PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Revolution

[MonsterMag]

whats the msrp gonna be around on the 360?
and when it is gonna be released around?

[quik]

PS3 is showing to have better graphics and games than XB360 in anyway. Have you people SEEN Killzone 2? They are saying that most of that is real-time. Also have you seen the realtime for Unreal? Its ungodly good, whilst the XB will defenitely be lagging in that.

I love Halo as much as the next guy but its all Microsoft has right now. Thats it. Project Gotham has nothing on Grand Turismo, Splinter Cell has nothing on MGS4, and Killzone is looking to be a contender with Halo 3, which better have some revolutionary things or it will just be Halo 2 with better graphics/story.

I have high hopes for both system, but its looking like XB didnt have any clue what PS3 was bringing to the table and are now going to fall short, now that they have seen the power PS3 will be pushing.

They both still look like *** though.


EDIT: Although if the XB360 is marketed correctly, and MS is willing to take a loss and make it up in Halo sales, they could possibly beat Sony's high price tag machine(Rumored to be $500+).

[ubooze]

I was suprised at the playing field after following the releases on various tech blog sites. Its basically even. Sony says that cell processor blah blah blah.... we need to see if it actually works. And that controller is ..... ughh, just looks aweful.

BUT, if they manage to keep the price right and up the online capabilities, which wasn't really covered, it'll be a cool system to own. And it would stand alongside X-Box 360 if it was finacially possible for me. Next to two 1080p HD TVs.....

The 360 is also a very interseting system. The controller looks neat, its got decent titles coming out on it, and very well designed. The big plus is its home entertainment value. It won't just be your gaming console, but a very nice component to your system. Live and the OS look VERY interesting. It has many different capabilties that will defintely appeal to many users.

Anyone notice the funny thing about this. Up until now, the Playstation line was usually consider thanks to the wide selection of games available. Yeah, at release the system was cutting edge, but now it seems that Sony is only pushing the system specs. M$ on the other hand is pushing the interactivity and software. They don't seem to be trying to cram the hardare into peoples faces.

But then again, I'm slightly insane and absolutely unknowledgable in this field. So speak on.

[quik]

Anyone notice the funny thing about this. Up until now, the Playstation line was usually consider thanks to the wide selection of games available. Yeah, at release the system was cutting edge, but now it seems that Sony is only pushing the system specs. M$ on the other hand is pushing the interactivity and software. They don't seem to be trying to cram the hardare into peoples faces.

Well when your hardware isnt anywhere near as high-end as PS3's, its hard for MS to compete with advertising. I think that PS3 also has quite interactivity, as it has somewhere around 16 ports in the back.

[Head knight of Ni]

PS3 is showing to have better graphics and games than XB360 in anyway. Have you people SEEN Killzone 2? They are saying that most of that is real-time. Also have you seen the realtime for Unreal? Its ungodly good, whilst the XB will defenitely be lagging in that.

I love Halo as much as the next guy but its all Microsoft has right now. Thats it. Project Gotham has nothing on Grand Turismo, Splinter Cell has nothing on MGS4, and Killzone is looking to be a contender with Halo 3, which better have some revolutionary things or it will just be Halo 2 with better graphics/story.

I have high hopes for both system, but its looking like XB didnt have any clue what PS3 was bringing to the table and are now going to fall short, now that they have seen the power PS3 will be pushing.

They both still look like *** though.


EDIT: Although if the XB360 is marketed correctly, and MS is willing to take a loss and make it up in Halo sales, they could possibly beat Sony's high price tag machine(Rumored to be $500+).

That video of KZ2 was prerendered. Both consoles are actually about even. It comes down to games now and we haven't seen enough for either system to judge.

[ScatterPlot]

You can't completely rule out Nintendo just yet. There's been a whole lot of hype about some big surprise coming in E3, and so far nothing has happened real big just yet- just another game boy package. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo pulled something huge out of their butts.

One interesting theory is that the "fake" video was actually partially real. At another E3, I forgot which, they showed off 3d viewers for the Gamecube that never really made it out. They haven't shown any footage for the Revolution yet either- could be a sign that it is 3d capable. Which would rock my socks off. They're also talking about a Halo killer or something on the horizon as well, which with 3d would be just awesome.

To all you negative naysayers out there- the technology exists just fine for 3d stuff. It's just that as yet no BIG companies have pushed it. I saw a company that has since went under that was able to market and sell a 3d interactive glove for around $120. Nintendo could easily make some 3d stuff and put it in with their console, as they have the clout necessary to get it off the ground. Now wheter it will be all overlay-cool and all as the video, that is yet to be seen. Simple 3d viewer glasses would be easy enough- look at the Imax stuff they got.

In the video they mentioned the left brain right brain stuff- someone at Nintendo made some allusion to right brain (or left, I dunno) in some real recent conference. Possibly a coincidence, but it's kinda probable that it isn't.

Some guy on the Internet had leaked some stuff, not sure if the video was his or not, but most people thought it was fake. However, 2 of his more minor "predictions" have come true, so we have yet to see if all this was some big ole hidden Nintendo hype thing. What with Xbox's ourcolony stuff, it wouldn't be all that surprising for Nintendo to have a nontraditional marketing scheme as well.

As for the controller, something will definately be up with that thing. They haven't shown it yet- why are they holding back? This could mean that the Nintendo they are showing is a fake- not likely, but could be. The real one might be more in line with the one from the fake video. However I think this is unlikely. The stuff about the controller that seems to be pretty confirmed, from what I can tell, is that it will have some gyroscopic types of control mechanisms built into it. Some saying they released back a while ago went something along the lines of "touching is good, but feeling is better". Maybe some real advanced rumble action going on here? Nintendo did invent the Ruble Pak concept back with Starfox 64. Some people think that it would have stuff like getting really hot when certain things happened. However, this would not make good sense in the battery life department when everything coming out is gonna be wireless out of the box. Then again maybe it will take a cue from the Wavebird and do it's get real hot thing only in corded versions or something. Or maybe just have real crappy battery life.

One thing is for sure with all this wireless controller stuff- they shouldn't have made it entirely wireless. There should be at least one hidden controller port somewhere, just in case of battery failures and whatnot. They could add automatic pause type stuff to games in case of battery loss, but what if you just had to recharge the controller before you could do anything else? That would not be so hot. I am a fan of non-rechargeable batteries in the first place (by that I mean ones I can change, not stick in a dock and recharge). If it's a simple matter of replacing batteries like the Wavebird then it's not so bad, but if it's like the GBA SP then things could get ugly.

Personally, what I would like to see in a console was one that was just the opposite- not made to be big and flashy, but one that you're NOT supposed to see. I mean we have TV remotes, why not game system ones? With wireless controllers you still have to go over to the system to power it on. What would be cool would be to have something along the lines of those big 200 disc CD players that you could just pop all your games into and let it be. Have it sorta "idle" until you activate the controller. Then again that's just the potato in me talking.
Wow, this post was long.

[Head knight of Ni]

Well when your hardware isnt anywhere near as high-end as PS3's, its hard for MS to compete with advertising. I think that PS3 also has quite interactivity, as it has somewhere around 16 ports in the back.

I count 10 not counting the AC plug in. Plus one of the 10 is the AV hook up.

[MrWallen]

I count 10 not counting the AC plug in. Plus one of the 10 is the AV hook up.

16 Probably includes controller ports, memorty stick ports (if it needs them), and front-mounted USB ports, none of which are visible in those pics.

EDIT: Forget the controller ports, I forgot, all the new systems are using wireless controllers.

[ubooze]

Well when your hardware isnt anywhere near as high-end as PS3's, its hard for MS to compete with advertising. I think that PS3 also has quite interactivity, as it has somewhere around 16 ports in the back.

You sound like you really like Sony, a lot.

In rwality, as Head Knight said, these two systems do NOT have that big of a difference between them. Yeah, sure, maybe the PS3 has some uber features, but how the heck are you going to use them? You have 2 1080p YVs at home? How bout 6 other friends who would like to split the screeen in some funky way, and afterwards use the controller for pleasing yourself? Or maybe you have some Blu-Ray movies? Ehhh, I don't think so.

Yes, the PS3 is nice. But so is the 360. Both will blow you away in terms of graphics, as both are very powerful.

And on all that live rendering crap, I call major BS. Those are about as realtime as everybodies speeches were not prewritten. Watch the video, you'll most undoubtedly notice what I mean.

Sony needs to do something with the button though. At least the shoulder buttons. Make them more "analog" or precise. Its really hard for me to use the right amount of throttle in GT4 with the X button, and the R2 button gives little improvement over it. The buttons could really use more "give" or range.

Cool thing on the PS3 is that it seems to use the 3g iPod type of buttons, the membrane-like ones, for both power anfd disc eject. At least thats the way it seems, on that flat surface near the disc slot.

Also, funny thing is that it seems one knew about the others case design, or maybe its just me. While the 360 is supposed to look like an inhale, or at least thats what Baldy said, the PS3 looks like its slightly bloated. I found it funny and slightly suspicious.

I still want both systems as both while most defintely rock.

P.S.: It also ticks me off that PS3 won't take PS2 memory cards. I dunno why but it does.

Oh, and Revolution could have a space near my TV if its cheap and really has the ability to play all those classic games. Mario Kart rocks!!!

[anonymousbill123]

Well when your hardware isnt anywhere near as high-end as PS3's, its hard for MS to compete with advertising. I think that PS3 also has quite interactivity, as it has somewhere around 16 ports in the back.

what the hell are you talking about! ps3 is running off of 1 processor at 3.2 ghz. xbox will be using 3 and all clocked at 3.2 ghz. xbox will be alot more quicker and smoother running.

there is also the hard drive on xbox 360. ps3 doesnt have one.

graphics are equal... so i dont no y everybody is bijin bout that.

all of xbox 360's games will be online while only some ps3 games will be.

360 will allow custom soundtracks for all of the games. not on ps3.

360 on live will have the internet cam to send video messages, not just voice messanges like ps3.

xbox 360 will have more multimedia aspects than ps3.

compare them here: http://home.btconnect.com/hgi/ps3/

[ubooze]

what the hell are you talking about! ps3 is running off of 1 processor at 3.2 ghz. xbox will be using 3 and all clocked at 3.2 ghz. xbox will be alot more quicker and smoother running.

there is also the hard drive on xbox 360. ps3 doesnt have one.

graphics are equal... so i dont no y everybody is bijin bout that.

all of xbox 360's games will be online while only some ps3 games will be.

360 will allow custom soundtracks for all of the games. not on ps3.

360 on live will have the internet cam to send video messages, not just voice messanges like ps3.

xbox 360 will have more multimedia aspects than ps3.

compare them here: http://home.btconnect.com/hgi/ps3/

I believe your information is flawed too. And who would go to a PS3 centered site for a unbiased comparison.

The 360 isn't going to have 3 processors, but rather a single processor with 3 cores I believe. While the PS3 has got like 7 or something, which I kinda noticed corresponds to the number of controllers.... so maybe... ah whatever.

Graphics may be equal, that is yet to be seen. But most likely it'll be the same. Unless RSX is all that fancy pantsy stuff they claim it is.

Online capability is up to indiviudal developer. Yeah, thats great for X-Box Live, since X-Box doesn't have that many games. But add the fact that Sony most likely recognizes the need for better online play, won't let M$ gain too much ground, and will most likely have many more games than X-Box, it all somehow evens out. X-Box games need the replay value, since so few of them are actually worth playing out of the selection. On the Playstation line, if you don't like a game, there are thousands of other ones to choose from.

Custom soundtracks? That I haven't heard much about from the Sony party. I liked that feature in X-Box, and hopefully it'll even get better for 360.

Ughh, then what the heck is Eyetoy going to used for if not video messenging? I'm pretty sure Sony claimed, thats all it is right now, a claim, that there will be video chat.

360 does have the leg up oon multimedia right now. With Media Center support, plus supposed iPod and PSP support as well (I doubt that for some reason, wanna guess why?), as well as PC connectivity, it looks like Sony would really need to try to pull some serious changes and step away from the rather gaming-centric role the PS3 is taking right now.

I dunno if you edited your post, but PS3 will have a... *gasp* detachable hardrive supposedly much like the 360 will have. Gish, who would have thunk it?

[quik]

I cant win against these XB fans.

[ubooze]

I cant win against these XB fans.

Hey, I'm fighting for both sides.

In reality, this competition if pointless. Do people really need to justify their purchase to tohers, or prove they have the better whatnot? It absolutley stupid and will evetually phase out one thus limiting our choices. But idiots will be idiots.

[FooTemps]

quik, seems like ubooze has been shooting down both sides of the argument...

you're only fighting one xb fan.

[davidb]

Hmm.. according to the site linked up a few posts back, the PS3 will support SACD playback. That would be interesting if it turns out to be true - the unit lacks 5.1 analog outputs, barring the unlikely event that they put them on the side or front. The only connection that it has capable of passing SACD audio is (and I'm assuming it has this) firewire. I say interesting because I don't know of any surround sound reciever with a firewire input that doesn't cost at least around $1,500-2,000 - slightly out of the range that most gamers would be willing to spend on a reciever. Makes me wonder what next year's models have in store.. Hopefully it won't just be sony recievers coming with firewire (or iLink as Sony calls it) at a reasonable price, because Sony recievers have a strong tendency to suck.
Needless to say I'm more interested in audio equipment than I am in gaming consoles.