 2 (game only) for the PS3. The Rock Band drums, mic and guitars work for either. We got Guitar Hero for the 360. We a game or two for the Wii but spent most of the Wii time playing 4-way Mario Kart with two controllers taken from the Gamecube. Then an assload of Rock Band/RB2.
We got nothing for the XBox. Younger than the PS2 but dead as a platform. The PS3 may or may not have better titles than the 360 in 2008 but it is far less likely to be relegated to tertiary DVD/Blu-Ray duties on a 6 year old 19" TV in the guest bedroom than the 360 will be. Sony is far less likely to kill the PS3 even after the PS4 arrives. With MS, you don't know but they sure made my XBox a dodo.
Heck, the local gamestop doesn't even carry used XBox games anymore. I wont be getting a 360 for myself even if I'm a .NET/MDX/DX9 developer.
Comments
Whatever it is, it's clearly not as strong as what you're smoking. Own one, and then make an informed opinion, please.
Look at a new MacBook Pro - that is slick.
C.
I'm not sure the PS3 is a failure, at this point. I'm not a serious gamer, but I did get one. It's the best value, given that it has blu-ray function and a ton of extensibility. In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite, and now that HD-DVD has bit the dust there's not a whole lot of secondary (or primary) value.
The 360 never had a HD DVD player, so I don't get your point.
Looks good, smells great!
Do I detect an insecure 360 owner? Perhaps.
In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite, and now that HD-DVD has bit the dust there's not a whole lot of secondary (or primary) value. The PS3 may well have tipped the format war in Sony's favor, and they stand to make a lot of money, now, due to the Blu-ray victory.
If it's for movie watching, some stores (Amazon is one I think) are refunding XBox 360 HD-DVD drives and Microsoft may make a Blu-Ray drive addon for their 360 when prices come down enough to make it worthwhile. You can actually get a 360 (£160) and a standalone Blu-Ray player (£120) for less than a PS3 (£299).
The XBox is still half the price of the PS3, there are more games, better exclusives and it plays the games common to both better. Games are being ported to the PS3 and coming out worse or ones that are developed for both have more issues on the PS3 than the XBox regarding lighting, textures, lag etc.
Online play on the XBox is better despite having to pay for it.
I'd say that next Christmas, it's possible for the PS3 to be better value than the Xbox but right now, all it has really is Blu-Ray, which isn't a major selling point for people who buy a console for games. That's not enough to make it a PS3-lite.
In comparison, the XBox 360 is essentially a PS3-lite
The PS3 has a small but significant performance *disadvantage* when it comes to graphics.
True Story:
Some developers create titles for both platforms. Typically the 360 version looks better, simply because the GPU on the 360 has more texture bandwidth, and can handle higher resolution textures. The PS3 can do this, but it causes slowdown.
You might notice that many PS3 textures are a bit noisy looking. They sparkle a bit.
When Sony come to approve the titles, they will not allow the PS3 game to be released if the PS3 version looks visibly worse than the 360.
Guess what the developers do to make the two titles appear at the same visual quality?
C.
Do I detect an insecure 360 owner? Perhaps.
I do actually have a 360, but I don't think it is perfect.
The biggest deal breaker for me is the fan noise, which kills the console as any kind of media center. It's unacceptable.
The PS3 is half heat-sink. Which is why it looks like a George Foreman grill. It puts out twice as much heat as a 360, but at least it is quiet.
The bad engineering on the PS3 is of a different kind.
Heat comparison chart.
XB360 = 192 Watts
PS3 = 380 Watts
GFG = 780 Watts
GFG360 = 1500 Watts!
C.
The 360 never had a HD DVD player, so I don't get your point.
It was an accessory.
The XBox is still half the price of the PS3, there are more games, better exclusives and it plays the games common to both better. Games are being ported to the PS3 and coming out worse or ones that are developed for both have more issues on the PS3 than the XBox regarding lighting, textures, lag etc.
Other than cost, this is inherently debatable. It really depends on what you like, and I'm not really seeing that there's a quality-control difference in the games.
The PS3 has a small but significant performance *disadvantage* when it comes to graphics.
I'm aware that the 360 has a slightly better graphics card. The difference is pretty marginal.
The 360 is a PS3-lite for the same major reason the PS2 was an XBox-lite: total feature-set. The PS3 offers a greater range of media capabilities, through built-in functions and its much better development environment. Plus, it has bluray built-in. If you're interested only in playing games, the 360 may be a better value for you, but the added cost of the PS3 is easily justifiable for anyone who is interested in using the console for things other than games, in addition to games.
It was an accessory.
Exactly, it wasn't built in.
Heat comparison chart.
XB360 = 192 Watts
PS3 = 380 Watts
GFG = 780 Watts
GFG360 = 1500 Watts!
Heat measured in Watts? That's unusual.
Other than cost, this is inherently debatable. It really depends on what you like, and I'm not really seeing that there's a quality-control difference in the games.
A number of popular games have had major problems with lag, textures, low draw distance. You can see some of these things in the video here:
http://my.opera.com/kalpesh.mistry/b...ow.dml/1586254
For gaming, you certainly aren't getting a better experience so the PS3 isn't worth twice the amount.
Microsoft now have Netflix on the 360 and I'm sure you can stream movies from your computer to the XBox too so it really comes down to Blu-Ray.
You can pick up a Blu-Ray player and a 360 cheaper than a PS3 though and they can be used independently.
If you wanted an all-in-one device, the PS3 is a good option and I prefer the appearance to the 360 but I still think the 360 is better value for money. The games are consistently cheaper too and there are far more preowned titles available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1mXlF8ovg
http://www.psillustrated.com/psillus...ooler-ps3.html
Summary: Very small test, but the PS3 was actually cooler, barely.
Heat measured in Watts? That's unusual.
No, it's not unusual. Watts measures the rate of heat production, heat itself is an energy flow and therefore measured in Joules. Perhaps you are thinking of temperature being measured in degrees or in Kelvin? (Hint: heat != temperature)
No, it's not unusual. Watts measures the rate of heat production, heat itself is an energy flow and therefore measured in Joules. Perhaps you are thinking of temperature being measured in degrees or in Kelvin? (Hint: heat != temperature)
To be sure, but the point I'm making is that the air coming out of the consoles is around the same temperature. As tested here.
People have this erratic believe the PS3 will make your room too hot, when, in reality, it makes the room no hotter than the XBox 360. In fact if we to go even further you can see the PS3 faired even better than the 360 did over at Geek(dot)COM, when they did those extensive, extreme temperature tests.
People have this erratic believe the PS3 will make your room too hot, when, in reality, it makes the room no hotter than the XBox 360. In fact if we to go even further you can see the PS3 faired even better than the 360 did over at Geek(dot)COM, when they did those extensive, extreme temperature tests.
Just because the air coming out has about the same temperature, it doesn't mean that the PS3 heats the room the same amount as a 360. You need to look at the rate at which air is being blown out the back of the PS3 vs. the 360.
The PS3, as demonstrated by the power consumption numbers, does produce more heat than a 360. Neither the 360 or the PS3 would make particularly good room heaters though (you really need at least a couple of kilowatts for that).
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1mXlF8ovg
http://www.psillustrated.com/psillus...ooler-ps3.html
Summary: Very small test, but the PS3 was actually cooler, barely.
If you read my post properly you'd understand what I was saying.
The PS3 uses more power and consequently puts out more waste heat. But the PS3 has better heat dissipation, and manages to be quieter and run cooler. The 360 puts out less power but still sounds like a 747.
The PS3 dumps heat better due to this:
Unfortunately, excellent thermal engineering does not a great games console make.
C.
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6202693....s&subj=6202693
C.
I bought my nephew Rock Band for his PS2. He bought an extra guitar and Rock Band 2 (game only) for the PS3. The Rock Band drums, mic and guitars work for either. We got Guitar Hero for the 360. We a game or two for the Wii but spent most of the Wii time playing 4-way Mario Kart with two controllers taken from the Gamecube. Then an assload of Rock Band/RB2.
We got nothing for the XBox. Younger than the PS2 but dead as a platform. The PS3 may or may not have better titles than the 360 in 2008 but it is far less likely to be relegated to tertiary DVD/Blu-Ray duties on a 6 year old 19" TV in the guest bedroom than the 360 will be. Sony is far less likely to kill the PS3 even after the PS4 arrives. With MS, you don't know but they sure made my XBox a dodo.
Heck, the local gamestop doesn't even carry used XBox games anymore. I wont be getting a 360 for myself even if I'm a .NET/MDX/DX9 developer.