• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

PS3 vs x360 (use this, not 360 slim)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems so. Although, even if what you're saying is right, doesnt that mean that, Sony suck? If they cant deal with multi platform? ;).

Of course it can deal with multiplatform and slower P2P gaming, but what annoys PS3 owners is that we have to deal with with crappier networking in multiplatform games JUST because Microsoft forces P2P on XboxLive, and developers don't want to implement 2 seperate networking setups for their multiplatform games.

Dedicated servers are faster and easier to setup and develop for, this is why the PC has used them for years, and it's also why PS3 exclusives also use them.

You can eat hamburgers on PS3, but you just keep thinking "I could be easting steak right now"...

It's the same old story though with multiplatform titles it's compromise, both the Xbox and PS3 exclusives always look better than the multiplatform titles, the PS3 suffers the most thou, as the gap is considerably bigger between what PS3 exclusives offer and multiplats compared to Xbox exclusives and multiplats. In other words when talking multiplatform games 9 times out of 10 it's the Xbox holding the PS3 back rather than the other way round.

Oh I can also post some random picture of proper games on PS3, I don't really see what the point was...

I pointed out that PS3 uses Dedicated servers for it's exclusives, something that is pretty much universally accepted as the better gaming network setup, or are you the 0.00001% that disagree with that statement? (or more likely delude yourself that your $50 you pay to play online on a P2P network is value for money).
 
Personally, I prefer the Xbox 360 as a gaming console (I own a PS3, 360 and Wii).

It has more highly rated titles available for it, cross-platform games are better on the 360 the vast majority of the time, the online communication and invite options are far superior on the 360 (cross-game chat, live status updates and cross-game invites in all games, party mode etc.), the online store has more downloadable games and every single one has a demo, there's no forced installs but you can install any disc-based game you like in full, you can log in with multiple gamertags at once system wide and use multiple headsets online, 100% of the games have achievements and custom soundtracks and so on.

I only use the PS3 and Wii for games that aren't available on the 360, but there are enough exclusive games on the PS3 and Wii to justify owning all 3 IMO.

I think it's a completely baseless argument to say that devs would set up dedicated servers for all games if it wasn't for the 360. Why on earth would they do that? Just because first party devs do? That makes no sense. Some devs offer dedicated servers for 360 games, Left 4 Dead being one example, so why don't all devs do that? It's down to the cost of running servers, nothing more. The reality of the situation is that most game on both consoles use P2P, but on the PS3 you're missing a raft of features offered by Xbox Live.
 
Still stuck in 2007 I see...

PS3 had the best games in 2009 -- PlayStation Universe

2010 is even better still, with the average Metacritic quit a bit higher and based on more games.

LMAO, not that you had credibility but seriously, you are quoting a page from of all places "Playstation Universe" to back up your argument that the PS3 had better games in 2009?!?

I bet you believe Steve Jobs when he said the iphone 4 antenna flaw was just a software issue too huh? :rolleyes:

Be careful not to choke too much on that kool aid. :cool:
 
Still stuck in 2007 I see...

PS3 had the best games in 2009 -- PlayStation Universe

2010 is even better still, with the average Metacritic quit a bit higher and based on more games.
I meant overall, not in 2009 or 2010 specifically. If you're using Metacritic as an argument in favour of the PS3, I can also use it to show that what I said about the 360 having more highly rated titles overall is true. You buy a console to play all of the games don't you? Not just the ones from a specific year, but obviously I can see why you would have to resort to cherry picking individual years.

As for cross-platform game performance, look here: -

Head-to-Head Results Screened by Slimm

That site has a complete and up to date summary of the comparisons from Eurogamer, IGN and Lens of Truth.

BTW, those pictures are not proof of anything because there are a different number of games released for the PS3 and 360 in each case. If the 360 has 20 great games and 50 crap ones, the average score will be lower than the PS3 if it had 15 great games and 15 crap ones, even though the PS3 has fewer great games to choose from. Just look at the full Metacritic lists for each console and see how many games each console has in the 70+, 80+ and 90+ categories. The 360 has more in each category, but it also has more low rated games too, but that still means it has more highly rated titles, as I said.
 
Your own source backs up my claim that the 360 has more highly rated titles available for it. Or are Metacritic suddenly on your list of Xbox fanboy sites now too?

Errm, clearly you don't know that the XBox has been out longer? thus has longer to accumulate titles. I'm only interested in playing new games, and it's clear the PS3 wins on quality and quantity in this regard. Sure you can count 2005/2006/2007 titles in your count from when the PS3 did not exist or is was just getting going, but the reality is most of those titles have been superceeded by their follow up titles.

I clearly hit a nerve when it resorted to internet stalking and posting lame meme.
 
I warned what would happen if this thread turned into another playground squabble.... oh, and I'd advise a review of the posts linked below as several of you are steering perilously close to infraction territory with your posting style.

Agreed! This kind of behavior will not be tolerated....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom