CNet declares the Xbox better "Gaming" Console

I own a PS3, and the other night I was browsing CNet reviews and noticed a "Prizefight" between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and I watched it. Basic gist is the PS3 won in looks and features, tied in graphics, but the Xbox took games and more bang for your buck and the biggie; Online Play. However the very clear point made at the end was as of right now for buying something JUST for games, the 360 is a better choice. If you own an HDTV, PS3 is the way to go (Unless you buy a Blue Ray Player). One thing I normally would disagree on was games, however it made good points with XBL Arcade, and of course backwards capability.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;snav

The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

PS3 is starting to build momentum in exclusives, while 360 seems to be winding down.

This will be one interesting year for sure.

Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?Espada12

People should just own both....So they can see for themselves what a joke the PS3 turned out to be.Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.RStar9

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

actually COD is about the same on both networks....ive witnessed it myself, but everything is subjective

[QUOTE="RStar9"]

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.hyperboy152000

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

actually COD is about the same on both networks....ive witnessed it myself, but everything is subjective

Lag wise I would agree. Dropped games, game ended due to host, waiting for a game to start only to be kicked out of the waiting room only to start again. Those arent even in the same world. I had COD4 on the 360 and played the hell out of it, but all my buddys own PS3's, and turned from very, VERY casual gamers to COD freaks who played for hours a day, so I decided to pick it up on the PS3. The in game experience is almost the exact same, but to start a match, or the one out of 3 games that end before they should comes exclusive with the PS3. Its to the point where all my friends said if they had the extra cash they would get a 360 just for the online gaming.

And NHL09 is even worse when comparing systems.

Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?Espada12

I own a PS3, and the other night I was browsing CNet reviews and noticed a "Prizefight" between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and I watched it. Basic gist is the PS3 won in looks and features, tied in graphics, but the Xbox took games and more bang for your buck and the biggie; Online Play. However the very clear point made at the end was as of right now for buying something JUST for games, the 360 is a better choice. If you own an HDTV, PS3 is the way to go (Unless you buy a Blue Ray Player). One thing I normally would disagree on was games, however it made good points with XBL Arcade, and of course backwards capability.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;snav

Lalucar

does that mean that the physical PS3 is more appealing then the physical xbox360? thats a load of crap...the 360 is way prettier. the ps3 is rather ugly if you ask me, it looks like a giant VCR.

People should just own both....So they can see for themselves what a joke the PS3 turned out to be.Riverwolf007

I enjoy my PS3. Metal Gear to me was the best game last year, even over Fallout3. I also thought Uncharted was a highly underrated game. It brought back the fun of the original Tomb Raider games, and had a great story. Ratchet and Clank was another underrated game, and theres nothing close to it on the 360. Im also counting down the days for Killzone 2, which should be amazing online, although I dont agree with some of the over hyped "Best Graphics EV3R!" or all the talk about the AI, I saw nothing special about the AI in the demo.

I digress, while I think the 360 is a better gaming machine, the PS3 has its fair share of games, and I also get to justify all the money I put into my home theater with my blu ray player. Another thing that gets swept under the rug is that the PS3 is a much better media extender, so I can watch movies and listen to music that I have dl'd on my home server.

All in all I find them to be equal systems, with the 360 a better gaming console, and the PS3 being the better entertainment system.

[QUOTE="Lalucar"]

I own a PS3, and the other night I was browsing CNet reviews and noticed a "Prizefight" between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and I watched it. Basic gist is the PS3 won in looks and features, tied in graphics, but the Xbox took games and more bang for your buck and the biggie; Online Play. However the very clear point made at the end was as of right now for buying something JUST for games, the 360 is a better choice. If you own an HDTV, PS3 is the way to go (Unless you buy a Blue Ray Player). One thing I normally would disagree on was games, however it made good points with XBL Arcade, and of course backwards capability.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;snav

Noverech

does that mean that the physical PS3 is more appealing then the physical xbox360? thats a load of crap...the 360 is way prettier. the ps3 is rather ugly if you ask me, it looks like a giant VCR.

I cant say as I agree. My TV, PVR, component box ect are all black with steel accents, and the PS3 looks great sitting beside all of them. My 360 on the other hand is a huge white distraction that doesnt mesh well with any of my other electronics other than my Wii. If I werent able to hide the power brick it would look even worse.

I own a PS3, and the other night I was browsing CNet reviews and noticed a "Prizefight" between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and I watched it. Basic gist is the PS3 won in looks and features, tied in graphics, but the Xbox took games and more bang for your buck and the biggie; Online Play. However the very clear point made at the end was as of right now for buying something JUST for games, the 360 is a better choice. If you own an HDTV, PS3 is the way to go (Unless you buy a Blue Ray Player). One thing I normally would disagree on was games, however it made good points with XBL Arcade, and of course backwards capability.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;snav

does that mean that the physical PS3 is more appealing then the physical xbox360? thats a load of crap...the 360 is way prettier. the ps3 is rather ugly if you ask me, it looks like a giant VCR.

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.RStar9

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

Bang for you buck for a gaming console? How does that add more "bang for your buck"? Clearly you do not understand the meaning of that phrase. You still have to purchase the games, most of which are the same price on the PS3. It's not about which is cheaper; it's about what offers more in relation to price. And the online experiences are basically equal. I have absolutely no problem getting into a CoD4 game online, whereupon I play with little or no lag. And it's free. I couldn't care less about the bells and whistles of Xbox Live.

As for games, I stand by my initial statement. The PS3 looks to add two more AAAE's within the next two weeks (Killzone 2 & MLB 09 [Can't be played on 360, which is what is relevant in this particular debate]).

The PS3 is the better overall value, which is what I explained in my first post. No hate here, my friend.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?tupapi006

Yes thats the logic. But the scary thing is this is true.

[QUOTE="RStar9"]

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

Bang for you buck for a gaming console? How does that add more "bang for your buck"? Clearly you do not understand the meaning of that phrase. You still have to purchase the games, most of which are the same price on the PS3. It's not about which is cheaper; it's about what offers more in relation to price. And the online experiences are basically equal. I have absolutely no problem getting into a CoD4 game online, whereupon I play with little or no lag. And it's free. I couldn't care less about the bells and whistles of Xbox Live.

As for games, I stand by my initial statement. The PS3 looks to add two more AAAE's within the next two weeks (Killzone 2 & MLB 09 [Can't be played on 360, which is what is relevant in this particular debate]).

The PS3 is the better overall value, which is what I explained in my first post. No hate here, my friend.

The power of the media in effect buddy. They can't change the facts(...most of the time), but they are good at telling the public what to think.

[QUOTE="Noverech"][QUOTE="Lalucar"]

I own a PS3, and the other night I was browsing CNet reviews and noticed a "Prizefight" between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and I watched it. Basic gist is the PS3 won in looks and features, tied in graphics, but the Xbox took games and more bang for your buck and the biggie; Online Play. However the very clear point made at the end was as of right now for buying something JUST for games, the 360 is a better choice. If you own an HDTV, PS3 is the way to go (Unless you buy a Blue Ray Player). One thing I normally would disagree on was games, however it made good points with XBL Arcade, and of course backwards capability.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/?tag=hdr;snav

RStar9

does that mean that the physical PS3 is more appealing then the physical xbox360? thats a load of crap...the 360 is way prettier. the ps3 is rather ugly if you ask me, it looks like a giant VCR.

I cant say as I agree. My TV, PVR, component box ect are all black with steel accents, and the PS3 looks great sitting beside all of them. My 360 on the other hand is a huge white distraction that doesnt mesh well with any of my other electronics other than my Wii. If I werent able to hide the power brick it would look even worse.

true i guess it does match with other black electronics but the ps3 has a very wierd shape to it, and it extremely big, its not like the 360 which is a symetrical box and i like the green circle thing when you turn it on.

[QUOTE="RStar9"][QUOTE="Noverech"]

does that mean that the physical PS3 is more appealing then the physical xbox360? thats a load of crap...the 360 is way prettier. the ps3 is rather ugly if you ask me, it looks like a giant VCR.

Noverech

I cant say as I agree. My TV, PVR, component box ect are all black with steel accents, and the PS3 looks great sitting beside all of them. My 360 on the other hand is a huge white distraction that doesnt mesh well with any of my other electronics other than my Wii. If I werent able to hide the power brick it would look even worse.

true i guess it does match with other black electronics but the ps3 has a very wierd shape to it, and it extremely big, its not like the 360 which is a symetrical box and i like the green circle thing when you turn it on.

[QUOTE="tupapi006"][QUOTE="Espada12"]Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?PSdual_wielder

Yes thats the logic. But the scary thing is this is true.

no it's not. stop making things up

its just an opinion.. mine for example is that while both PS3 & 360 offer some amazing exclusives, PS3's are overall better and definately enjoy more gaming on my PS3 than on 360..

[QUOTE="RStar9"]

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

Bang for you buck for a gaming console? How does that add more "bang for your buck"? Clearly you do not understand the meaning of that phrase. You still have to purchase the games, most of which are the same price on the PS3. It's not about which is cheaper; it's about what offers more in relation to price. And the online experiences are basically equal. I have absolutely no problem getting into a CoD4 game online, whereupon I play with little or no lag. And it's free. I couldn't care less about the bells and whistles of Xbox Live.

As for games, I stand by my initial statement. The PS3 looks to add two more AAAE's within the next two weeks (Killzone 2 & MLB 09 [Can't be played on 360, which is what is relevant in this particular debate]).

The PS3 is the better overall value, which is what I explained in my first post. No hate here, my friend.

Its not bells and whistles, its a better online experience. You can not sit there and say you havent had COD games end mid way through, or joined a match only for it not to start.

As far as bang for your buck, I dont get how you arent getting what we're saying. The 360 costs less, and at the moment has better games. Im not sure why game prices has anything to do with how much you are paying for the console.

Also, while I agree with Killzone 2 being a system sell, I hardly see how a baseball game is going to be a huge hit for the PS3. I owned MLB 08 last year, and while it was better than ESPN's offering (off of reviews, never played ESPN last year) Its not a game I would put in to showcase why the PS3 is better, thats for sure.

You can agrue that the PS3 will lead in exlusives by the summer, I dont agree, but both sides have a good case so that ones just up to personal preference. But I dont see how anyone can make a plausible argument that the PS3 online experience is equal to live. Anyone who is not a PS3 first guy will laugh at that statement.

Something else that wasnt brought up is DLC, in which the 360 obviously leads.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?LibertySaint

Yeah, MS has its hands in a lot of stuff but I don't think they have any connection with CNET. However G4 is another story.

As a multiplat owner, I agree with those points. It's true I have a lot of features in my 60 Gb PS3, but they weren't needed. teufelherz

I use most of them I think, but the one feature I didnt get with my 40 gig was backwards compatibility. Pisses me off, because I'd love to go through FFXII again, but I traded my old PS2 for a satellite dish....

The PSN seriously needs to be revamped.. It is simplistic, with mimimal amount options compared to XBL.. Not to mention Xbox's arcade puts Sony's to shame, I mean come on! the PSN has been out for 3 and we only ave like 2 dozen ps1 games on download.. Most of them not very good either.sSubZerOo

People should just own both....So they can see for themselves what a joke the PS3 turned out to be.Riverwolf007

thats completely true i regret buying mine to this day, but am waiting to beat GOWIII so i can sell it.

It is a better bang for the buck. Many people don't want Blu-ray they want a GAME CONSOLE. KK.

It has more games, better online, better controller. I like the 360 more.

GAME CONSOLE. 360 also has netflix.

It is a better bang for the buck. Many people don't want Blu-ray they want a GAME CONSOLE. KK.

It has more games, better online, better controller. I like the 360 more.

GAME CONSOLE. 360 also has netflix.

Omni-Wrath

[QUOTE="tupapi006"][QUOTE="Espada12"]Isn't Cnet owned by MS or something like that?PSdual_wielder

Yes thats the logic. But the scary thing is this is true.

no it's not. :|

[QUOTE="RStar9"]

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]The Xbox 360 offers more "bang for your buck" than the Playstation 3? For the entry level price of $400, you get a fine selection of quality games that looks to overtake that of the 360's by summer,, Blu-ray playback, free online with no more lag than the 360's pay service, web browser, built-in wi-fi, Home, free themes/wallpapers, rechargeable controllers, and a standard HDD. How can the 360 possibly offer "more bang for your buck." That's just absurd.Jared2720

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

Bang for you buck for a gaming console? How does that add more "bang for your buck"? Clearly you do not understand the meaning of that phrase. You still have to purchase the games, most of which are the same price on the PS3. It's not about which is cheaper; it's about what offers more in relation to price. And the online experiences are basically equal. I have absolutely no problem getting into a CoD4 game online, whereupon I play with little or no lag. And it's free. I couldn't care less about the bells and whistles of Xbox Live.

As for games, I stand by my initial statement. The PS3 looks to add two more AAAE's within the next two weeks (Killzone 2 & MLB 09 [Can't be played on 360, which is what is relevant in this particular debate]).

The PS3 is the better overall value, which is what I explained in my first post. No hate here, my friend.

Well, here's the thing about that.

Value is relative. What is valuable to you may or may not be valuable to someone else.

Round 7 - reliability

PS3 - 5.0

Xbox 360 - 1.3

PS3 wins

[QUOTE="Jared2720"][QUOTE="RStar9"]

Its bang for your buck for a gaming console. Not for a blu ray player or media extender. First, you saying the online experiences are equal shows that you've never played live, and have no idea what you're talking about. I have both systems and on multi plat games like COD it runs worlds better on the 360. And the PS3's library is going to overtake the 360's by summer? Says who, you? What blind hate.

The_Game21x

Bang for you buck for a gaming console? How does that add more "bang for your buck"? Clearly you do not understand the meaning of that phrase. You still have to purchase the games, most of which are the same price on the PS3. It's not about which is cheaper; it's about what offers more in relation to price. And the online experiences are basically equal. I have absolutely no problem getting into a CoD4 game online, whereupon I play with little or no lag. And it's free. I couldn't care less about the bells and whistles of Xbox Live.

As for games, I stand by my initial statement. The PS3 looks to add two more AAAE's within the next two weeks (Killzone 2 & MLB 09 [Can't be played on 360, which is what is relevant in this particular debate]).

The PS3 is the better overall value, which is what I explained in my first post. No hate here, my friend.

Well, here's the thing about that.

Value is relative. What is valuable to you may or may not be valuable to someone else.

Then isnt which console is better subjective??.Who gives biasednet the right to go out and say that 360 is more value when I cant even freaking recharge the controller before spending 20 dollars extra.Cnet is stupid and f'ed up.And I stopped caring about the video when they didnt even mention the 360's hardware issues and said that ps3's design was only a mere 0.3 points better than 360 even after the fact that 360 is ugly,breaks down,scratches disk,feels cheap with its loud fan and dvd drive,list goes on and on.Seriously cnet FU

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

Well, here's the thing about that.

Value is relative. What is valuable to you may or may not be valuable to someone else.

-hells-

Then isnt which console is better subjective??.Who gives biasednet the right to go out and say that 360 is more value when I cant even freaking recharge the controller before spending 20 dollars extra.Cnet is stupid and f'ed up.And I stopped caring about the video when they didnt even mention the 360's hardware issues and said that ps3's design was only a mere 0.3 points better than 360 even after the fact that 360 is ugly,breaks down,scratches disk,feels cheap with its loud fan and dvd drive,list goes on and on.Seriously cnet FU

"biasednet". Creative. :roll:

And what you obviously fail to understand is that the entirety of the video is comprised of the subjective opinions of the three judges in the video and it was a subjective consensus among them that the 360 was the better gaming console.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of that tirade.