Longevity PS3 vs 360.

We all hear always how 360 fans always use the community number of certain games as an excuse to downplay PS3 games,for exmaple Halo 3 big community that still play vs Killzone 2 that by some here few play online now.

The problem is that when the topic is longevity no 360 game can touch the PS3,and that include multiplatform games why you people may ask.?

Is simple the PS3 is online ready out of the box which mean that every single game you buy that has multiplayer can be play without anything more been need it but an internet connection,on the xbox 360 Longevity on exclusive and multiplatform games is not out of the box even that they are included on the disc,because to play online you have to pay.

Easy example of a so call superior version,for exmaple RDR on PS3 i can go online without needing anything else,on 360 if you don't have live gold like a huge % of their userbase you can't get online to play even that6 you pay the same ammount of money i pay for the game.

Now i know that some of you will do the usual lets break live fee into small parst it doen't change the fact that without live non of the multiplaying part of games work non,son when it comes to longevity no 360 game touch the PS3 really.

Now this is my first thread and is not just flames it has an actual valid point.

make one coherent point that we can discuss

if this is what it comes to downplay the player activity of Killzone and Halo. and the subHD of RDR on PS3.

then congrats. keep making excuses.

So the 360 lacks longevity because you pay for online? Thats ridiculous lol

So the 360 lacks longevity because you pay for online? Thats ridiculous lol

Anjunaddict

he's going to hide the XBL/point cards at your local retailer now:lol:

Don't know about online play, but based on Sony's track record, PS3s will probably be in stores much longer than 360s once this generation starts wrapping up.

I think I can agree with you to a point but when the games generally cost more on the PS3 and you have an automatic $60 for XBL it really depends on what amount of games you're playing. At gamestop here COD4 is $15 on 360 and $30 on PS3, these things add up. Of course if you buy all your games when they're new then the PS3 would end up on top. I don't think the question you're really getting into is longevity but more value and that was is a clear PS3 winner. I don't mind paying for XBL because when I play SF4 or SSF4 I can ALWAYS find a match really fast on the 360 that's not always true with PS3 and TvC on Wii is even worse.

make one coherent point that we can discuss

HailedJohnDman

Hah, I was thinking something along those lines.

We all hear always how 360 fans always use the community number of certain games as an excuse to downplay PS3 games,for exmaple Halo 3 big community that still play vs Killzone 2 that by some here few play online now.

The problem is that when the topic is longevity no 360 game can touch the PS3,and that include multiplatform games why you people may ask.?

Is simple the PS3 is online ready out of the box which mean that every single game you buy that has multiplayer can be play without anything more been need it but an internet connection,on the xbox 360 Longevity on exclusive and multiplatform games is not out of the box even that they are included on the disc,because to play online you have to pay.

Easy example of a so call superior version,for exmaple RDR on PS3 i can go online without needing anything else,on 360 if you don't have live gold like a huge % of their userbase you can't get online to play even that6 you pay the same ammount of money i pay for the game.

Now i know that some of you will do the usual lets break live fee into small parst it doen't change the fact that without live non of the multiplaying part of games work non,son when it comes to longevity no 360 game touch the PS3 really.

Now this is my first thread and is not just flames it has an actual valid point.

Um ok so let me see if I follow. The PS3 is better and will last longer because it has free online for now. Ok nice opinion. Millions and millions of Live players probably disagree, but ok.

360´s games last alot more since most of them have great online options (Gears, L4D, Halo, etc...) not to talk about splitscreen coop.

Xbox Live is a service i pay for once a year for All my games, not just Red Dead Redemtion. Its not like i buy a game and then have to buy Live to play it online. I have both ps3 and xbox360. I could play for free on psn, but i would much rather pay and play on Live.

..but i will add. For single player and exclusive games, the ps3 may have better longevity than the 360. Put 360 owns online multiplayer.

I think he's trying to say because a majority of 360 users don't have live (how does he know?), that the majority miss out on the longevity offered by 360 titles, while the all users on the PS3 get everything the game offers without having to pay. A ridiculous argument, but I think that's what it translates to.

compelling argument, i agree the wii does have the most longetivity

I think he's trying to say because a majority of 360 users don't have live (how does he know?), that the majority miss out on the longevity offered by 360 titles, while the all users on the PS3 get everything the game offers without having to pay. A ridiculous argument, but I think that's what it translates to.

Twin-Blade

I understand where you are coming from TC, but I wish that Sony's online had a bit more going for it aside from the fact that it's free. It's usually a pain in the ass to get an online game going with people on your friends list. Even though you have to pay for live, I appreciate the ease of getting a group of people together from your friends list and playing a game (most of the time). I don't think any of that has to do with longevity, because if you are going by the online component XBL wins. It's been out longer and people spend more time playing games online on XBL than they do on PSN imo.

How old is he? 12?

I don't think the live fee can be factored into longevity. I can see it being used as a general negative, but not in that way.

I personally feel PS3 exclusives have more longevity than 360 ones, and they age better as well.

I think that the good xbox live games, the Gears of Wars and the Halos will outlive Sony's games in terms of how long people will be playing them. Multiplats will more than likely have people playing them longer on the 360. I think that you do make a valid point about having to pay for xbox live. That does mean you have to make a little bit of extra effort to get started playing online...however, I don't really see what that has to do with longevity. It doesn't change the fact that 2 years from now I'll still play Halo Reach sometimes...Killzone 3, I'll be lucky to playing that 6 months after it comes out (not to say it won't be a great game). The thing sony has going for them though, is that you'll always have some new exclusive game to look forward to in the near future. M$ isn't as good at that.

How old is he? 12?

Hatiko

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

How old is he? 12?

ALTAIR360

He's level 7, said that was his (or her) first thread and has 372 posts or something like that. I don't think so.

I think 360 wins in longevity.

Is funny people actually think that live integration comes from the fee they pay.:roll:

The xbox 360 integration comes from MS been a software company at heart not from the $50 they charge you,if there is a compan y on this planet that can offer free online play with all the features live has is MS and free,because we all know how deep are their pockets.

Is like that sad notion of some fans here who think Sony exclusives look so good because Sony trow a ton of cash that no other developer would be able to trow on a game development.

This is simple with $360 dollars i buy a PS3 and a game that i can play online from go,with $360 dollars on 360 you can't do that because all multiplaying are block by live,is not a live $50 vs PSN free thread,is about the fact that out of the box xbox 360 games can't access multiplaying,which is a big part of the games,which add tons of value and logevity to the game as you can't access it out of the box.

Price drops + Blu Ray + Kinect failure = PS3 having more longevity.

They're going to have very similar longevity, because Sony and Microsoft will attempt to release their next consoles as close to each other as possible so nobody gets too much of an advantage.Danm_999

So what your saying is, you dont get full access to the whole game without paying extra money for a live account. Thats a fact, i dont see how that effects longevity. On any system, Sony, MS or Nintendo terminated the online service you would loose a good portion of alot of games.djsifer01

You don't see how is easy,is you have MW2 for 360 and i have it for PS3,and both are tire of playing the offline mode the games have like story and spec ops,and we want more i automatically get more,since on PS3 there is not limitation for going online,you on the other hand if you don't have live gold like million of 360 owners out there,you just can't access that part no matter what,and while i get killstreaks,prestiges and play with my friends online you can't you are bound to play offline.

There is a difference between terminating a service after several years on the run,in favor of a new system and been unable to access modes in games because one of the units doesn't allow it out of the box.