LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYeah.Originally Posted by miketg
Less games to play, no Xbox Live goodness... sorted.
Yeah.
Less games to play, no Xbox Live goodness... sorted.
PS3s have slightly lower specs as well...
Go look it up. Same processor, same everything but the 360 Graphics Card is custom built to a higher spec than the one you find in PS3s... My computer that's 10 yrs old has got a vid card that's nearly touching on PS3 standard - Cost me about £75 to get to that, and maybe another £25-30 to get as good as PS3s.
Kids are getting smarter, eventually no amount of parental controls will be able to stop themI guess we're expected to do quite well
1 )The ps3 has a cell processor, its not the same as whats in the xbox 360 but it is more powerful. Have you seen how the ps3 performs at folding? It is very fast.
2) The ps3 has a gpu similar to the nvidia 7800 (not as powerful as whats in the xbox 360), but it was not available 10 years ago.
Graphically both consoles are about the same I have compared them side by side on a full 1080p tv and tbh I cannot notice much difference. I would actually say the ps3 is a touch sharper but I only noticed that virtual tennis 3.
Both consoles are very good and have their own unique features- the xbox 360 has xbox live and huge selection of games, the ps3 on other hand has a blu ray player, and it is more reliable in terms of hardware failure.
broadly correct. measuring the power of cell is enormously subjective, but it's basically pretty damn powerful as long as you can program the damn thing, and aren't writing applications which do a lot of unexpected, differing things (such as, um, a game)
1 )The ps3 has a cell processor, its not the same as whats in the xbox 360 but it is more powerful. Have you seen how the ps3 performs at folding? It is very fast.
2) The ps3 has a gpu similar to the nvidia 7800 (not as powerful as whats in the xbox 360), but it was not available 10 years ago.
Graphically both consoles are about the same I have compared them side by side on a full 1080p tv and tbh I cannot notice much difference. I would actually say the ps3 is a touch sharper but I only noticed that virtual tennis 3.
Both consoles are very good and have their own unique features- the xbox 360 has xbox live and huge selection of games, the ps3 on other hand has a blu ray player, and it is more reliable in terms of hardware failure.
because of the cell developers are finding it much harder to code great powerful stuff for the PS3.
I always imagine them getting lazy, coding for the 360 and then porting to the PS3 which always ends up with the PS3 loosing out majorly.
I mean look at last years madden (PS3:30fps X360:60fps)
bigggg difference
doing something hard instead of easy costs money - either because you need to pay better programmers, or because things take longer
these ARE businesses, you know
It's not hard if you know how, and they've just gotta know how.doing something hard instead of easy costs money
Tbh i play one game at a time anyway, xbox live is good but the psn is getting alot better these days plus you dont have to pay for demo'sYeah.
Less games to play, no Xbox Live goodness... sorted
sometimes it IS hard, even if you DO know how. that's the case with cell. and i'm not talking about the ps3 specifically in that - cell is a *hard* architecture to exploit, no matter your skill level
I have a 360 and PS3, and I only ever turn on the PS3 to watch blu rays or DVDs (nice upscaler) the demos are free for the 360 as well from what I'm aware. However you don't need to install every game and demo you play with the 360, they just play, opposed to waiting for up to 30mins for PS3 games to install. Even the demos take up to about 10 mins to install.
The 360 as a gaming console is my favorite, for the live goodness and the range of titles out for it.
It only takes about 2 minutes to install a demo on my ps3 and I have installed about 10 so far.
It doesn't matter if the PS3 or 360 are slightly more powerful than the other, unless they are an order of magnitude above, so they can do things the other system can't.
A few extra here or a second of loading time isn't the sort of thing you can buy one over the other for.
But having a bigger, better and more fun line up of currently avalible games and a far more mature online service is the sort of thing that matters.
The Master System was a better tech machine than the NES, but the NES has better games and Nintendo behind it, so it was better.
Games matter, not having slightly better specs.
Well thats lucky for you. Fans of games however are up in arms at the lack of availabe titles for PS3. Nearly a year and still no killer app...It's not hard if you know how, and they've just gotta know how.
Tbh i play one game at a time anyway, xbox live is good but the psn is getting alot better these days plus you dont have to pay for demo's
Games are key, for most of us at least. Has this not sunk in yet?
The ninja gaiden demo was the culprit I believe, and the last one some moto cross game was about 5.
I might have misinterpreted you somehow but demos are free for the 360 as well.....plus you dont have to pay for demo's
Yes, games are very important - so you or these so called "fans of games" have clearly not heard of/or played the likes of Gran Turismo 5 Prologue / Ratchet Clank (Tools of Destruction)/ Uncharted Drakes Fortune? All brilliant exclusives - in addition to all the usual cross platform games coming out on all consoles right now. This "PS3 has no games" line is rather old and non applicable now days.
Back on topic to the OP yes i think you have made the right choice in consoles in regard to your main concern (reliability) From personal experience, i have gone through 3 xbox 360 breakdowns in 1 year, but still have the same trusty PS3 still going strong a year on - "oh no - kiss of death - goes to check PS3"
lol u have to install demos on a ps3?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
