Should I get Xbox 360 now or wait for PS3?

[Sloth7d]

But I have reasons to back my opinion, you don't. Unless mature themes scare you.

No. In my opinion the games are below par.
In your opinion the games are below par.
We both have our reasons. It doesn't make you dumb and it doesn't make me dumb.
To say you have your reasons and I don't is well dumb.

 

[Sloth7d]

So really you're whole argument is "The Wii's line-up sucks because I don't like it." Very convincing



Reasons for you. Unlike you, some people like Metroid Prime, WarioWare, and want to get TP for the Wii.

Thats what I got out of it.

 

[XwolverineX]

No. In my opinion the games are below par.
In your opinion the games are below par.
We both have our reasons. It doesn't make you dumb and it doesn't make me dumb.
To say you have your reasons and I don't is well dumb.

My objective when coming into this thread, wasn't to bash Nintendo anyways. It just always ends up like that, because people are always bashing PS3's lineup, when it mops the floor wiith Wii's.

And how Mass Effect, GeOW, Halo 3, SC: DA, Oblivion and Lost Planet are sub-par is beyond me.

 

[XwolverineX]

So really you're whole argument is "The Wii's line-up sucks because I don't like it." Very convincing



Reasons for you. Unlike you, some people like Metroid Prime, WarioWare, and want to get TP for the Wii.

Wanting to get TP for Wii when an equal version will be on another lest gen system is stupid. TP doesn't warrant a purchase, AT ALL. And Wario Ware is a fun for 5 minutes type game, that should stay the hell on the portables. So, you still have SSBB, SMG, and MP3. Two of whom, are crappy, IMHO.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Wanting to get TP for Wii when an equal version will be on another lest gen system is stupid. TP doesn't warrant a purchase, AT ALL.

How? Some people like the wiimote and some want to see how it's applied to the game. As usual, it's your opinion as to whether or not to get it.

And yes, it does.

And Wario Ware is a fun for 5 minutes type game, that should stay the hell on the portables. So, you still have SSBB, SMG, and MP3. Two of whom, are crappy, IMHO.

WarioWare is fun if you have friends to play it with. It's a crazy game to get caught up in. SSBB, MP3, and SMG all look to be very great. I pity you for thinking MP3 and SMG are crappy

I really don't feel like continuing this. My whole point is the Wii has a solid launch, it may not have anything you don't want, but that doesn't make it any bad. The only game I wanted out of the 360 launch was Call of Duty 2, but I don't call it a bad launch line-up.

 

[Sloth7d]

Wanting to get TP for Wii when an equal version will be on another lest gen system is stupid. TP doesn't warrant a purchase, AT ALL. And Wario Ware is a fun for 5 minutes type game, that should stay the hell on the portables. So, you still have SSBB, SMG, and MP3. Two of whom, are crappy, IMHO.

I never bashed the ps3 line up! I love all those franchises.
I was bashing the ps3 itself. It has disaster written all over it.
And eitherway it seems this all boils down to opinion.

 

[Spiderdogg]

Yes. But both of those "flavors" are still a $100 more flavor than the next priciest console.. A.K.A. X360. And seeing as what Manny says is true, that Steve Jobs looked down his nose at the Cell and stated that it was less powerful than the line of chips below X360's chip.. then I think there is a problem there.

Either way you slice it.. the PS3 has been essentially called a piece of **** by the CEO of Apple. Someone who knows much more about computer parts (which Sony claims their console is a "Supercomputer" or "PC-Killer") than any of Sony's execs do. And on top of that.. it's launch line-up is the single worst seen in the last two gens, and it all comes at a much higher price.

Sony won't compete with anything to do with Live that MS does.. they'll be completely blown away by it.

That $100 difference is no different from the last consoles if you include inflation. Now, that doesn't mean I expect casuals to go running out to buy the console, but if that were the case, I'm sure that would have happened with the last console. My point is the PlayStation entering the market at a higher cost is nothing new here. It has happened many times before the PS3 ever came along.

And just like the Emotion Engine, Cell isn't a dedicated PC chip. It is mainly suited for applications involving games and such. Why do you think it wasn't mention to go into IBM's super-computer? It only excels at certain task - those mainly for game applications, while in others more related to PC or computers, it's plain crap. THIS is why Apple turned it down.

I'm sure your coming question is, "Why would Sony state such a horrible thing about super computer performance then?" The answer is simple. Just like the PS2, if so many Cells and or PS3s are combined/jointed with one another, it can rival the performance of a super-computer, hence the name "cell," which is how it was orginated. This is also why you have Cell Blades.

By implementing Cell into something like a TV or any other device not as reliant on general performance of the CPU, the Cell can work to its advantages. This was also proven in a medical facility in a video awhile back. While it took current gen processors 5 minutes, I believe, to fully render the humans' head/skull on an MRI, Cell did it in about 3 seconds. I only have a link to them mentioning this for the time being, but the video is located at the site I visit. The problem is hunting the damn thing down.

But like I mentioned before, as long as the processor isn't being used as a dedicated computer chip, it's performances is very useful in various devices that focus on such key points.

Moreover, whether you would like to accept it or not, they are already competing with Microsoft in online. It was inevitable since it was one of the main advantages Microsoft had over them last-gen. Are you familiar with the Novice? If not, let's just say they were called out a few years ago.

And just for future notes, I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate them if I were you. Before, no one thought they would include an HDD, no one thought they would have it in them to toss in enough memory, no one thought that they would have wireless controllers, no one thought they would turn to Nvidia, no one thought they even had an online server. But as you can see, the results aren't as fulfilling as they were once assumed to be in such a case by public, pessimistic analyst. This is not the PlayStation 2 launching two years early anymore.

 

[XwolverineX]

I over exaggerated on the Hating part, for SMG. I just found SMS wayyy over-rated. It was only praised due to having Mario in the title.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

SMS overrated? I usually find people criticizing it b/c it's so lackluster compared to SM64. I found it to still be a decent game.

 

[XwolverineX]

SMS overrated? I usually find people criticizing it b/c it's so lackluster compared to SM64. I found it to still be a decent game.

Decent? I'll give you that.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I'd give it a 7.5-8 on a 1-10 scale.

 

[XwolverineX]

I'd give it a 7.5-8 on a 1-10 scale.

I'd give it 7-7.5..

 

[Axid]

I'd give your face a 2-2.5

 

[Sloth7d]

SMS was alright. "Decent" is definately a word I'd use to describe it.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I'd give it 7-7.5..

I'll give you that. It depends on how annoying you found the waterpack.

 

[Extromaniac]

That $100 difference is no different from the last consoles if you include inflation. Now, that doesn't mean I expect casuals to go running out to buy the console, but if that were the case, I'm sure that would have happened with the last console. My point is the PlayStation entering the market at a higher cost is nothing new here. It has happened many times before the PS3 ever came along. Inflation has nothing to do with it, inflation does not warrant the doubling of price in about 6 years. If everything was that way, it'd probably cost you a fortune just to shop for groceries or cell phones.

And just like the Emotion Engine, Cell isn't a dedicated PC chip. It is mainly suited for applications involving games and such. Why do you think it wasn't mention to go into IBM's super-computer? It only excels at certain task - those mainly for game applications, while in others more related to PC or computers, it's plain crap. THIS is why Apple turned it down. Apparently, cell isn't useful for gaming either. Part of gaming is development.. Cell is horrible for development and raises the min development cost for companies up to $20 mil and increases the time to work out defects in the games build. That is RIDICULOUS, and is probably why so many developers are jumping off of Sony's boat like it had just been hit by a rocket.

Also, Cell is one of the most impractical chips ever made for a console.. seeing as it comes with only about 7 "cells" working, and if it blows one more.. you can no longer use the console. So, if Cell ever has a problem with blowing a core right off the bat.. then buyers will be in a hell of a time trying to get refunds from Sony. And no, just like last gen.. they will ship it with faulty hardware, and THEN try to fix it a year later.

I'm sure your coming question is, "Why would Sony state such a horrible thing about super computer performance then?" The answer is simple. Just like the PS2, if so many Cells and or PS3s are combined/jointed with one another, it can rival the performance of a super-computer, hence the name "cell," which is how it was orginated. This is also why you have Cell Blades.

By implementing Cell into something like a TV or any other device not as reliant on general performance of the CPU, the Cell can work to its advantages. This was also proven in a medical facility in a video awhile back. While it took current gen processors 5 minutes, I believe, to fully render the humans' head/skull on an MRI, Cell did it in about 3 seconds. I only have a link to them mentioning this for the time being, but the video is located at the site I visit. The problem is hunting the damn thing down.
This does not change the fact that Cell is prone to blowing it's 'fuses'. It may be faster.. but get any other next gen chip, and it could do almost the same without the risk of having the processor die. It's just not a reliable CPU to build ANYTHING around.

But like I mentioned before, as long as the processor isn't being used as a dedicated computer chip, it's performances is very useful in various devices that focus on such key points.

Moreover, whether you would like to accept it or not, they are already competing with Microsoft in online. It was inevitable since it was one of the main advantages Microsoft had over them last-gen. Are you familiar with the Novice? If not, let's just say they were called out a few years ago. How are they already competing with Microsoft in online? Since when? I didn't know they already released their online.. or, actually did something on par for MS's online at all! Where is this startling info?! Face it, Sony is so far behind the curb when it comes to online or implementing PC technologies that it's laughable. All they're trying to do is copy what MS has done, and it's not working.

And just for future notes, I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate them if I were you. Before, no one thought they would include an HDD, no one thought they would have it in them to toss in enough memory, no one thought that they would have wireless controllers, no one thought they would turn to Nvidia, no one thought they even had an online server. But as you can see, the results aren't as fulfilling as they were once assumed to be in such a case by public, pessimistic analyst. This is not the PlayStation 2 launching two years early anymore. You might also recall Sony lambasting MS for their inclusion of a HD in the original Xbox, or their laughing at Xbox Live's set up. Most of everything they're including in this gen is something they saw work for MS, after they had made jackasses of themselves for laughing at it, and decided to "adopt" it.

There, I corrected some things for you.

 

[Spiderdogg]

That $100 difference is no different from the last consoles if you include inflation. Now, that doesn't mean I expect casuals to go running out to buy the console, but if that were the case, I'm sure that would have happened with the last console. My point is the PlayStation entering the market at a higher cost is nothing new here. It has happened many times before the PS3 ever came along. Inflation has nothing to do with it, inflation does not warrant the doubling of price in about 6 years. If everything was that way, it'd probably cost you a fortune just to shop for groceries or cell phones.

And just like the Emotion Engine, Cell isn't a dedicated PC chip. It is mainly suited for applications involving games and such. Why do you think it wasn't mention to go into IBM's super-computer? It only excels at certain task - those mainly for game applications, while in others more related to PC or computers, it's plain crap. THIS is why Apple turned it down. Apparently, cell isn't useful for gaming either. Part of gaming is development.. Cell is horrible for development and raises the min development cost for companies up to $20 mil and increases the time to work out defects in the games build. That is RIDICULOUS, and is probably why so many developers are jumping off of Sony's boat like it had just been hit by a rocket.

Also, Cell is one of the most impractical chips ever made for a console.. seeing as it comes with only about 7 "cells" working, and if it blows one more.. you can no longer use the console. So, if Cell ever has a problem with blowing a core right off the bat.. then buyers will be in a hell of a time trying to get refunds from Sony. And no, just like last gen.. they will ship it with faulty hardware, and THEN try to fix it a year later.

I'm sure your coming question is, "Why would Sony state such a horrible thing about super computer performance then?" The answer is simple. Just like the PS2, if so many Cells and or PS3s are combined/jointed with one another, it can rival the performance of a super-computer, hence the name "cell," which is how it was orginated. This is also why you have Cell Blades.

By implementing Cell into something like a TV or any other device not as reliant on general performance of the CPU, the Cell can work to its advantages. This was also proven in a medical facility in a video awhile back. While it took current gen processors 5 minutes, I believe, to fully render the humans' head/skull on an MRI, Cell did it in about 3 seconds. I only have a link to them mentioning this for the time being, but the video is located at the site I visit. The problem is hunting the damn thing down.
This does not change the fact that Cell is prone to blowing it's 'fuses'. It may be faster.. but get any other next gen chip, and it could do almost the same without the risk of having the processor die. It's just not a reliable CPU to build ANYTHING around.

But like I mentioned before, as long as the processor isn't being used as a dedicated computer chip, it's performances is very useful in various devices that focus on such key points.

Moreover, whether you would like to accept it or not, they are already competing with Microsoft in online. It was inevitable since it was one of the main advantages Microsoft had over them last-gen. Are you familiar with the Novice? If not, let's just say they were called out a few years ago. How are they already competing with Microsoft in online? Since when? I didn't know they already released their online.. or, actually did something on par for MS's online at all! Where is this startling info?! Face it, Sony is so far behind the curb when it comes to online or implementing PC technologies that it's laughable. All they're trying to do is copy what MS has done, and it's not working.

And just for future notes, I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate them if I were you. Before, no one thought they would include an HDD, no one thought they would have it in them to toss in enough memory, no one thought that they would have wireless controllers, no one thought they would turn to Nvidia, no one thought they even had an online server. But as you can see, the results aren't as fulfilling as they were once assumed to be in such a case by public, pessimistic analyst. This is not the PlayStation 2 launching two years early anymore. You might also recall Sony lambasting MS for their inclusion of a HD in the original Xbox, or their laughing at Xbox Live's set up. Most of everything they're including in this gen is something they saw work for MS, after they had made jackasses of themselves for laughing at it, and decided to "adopt" it.

There, I corrected some things for you.

1. Actually, Extro, the price isn't doubling at all. As you can see, there are two versions: $500 & $600. From a $400 console to a $500 is within inflation especially when you have an expensive amount of parts in it.

2. I have to call that as it is; moot. If, by your definition, challenging means underpowered, then that would mean nothing, outside of simplicity, is ever tolerable, which, to me, means no advancement.

Now, from a games perspective, history easily goes against this. Everything has a learning curve. The PS3 (just like the PS2) has a more steeper learning curve than the other consoles. The 360 is in a similiar position since it isn't entirely PC based here.

As many developers you believe have abandon the console is equally compensated by those jumping aboard the console. As a matter a fact, there are very few, if any, developers I know that has held off on developing for the console except for those concerned about not having the final devkits. So I believe that information may very well be dated.

3. To me, it seems you are ignoring the facts here. First of all, Cell production has already be proven to be going well. Secondly, a defected Cell is not going to make it into the console. This is why tests are done. What you are doing is making presumptions based on your own theory, rather than those behind the technology.

Cell, was designed with 8 SPEs from the begining. It was cut to seven to improve yields and also to save money. What you are saying could easily be said for a multi core system like the 360. So I really don't see you point at all here.

4. Not only is this false, but it has no information to support it neither.

5. The very same way they are competiting with Microsoft without ever having to release their console. You can call it a potential threat. The topic should have may that rather obvious.

6. I'm not sure about HD for the original Xbox, so I'm not going to comment on that. But I am familiar with Sony's comments for Xbox Live. They praised Microsoft after they did it. Actually, I have a quote from an interview with Phil Harrison:

Interviewer: Online is one area where, without a doubt, Microsoft did get it rather more right than Sony last generation - Xbox Live being a much more comprehensive worldwide service than what Sony rolled out...

Phil Harrison: But more people play online games on a PlayStation 2 than on any other game console.

Interviewer: Right, but then a lot more people own PlayStation 2s than any other game console.

Phil Harrison: Yeah, but it is something that is worth pointing out - although, personally I have a great deal of respect for what Microsoft has done with Live, and I think they've got a lot of it right.

source

But like I said earlier, them matching Live was inevitable. It's just that many refused to see it.