on October 30, 2008
I own a video game store. One of the services that we provide is various repairs on most game consoles. In the last year, I have performed around 60 individual XBOX 360 repairs compared to 0 (zero) PS3 repairs. PS3 Wins Hands Down
The 60GB version of the PS3 is FULLY backwards compatible with PS2 and most PS 1 games. The new 80GB version has some limited backwards compatability. The 40GB version has no backwards compatability. All versions of the 360 (Arcade, Pro and Elite) have the same limited backwards compatability. At least PS3 has a version that is fully backwards compatable. PS3 WINS
The new 80GB version of the PS3 retails for $399.00. This includes an 80GB hard drive (obviously), built in Bluetooth, and built in WIFI. Oh and lets not forget that the DVD player in the PS3 will play all of your regular AND Blu-Ray DVDs. The lowest cost 360 is the Arcade version that retails for around $199. This version does not come with a hard drive which will cost you around $100 for 60GB, nor does it have built in WIFI. The WIFI adapter retails for around $100 also. So for $399 you essentially get 20GB less storage...oh and NO BLU RAY!!! PS3 WINS
Let's say that most games nowadays are released on both PS3 and 360, but there are some titles that are exclusive to each. Some of the hotest exclusive titles are:
PS3 - Metal Gear Solid, SOCOM, Little Big Planet, Resistance 2
360 - Fable II, Gears of War 2 and of course Halo 3
Overall, since the 360 has been around for a few more years, there are more titles available, but some of the most popular like BioShock have been ported over now to the PS3...most of the others will follow suit (except Halo which will probably always be a 360 only title). 360 WINS (but not for very much longer)
So of the 3 main decision points as to which console to purchase. PS3 scored 3 out of 4 to the 360's score of 1 out of 4.
Let me also say that I make more money selling the 360 because of all of the periphery that you have to buy along with it (more margin in accessories) so I hope people continue to go in that direction. However, when viewed objectively, the PS3 is clearly the way to go.
on October 9, 2008
I was debating which game console to get, the Wii, Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3(PS3). As a male with family of two kids, overall the PS3 was the best value for the money. Since PS3 and Xbox 360 are aiming for the same market, I was comparing the PS3 more to the 360:
-Most powerful system among 3 consoles.
-Blu Ray player included, also it can be upgraded via the internet. It is full functioning Blu Ray player, not watered down, the picture quality if awesome.
-Solid hardware, Xbox 360 hardware has many problems.
-Includes wireless Wi-Fi, but with Xbox 360 you have to buy it separately.
-Free online gaming, unlike Xbox's which you have to pay each month.
-Internet web browser, which Xbox doesn't have.
-Better menus for navigation than 360.
-Controllers have not only rumble, but also motion sensor like Wii.
-Hard drive is easily upgradable and inexpensive, unlike 360 which is expensive and very hard to upgrade if you want to put your own hard drive.
-Latest movies and TV shows can purchased online, 360's Netflix has more titles but are old titles.
-Playstation Eye(motion sensing camera) accessory allows for motion games like Wii.
-Need more latest titles of movies(but same or better than 360 or Apple TV)
-Not all movies can be rented in the first few weeks of release, but have to be purchased.
-Need more variety of games, actually true for all 3 systems.
Overall compared to Wii: Kids will want the Wii no matter what anyone says as long as their friends have it. The quality of Wii games are decreasing, game developers are not integrating the motion functionality well with the games. It feels like developers made the games and then added the motion feature as an afterthought. PS3's included controller has motion sensors like the Wii, also Playstation Eye camera has motion sensoring also. There are PS3 accessories for Guitar Hero and Rock Band which allows physical games on the PS3 like the Wii. So you can do play physical games like the Wii on the PS3.
Overall compared to Xbox 360: Even though Xbox 360 is less expensive initially, if you add everything that PS3 has, the Xbox 360 is much more expensive. People forgot this. 360 has more games than PS3 because it was introduced a year earlier, but starting in 2008 PS3 is coming out with many high quality exclusive games now that introduction period is over(PS3 has Metal Gear Solid 4, Little Big Planet, Socom Confrontation, Resistance 2, Gran Turismo 4, etc). Unless you will play Halo or Gears of War, get the PS3, it is a much better value.
on August 21, 2008
The reason why all of the sudden everyone criticize this SKU for not having backward compability it's simply because there's nothing else left to criticize.
Only reason why it would be very important would be if you have an extended ps2 library and your ps2 broke, then it is worth it for you to spend the extra $100 on BC.
This is my second ps3, i had a launch 60gb ps3 and i sold it 3 weeks ago cause i needed the money, and no lie here, i played a total of 3 ps2 games in the almost 2 years that i had it... and i played them in the first 6 months that i had bought the ps3... that's right back then there wasn't that many ps3 games, so i played mgs2, god of war and lotr battle for middle earth.
As of now, i barely had time to even watch movies since i was always playing cod4, mgs4, and yes still play resistance, i have played uncharted about 4 times along with guitar hero and singstar in my parties, ratchet and clank, and warhawk..
The Truth is that, with the great line up that the ps3 has for the rest of the year and the years to come, i would find it extremely hard to play ps2 games at all.. i want to play new games, HD games, great multiplayer, experience new things, if someone truly is so concerned to play a lot of ps2 games, well then buy a ps2.
There is a lot of comparison between the 360 and ps3, and bottom line is that you have to inform yourself VERY WELL on what games you think you'll enjoy more, imo there seems to be a wider variety for the ps3, that's why i chose it. If i eventually buy a 360 will be to play the new games, not to play the xbox1 games.
I really think that this bundle including a dualshock3 is a great deal, but i will have to install a bigger hdd, i already ordered a 320gb hdd from newegg for $99, since i have a lot of movies to install.
Something else that more people should take advantage of is Linux on ps3, it's free so there is no setback on that.. i had it installed in my ps3 and when i had family over and they wouldn't let me on my own computer i just restart my ps3 in Ubuntu and with my bluetooth keyboard and mouse i would browse in my big screen tv.
There is a lot of value to this console, free online play it's great as well, ps2 addition would be nice to some, but since i know i didn't use it, or will use it, it doesn't affect me at all and that is why this sku for that price is as good as it gets.
on December 7, 2008
Just for reference, a word about the reviewer: I'm a 26 year old male making claims based on what I've thought and what I've heard said by my female and male peers.
What most amazes me about the PS3s reception is how often i see talk about its price (i.e. how expensive it is). So let me frame this review in light of this:
1- The competition: the PS3s main competitor is the Xbox360. Another competitor is the Wii. At the time of this review, the Xbox360's cheapest bundle is 199$. This is a 360 with no games and no hard disk. The most expensive bundle is 399$ with a 120GB hard disk and two okay games (look up their reviews).
The Wii, when its not in short supply, costs 249$. It doesn't have a hard disk, and comes with 1 sports game.
2- The PS3: Now assuming we are going to pay 200 or 250$ for the competition, and no more (though this is doubtful given peripheral needs and so on) let's consider the ps3 as a competitor selling for 399. A considerable 150$ or 200$ more, right? But let's consider what we get:
A- The 399$ model comes with an 80GB hard disk. The wii doesn't have a hard disk, and the xbox360 would cost 100$ less with 60GB, and would be the same price with a 120Gb hard disk.
B- The PS3, as of Dec 5-2008 remains the top Blu-ray player available. Of course Blu-ray is the new replacement for DVDs. Some time ago it had a competitor, the HD-DVD which the 360 supported (via an add on), but since then HD-DVD production has ceased. So for all practical purposes, Blu-ray is the new dvd. Now given that the PS3 is not only a blu-ray player (where as of now, the cheapest -and I mean cheapest- player is approx. 200$), but the BEST blu-ray player (see: [...] and given that neither the Wii nor the 360 play anything but DVD's (in fact the Wii doesn't, at least not legally), we can see clearly that a PS3 is the equivalent of buying a console (say for 200-250$) and a blu-ray player (say for 200$). In total, that would cost 400-450$, which is equal/more than the ps3 costs. Bear in mind that we've just compared the PS3 to a cheap (and therefore bad) Blu-ray player with a harddisk-less console. The PS3 at 400$ is the best blu-ray player with 80GB.
C-Consider the hardware next. The Wii is clearly different here, since its drastically weaker. As far as the 360 and the PS3 are concerned, a slightly outdated technical comparison chart ([...]) is available, but also consider the following link: [...] Now my point is not that the PS3s hardware is better than the 360s, though this a hardware fact. My point is that the PS3s hardware has had some real work put into it, even if programming is more difficult on it. The best games now haven't gotten nearly close enough to the PS3s limit. If you think about first generation PS1 or PS2 games versus the final generations, you see a huge graphical gap. The PS3s gap will at least be as large, even though Sony's official statement is that the PS3s lifetime will be at least a couple of years longer. Of course the 360 will have its own gap, but with lesser hardware, we should expect a smaller gap. That and the fact that 360 has aged more the PS3, and so less `gap' is left. As it stands, at least as far as hardware is concerned, the PS3 is the better investment (and I stress the investment part).
D- The all important games. There's no doubt that 360 has more games than the ps3. I'm not sure about the Wii. But here are some facts gathered from [...] (please feel free to confirm!). At the time of writing this, the 360 has 107 games that have rated over 8.0, the Wii 33 games, and the PS3 74 games. But now consider this: the PS3 is 2 years old with 74 'good' games. The 360 is 3 years old with 107 'good' games. But if you look at the 360s games, you see that 51 of the 'good' games were released in 2008. This means that in the 360s first two years there were 56 'good' games only. So the often cited claim, that the 360 has a bigger library is indeed a true claim, but not one that makes the 360 a better game console. In fact, if Sony releases only 35 'good' games in 2009 (which is a really an unrealistic estimate), they would still top the 360s library. Of course it makes no sense to say this since simultaneously the 360 will be releasing its own titles. All I'm trying to point to is that the `bigger game library' argument is a false one. In fact, most realistically, the 3 consoles have more good games than most of us can buy. The real question is, what are you looking for in your games?
E-What are you looking for in your games? If you're buying a console for the exclusive use of your child (or maybe a family of non-gamers) then surely the Wii is a great and cheap investment, even if it lacks a lot. But if you're a gamer from before this generation of consoles, then the Wii is obviously a stupid way to go. After spending a couple of hours flicking your arm, it becomes clear that the Wii is a toy designed to expand the video game market, and not a real gaming console for old gamers. Perhaps you go out and buy the plethora of Wii controllers to have a decent experience, but with the Wii's graphics (and I know graphics don't make a game, but they surely help!) I see no incentive to actually play anything (god forbid that you have an HDTV to further mar the experience of the Wii's 480p). That and the fact that the majority of the Wii's games were designed with kids in mind. If you truly think Zelda on the wii is a good game for an adult (look 17+ is fine), then nothing I say will convince you. Our personal feeling (my girlfriend, myself, and 2 good friends) after buying Zelda and irritating ourselves for about 10hrs, was that the reviewers really failed to stress that the game was JUST for children. Anyway, so much for the Wii. I nevertheless find it to at least be a tastefully designed system, an original piece if nothing more (and it is something more).
Now if you're a gamer, your choices are really the 360 and the ps3. I won't try to adjudicate between the two consoles games, though I am biased towards the PS3s games which I find more original and varied (e.g. LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, Metal Gear 4, dare I say Singstar and Buzz -shudder-). I think that's partly because I also don't consider violence in a game to be an immediate plus, which someone in Microsoft must think considering the games on the 360. Anyway, there's a more important reason not to decide, namely that the 360 and PS3 have a huge overlap in titles. Let's leave it at that then.
F-Quality. This is the last argument I'll make. First, let's be clear about the Wii status, and please earlier Wii comments. The Wii is a pretty product with many quality titles by Nintendo, as usual. Unfortunately, the Wii is in its own world, it needed to come out a generation ago instead of the failed Gamecube. It's really PS2 competition at best. For that reason, while it is a good quality product, its not really relevant as a competitor in this generation. So for now lets go out and look at the PS3s front end and the 360s, consider the exclusives on each, and in general keep in mind the innovation and tastefulness aspects. I think it's clear that PS3s XMB is more tastefully designed than the 360s. I admit that there are some functionality issues, especially back in the PS3s early days. But I submit that Sony has showed continuing support through its updates on the functionality level. Now consider tastefulness and innovation: consider the PS3 XMB, Home, Life with Playstation/Folding@Home and LittleBigPlanet. Consider Microsoft's claims at creating a 'killer' of each. An example: the 360s new avatars presented after the Wii and the PS3s avatars. Surely you see the resemblance between the 360 avatars and the Wii avatars? Surely you see the added graphical edge (over the Wii) that's supposed to distinguish 360s avatars. And surely you must see, that this whole avatar is a distorted copy of the Miis. That it is completely inconsistent with how the 360 has presented its self thus far. Its now unclear whether 360 is a PS3 killer or a Wii killer. A killer it is that's for sure, that Microsoft treats its customers this way, that it cares so little for originality.
Let me put it most straightforwardly: Microsoft has demonstrated in the past that money, not quality is its aim. If you want proof look at wonderful Windows Vista. Look at Windows XP. And look at the new Windows, whatever its called. Apple did a lot to improve their status from a few years back, but customers accepted to switch partially because Microsoft demonstrated a lack of caring and competence with its software. I want to suggest that Microsoft is now doing the same in the video game industry. Anyone who follows game news (and I obviously do!) knows that the game industry is one of the most rapidly expanding industries. This means large profits, and is an invitation for competition. Microsoft entered the market with that purpose in mind, and I think the following facts demonstrate that they're not interested in their consumer, but only in their own capitalist enterprise:
>1- They abandoned the original Xbox as soon as it started looking difficult. The machine was marred by software and hardware crashes, and the consumer was requested to buy the 360
>2- The 360 also suffered software and hardware crashes, infamously the 360 is well known to be a flimsily put together piece of equipment (For a humorous duo of demonstrations see:[...] followed by [...] - For a less humorous but more factual piece: [...] But flimsiness is the cost of cheapness, though admittedly Microsoft did recall some of its utterly defective machines. This however doesn't change the facts, that Microsoft would rather make money than give a quality product
>3- The 360 has undergone massive price-cuts to stay competitive. In time, Microsoft might just drop the 360 as fast it dropped the original. For now, it convinces the uneducated consumer through its low price.
>4- Microsoft's aggressive competition: competition by paying more for exclusives, paying more to make the game worse (e.g. forcing the producer into making the 360 the lead console), is not `fair' competition. Competition should be through producing higher quality stuff, not through higher money deals.
So this concludes my argument. I've surely gone on too long, and one might wonder what personal interest might I have in this. Well, not much, in fact this whole thing is an accident created by having strong coffee, being on a break from my PhD. program because of a strike, and my personal love of facts and gaming. I hate seeing people ripped off all the time by marketers, and I hate that consumers don't take the time to learn the facts. Finally, I really dislike uneducated decisions, even though I understand that not everyone has the time for research. But that's why I've written this, now you have at least one elaborate description of events. I've overstayed my welcome, cheers!