PS3 or Xbox 360?

edited June 2011 in Games
Well, I didn't see this thread anywhere in the first few pages. I'm trying to decide whether to get a PS3 or an Xbox 360. I'm not sure that it matters, but I'll be using an HDMI cable with it as well. So, a few questions.

The PS3 is about $100 more, but has a blue ray. I already have a blue ray player, so that doesn't do me much good. Is that the only reason the PS3 is more expensive, it has a blue ray player?

Is the PS3 worth the extra $100?

Which has better online play? I'm told the Xbox does, but I'm not 100% certain I trust my source.

Which has better exclusive games?

Is there a huge difference in the graphics between the two?

Anything else I should know about the two systems?

Comments

  • edited August 2010
    First off, get out.

    Second, 360.
  • edited August 2010
    Gasp, heart is broken
    </3

    But any reason why? Or is it just some kind of turf war thing where they're basically the same system?
  • edited August 2010
    Well as far as specs go the PS3 has better capabilities but I don't know if there is that much of a difference.

    Online on PS3 is free.

    Personally I think the exclusive games on the PS3 look better than those on the 360, with the exception of Gears Of War, but hey, what are you gonna do?

    All that said, I don't own either one so in the end I don't really know, but, I plan on buying a PS3 sometime soon, so yeah.
  • edited August 2010
    PS3 has better processor, 360 has better graphics card. Basically the PS3 has worse graphics overall, but it deals with lighting much better and fewer slowdown issues.

    My experience has been that the 360's online, though you do have to pay a bit, is MUCH MUCH better than the PS3's, though the PSN store has more and better games than the 360 Arcade.
  • edited August 2010
    We had this discussion a few weeks ago here:

    But new they're the same price... are you talking used?

    Now that they've supposedly fixed the red ring issue on the slim 360s, I guess it just comes down to which controller you like better and which console has the exclusives you like.

    DO NOT get a used 360. Their failure rate is ridiculous. Chances are that if you get a used 360, it will die within the first year.
  • edited August 2010
    I am fairly well researched on the hardware of these two devices, but possess neither and can't speak for the software.

    For my part: Don't fuss over which is faster. It'd be splitting hairs. They are both old systems with old hardware architectures. The cell processor was a bit of a flop. Both systems have a shit cpu that sucked from day 1 and REALLY suck today. The graphics power is less shitty but similarly outdated. Both systems are as good as even in terms of hardware that runs the games.

    Honestly, it almost makes me giggle a little when I realize there may not be new consoles out before there are phones with performance levels equal to an X-Box 360 or a PS3.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, I wanna agree with the not getting a used 360 bit. Take advantage of those advancements in manufacturing. They aren't just cheaper, they use less power and run cooler and hopefully quieter too.
  • edited August 2010
    Mostly just some different exclusives. Some people make a fuss about controllers, but I've never found a controller I didn't like (I could just be weird though).

    As for RCS, ignore him, he's been a jerk as of late, especially to newcomers.
  • edited August 2010
    Figure out what games you want to play. See which console has them. Buy that console. There is literally nothing else worth arguing about regarding the console wars at this point.
  • edited August 2010
    1. 'Better exclusive games' is subjective. I know people who buy a 360 just because it has Halo, but I wouldn't be terribly saddened if I never played Halo again. Decide what games you want to play, and see if they are exclusives or no.

    2. Good that you already have a Blu-Ray player, but the point is irrelevant in either case. Sony was trying to capitalize on the epic success of the PS2: people bought PS2s not only for games but because it was the first cheap DVD player to come out on the market. People bought PS2s to play DVDs first and then games later. Sony tried to do this again, except that Blu Ray isn't the industry changer like DVD was over VHS. DVD isn't going anyway anytime soon.

    3. All other points are pretty much addressed already, so I'll just say that you should abandon both and buy a SNES :)
  • edited August 2010
    Serephel wrote: »
    3. All other points are pretty much addressed already, so I'll just say that you should abandon both and buy a SNES :)

    Meh, I'm probably gonna end up selling my SNES at some point, likely because I don't have any decent games.

    The 64 is where it's at.
  • godgod
    edited August 2010
    The graphics on the SNES aged much better and you don't have to find new controllers every three years. Invest in some good SNES games.
  • edited August 2010
    I like the 64 though...
  • edited August 2010
    Emulate.
  • edited August 2010
    www.virtualnes.com for the win.
    I already have a 64.

    Yeah, the impression that I'm getting is that the only big difference between the system is the games. Is going with the PS3 for the possibility of a FF7 remake and a new Kingdom Hearts sound reasoning? I never played Halo, so I'm not missing much.
  • edited August 2010
    About that possibility, there isn't one, HOWEVER, you can get FF7 on the PSN Store for like 10 bucks.
  • edited August 2010
    I dunno. If you like more story centered games and RPG's go for the PS3. Most RPG's are singleplayer, so the online won't matter as much. If you like shooters get the 360. Same games as PS3 as far as shooters go, except better online and Halo is in fact an amazing shooter.
  • edited August 2010
    Bummer, a remake would have been cool. But $10 certainly isn't bad for the original game I suppose.

    I don't know how much time I would actually spend playing online is the thing. And I do like story centered games. Alrighty, thanks for the input!
  • edited August 2010
    If you're a JRPG fan, go for the PS3.
  • godgod
    edited August 2010
    Azrodal wrote: »
    About that possibility, there isn't one
    I disagree. Can you imagine how much money Square Enix would make by remaking FF7? Just because they aren't currently working on it, or at least claim to not be working on it, doesn't mean they aren't going to milk their favorite cash cow in the future.
  • edited August 2010
    They haven't made it yet. Everyone has been crying for a remake for that game for TWELVE YEARS. It's not gonna happen.

    And I agree with the decision not to. The original hasn't gone anywhere, you can even got it on the PS3 now, just go play that. If you want the newer game, play Crisis Core or Dirge of Cerberus.
  • edited August 2010
    Despite the fact that they said they're not working on it, did you see the teaser trailer thing they did at E3 a few years ago? Whether they're actually going to do it or not, it's something that they could pretty easily do a nice job on. If they stuck to the exact same storyline, people would just melt over it.
  • edited August 2010
    I could also mention that they had a total of 6 games planned while working on Dirge of Cerberus, this could be any number of them. But whatever, I'm not gonna convince anyone of anything here, so this is a rather futile effort.

    Continue hoping for your remake and I will continue hoping for it to never exist.
  • edited August 2010
    I mostly just think it would be interesting to see.

    How was Dirge of Cerberus?
  • edited August 2010
    Wouldn't know, and I only played like 5 minutes of Crisis Core. I don't really have the money to get either of them, or a PSP with which to play Crisis Core.
  • edited August 2010
    god wrote: »
    I disagree. Can you imagine how much money Square Enix would make by remaking FF7? Just because they aren't currently working on it, or at least claim to not be working on it, doesn't mean they aren't going to milk their favorite cash cow in the future.

    Yeah, exactly. I mean, just look at Twisted Metal, they denied that they were working on that for like 2 or 3 years.
  • edited August 2010
    Oh, gotcha. I bet they were decently cool though.
  • edited August 2010
    Davey wrote: »
    Yeah, exactly. I mean, just look at Twisted Metal, they denied that they were working on that for like 2 or 3 years.

    Two or Three years is VERY different from Twelve.
  • edited August 2010
    Yeah, I suppose so.
  • edited June 2011
    Well, I'd save up money and buy a nice computer, but if you're dead set on getting a console, I'd say 360s. It's pretty much guaranteed not to go obsolete for about 4 years, because they only release each generation of console every 5 years. The online is better, although I don't have all that much experience with PSN. Really though, it depends entirely on what games you want. I got my xbox solely for Halo, which I think is one of the greatest story driven shooters out there. I'm well aware that I'm a "fanboy" of the franchise though, so don't trust what I say. Bottom line is you can get an xbox now or a ps4 in a year or two when they release them. Getting a ps3 now would mean getting another in a couple years, which, as far as I'm concerned, is a waste of money. Gah. Disregard everything I've said, just get whatever console has the games you want. After all, they're what matter, not the platform.