Cnet- 360 elite vs PS3 slim. And the winner is PS?????

Finally.. The PS3 gets the respect it deserves.

If you're not going to post the results or provide a link, then don't make thread.

topgunmv

thiz.

I agree, but I still like PS3's game library over 360's

I agree overall. PS3 has really turned around for the better.

The games have simply gotten better, nice exclusives and 1st party games, and the entire multimedia all in one package equates to more bang for the buck, at least for me and for alot of gamers who bought a PS3. :)

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

If you're not going to post the results or provide a link, then don't make thread.

Scoob64

thiz.

Wii is the real winner

Playstation is fighting for second with Xbox.oh how the mighty have fallen:lol:

johnnyblazed88

Well you see if the Wii was brought into that comparison, it would earn a solid 2/5 OR LESS for every single category.

Cept the sales one...oh wait.

So microsoft admits that PS3 is better? :lol:SilverChimera

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"]So microsoft admits that PS3 is better? :lol:SpruceCaboose

The 360 was my choice until the rrod arrived. It's still a good system, and i'm aware that the multiplats perform better on 360, but buying games for a system that may or may not work in a few months is a tricky situation. See, my original playstation still works, as does my ps2--and the drive was put through alot of anguish with excessive dvd use. Heck, I have a sony cd walkman that only stopped working because I dropped it from a great height.

The 360, from a construction standpoint, just feels flimsy. It actually remindes me of that time peroid where constructing your own pc was becoming very prominent. I know people that wouldn't even bother nailing down the cases--the 360 reminds me of this. This is why i'm up in the air on buying multiplats for the xbox, even knowing they perform better.(though to be fair, my 360 is pre hdmi)

As for value? They are about the same. The 360 doesn't come with wireless, and the ps3 doesn't come with the hdmi cable.

Pretty good comparison. Disagree on design, 360 looks better to me. For online they were a bit harsh to the PS3, browser and no fees should bring it closer to Live than that. Overall seemed pretty fair though, I bought a 360 because at the time it was the better deal, if I were to buy a console now it would probably be the PS3.Elutheria

More, if you upgraded to wifi, a real harddrive (the launch 360s had no hard drive or 20 gig), rechargable batteries, etc., etc., etc., then you have paid way MORE so far than a launch PS3. And chances are very high that you would have had to send it in for repairs at least once.

Ps3 has always been a better value for the buck than 360, unless you bought the cheaper model and do not play online or utilize any features other than straight gaming.

If you bought a 360 at launch, and you have been playing it online that whole time, you have paid as much for it as you would have a launch PS3.

More, if you upgraded to wifi, a real harddrive (the launch 360s had no hard drive or 20 gig), rechargable batteries, etc., etc., etc., then you have paid way MORE so far than a launch PS3. And chances are very high that you would have had to send it in for repairs at least once.

Ps3 has always been a better value for the buck than 360, unless you bought the cheaper model and do not play online or utilize any features other than straight gaming.

ianuilliam

-In regards to paying for live, you have to understand that you are paying for a service. I own both consoles, and have yet to even bother booting up the ps3 multi because of experiences at friends houses. It feels more like playing online with a pc, circa 1998.

-I desregard the wifi cost, because I just recently found out that the 360s supply the hdmi cable with the system.

-In my mind, the HDD aspect of the 360 is only a testament as to where microsoft has taken the 360 since launch. If it weren't for microsofts gameplan here, it's likely pc would still be the number one place to play multiplayer online. Are the drives overpriced? Can't argue there.

-I haven't really given the rechargeable batteries a thought before, actually. In fact, not till the last week or so, when I think think one of my 360 controllers stopped working after having it plugged in for days. However, most tech savy people have a battery recharge station for things like tv remotes, flashlights, etc, etc, etc. This is not in defense of anything, im just stating that it's possibly cheaper on the microsoft front because of this. So you buy something initially to save money in the long run, so what. You aren't forced to buy a new controller when it dies, plus it's just plain smarter have the power source easily replaceable in a device, hence the major gripe on apple ipods. Though to be extra fair, it's funny that the controllers were made with longevity in mind, and the systems were not.

Keep in mind that I own both, and prefer the playstation console as a whole--mainly in part because of bad business practices by microsoft. How long has the rrod been popping up? They need to just address the problem, and redesign the system to last. It's extremely discouraging spending that amount of money for something knowing it's likely not going to last as long as you'd like.

As of now i'd say the 360 is about the same value as the ps3. At the moment:

360 - $399 - with 250gig hdd, TWO controllers, AND MW2.

------ you likely going to get xboxLive if you buy a 360, so add $50

------that brings, essentially, the xbox experience home for $450-500.

PS3 - $299 - with 120gig hdd, ONE controller, and Blu Ray.

------add another $50 for an adequate hdmi cable

------add another controller for $60

------add a game for $60

------that's a total of of $470, give or take.

Link-tastic!

Ugh, I hate CNet's prize-fights. The whole production is just plain annoying, and they give equal weighting to decidedly unequal factors (maybe it's just me, but I'm slightly more concerned about a console's library than the size of its power brick). And I have to disagree with their conclusion -- both consoles should be rated equally. Libraries are equal, I'm not going to give the PS3 the advantage in graphics until after I've played some of the 360's big-ticket 2010 games (ie Reach, ME2, Alan Wake, Crackdown 2 etc.), and XBL makes up for the PS3's advantage in value.

PBSnipes

I do not think the Brick was a huge impact on their scoring. it was more of a sight gag.

Also Games using Sonys abilities are just getting started. As Sony has updated their libriary of tools, that 3rd party companies can use, as well as 3rd party companies getting use to programing on PS3, as well as seeing from other developers what PS3 can do. (UC2).

Both Librarys are expanding. And true MS has a huge Wallet to buy more DLC, and Exclusives. But we will see how that plays out by the end of next year.

PS3 shows it can push the graphics, so we will wait and see by the end of next year what both can do... EVEN though PS3 took longer to develop for and is 1 year behind in total development time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What has taken the Xbox 360 sooooo long to come out with a graphic pusher???

This ismore proof that the superiority 360 claimed was nothing more than a price point. PS3 has better value head to head by a longshot. The only way 360 gets back to selling more systems than PS3 is by drastically cutting its price. At some point MS is going to exclude themselves from the console war rhetoric they flamed.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="SilverChimera"]So microsoft admits that PS3 is better? :lol:alskdjfhg1

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

Link-tastic!

Ugh, I hate CNet's prize-fights. The whole production is just plain annoying, and they give equal weighting to decidedly unequal factors (maybe it's just me, but I'm slightly more concerned about a console's library than the size of its power brick). And I have to disagree with their conclusion -- both consoles should be rated equally. Libraries are equal, I'm not going to give the PS3 the advantage in graphics until after I've played some of the 360's big-ticket 2010 games (ie Reach, ME2, Alan Wake, Crackdown 2 etc.), and XBL makes up for the PS3's advantage in value.

Well if they are doing the review in 2009 comparing the 2 top systems why would they pause their review for a year and wait for the 360's titles to launch? As of right now Sony has all the graphic kings and top titles and that's a fact. It's like saying GS should've postponed the review of Forza 3 until GT5 came out for a fair comparison. I mean it's really a meaningless award. I doubt millions will go out and buy a PS3 just off of this review.

XBL makes up for the PS3's advantage in valuePBSnipes

I started off buying a 360 and I was completely happy with it, never even bothered looking at the playstation, though I did assume I'd purchase one once GoW3/ff13/gt5 came out. Well that all changed less than 2 months into the life of my 360. When it died the first time I heard sony was doing away with BC so I decided to buy a ps3. Its been almost 2 years since I bought my ps3 and its still going strong. That alone makes it the better value for me. There are very few games that I cant play on my ps3 or pc that I would like to, so I see no need to have my 360 repaired for the 6th time knowing its only a matter of time before it dies again. Those of you who hate the ps3 and love the xbox, I respect your opinion, but mine is simply you are being screwed by what could have been an absolutely amazing console, but in the end is little more than garbage hardware. While im sure i will be labeled a "fanboy" my only direct comparison between xbl and the psn was on CoD4. While others may have had a different experience, I had far less problems on the psn finding and maintaining a game than I did on xbl. XBL is a great service, but I cant help but feel cheated as I can get everything and more on my pc for free.

PS3 is the obvious winner. It does all the 360 does plus HD Bluray, WiFi, and charge and play controllers, web browser, uses higher capacity HDDs to 500gb vs 300, and free online gaming.

[QUOTE="alskdjfhg1"][QUOTE="Ontain"]hasn't cnet always been for the ps3?SpruceCaboose

While I can agree with heir assessment, there is an interesting fact to be noted:

The PS3 won because of looks, features, and value (with the latter two being almost the same thing). It also had a small win in graphics.

The 360 won in the two most important categories: online and library.

So, since we all agree with CNET's review, then can we finally stop hearing "PSN is better than LIVE" and admit that LIVE is a 5.0, and PSN is a 3, just like they said?

And that, despite Sony's great 18 months, the 360's library is still better just like CNET said?

I know this is wishful thinking to ask people to admit, but I had to ask.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]If you bought a 360 at launch, and you have been playing it online that whole time, you have paid as much for it as you would have a launch PS3.

More, if you upgraded to wifi, a real harddrive (the launch 360s had no hard drive or 20 gig), rechargable batteries, etc., etc., etc., then you have paid way MORE so far than a launch PS3. And chances are very high that you would have had to send it in for repairs at least once.

Ps3 has always been a better value for the buck than 360, unless you bought the cheaper model and do not play online or utilize any features other than straight gaming.

Heirren

-In regards to paying for live, you have to understand that you are paying for a service. I own both consoles, and have yet to even bother booting up the ps3 multi because of experiences at friends houses. It feels more like playing online with a pc, circa 1998.

-I desregard the wifi cost, because I just recently found out that the 360s supply the hdmi cable with the system.

-In my mind, the HDD aspect of the 360 is only a testament as to where microsoft has taken the 360 since launch. If it weren't for microsofts gameplan here, it's likely pc would still be the number one place to play multiplayer online. Are the drives overpriced? Can't argue there.

-I haven't really given the rechargeable batteries a thought before, actually. In fact, not till the last week or so, when I think think one of my 360 controllers stopped working after having it plugged in for days. However, most tech savy people have a battery recharge station for things like tv remotes, flashlights, etc, etc, etc. This is not in defense of anything, im just stating that it's possibly cheaper on the microsoft front because of this. So you buy something initially to save money in the long run, so what. You aren't forced to buy a new controller when it dies, plus it's just plain smarter have the power source easily replaceable in a device, hence the major gripe on apple ipods. Though to be extra fair, it's funny that the controllers were made with longevity in mind, and the systems were not.

Keep in mind that I own both, and prefer the playstation console as a whole--mainly in part because of bad business practices by microsoft. How long has the rrod been popping up? They need to just address the problem, and redesign the system to last. It's extremely discouraging spending that amount of money for something knowing it's likely not going to last as long as you'd like.

As of now i'd say the 360 is about the same value as the ps3. At the moment:

360 - $399 - with 250gig hdd, TWO controllers, AND MW2.

------ you likely going to get xboxLive if you buy a 360, so add $50

------that brings, essentially, the xbox experience home for $450-500.

PS3 - $299 - with 120gig hdd, ONE controller, and Blu Ray.

------add another $50 for an adequate hdmi cable

------add another controller for $60

------add a game for $60

------that's a total of of $470, give or take.

Comparing a $50 to $100 wifi adaptor to having to buy an hdmi cable is laughable. I bought an HDMI cable for my PS3 for under $10.

When your internal battery pack in a PS3 controller dies (none of my 4 controllers have died yet, after 2 years 11 months of use, by the way), you do not, in fact, have to buy a new controller. Sony has said they will replace the batteries for free (shipping possibly not included). You could also buy a replacement battery pack, readily available online, and follow the instructions in the PS3 manual to open the controller. Or you could get a longer usb cord and use it as a wired controller. Versus either a) buying new AA batteries frequently or B) buying a recharge pack/rechargable batteries. Which will die and need to be replaced at least as frequently as PS3's internal battery pack anyway. The only difference is Sony gives you the rechargable pack for free.

At the moment (Prices and bundles as available at BestBuy.com):

$299, 120 gb 360, 1 controller, headset, 2 mediocre games (Lego Batman, Pure) Does not include HDMI cable.

+50/year, LIVE

+100, wifi adaptor

+50, second controller

+30, charge n play kit

+10, second battery pack

------

$559, +50 per each additional year, since most people plan on playing a console for more than 1 year.

Note, they have a different 120 gb bundle that includes the same games, but throws in a second controller ($50) and an HDMI cable for 399 instead of 299. Since the controller is 50, and HDMI cables can be had for less than 10... seems like a bad deal to me.

$299 120 gb PS3, 1 controller. Does not include HDMI cables.

+0 PSN

+0 wifi

+55 second controller

+0 rechargable battery packs

+15, USB headset. Any USB or bluetooth headset will work.

+20, Lego Batman

+20, Pure

------

$409

There ya go. Exact same bundles. added in the extra features for each that the other has included, and the ps3 comes out 150 cheaper. Well, more than that, when you factor multiple years Live. And more still if you want a blu ray player. And you can skip out on the two mediocre games for the ps3 and put that 40 towards a GOOD game like Uncharted 2. HDMI was left out of each, because its basically a wash. Larger HDD was also left out, since that skews things way towards PS3. That's now. Could make a similar comparison at launch prices, and PS3 at 599 was STILL a better value than 360 at launch.

If you play online you buy a 360.

If you play by yourself or with people who come to your house buy a ps3.

James161324

i play online and i have a ps3

Paying for a service that the competition gives for free. Live is NOT significantly better than PSN, and that's basically an extra game every year you could buy.ianuilliam

Well, I payed for Live from maybe '03-'08. $4-5 a month? Please, it wasn't even noticeable. In fact, there were times where I'd go months without using it, and I didn't think twice about cancelling. The service is worth it. It's not all about the ps3 can do this, the xbox can do that, but moreso about the fact that as far as a gaming community is concerned, xbox live is far more active.

Comparing a $50 to $100 wifi adaptor to having to buy an hdmi cable is laughable. I bought an HDMI cable for my PS3 for under $10.ianuilliam

Sorry to bust your bubble, but a decent quality hdmi is going to run you at least 30-40 dollars.

When your internal battery pack in a PS3 controller dies (none of my 4 controllers have died yet, after 2 years 11 months of use, by the way), you do not, in fact, have to buy a new controller. Sony has said they will replace the batteries for free (shipping possibly not included). You could also buy a replacement battery pack, readily available online, and follow the instructions in the PS3 manual to open the controller. Or you could get a longer usb cord and use it as a wired controller. Versus either a) buying new AA batteries frequently or B) buying a recharge pack/rechargable batteries. Which will die and need to be replaced at least as frequently as PS3's internal battery pack anyway. The only difference is Sony gives you the rechargable pack for free.ianuilliam

I didn't know that about the sony controller. That seems like a sweet deal, but I think you exaggerate the 360 situation. Doesn't the charge pack come with the controller though? I don't even remember. I was always annoyed with the charge "kits" that microsoft sold.

At the moment (Prices and bundles as available at BestBuy.com):

$299, 120 gb 360, 1 controller, headset, 2 mediocre games (Lego Batman, Pure) Does not include HDMI cable.

+50/year, LIVE

+100, wifi adaptor

+50, second controller

+30, charge n play kit

+10, second battery pack

------

$559, +50 per each additional year, since most people plan on playing a console for more than 1 year.

Note, they have a different 120 gb bundle that includes the same games, but throws in a second controller ($50) and an HDMI cable for 399 instead of 299. Since the controller is 50, and HDMI cables can be had for less than 10... seems like a bad deal to me.ianulliam

Why aren't you including the modern warfare bundle? Look, I actually agree that the ps3 is probably the better deal, but you are coming off extremely biased.

Xbox 360 -$399

-250 gig hdd

-2 controllers

-MW2

-headset

-hdmi cable

-wifi? I decided to plug it into my router

...then

-$50 for xbox live

-the batteries will have to do for now. I'll buy more while i'm getting rubbers from the gas station. Chump change.

So that comes out to $450

$299 120 gb PS3, 1 controller. Does not include HDMI cables.

+0 PSN

+0 wifi

+55 second controller

+0 rechargable battery packs

+15, USB headset. Any USB or bluetooth headset will work.

+20, Lego Batman

+20, Pure

------

$409

There ya go. Exact same bundles. added in the extra features for each that the other has included, and the ps3 comes out 150 cheaper. Well, more than that, when you factor multiple years Live. And more still if you want a blu ray player. And you can skip out on the two mediocre games for the ps3 and put that 40 towards a GOOD game like Uncharted 2. HDMI was left out of each, because its basically a wash. Larger HDD was also left out, since that skews things way towards PS3. That's now. Could make a similar comparison at launch prices, and PS3 at 599 was STILL a better value than 360 at launch.

ianulliam

PS3 - $299-$349

-either 120gig hdd or $250gig hdd

-$55 extra controller

-$30 dollar hdmi cable

-$15 headset

-$60 game

-BLU RAY---a huge huge huge addition for ps3.

so that's either $460, or $510 depending on hdd size.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Paying for a service that the competition gives for free. Live is NOT significantly better than PSN, and that's basically an extra game every year you could buy.Heirren

Well, I payed for Live from maybe '03-'08. $4-5 a month? Please, it wasn't even noticeable. In fact, there were times where I'd go months without using it, and I didn't think twice about cancelling. The service is worth it. It's not all about the ps3 can do this, the xbox can do that, but moreso about the fact that as far as a gaming community is concerned, xbox live is far more active.

Comparing a $50 to $100 wifi adaptor to having to buy an hdmi cable is laughable. I bought an HDMI cable for my PS3 for under $10.ianuilliam

Sorry to bust your bubble, but a decent quality hdmi is going to run you at least 30-40 dollars.

When your internal battery pack in a PS3 controller dies (none of my 4 controllers have died yet, after 2 years 11 months of use, by the way), you do not, in fact, have to buy a new controller. Sony has said they will replace the batteries for free (shipping possibly not included). You could also buy a replacement battery pack, readily available online, and follow the instructions in the PS3 manual to open the controller. Or you could get a longer usb cord and use it as a wired controller. Versus either a) buying new AA batteries frequently or B) buying a recharge pack/rechargable batteries. Which will die and need to be replaced at least as frequently as PS3's internal battery pack anyway. The only difference is Sony gives you the rechargable pack for free.ianuilliam

I didn't know that about the sony controller. That seems like a sweet deal, but I think you exaggerate the 360 situation. Doesn't the charge pack come with the controller though? I don't even remember. I was always annoyed with the charge "kits" that microsoft sold.

At the moment (Prices and bundles as available at BestBuy.com):

$299, 120 gb 360, 1 controller, headset, 2 mediocre games (Lego Batman, Pure) Does not include HDMI cable.

+50/year, LIVE

+100, wifi adaptor

+50, second controller

+30, charge n play kit

+10, second battery pack

------

$559, +50 per each additional year, since most people plan on playing a console for more than 1 year.

Note, they have a different 120 gb bundle that includes the same games, but throws in a second controller ($50) and an HDMI cable for 399 instead of 299. Since the controller is 50, and HDMI cables can be had for less than 10... seems like a bad deal to me.ianulliam

Why aren't you including the modern warfare bundle? Look, I actually agree that the ps3 is probably the better deal, but you are coming off extremely biased.

Xbox 360 -$399

-250 gig hdd

-2 controllers

-MW2

-headset

-hdmi cable

-wifi? I decided to plug it into my router

...then

-$50 for xbox live

-the batteries will have to do for now. I'll buy more while i'm getting rubbers from the gas station. Chump change.

So that comes out to $450

$299 120 gb PS3, 1 controller. Does not include HDMI cables.

+0 PSN

+0 wifi

+55 second controller

+0 rechargable battery packs

+15, USB headset. Any USB or bluetooth headset will work.

+20, Lego Batman

+20, Pure

------

$409

There ya go. Exact same bundles. added in the extra features for each that the other has included, and the ps3 comes out 150 cheaper. Well, more than that, when you factor multiple years Live. And more still if you want a blu ray player. And you can skip out on the two mediocre games for the ps3 and put that 40 towards a GOOD game like Uncharted 2. HDMI was left out of each, because its basically a wash. Larger HDD was also left out, since that skews things way towards PS3. That's now. Could make a similar comparison at launch prices, and PS3 at 599 was STILL a better value than 360 at launch.

ianulliam

PS3 - $299-$349

-either 120gig hdd or $250gig hdd

-$55 extra controller

-$30 dollar hdmi cable

-$15 headset

-$60 game

-BLU RAY---a huge huge huge addition for ps3.

so that's either $460, or $510 depending on hdd size.

No, there is no discernable differnce between $10 HDMI and $100 HDMI, at short distances like 3-6 feet. It's a digital signal, it's either there, or not there. The only reason to buy better cables is signal degradation, which isn't going to be a factor at cables under 10' or so.

No, the 360 doesn't come with a charge pack. It costs extra.

I didn't include the MW bundle because BestBuy.com didn't offer it. I could go hunting at every store and find the best possible bundle, but I don't think it would be worth the time, or a fair comparison. I'm sure some of those PS3 Holiday bundles with multiple games (real games, not Lego Batman and Pure) are floating around, too. Instead, I used one stores prices, and compared like features to like features, which equals a huge cost advantage for PS3.

Wired isn't an option to everyone, so for fairness, I included a wifi upgrade for both. You left out the 200 more for the other 4 years of Live. And seriously, I promise, a $10 hdmi displays 1080p and lossless audio just like a $50 or $100 one.

Seriously? What else does Live have over PSN?ianuilliam

I suppose part of it is the community. There's a better feel of competition. When people pay for something that's offered for free elsewhere, it generally creates a more serious tone--or seriousness towards the games being played in general.

No, there is no discernable differnce between $10 HDMI and $100 HDMI, at short distances like 3-6 feet. It's a digital signal, it's either there, or not there. The only reason to buy better cables is signal degradation, which isn't going to be a factor at cables under 10' or so.ianuilliam

I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. I run my playstation and xbox through a Denon reciever. When I bought it, ABT cut a few extra hdmi cables for me. The cables being cut were essentially perks for buying from them. Essentially cheaper cables. I've replaced them since then. Part of the reason you buy a better cable is for the connection to the device itself. A Sony or MS cable is going to fit like a glove. A cheap cable fits flimsy, there's no testing involved, and can actually damage the console itself, in the long run.

No, the 360 doesn't come with a charge pack. It costs extra.ianuilliam

I know the system doesn't, but I swear that the extra controller I bought way back when came with the battery pack and the usb dongle.

I didn't include the MW bundle because BestBuy.com didn't offer it. I could go hunting at every store and find the best possible bundle, but I don't think it would be worth the time, or a fair comparison. I'm sure some of those PS3 Holiday bundles with multiple games (real games, not Lego Batman and Pure) are floating around, too. Instead, I used one stores prices, and compared like features to like features, which equals a huge cost advantage for PS3.

Wired isn't an option to everyone, so for fairness, I included a wifi upgrade for both. You left out the 200 more for the other 4 years of Live. And seriously, I promise, a $10 hdmi displays 1080p and lossless audio just like a $50 or $100 one.

ianuilliam

I suppose the fairest way is to compare no bundles then. Look, I bought a 360 shortly after it was released. It wasn't until the slim was released that I picked up the ps3. Afterwards, its readily apparent that the ps3 screams of higher quality, in just about every regard. This is more why I think it's the better deal: The ps3 feels like it was made by professionals, and the 360 machine feels like it was constructed from spare parts.

Here's an analogy.

ps3: Vincent.

Xbox360: Old Bob

I suppose part of it is the community. There's a better feel of competition. When people pay for something that's offered for free elsewhere, it generally creates a more serious tone--or seriousness towards the games being played in general.

Heirren

I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. I run my playstation and xbox through a Denon reciever. When I bought it, ABT cut a few extra hdmi cables for me. The cables being cut were essentially perks for buying from them. Essentially cheaper cables. I've replaced them since then. Part of the reason you buy a better cable is for the connection to the device itself. A Sony or MS cable is going to fit like a glove. A cheap cable fits flimsy, there's no testing involved, and can actually damage the console itself, in the long run.

Heirren

I suppose the fairest way is to compare no bundles then.

Heirren

Look, I bought a 360 shortly after it was released. It wasn't until the slim was released that I picked up the ps3. Afterwards, its readily apparent that the ps3 screams of higher quality, in just about every regard. This is more why I think it's the better deal: The ps3 feels like it was made by professionals, and the 360 machine feels like it was constructed from spare parts.

Heirren