360 died, thinking about a PS3?

[Orion]

So, with the heat recently, my 360 red-ringed (despite it sitting on top of a tv stand in open air with nothing hot around it, grr), and it's on its way to get fixed. However, for awhile now, I've been thinking about selling the thing and getting a PS3.

Who has one and can tell me if it's worth it? I like being able to download old PSOne games (in fact I own a few digitally from the PSP), and I'm going to try to get one that's got PS2 backwards compatibility, and Dot Game Heroes looks fun, as does FF14, but is there really anything else that I can't already get on my 360?

I also use my 360 for digital video playback. I have a 1TB drive with all of my movies and TV shows on it, and honestly, I use the console more for that than playing games. Does the PS3 also work well for that?

[MottZilla]

Dot Game Heroes is cool. But the exclusive PS3 titles are hardly anything earth shattering. For anything on both platforms, almost always Xbox 360 is the better choice. The only known exception to me is Final Fantasy 13. If you play online multiplayer games you would shoot yourself in the foot by going PS3. But if you don't really play games online, PS3 is fine. Honestly I think Xbox 360 is the better system, and reliability has gotten better in later models.

As a media player I'm not sure that PS3 is significantly better but I have heard atleast in some ways it's better.

So if you play games like Call of Duty or something like that online, stay with Xbox. If you mainly play games solo, PS3 might be just fine for you. As always if you can try before you buy.

[Nicholas Steel]

PS3 has the hardware advantage in the long run, in the short term however, it only has PlayTV going for it which turns it into a HDD Recorder for TV.

[MottZilla]

PS3 has the hardware advantage in the long run

Please don't state garbage like this as fact. Neither system is significantly better in any area hardware wise that really matters. The difference between them is far less than there was between the PS2 and Xbox.

[AtmaWeapon]

There are only two reasons I want a PS3: I don't have a blu-ray player and it has Metal Gear Solid 4. I've tried for 2 months now to justify buying a PS3 and I can't think of anything I want that I can't get on my 360 already. As Mott pointed out, Microsoft has the more compelling online functionality. Yes, you have to pay a monthly cost. To me the cost is insignificant and I don't really think about it.

I'm not really sure if it's a big deal to have a hardware advantage at this point. Is the lack of graphical fidelity in games limiting the medium? I think not.

[Nicholas Steel]

Please don't state garbage like this as fact. Neither system is significantly better in any area hardware wise that really matters. The difference between them is far less than there was between the PS2 and Xbox.

Well I'm pretty confident DVD's will be phased out completely eventually and new movies will be Bluray Exclusive. When that happens, xbox360 won't be able to play new movies without using there download service or video streaming, which would require something like a reliable 25megabit internet connection for Progressive Scan 1920x1080 bluray quality videos.

I agree eyecandy isn't what everyone buys games for, I know I don't.

[MottZilla]

You are likely right that "eventually" all movies might be released on Blu-ray and not DVD. But your time frame is wrong I think. Xbox 360 will not still be around by the time DVD movies are phased out. DVD movies are going to be around for a LONG time. Why? Because they are cheap to make, cheap to buy, cheap to use, and they get the job done. DVD is a great format, with nothing really wrong with it. Quality is good, costs are low, longevity is solid. The install base is huge. Blu-ray is expensive. It will remain expensive for a long time. Blu-ray is not widely adopted even after HD DVD was defeated. Infact I'm pretty sure I recall hearing once HD DVD threw in the towel Blu-ray prices went up. And speaking of that, Blu-ray is going to struggle to take hold with how expensive the movies are. I think I paid something like 30$ for the only Blu-ray movie I have, Terminator 2. I really like that movie so it was worth it to me, but for 99% of movies it would not be so.

Xbox 360 and PS3 will probably stay active on the market for some time now too, but I would imagine by the time Blu-ray gets really adopted we would be seeing new systems from both MS and Sony.

[Orion]

The Blu-ray player doesn't excite me at all. I refuse to use the format. My entire movie library is now digital, as I touched on, and I'm not so much obsessed with having that great of a picture. DVD quality has always been fine for me.

Thanks for all of the good input though, and the online play is a good point. I don't know how much I'd really use it. But after looking, I'll get maybe, MAYBE $70 for my 360 on eBay, so I may just keep it anyway.

[Nicholas Steel]

The Blu-ray player doesn't excite me at all. I refuse to use the format. My entire movie library is now digital, as I touched on, and I'm not so much obsessed with having that great of a picture. DVD quality has always been fine for me.

If you have a modern high quality (consumer grade) LCD/Plasma display (TV/PC Monitor) then the native resolution for the screen won't be what a DVD is displayed in, you will have to suffer from low quality upscaling and the associated artifacts. Blu-Ray eliminates the need for upscalers entirely for consumer grade TV/Monitors. I've yet to see a TV/Monitor do nearest point upscaling instead of interpolation crap granted nearest point is impossible to reliably perform for interlaced signals which is what DVD's are presented in.

I assume computer screens perform interpolation upscaling because it is somehow cheaper? Also I last had a good look at TV's back in 2007 iirc and am aware upscaling has made strides forward toward much better end results since 2008.

[Thunderbird]

PS3 has the option to upscale DVDs...and I would hope the 360 has the ability as well (I don't have one, so don't know for sure), so TV upscaling is a bit of a moot point. Though I have my PS3's upscaler for DVDs off and I still can't tell a difference between it being displayed at 480p and 1080p (when the upscaler was on).

I chose the PS3 over the 360 because some of my favorites are exclusive to it (where I don't really have any favorite games that are 360 exclusive), namely Ratchet and Clank and LittleBigPlanet. I also prefer the fact that the Playstation Store does not use a point system (if I have a choice between downloading a game for the Wii and downloading it for the PS3, I will almost always go the PS3 route because Sony's online store is easier). At the time of the purchase I using AV cables to hook in via my PC, though I later went out and bought a HDTV and a HDMI cable (partly because said PC's monitor was dying and was having severe difficulties in staying fully lit).

[Nicholas Steel]

Yes but do you think a 200$ xbox360 would have a good quality upscaler built-in? same question for a PS3. Thats probably why you see no difference, if you had a HD CRT display you would most likely see a difference due to it not having a native resolution or built-in upscaler.

[AtmaWeapon]

The enthusiast market is not the biggest market, and in almost every sphere of consumer electronics it is a source of residual, not primary income.

My mom and dad have a high-end 42" plasma TV. We watched Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD. It was in the wrong aspect ratio; they had it in 4:3 stretched. Before I could grab the remote to fix it my mom stated, "Look how clear it is, that's how you know it's HD!"

I'm not going to bother to look up the surveys because I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes on this post. But I've seen plenty to suggest that at least 2/3 of the market can't tell if they're watching an HD broadcast. Many people assume if the TV is widescreen they are viewing an HD program, even if it's in the wrong aspect ratio and the picture is blurry as Microsoft's plan for Windows Mobile.

Combine "2/3 of the market can't tell the difference" with "9X% of people hold X% of the wealth" and I propose the marketplace is divided into the following groups:

A handful of rich idiots that buy the most expensive product available.
A handful of rich enthusiasts that hand-pick the best components.
A handful of middle-class enthusiasts that buy the best value they can afford.
A dearth of middle-class idiots that buy whatever has the biggest numbers in their price range.
A dearth of low-income people who can't afford the new technology at all.

Those last two groups are probably 90% of the market, with more in the low-income bracket. They're watching DVDs on SDTVs they bought for $90 at Wal-Mart 15 years ago, and it looks good enough for them. The middle-class idiots are watching DVDs on 720p sets they bought 1-2 years ago after finally clearing enough credit to afford them. They're both happy with DVD, and neither of them are in a hurry to drop > $1000 on getting the full HD experience.

I'm not holding my breath for widespread market adoption of Bluray until the consumer electronics market starts dropping prices instead of adding features. 6 years ago I bought a 31" CRT for $250 because the equivalent LCD/plasma (taking AR into account) would have cost $800. After 6 years of manufacturing, I'd expect I ought to be able to buy that LCD/plasma for $300-400. No dice, the TVs I want are in the $700-800 range. Why? Because instead of reducing manufacturing costs, companies are adding features that don't matter. I don't *want* 3D, but I expect in the next couple of years they'll just quit selling TVs without it. So instead of maybe getting a $200 cheaper TV without 3D, I get to pay $200 for a feature I don't want.

In my opinion, the HD market is a bubble that's going to burst very soon. I sure hope so; the companies that survive will likely lower their prices.

I honestly and truly expect that people will be streaming Bluray-quality video over fiber approximately 3-5 years after Bluray has beaten DVD down to 25% of the marketshare. In other words: barring some kind of holographic full-room glasses-free 3D technology being invented, I doubt we'll see a successor to Bluray before a switch to complete digital distribution.

TL;DR:
Most people can't tell the difference between an upscaled DVD or Bluray. These people don't care about high quality upscalers. Would it make sense for Microsoft to spend an extra $XX million in order to sell $0.X million more worth of XBox hardware? I think not.

[Mercy]

If you play online multiplayer games you would shoot yourself in the foot by going PS3. But if you don't really play games online, PS3 is fine.
Can you explain your reasoning, please? I am not fluent with 360 online play beyond having to pay for the connection which was reason enough for me to go PS3 over Xbox 360. There are no 360-exclusive titles that grab me like some of the PS3-exclusives but that is a subjective reason.

At the time we got the PS3, Blu-ray seemed like more of a draw than it really was. We don't use it although we have used the PS3 for audio and video playback with no problems. (oki, little problem associated with getting a cad-5 of the correct length because we were streaming from a PC in an other room)

-m.

[Brasel]

Mercy,

He may be referring to the fact that there aren't too many PS3 players out there compared to XBOX 360s. I know a TON of people who have 360s and are on Live. I don't have one, but I have a PS3 and I love it. I know two other people with PS3s, and only one of them has a PSN ID that I ever see get on and offline.

[MottZilla]

Can you explain your reasoning, please? I am not fluent with 360 online play beyond having to pay for the connection which was reason enough for me to go PS3 over Xbox 360. There are no 360-exclusive titles that grab me like some of the PS3-exclusives but that is a subjective reason.

At the time we got the PS3, Blu-ray seemed like more of a draw than it really was. We don't use it although we have used the PS3 for audio and video playback with no problems. (oki, little problem associated with getting a cad-5 of the correct length because we were streaming from a PC in an other room)

-m.

The primary issue I have with PS3 versus 360 online is that the Xbox 360 software is designed in such a way that makes it alot easier to play with and talk to your friends. Beginning with the NXE system update they introduced the Party system where you and 7 other friends can join a party together where you can all talk in a sort of chat room. It may not seem like a huge deal but it helps alot when a friend pops on they can just join your party and get in on whatever you are doing. Unlike on PS3 where it seems the only way to communicate is by text messaging if you are in a game and another friend isn't in it with you. This is pretty annoying and I remember back before Xbox had party chat how annoying it was.

When playing Gears of War I can still remember we would have certain people calling other people on the phone or sending private chat or text messages to try to get 8 different people into the same game. It was annoying but we managed.

So basically my issues with PS3 are that it doesn't come standard with a headset. It doesn't have anything like Party Chat. And it doesn't have 1 on 1 private voice chat either. It makes it harder to have a social interaction with all your friends unless everyone gets into the same game on the same team. And even then maybe you have 3 people and have 5 other people you don't know and don't like on your team. You'd rather not talk to them and you have to hope the game supports muting them I guess. This is one thing I hate about Call of Duty MW2 on Xbox because they are using a new "feature" that prevents the use of Party Chat in multiplayer matches. The result is you have to constantly goto the scoreboard and mute people you don't want to hear.

And no, my opinion has nothing to do with numbers of players for either game. I just want it to be easy for friends to turn on their system, see who else is on, and be able to join a group and play together.

[Mercy]

Anthony & Mottzilla, thank you for the answers. It sounds like system preference may have a lot to do with play style. I am fine with text-based communication in multiplayer games because it is what I am used to and honestly, what I prefer. My limited experiences with verbal chat in games have been...frustrating. Twinks spewing trash and mass auditory confusion. I can see that not being the case when playing with a regular group. There is some satisfaction that comes of knowing my teammates' moves and tactics due to familiarity but then I tend towards sniper, painter, or medic roles. Voice chat may not improve my game play experience, but I do not begrudge those who find it useful.

Anthony, do you happen to have Borderlands for your PS3? We enjoy the PC version but are thinking about picking it up for PS3 soon.

-m.

[Dragon]

I have both systems and either is a good choice. I tend to play 360 the most, and only play PS3 or Wii for the exclusives or PS3 for Strret Fighter. DVDs won't be phased out for awhile (remember how long after DVDs came out where they were still making vhs tapes) but I know for a fact that the 360 does not upscale DVDs so if that is a factor go with the PS3. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a great game (warning, the cut scenes in it make MGS2 look like a normal game... if you beat a chapter prepare to not play for awhile). Online has the biggest divide, 360s service is worth the yearly fee and you will have an easier time finding friends to play your online games (You will also find a lot of idiots on Live as well so beware). All in all, like ever console generation you should follow the games your interested in.

[Breaker]

All systems have their pros and cons. I have a 42" plasma, a wii, and a 360. I play the 360 the most and have a rediculous library of games. I'm considering purchasing a PS3 for the exlusive games. I wouldn't buy one for its multiplayer though. I've pretty much stopped playing PC games entirely. However, there are a couple MMOs coming out next year that look amazing.

The new slim xbox 360 with built-in wifi looks like a sweet deal. If you don't yet have a 360 and are on the fence, look into it.

[brclarke]

I currently have both an Xbox 360 (Pro) and PS3 (60GB launch) connected to a 42" 1080p Philips 42PFL7403D/27 via HDMI.
I once spent a couple hours comparing some of my commercial DVDs using each console, and I think PS3 is almost as good as XA2 visually, while Xbox 360 cannot even display 1:1 1920x1080 pixel mapping.

[King Link]

My 360 has FINALLY run its last game. The new slim appears to be the path I`m heading down now.
I do have a PS3 here, and I rarely use it, unless I want to watch a movie on Blue-ray. Otherwise, I highly prefer the 360.
The PS3`s exclusives don`t seem to warrant purchasing the system. Well, to me, at least.

[MottZilla]

Although in recent news PS3 has been exploited and soon it may be more popular and useful as homebrew software will be developed for it. Such as emulators, media players, and there is already a method for installing games onto the hard drive to play without the disc (which is obviously useful for pirate reasons).

[Bobstoo]

I think the PS3 is ugly looking, i dont know about gameplay or anything on it cos iv never used 1.
I have a 360 and i still think its a great games console