After All These Years, Turns Out the Playstation 3 Was Better All Along
This may be an inflammatory post, as the whole Xbox vs. Playstation debate has been raging for years now, and nothing seems to get fanboys on either side worked up quite like definitive statements like the one in my title.
That said, that isn’t the intent of this post. It’s meant to be a discussion of after years of playing each console, and my own pro-Microsoft biases going in, that at least in this past generation, the Playstation was a better value, a better console and a better entertainment machine overall.
I didn’t start out thinking this way. I bought an Xbox 360 relatively early in its release cycle. I was lured by Gears of War, Fable and the promise of Halo 3. When I was younger, I could only afford one system, so 360 was it. That continued for quite a long while until I realized that yes, I could shell out the money and have both.
What followed was a period of discovery as I played through PS3 games I’d missed. Along the way I’ve come to several realizations when it comes to the system, and why ultimately, it’s better than the Xbox. It’s a declaration that took me the entire lifespan of the console to make, but better late than never, I suppose.
It Works
This should be a relatively straightforward thing to ask for in a video game console, or really, any electronic device, but the Playstation 3 works while the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360s do not, or at least did not.
Perhaps we’re a bit far removed from the whole Red Ring of Death debacle, but let’s stop for a minute and consider just how insane that was. At its peak, I believe the failure rate for the Xbox 360 was something like 54%. I suspect that was actually higher, because the consoles that hadn’t failed yet? Chances are they were about to or would eventually.
What follows may be anecdotal evidence, but take it how you will. I’m on my 3rd Xbox 360. In one, the video simply stopped working. The second, it was the RROD. My final iteration currently works, but when it runs it sounds like a jet aircraft about to take off in my living room, and I’m not convinced it won’t die on me yet.
Out of all my friends with an Xbox they bought earlier in the console’s lifecycle, not ONE has their original system any more. Everyone has had two or three, one went through six.
Can you imagine if any other console had experienced this massive of a failure? I firmly believe the only reason the Xbox lived through the disaster at all was the backing of mega-giant Microsoft. I think many other companies, ie. Sony and Nintendo, might have bankrupted themselves after having to provide two or three or four system for free to each of their customers over the years.
Not to say a Playstation 3 has never broken down, but it’s just not comparable to the trainwreck that was the earliest years of the Xbox 360.
Xbox Live vs. PSN
The internet has always been a huge pain for the Xbox 360. I remember when I first bought the console, It cost $300 (I think), but you had to spend another $100 on a wireless adapter to hook it up to the internet unless you wanted to snake an ethernet cable all around your house. On top of that there’s Xbox live which cost $50 (now $60) a year to have continued access to the internet through the system.
Over time, it’s gotten even more annoying with the advent of apps on the system. Now you not only have to pay $15 a month for Netflix, you also have to pay that $5/month gateway fee to Microsoft to have mere access to something you’re already paying for.
Worst of all this, it’s just “tradition” now that we’re charged this amount, and most of us have forgotten about it. I rarely play games online any more on 360, but recently was charged the full $60 when my subscription auto-renewed. I know I can shut it off, but if I EVER want to do anything on Xbox Live at any point over the next year, I better leave it active, just in case. I know I’m getting ripped off, but it’s just been such a longstanding part of owning the console, I just ignore it and they sap the money out of my account year after year.
Not so with PSN. From the beginning, there was no $100 wireless adapter, and access to the internet was free. It still is, all these years later. It’s singlehandedly the reason that when I wanted to get a console for my parents (mainly used for Netflix) I got them a PS3, not an Xbox because there wouldn’t be an additional layer of charges.
And yes, there’s a lot of cool stuff on the Xbox Live Arcade, but PSN Plus, Playstation’s paid service gives you a TON of free games, while titles on XBLA you must pay for titles individually. I have to wonder if Microsoft will keep the monthly/yearly charge for XBL when their competition offers the same service for free. Is the money they auto-withdraw overriding the harm it does when compared side by side to Sony? So far, it seems like it.
Exclusives
If we’re doing a war of the exclusives, perhaps we should be including Nintendo here, but I put all its first party titles in their own little category that really is without peer. But if we’re sticking with the head to head format, I have to absolutely hand this trophy to Sony after playing through nearly all the exclusives on both consoles. There just isn’t anything to compare for the most part.
Yes, Xbox has heavy hitters like Gears of War and more importantly, Halo. That series alone is enough to make people buy the entire console, myself included. There used to be more like Fable, but that series went from promising to garbage in a hurry. You could include Forza if you’re a big racing fan, but it’s pretty much canceled out by Gran Turismo. Past these, what do you have? Crackdown? Dance Central? Come on.
But Sony has a massive list full of quality titles that are far more impressive. There’s the obvious God of War and Uncharted, but also Twisted Metal, Resistance, Infamous and Killzone. For the kids (or cool grown-ups) there’s Ratchet and Clank and Jak and Daxter. And then, because of Sony being you know, Japanese, we get Metal Gear Solid (mostly), Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Demon’s Souls, Ni No Kuni and Heavy Rain. I just can’t see how you can stack up those lists next to each other and not give the advantage to Sony.
This hit me the hardest when I saw Sony’s lineup for PS All-Stars (even if the game was crappy) and wondered if Microsoft would do their own version next. You know, with Master Chief and Marcus Fenix and uh… Alan Wake? Yep.
I also don’t like how Microsoft tries to cheat their way into exclusives either. Stuff like owning the DLC rights for cross-platform games so Xbox gets it first before Playstation. This is going to happen from now until kingdom come for games like Call of Duty and its bevy of maps or other titles and DLC mission packs and what not. That’s not anything truly “exclusive,” that’s just buying your way into screwing over your competition.
All of these items aren’t to say I haven’t enjoyed my time with the Xbox. When it’s been working, I have, and to this day when a new cross-platform game is released, I will buy it for 360 about 95% of the time. Why? Perhaps it’s having the console first, but I’ve just grown more accustomed to using it. And bias aside, I genuinely enjoy the 360 controller more than the Dualshock for most titles.
I’m just reflecting on this now because I’m very curious to see what the next console generation will bring. Microsoft assuredly recognizes the areas in which its lacking, though I wonder what they’ll do to even the score. Making a console that doesn’t auto-break seems like a top priority, but will they ever actually change the model of Xbox Live? I’m not so sure.
Am I just a Sony fanboy now or do you understand any of my points? I’m curious to hear your own thoughts below.
I’ll agree too, even though I don’t own a PS3. I don’t consider having my 360 a bad investment though. I had one RROD and Microsoft extended the warranty and replaced the crap one I had. I love the controller a million times more then the PS now. I also loved the online capabilities, being able to chat and talk with friends with ease and ignore pub’s like the plague. Exclusives were good in the early days but I really despise exclusives in general (fuckin MGS4 and GOW !!).
I owned a PS1 & PS2 on release day previously. I got a 360 back in 07 because all my friends had it and we’d all play online up until about 2011 when we all started growing apart. I still use it for Netflix a lot and a rental when I have the free time. Is the 10$ a month that bad ? Not for my income. Sure people can bitch about all the ads all they want and the fact that PS3 store is free but whatever…if you don’t like it don’t buy it ! The market always figures itself out and I enjoyed the years I had my 360.
Now..will I get the next PS or Xbox ? No idea…do the research. Exclusives will piss me off for sure…but where will the real value come for the new consoles ? I have a feeling the jump won’t be as giant as the PS2->PS3 and Xbox->360. We already have a multi-media hub, where can we go from here ?
Great post! I was just thinking about this the other day and debating with my brother who sides with the 360. I’ve owned both consoles and agree with every point you’ve brought up. However, one point I think you missed definitely goes to the side of the 360. The game Skyrim comes to mind whenever I bring this point up. Most 3rd party developers choose the 360 to design and program their titles and the unfortunately the ps3 usually gets bumped to a ported experience. This was recently seen with devil may cry (reboot) and many many other titles. It’s not always the case and when first party developers build off the ps3…God of War, Killzone, Metal Gear, etc…the game outcompetes almost anything currently out there as far as graphics and presentation. Just a point to consider, but yes the ps3 wins in my opinion.
I agree about the exclusives (and of course, the working bit). I personally don’t own a PS3 (mainly because I bought a 360 and then switched to PC gaming halfway through this generation), but I have played it several times over at friend’s houses. Of course there’s God of War (3 was just…just gorgeous), Resistance, and the like (honestly wasn’t much of a fan of Resistance), but even some games that were released for both consoles ended up better on the PS3. There may be others, but I’m thinking about Ninja Gaiden. The original Ninja Gaidens were amazing, as was 2, but then Sigma came out and I’ve been jealous ever since. Sigma 2 was overall better than 2 (you seriously fight the Statue of Liberty!), even though the replacement of the gratuitous amounts blood with purple gas made it just a bit less satisfying to play.
So yeah, for a little while now, I’ve thought that the PS3 ended up better in most cases. But Halo is still one of my favorite series, even if it took me a bit to realize that it’s actually some pretty good sci-fi as well.
You completely skipped out on the social aspects of each system. Social gaming on the Xbox is way ahead of PS3 with parties and private chat.
You also need to throw in the fact the 360 backed the wrong horse in the race for HD video. And total backwards compatibility for the PS3 is another plus.
Both systems are good. The 360 controller is superior, but you’re right about the PS3 lineup. It’s weird though when you look at the leaked design specs for the next wave of their systems they’re practically identical. This is where my distaste for both come in to play a little. Neither really has anything super unique to offer and I think that stems from both companies having extremely deep pockets and not originally coming from a videogame background. Should 2 – 6 exclusive franchises really merit the purchase of entire console? I mean it’s not even the company that’s making the hardware, making the game. They just publish it and have the rights.
It’s kind of sad that people who enjoy video games these days settle for this (myself included). I miss the days when Sega and Nintendo where going head to head and the amount of exclusives for each system was ridiculously large. The games they had to offer seemed more divisive and original to me.
Nintendo’s first party lineup is still the strongest, but they’ve fallen into a trap of their own legacy too. I think Pikmin was their last new idea and that was over 10 years ago.
Not to mention the Blu-ray player.
I agree 100% with the whole post, right down to still preferring the 360 controller. I put a PS3 on my wedding registry on a whim and ended up getting it. After using it to watch Netflix and everything else I used Live for (I’m not a social gamer, but I’ll concede that Live is better for that) I couldn’t believe I was spending extra money just to watch all nine seasons of X-Files. And it’s not that I can’t afford it, it’s just why pay anything when I don’t have to? I canceled my gold subscription and never looked back.
But the Dualshock just feels so flimsy in my hand. Give me some weight, goddamn it. So like you, I also buy cross-platform games for Xbox 90% of the time.
PS. I know it was you, Fable. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!
Being a fanboy of one or the other stopped after I started making money and could afford both. That being said, unless it’s a PS3 exclusive, or started out on PS3 (like Demon’s Solus then Dark Souls), I’ll opt for the Xbox 360 version because of the controller.
Like them both a lot.
I have both, therefore I do not care which one is “better.”
Thank you. I have been saying this since the red ring of death days.
As far as social gaming, it’s true the PS3 might not have the bells and whistles of 360 but it is not lacking either. There are many social games and in fact Sony has the best MMRPG on any console: DC Universe Online.
DCUO just celebrated it’s second year, had a new DLC come out last week, and the PS3 version has a larger base than even the PC version. It’s been a quite sleeper, gaining fans while hyped games like the last Star Wars MMRPG has been bleeding players since a few months after it’s launch.
Oh, and it’s a Sony exclusive.
Only being a casual gamer, even nowadays, I originally bought the PS3 because it was the best blu-ray player on the market. At the time. According to what I read. Anyway.
I kept thinking about picking up an Xbox, for a couple of the exclusives that seemed like my kind of thing (Splinter Cell, Alan Wake). I was kept away primarily by your first point, but also because aside from a couple of specific things, the PS3 absolutely has the best lineup of exclusives.
At this point, it’s hard to imagine making the switch without something dramatic happening.
Fully agree with all of this and, as mentioned in above comments, the blu-ray versus HD-DVD is a big thing for PS3. And yea, definitely had 2 RROD’s and my third xbox was about to die before I sold it.
I’ve always owned all the consoles (too greedy to choose) and was a devoted 360 fanboy at first (I am much better at first-person shooters with the 360 controller), but now I’m pretty committed to my PS3.
Also Playstation-Plus is incredible. Tons of free games for like $5 a month? Amazing.
The Wii showed everyone that Hardware specs don’t win console wars. And you’re right, the PS3 exclusives bow the XBOX ones out of the water, especially because XBOX exclusive usually means it’s available for PC too.
Plus paying a subscription to be able to play online is just perverse.
The kinect system is insanely awesome though, but 99% of the games suck.
You mentioned having to pay for Netflix as part of the downside of XBL. Does it come for free on PSN? Also, some of the exclusives you listed were NOT PS3 games and should be disqualified unless you want to list the likes of KOTOR, Morrowind, And Stubbs the Zombie to shift the argument back in Microsoft’s direction. A few years ago, I’d have laughed myself sick at the notion that Sony’s extra-expensive blu-ray player was better than the 360. In fact, I wrote an article detailing why the 360 kicked every other console’s ass. It’s hard to advocate paying double for a console with no games you want to play and seeing that most of the cross-platformers performed better on the 360 that pretty much sealed the deal. But now things are different. There are actually more than a few games I’m drooling over on the PS3 (can’t afford the time or $ for another console, though). Heck did you mention that new Studio Ghibli RPG? I’d love to play that and Heavy Rain looks like my cup of tea as well. The XBL charges kind of piss me off too and so does the $100 wireless adapter (I use a cord), but you’re still the first I’ve heard give PSN the advantage what with the lack of security and all that. Sony also left a horrible taste in my mouth this gen with disingenuous marketing, blatant lies told to consumers, unfulfilled promises, and a complete lack of innovation. Their first phase: “let’s wait and see what Microsoft does and copy that”. Second phase: “look at what Nintendo did, let’s copy that”. Third phase: ????. Fourth phase: profit. Let’s face it, it sucked to be an early PS3 adopter.
All in all, I’m not jumping platforms now for one reason: quality exclusives. I have never heard a PS3 owner get excited over Killzone or Resistance like people get excited about Gears or Halo. PS3’s seem to be COD machines for a whole lot of gamers (Paul Tassi included) and that screams CASUAL at me. I feel like if I owned a PS3 instead of the 360, I’d be relegated to sitting and waiting for new games to come out that I actually want to play whereas with the 360 they seem come out on top of each other faster than I can play them so there’s constantly something to be excited about (although seeing that my game time has shrunk this may actually be a reason to switch). I just can’t crap myself with excitement over Jak and Daxter or Little Big World. God of War looks awesome, but we all know a hack-and-slash game is 10 hours of entertainment tops and I don’t think I could deal with MGS’s 45 minute cutscenes. All that said and done, if my 360 busted at this point in the game, Sony might have themselves a new customer so I could go back and play all the great games like Uncharted that I’m missing out on, but I’m still very glad I sided with Microsoft because I’ve no doubt I got more awesome exclusive gaming out of the 360 then I’d have gotten out of the much more expensive slow starter, PS3.
Pay extra for netflix on XBOX360??? I have it and I have never paid anything extra.
I think the PS3 has better exclusives but as trashcanman says the Xbox 360 exclusives do seem to get more excitement. And I have to say that I don’t care for many of Sony’s exclusives. Many are not above average, for me at least franchises like Twisted Metal, Infamous or even God of War never appealed to me. That said, Sony still has Naughty Dog’s games and Quantic Dream to give some examples.
Microsoft doesn’t seem to be doing anything special really with their lineup. Halo, Gears of War and Forza might be good franchises but they’re too familiar now. Also, Kinect. And when I played Fable 3 I laughed so hard at the “great exclusive franchise” that it was supposed to be.
The only good thing about Fable 3 is that I was on the internet looking for more stuff about it and discovering Unrealitymag from that great article about the game 😛
I play single player games on ps3 and multiplayer games on 360. I love psn plus and if my friends had ps3, it would be my system of choice, but they don’t. And now I spend a lot of time on the iPad.
first off you dont pay for extra for netflix on the xbox. You pay for netflix and xbox live , there is no extra fee. If you are using more devices then your plan allows i believe you can pay extra to add a device IE an xbox. Yes you do pay $60 a year for xbox live , and you do not pay for playstation live, however you are paying for quality. Better severs , less lag , partys and private chat etc.. Also how many times has the ps network been hacked with personal information stolen? I had to get a new credit card because of playstation. I have never trusted that network since. I have both and prefer the xbox hands down. For games and for netflix xbox wins. The titles that come out only for ps3 are not that great imo , must games come out for both and have multiplayer which works better on live. Yeah the system had red ring and that blew cause i had to go 2-3 weeks without the system. However i got a refurbished system back and had no problems with it. Xbox didnt go blu ray which was a mistake but if you look back it was hard to tell back then which was going to come out on top.
Agreed, ps3 is the clear choice.
@Aether McLoud
If its an Xbox exclusive, then it’s not coming to PC…otherwise they wouldn’t be exclusive, they just would not have been released on the PS3.
@trashcanman
“Does it come for free on PSN?” –
Lets be clear for all you people who think you get something special from a gold account; EVERYTHING YOUR BEING CHARGED FOR WITH A 360 GOLD ACCOUNT IS AVAILABLE TO EVERY OTHER PLATFORM FOR FREE. – Even your voice chat is free elsewhere.
Also, I dont see how Sony copied MS, they have a completely different CPU in their system (among other things) If Sony was actually copying MS they would have shared the memory, something super important when you have so little, but they didn’t
ps3 is certainly the superior system (I own a ps3, but I pretty much do ALL my gaming on PC) The only advantage the xbox has hardware wise, is it’s shared memory.
*plugs PC into tv* this is irrelevant. But seriously if the PC, or something similarly open became the only major player in gaming the experience would be so much better, so stop warring over consoles and buy a damned PC or wait and get a steam box.
Honestly, I probably could have gone either way when I finally made the move to get a current generation console. I ended up going PS3 for a couple reasons:
1. Controller – I honestly like the PS controller better. It’s more or less the same from the PS1 and I love it. Yes i’ve played with the Xbox, and I just don’t like the way it fits my hands.
2. BluRay – I wanted to play BluRay discs.
3. Exclusives – Since I entered the console race late I got the full benefit of seeing what was available and what I wanted to play. Also, at the time, Final Fantasy was Sony exclusive and I didn’t want to not play the next one.
That said, I don’t care which is better. PS3 fits me better. one of my best friends is actually an Xboxer. Which is a bummer because the only game we’d MP on is Mass Effect MP.
I’m not sure that you actually need a Gold account anymore, I fired up Netflix the other day with my wife’s account and that account has always been Silver.
Don’t know if the same holds true for Xbox Videos (Zune) and Amazon Instant Video, but I wouldn’t be surprised, nor am I surprised that MS doesn’t advertise that.
Still, your entire comparison is flawed, as your judging the Xbox from launch and the PS3 from, what about 1 year or less of ownership? Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve missed the number of massive system updates that keep you from using the PS3 for hours, the PSN hacking incident, Sony’s battle with system tinkerers, and many other issues that have popped up over the lifetime of the console. Not to mention it cost, what, six hundred dollars at launch?
Secondly, you’ve got an auto renew turned on for Xbox Live? Are you kidding?
I’m still gonna have to side with 360. The whole rrod was over blown in my opinion, I had 2 units in the first year red ring but they were fairly quickly returned from Microsoft and my unit lasted tell out of warrenty and died by user error and my unit I have now is 4+ years and still kicking. If you had up the amount of time lost from people being red ring compaired to people who missed play time due to psn network being down I bet Xbox faird better. HALO! Add up all the time in u played the exclusive ps games and then just halo multiplayer. I bet your halo hours crush those. The controller I mean come on ps u made a controller that was alright over a decade ago and can’t let it go. If you prefer ps controller to Xbox I assume u have weirdo hands. Customer relations, I don’t want to defend Microsoft but Sony are a bunch a punk a holes who are a nightmare to deal with and hell they may sue you for showing them problems… The whole paying for Xbox live is lame but when u consider the ps started hundreds of dollars more so one may argue u payed for years of accsess just there. Just saying
@Draugr: KOTOR was XBox “exclusive” and also on the PC, but not PS3. Mass Effect one also was only available for the XBox and PC until recently.
@trashcanman: Such fanboyisms. Sure Killzone is no Halo franchise, but nothing on the Box comes close to the Uncharted franchise either. Or MGS.
Really i cant believe how playstations complete lack of security is over looked here. The future of game will be buying games through the online service and with sony’s being hacked every other month i cant say that makes them better. Just because something is free doesnt mean its better. I guess for $60 you get quality and security.
my 360 works just fine… ive had a PS3 go out tho
Oh dear, fanboy s***storm
Who the hell need a wireless adapter for their Xbox? They’ve had wifi built in for at least four years now.
@Aether McLoud
So it was on more than one platform? That makes it *not* exclusive to any one platform. If anything you could say it was exclusive to PC and Xbox, but you can’t say it’s exclusive. Exclusive is not defined as “out on both Xbox and ps3”
Every Halo after the second has been exclusively for the Xbox, for example. Before that it was not exclusive to that system only, there were PC releases. It wasn’t exclusive to Xbox, just because there wasnt a Ps3 release.
The Witcher 2 came out for PC first months before the 360 release, meaning that technically during that time it was exclusive to the PC…Using your definition it was always an exclusive for the Xbox.
It may just be semantics, but I think you’re playing it pretty loose with the term ‘exclusive.’ I’d say you be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with such a definition.
@the_dude_abides
You mean from 2011? I mean i don’t mean to downplay what a big deal that was, but I think they have addressed it well and it would seem they haven’t had any issues since. (beyond the same kind of game-hacking issues we see on all services.)
“with sony’s being hacked every other month i cant say that makes them better.”
Oh, I see. Well you’re clearly operating from a point of reason. One wonders how they’d be in business is what you claim was true.
@Mark Miller
Well, yes. That is the best solution.
you pc gamers are silly girls who gain unfair advantages by paying for a better machine. Consols won’t go away with multiplayer because people want a level playing field. If you advocate pc gaming and have a $1000 plus comp just go away. you might as well just cheat
The PS3’s UI and online systems are such a god damm clusterfuck of bad planning and retardedness. I’d far prefer paying a bit extra and getting a user interface that wasn’t designed by blind screaming monkeys.
@RWARRRRRR
Hrm, I don’t see why having a better PC gives you some huge advantage…having a severely underpowered PC would be bad of course, and while PC gamings costs are higher on the frontend, they are not as high as you imagine, and you could argue that some of that is offset due to the fact that you’re usually paying less for games(ranging from significant discounts to minor ones. I pre-ordered Borderlands 2 on PC for 36 bucks, for example.)
For real competitive games (like bf3, cod, for example,) some argue you should have your settings set to minimum as the reduction in detail gives you an advantage. so the ‘need a big powerful system’ argument carries even less water if your concern is a level playing field. I play on a very modest machine and I do quite well in multi-player, the performance of others’ system really isn’t a concern of mine.
I can’t speak as to which is larger (i imagine console, though) competitive play-wise. Needless to say it is still quite prominent on PC and throughout PC gaming, I don’t know what gave you the impression that wasn’t the case.
Finally, I don’t see how insisting that anyone who plays on PC has a vagina and must be a cheater is anything more than an ad-hominem attack, maybe we should leave schoolyard taunts in the schoolyard.
@Shambrook
You do have a point there, while I think the 360 UI also leaves something to be desired, that went double for back in the day, and they always put time into developing it. Meanwhile the PS3 UI has had no attention to it. Not sure as to why that is, I’m sure they are quite aware that it’s not going to win any awards. Hopefully any future Sony consoles won’t be so married to a single UI. I do the the XMB is OKAY (just okay), but the sony store/net stuff leaves something to be desired.
I would also mention that it’s not like the UI work done by MS is due to the fact that there is a monthly fee, they work on it because they are smart. it wouldn’t surprise me if gold fee’s gets waived ‘next gen,’ or the gold/silver status done away with altogether of course and they’ll still have the same offerings, and they’d still give it the same amount of love
Again I can’t comment as to why sony stuck with what they had for PS3
@draugr so you said in your own words “For real competitive games (like bf3, cod, for example,) some argue you should have your settings set to minimum as the reduction in detail gives you an advantage.” So two people on opposing sides are seeing two difrent things. How is that not unfair. So if I want to be on par with a similerly acting system as an opponent u have to either buy a better computer or sacrifice experience, how was that not my point like I said before just go away pc gamers you’re lame
The Problem overlooked here is.
The PS3 is probably better…NOW.
Back in 2006, the PS3 was overpriced (especially if, as many felt, you did not need a Blu Ray Player), had a MUCH weaker online offering both in terms of downloadable content and in terms of gaming, multiplattform games were generally weaker because of the more complicated architecture of the PS3, and there were still some hardware faliures…not nearly as much as with the 360, but then again also not publicly known enough that Sony would replace broken consoles for free (wich MS did).
The Playstation 3 has improved a lot over the years, and even though there are still problems that are in my opinion close to unacceptable (mostly the endless installation and update times)…yes, i would say the PS3 is better in many things.
But back at the beginning, things looked A LOT different, so “all along”? Definitely not.
@RWARRRRRR
no, it’s not unfair, people are welcome to set their setting however they like. Everyone can run at the same minimum setting if they like isn’t unfair at all.
People do the same thing on the 360 version of Bf3 for example. they turn on the color blind mode because it makes it easier to see people. This isn’t the only game, and PC and xbox arent the only platforms where people try to tweak settings to give you an example
Cherry picking what i said to try and make a point hasn’t really done you any favors, but has shown how the practice of gaining advtage over other payers using game settings is not exclusive to any single platform.
Complaints about unfairness are generally unfounded, the only people who seem to think this is a concern are the people who don’t play PC games so they have nothing but their own prejudices to go off of… That’s not to say everyone is so willfully obtuse, fairness is taken as seriously as it is on other platforms …In some games you co uld even say moreso, but thats kinda off-topic. Blizzard for example has always been known as strking good balance in their games and there is a reason…the competitive arena is alive and strong on PC…Generally speaking. No one is concerned about equity in the fashion you are.
It’s always funny how the loudest people who feel like they need to hate on PC gaming are always the people who clearly have no idea about PC gaming.
@RWARRRRRR
“So if I want to be on par with a similerly acting system as an opponent u have to either buy a better computer or sacrifice experience, how was that not my point.”
that wasn’t your point, your point is that anyone with a better computer is instantly going to do better by virtue of having a better computer, I demonstrated that that wasn’t the case.
@RWARRRRRR
no edit button 🙁
“you pc gamers are silly girls who gain unfair advantages by paying for a better machine.”
This was your assertion, which we’ve shown is false, me pointing out that top of the line machines don’t give you an advantage has already happened. you can keep moving the goalpost if you like, but that’s just you making a new claim you’ve pulled out of your butt, and then we can discuss that one too.
but lets take this argument to the extreme…Console games play on different types of TVs..when someone is playing on a 1080p television are we going to cry out cheater because there are people playing on lower resolutions Televisions and therfore they have an advtantage? Yoou could certainly make that argument, I don’t think anyone would ever accuse those people of being cheaters just because they have nice things…Similarly this applies to PC as well, if you can’t see that then it would seem you’re being willfully obtuse.
Quite honestly, I stopped paying attention to Sony as soon as they came out with the PSP.
I have had my 360 for YEARS now, and although it does emit a somewhat jet-engine-y sound from time to time, have never experience the Red Ring of Death.
Now I can easily say that both consoles excel in some areas and do not in other. Each have positives and negatives. But personally (and this is entirely objective), Playstation was a serious contender until after the PS2. Man oh man, the PS1 and PS2 were great systems and I’ve spent many an hour playing them – but then something happened.
Sony suddenly became the developer that made alternative media-based consoles first and games second. Oh check out this hand-held device! It’s an Mp3 player (by the way it also plays games!). Oh check out our brand new console to compete with Nintendo’s innovative and game-changing Wii! It’s a Blu-Ray Player (by the way it also plays games!). Sony’s primary intiative seemed to change into one that seemed more pre-occupied with the bells and whistles rather than changing or re-inventing the gaming experience for the serious gamer.
Nintendo has always been the most innovative to me, with a focus that depends less on good-graphics gameplay, and more on just good gaming. Microsoft brought PC-style online gameplay to a living-room console. Sony just seemed to steal everything that made the other consoles great and apply them to their initial ideas of “let’s make this game look pretty” and “look at us we have a Blu-Ray Player!”
So in my eyes, as much as Sony has evolved their console to be a heavy hitter more recently, (better exclusive titles, free online gaming and internet access, that stupid motion-sensored-dildo-lollipop controller of theirs), it was all just a knee-jerk reaction to the two companies that started it and did it better the first time.
@The Mighty Chesticles
Side note: the PSP is awesome at/for doing a bunch of stuff it wasn’t meant to do 😛
@draugr you seem to be ignorant to the huge difrence a split second makes in point and click shooter. I have a feeling you have never been anywhere near the top of a leader board.
@RWARRRRRR
“you seem to be ignorant to the huge difrence a split second makes in point and click shooter”
Im aware of the difference time makes when it comes to reactions, that same rule applies on console as well. your issue was with performance, and as we’ve discu
“I have a feeling you have never been anywhere near the top of a leader board.”
Well then jokes on you I’ve been on top with both crappy and good computers. plenty of others can say the same.
If your whole angle is it cant be competitive because difference in hardware equals cheating, we’ve already determines that there are different hadrware configurations with consoles, such as Tvs, that can make a huge difference, and we already know that there is a large competitve arena in PC gaming. Nothing you have said has been about proving your point, its all about how PC gamers must be girls, are cheaters, are only good because they have computers. Also, I suck.
I guess there isnt much more to say we”re entering circleville, If you’re not willing to have a discussion and treat things with obvious and asinine double standards then what more can be said.
I consider my PS3 as the best investment I ever made. I’ve been using that thing hard for years now and haven’t had a single issue.
I’ve been with Playstation since after Sega Genesis, so I love the controller and hate the Xbox controller, but that’s to be expected.
I’ll take GOW over Halo any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I don’t remember ever having to wait hours for “massive updates”, but I do have other shit to do in my life, so that wouldn’t bug me anyway.
Obviously the whole argument is subjective, but as a life long console gamer since Atari, the PS3 has been great for me.
I think you are making an unfair comparison and quite late also. Why unfair? You are comparing the early versions of the Xbox with a new version of the PS3. For instance, Sony did not have a PSN the way it is now at the beginning of the console life cycle. Besides the PS4 costed $600 at launch so it was not that appealing at first. Back then, the 360 seemed like a far better investment considering the games looked the same and we were only being promised how we would see the difference on future games. I remember how they said MGS 4 would not be possible on the inferior 360. Having seen Halo 4 now makes me laugh at the thought of that ever being said. The promise that the PS3 would show to be more powerful never came true.
Besides, sony did not have the game catalog they have built over this 7 year period and you also played all the exclusives they had over a very short period of time. If you put all the 360 exclusives together and play them consecutively I bet your level of enjoyment would be increased like when you watch a TV series marathon. However; as it’s been mentioned above, I do believe that 360 exclusives are bigger than those on PS3. Nothing in the PS3 catalog comes close to names like Halo and Gears. Sony did compensate that with quantity, no doubt. Also, you chated by including some PS2 names there.
I think a fair statement would be that PS3 is the console that has improved the most. There is no argument that the way it stands today the PS3 gives you just a bit more than the 360 does so the whole playstation WAS better than xbox statement all along is FALSE.
I own both systems and have no problem with either. I do own more on Xbox since I began with that console. The best part of owning both is that when a game comes out on multiple consoles, I can shop around for the cheaper one. I have to include that I also encompassed the PC platform of gaming simply because there were games that weren’t on consoles at the time. I’ve been through this debate over and over and the answer is simple: It’s the consumer’s choice. If they can afford both then more power. If not, let them choose what platform they want to game on. I recently read in Forbes magazine that Microsoft is in trouble. PC sales and other stuff are not doing so well so the PC gaming platform, Windows OS, and other related stuff may be dropped. So don’t be surprised if Sony comes out on top of this or Xbox sells to some other company like Nintendo and goes the way of Sega, making money off licensing their wares. Can you imagine Gears of War meeting up with Samus?
I also wanted to mention that this statement “And yes, there’s a lot of cool stuff on the Xbox Live Arcade, but PSN Plus, Playstation’s paid service gives you a TON of free games, while titles on XBLA you must pay for titles individually” is a tad bit wrong. Yes, on XBLA you pay for the titles but then those titles are yours to play WHENEVER. Remember that word, it’s a key word. On PSN, you pay 50 bucks a year (which is a good price) and as long as you remain a member, you can download and play the games for free. Now, here is the difference. I can go to my xbox and play any of the games I’ve paid for but I go to my PS3 and since I let my membership lapse, all of the “free games” I downloaded are inaccessible. You need to be a member to continue playing those games, you don’t get a ton of anything, you are offered many free games with that stipulation. So in all fairness, XBLA doesn’t lead you on with what you’re getting. I just thought I would clear this up for everyone who owns both systems and for those looking to purchase one.
the whole story of the xbox controller being better is just not real!
ok, maybe when you are only playing shooters like halo and COD, yes than it is!
but try to play a real fighting game on an xbox controller?? like Tekken and Dead or alive.
its just not realistic. the digipad is not realy digital but analog.
that makes your move inputs almost inpossible. that’s also because the delay of this digipad is very frustrating. pressing 2 or 3x forward almost takes you a second while i do not even think about that on my ps3 or ps-vita controller.
even the inputs that i do are almost 40% of the time mistaken for a other move. that makes me want to throw my fucking xbox controller through my fucking tv!!!
also, you have to press the xbox buttons much further (almost in the controller) and they feel real hard and cheap plastic like. the psx buttons are very easy to press. also even at the same time or simply by sliding your thumbs over the controller.
as a shooter controller, the xbox controller is better. but for fighters, playstation rules.
i also have a ps3 and a xbox360. i remember when doa stopt comming for the playstation, and moved to the xbox. i thought, am i losing it or not pressing the buttons correctly?? NO!! because when DOA5 came for ps3 and vita, al these problems never seemd to existed.