The Playstation 3 SHOULD be #1

Now, the context in which I say that isn't fanboyism - just look at me, with my Gears avatar and Halo signature.

But think about it, this is how much software matters.

By nearly EVERY count, the PS3 has an advantage over the 360:

- Built-in hard drive

- Blu-Ray

- Six-Axis

- Processing power

- Free online, soon to be including Home

...except software.

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

But it isn't.

Because of games. Now, the PS3's got a strong year ahead of it, but not for a while. It'll probably be summer before the console gets any of its big exclusives for the year. Before that happens, gamers on the 360 will probably get two more high-profile exclusives in the way of Too Human and NG2 (probably).

It's almost a pity, actually. Not that the 360 has such great games - I love my 360. But that the PS3 is lagging behind while it has so many features that should make it irresistable, and is taking so long to get that killer app library.

In a lot of ways, it feels like Sony just wasn't ready to start next-gen. Like they rushed to get the console out the door - albeit, their rushing didn't cost the console to become a volatile ticking time bomb the way that MS' rushing did. What I mean is that Home wasn't ready, a lot of the development strangth wasn't quite there yet...thus, you had all the "evolving experience" comments and now the "just wait" crap.

You're right and '08 completely solves the software issue so it will be interesting to see how things turn out.

Also, why did you mention Too Human :(

You're right and '08 completely solves the software issue so it will be interesting to see how things turn out.

Also, why did you mention Too Human :(

Action-Gamer

Too Human will be good.You'll see.

I don't think sony rushed anything. It took around 5 years to develop the PS3. What they did was take risks (the cell chip, Blu-ray). That's why it's behind in software. Before the PS3, nobody made any games on a cell processor. It's mostly about the hardware. It's a very different platform for developers and so far, it looks like they have gotten used to it. But to really get the most out of the PS3, it will take a lot of work. Until new code can be written for developing games on the cell processor, it's gonna take a while, Like the PS2 did.dream431ca

I definetely agree that developers have had to rethink a lot, and thus take longer to get used to the hardware. But I think it's unfair to say "just like the PS did"...the PS2's launch sucked, but it got a pretty good library goin' much sooner than the PS3 has.

I think Sony just got arrogant and the high price turned away so many sales, which turned away devs.

They're fixing their mistakes though and I think the library will begin to look really nice very soon, and by the end of 2008, the PS3 will probably be cheaper, and seen in a more positive light by the gaming community. We'll see... it's got a bright future though, I think.

I like having a removable hard drive. I can take it over to a friends house instead of my entire console which is really handy.Juggernaut140

Really? I've been over to people's homes with 360's many, many, many times. And I haven't ONCE removed my HDD to take it with me. The only thing you'd really need to take with you are game saves. Use a memory card, it'll fit.

I'll take better loading over HDD portability ANY DAY.

They are first and foremost GAMING systems. And if you lack games, you will lag behind, that's just it.Exeed_Orbit

so true

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]I like having a removable hard drive. I can take it over to a friends house instead of my entire console which is really handy.jvonrader

Really? I've been over to people's homes with 360's many, many, many times. And I haven't ONCE removed my HDD to take it with me. The only thing you'd really need to take with you are game saves. Use a memory card, it'll fit.

I'll take better loading over HDD portability ANY DAY.

My brother took my memory card when he moved :(

Plus I save everything to my hard drive

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]I don't think sony rushed anything. It took around 5 years to develop the PS3. What they did was take risks (the cell chip, Blu-ray). That's why it's behind in software. Before the PS3, nobody made any games on a cell processor. It's mostly about the hardware. It's a very different platform for developers and so far, it looks like they have gotten used to it. But to really get the most out of the PS3, it will take a lot of work. Until new code can be written for developing games on the cell processor, it's gonna take a while, Like the PS2 did.jvonrader

I definetely agree that developers have had to rethink a lot, and thus take longer to get used to the hardware. But I think it's unfair to say "just like the PS did"...the PS2's launch sucked, but it got a pretty good library goin' much sooner than the PS3 has.

The PS2 launch did suck and PS3 launch was just about a failure(well, not quite), but if you look at the PS3 now, it's made quite a comeback. I think Sony did what they should have. Good and reliable hardware, in the long run, will amount to great software.

Having Haze delayed was a big blow to the PS3's lineup, it was supposed to keep the system's momentum going after Uncharted and R&C Future. Instead, it's now taking this extended down-time (aside from multiplats, of course) until summer.

Please its a gaming system! It's about the games! How many times must we tell you this!

so it won't be number one until it has the number one game library

How many times must we tell you this

deadesa

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have I ever spoken to you before?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, bud. Read the post.

Having Haze delayed was a big blow to the PS3's lineup, it was supposed to keep the system's momentum going after Uncharted and R&C Future. Instead, it's now taking this extended down-time (aside from multiplats, of course) until summer.

jvonrader

The PS3 is truly more bang for your buck.

Please its a gaming system! It's about the games! How many times must we tell you this!

so it won't be number one until it has the number one game library

deadesa

That logic was disproven with the Wii.

360 has the best library but Wii is winning. The number one gaming consoles is not about games its about casual appeal. It was just a coincidence that SNES, PS1, PS2, etc had the best game libraries. This gen proves that the system with the best game library isn't #1.

The PS3 is truly more bang for your buck.

ReverseCycology

[QUOTE="deadesa"]

How many times must we tell you this

jvonrader

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have I ever spoken to you before?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, bud. Read the post.

I wasn't speaking directly to you

[QUOTE="jvonrader"][QUOTE="deadesa"]

How many times must we tell you this

deadesa

The fact that "It's about the games" is the gist of what I'm saying here. Because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would dominate the market right now.

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have I ever spoken to you before?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, bud. Read the post.

I wasn't speaking directly to you

That "it's all about the games" was the gist of my post - because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would be dominating.

...except software.

jvonrader

You were doing good until here. This contradiction killed your post as software is the most important part of a games system. Also when you are talking number 1 you should be talking about Wii not the 360.

[QUOTE="deadesa"][QUOTE="jvonrader"][QUOTE="deadesa"]

How many times must we tell you this

jvonrader

The fact that "It's about the games" is the gist of what I'm saying here. Because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would dominate the market right now.

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have I ever spoken to you before?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, bud. Read the post.

I wasn't speaking directly to you

That "it's all about the games" was the gist of my post - because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would be dominating.

I apologise I didn't read your post in full, its just when I see a topic the likes of yours I automatically write it off as fanboy drivel, another thread curtailing the idea that cows are just angry at the fact sony was silly enough to release a truly next-gen console with less than next-gen game titles. It really was one of the biggest upsets in gaming history, but thankfully I believe they have learned there lesson in that regard... now only if we can get them to loosen up on the whole holy-er then now sony persona :p

[QUOTE="jvonrader"]

...except software.

Blackbond

You were doing good until here. This contradiction killed your post as software is the most important part of a games system. Also when you are talking number 1 you should be talking about Wii not the 360.

That's the point of this thread, skippy. That games are the most important - because every other sign points to the PS3.

[QUOTE="jvonrader"][QUOTE="deadesa"][QUOTE="jvonrader"][QUOTE="deadesa"]

How many times must we tell you this

deadesa

The fact that "It's about the games" is the gist of what I'm saying here. Because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would dominate the market right now.

I'm sorry, do I know you? Have I ever spoken to you before?

I'm not a PS3 fanboy, bud. Read the post.

I wasn't speaking directly to you

That "it's all about the games" was the gist of my post - because, if it was anything else, the PS3 would be dominating.

I apologise I didn't read your post in full, its just when I see a topic the likes of yours I automatically write it off as fanboy drivel, another thread curtailing the idea that cows are just angry at the fact sony was silly enough to release a truly next-gen console with less than next-gen game titles. It really was one of the biggest upsets in gaming history, but thankfully I believe they have learned there lesson in that regard... now only if we can get them to loosen up on the whole holy-er then now sony persona :p

Well, Kutaragi's gone, so the head-up-the-ass arrogance over there is lower than it used to be.

In that sense, it was good for Sony to be wooped up on. Might have taught them to never take gamers for granted - i.e., their comment about selling 5M without any games.

Well, Kutaragi's gone, so the head-up-the-ass arrogance over there is lower than it used to be.

In that sense, it was good for Sony to be wooped up on. Might have taught them to never take gamers for granted - i.e., their comment about selling 5M without any games.

jvonrader

Sony just lost the edge when they truly thought the fan-base from the Ps1/ps2 would just thoughtlessly carry onto the ps3 even though it lacked the very thing both previous systems had, GAMES. But it seems they certainly understand actions like that simply won't fly. Defiantly a huge reality check, one i think sony needed HORRIBLY

If you turn up to work late AND get nothing done all morning you could get fired! Sony did this and very nearly got fired. Now they're working their asses off cus the new kid is brown nosing the boss and getting noticed somewhat!

But then, its the old man who everyone thought was going to retire who has really impressed the boss and is therefore going to be awarded partner status in the company!

Nearly got fired = Sony

New Kid = Microsoft

Old Man = Nintendo

The Boss = You and me

Sorry, so far PS3 has worst graphics, and no games

In 2008 it is worst, has no games at all i want, mostly has shooters and racers, and its graphics are going far behind games on 360 like Alan Wake and Fable 2, it is just too old gen to compare to 360, that SHOULD be #1, and it is in next gen consoles

Now, the context in which I say that isn't fanboyism - just look at me, with my Gears avatar and Halo signature.

But think about it, this is how much software matters.

By nearly EVERY count, the PS3 has an advantage over the 360:

- Built-in hard drive

- Blu-Ray

- Six-Axis

- Processing power

- Free online, soon to be including Home

...except software.

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

But it isn't.

Because of games. Now, the PS3's got a strong year ahead of it, but not for a while. It'll probably be summer before the console gets any of its big exclusives for the year. Before that happens, gamers on the 360 will probably get two more high-profile exclusives in the way of Too Human and NG2 (probably).

It's almost a pity, actually. Not that the 360 has such great games - I love my 360. But that the PS3 is lagging behind while it has so many features that should make it irresistable, and is taking so long to get that killer app library.

In a lot of ways, it feels like Sony just wasn't ready to start next-gen. Like they rushed to get the console out the door - albeit, their rushing didn't cost the console to become a volatile ticking time bomb the way that MS' rushing did. What I mean is that Home wasn't ready, a lot of the development strangth wasn't quite there yet...thus, you had all the "evolving experience" comments and now the "just wait" crap.

jvonrader

The original xbox had major advantages over the PS2, and it didn't help it beat the PS2

In terms of power, the original xbox was much more poerful than the PS2, and yet still lost, power isn't everything, and when both consoles, the PS3 and 360, are so close power wise, to the point were fanboys are arguing which one has ever so slightly better textures, its damn close

The PS3 definatly is more bang for your buck, kinda like the PSP is more bang for you buck tha the DS, but in the end, these are gaming machines, not computers, not movie players, not tivo's, we already have those devises, and the stand-alones are better. I like the added features, but if you sacrifice gaming for any one of those, you will lose

All I have to say, is this, This Christmas, the PS3 came with a movie, and the 360 came with 2 games, what are they trying to push with those choices

[QUOTE="jvonrader"]

Now, the context in which I say that isn't fanboyism - just look at me, with my Gears avatar and Halo signature.

But think about it, this is how much software matters.

By nearly EVERY count, the PS3 has an advantage over the 360:

- Built-in hard drive

- Blu-Ray

- Six-Axis

- Processing power

- Free online, soon to be including Home

...except software.

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

But it isn't.

Because of games. Now, the PS3's got a strong year ahead of it, but not for a while. It'll probably be summer before the console gets any of its big exclusives for the year. Before that happens, gamers on the 360 will probably get two more high-profile exclusives in the way of Too Human and NG2 (probably).

It's almost a pity, actually. Not that the 360 has such great games - I love my 360. But that the PS3 is lagging behind while it has so many features that should make it irresistable, and is taking so long to get that killer app library.

In a lot of ways, it feels like Sony just wasn't ready to start next-gen. Like they rushed to get the console out the door - albeit, their rushing didn't cost the console to become a volatile ticking time bomb the way that MS' rushing did. What I mean is that Home wasn't ready, a lot of the development strangth wasn't quite there yet...thus, you had all the "evolving experience" comments and now the "just wait" crap.

crispytheone88

The original xbox had major advantages over the PS2, and it didn't help it beat the PS2

In terms of power, the original xbox was much more poerful than the PS2, and yet still lost, power isn't everything, and when both consoles, the PS3 and 360, are so close power wise, to the point were fanboys are arguing which one has ever so slightly better textures, its damn close

The PS3 definatly is more bang for your buck, kinda like the PSP is more bang for you buck tha the DS, but in the end, these are gaming machines, not computers, not movie players, not tivo's, we already have those devises, and the stand-alones are better. I like the added features, but if you sacrifice gaming for any one of those, you will lose

All I have to say, is this, This Christmas, the PS3 came with a movie, and the 360 came with 2 games, what are they trying to push with those choices

Also, the PS3 is being marketed on its power in producting graphics! But its not the king in this area, PC gaming completely dwarfs it!

1?!?!?

sorry but it doesnt even deserve 3.

Mediocre blu ray player is all its good for.

If it Should be then it would be wouldnt it? This reminds me of last generation of the many threads on how the xbox might have been better in terms of quality but in terms of sales it was #1according to sony fans. This thread lacks the cowism however but to the main point!

Here is how i conclude the argument, As a abox fan last gen i stuck up for the xbox when it came to the argument of whitch is #1 saying it was b/c the system offered more! The arrogance and blindness of thee ps2 fans grew, my arrogance grew aswell so now ill back the 360 agian but this time in its glory of being #1 in terms of sales.

Sony fans tried to beat the dead horse then and now there best arguments from 1-2 years ago are making them look like hypocrits.

I think i have perfectly shut every cow who agree thinks the ps3 is better b/c of the little extra you might get with a ps3. and that extra dont involve accual games.

If it Should be then it would be wouldnt it? This reminds me of last generation of the many threads on how the xbox might have been better in terms of quality but in terms of sales it was #1according to sony fans. This thread lacks the cowism however but to the main point!

Here is how i conclude the argument, As a abox fan last gen i stuck up for the xbox when it came to the argument of whitch is #1 saying it was b/c the system offered more! The arrogance and blindness of thee ps2 fans grew, my arrogance grew aswell so now ill back the 360 agian but this time in its glory of being #1 in terms of sales.

Sony fans tried to beat the dead horse then and now there best arguments from 1-2 years ago are making them look like hypocrits.

I think i have perfectly shut every cow who agree thinks the ps3 is better b/c of the little extra you might get with a ps3. and that extra dont involve accual games.

Vulcan110

Now I'm just being objective here but, arn't the lemmings being hypocritical aswell now that they beat the sales and game library drum?

[QUOTE="Vulcan110"]

If it Should be then it would be wouldnt it? This reminds me of last generation of the many threads on how the xbox might have been better in terms of quality but in terms of sales it was #1according to sony fans. This thread lacks the cowism however but to the main point!

Here is how i conclude the argument, As a abox fan last gen i stuck up for the xbox when it came to the argument of whitch is #1 saying it was b/c the system offered more! The arrogance and blindness of thee ps2 fans grew, my arrogance grew aswell so now ill back the 360 agian but this time in its glory of being #1 in terms of sales.

Sony fans tried to beat the dead horse then and now there best arguments from 1-2 years ago are making them look like hypocrits.

I think i have perfectly shut every cow who agree thinks the ps3 is better b/c of the little extra you might get with a ps3. and that extra dont involve accual games.

DAZZER7

Now I'm just being objective here but, arn't the lemmings being hypocritical aswell now that they beat the sales and game library drum?

I Visit and post on these forums often, often enough that i know it was cows first b/c they had to wait for the release of the ps3 spec list showing the slight advantage it had!

Even with this information the margian in terms of last gen is GREAT. The orginal xbox spec offered the best qualtiy exclusive titles aswell as better 3rd party games over live!

I only remain a 360 fan b/c the spec are not that diff between the 2 companies this year not enough to make me purchase or support the ps2 that and the huge game library! HOW can this not make the 360 better if you would answer it knowing youd be stiked dead?

I think you are vastly overstating the PS3 system advantages. Most articles I have read state that the 360 has a slightly better graphics card. Most critics seem to prefer the 360 controller over six-axis. Both systems have the same amount of memory, but the 360 can be shared anyway the developer sees fit, while the PS3 splits it in half. I agree Blu-ray is a nice value add for a gamer that wants to watch HD movies. As far as games go though, its actually a hinderance to the PS3. Its read/scan times are horrible compared to DVD. Why do you think a lot of PS3 games are now starting to install to hard drive? The only gaming advantage of blu-ray is more space and other than RPGs full of cinematics, it simply isn't needed. The PS3 probably does have more potential processing power, but it is EXTREMELY complicated and developers don't want to deal with it.

[QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="jvonrader"]

Now, the context in which I say that isn't fanboyism - just look at me, with my Gears avatar and Halo signature.

But think about it, this is how much software matters.

By nearly EVERY count, the PS3 has an advantage over the 360:

- Built-in hard drive

- Blu-Ray

- Six-Axis

- Processing power

- Free online, soon to be including Home

...except software.

By giving this machine parallel processing to handle so much more, with Blu Ray allowing faster reading from disc as well as more space, and a built-in hard drive (as opposed to MS' has-to-run-without-it-even-though-everybody-bloody-has-one mentality), it just seems like common sense that the PS3 should be blowing the 360 away.

But it isn't.

Because of games. Now, the PS3's got a strong year ahead of it, but not for a while. It'll probably be summer before the console gets any of its big exclusives for the year. Before that happens, gamers on the 360 will probably get two more high-profile exclusives in the way of Too Human and NG2 (probably).

It's almost a pity, actually. Not that the 360 has such great games - I love my 360. But that the PS3 is lagging behind while it has so many features that should make it irresistable, and is taking so long to get that killer app library.

In a lot of ways, it feels like Sony just wasn't ready to start next-gen. Like they rushed to get the console out the door - albeit, their rushing didn't cost the console to become a volatile ticking time bomb the way that MS' rushing did. What I mean is that Home wasn't ready, a lot of the development strangth wasn't quite there yet...thus, you had all the "evolving experience" comments and now the "just wait" crap.

DAZZER7

The original xbox had major advantages over the PS2, and it didn't help it beat the PS2

In terms of power, the original xbox was much more poerful than the PS2, and yet still lost, power isn't everything, and when both consoles, the PS3 and 360, are so close power wise, to the point were fanboys are arguing which one has ever so slightly better textures, its damn close

The PS3 definatly is more bang for your buck, kinda like the PSP is more bang for you buck tha the DS, but in the end, these are gaming machines, not computers, not movie players, not tivo's, we already have those devises, and the stand-alones are better. I like the added features, but if you sacrifice gaming for any one of those, you will lose

All I have to say, is this, This Christmas, the PS3 came with a movie, and the 360 came with 2 games, what are they trying to push with those choices

Also, the PS3 is being marketed on its power in producting graphics! But its not the king in this area, PC gaming completely dwarfs it!

Too bad PC isnt' considered a games machine and is not even competing with Ps3 :|

Sony said they're on track to meet their goals for the PS3...the PS3 is in no doubt the best gaming console this GEN, and It will win the system wars. THe will is an excellent secondary console too!!! But Even as a cow, I must confess, it's absolutely absurd to argue that Pc gaming isn't the best type of gaming...Pc games are far better than console games, srry that's just the way it is!!!

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"]I like having a removable hard drive. I can take it over to a friends house instead of my entire console which is really handy.jvonrader

Really? I've been over to people's homes with 360's many, many, many times. And I haven't ONCE removed my HDD to take it with me. The only thing you'd really need to take with you are game saves. Use a memory card, it'll fit.

I'll take better loading over HDD portability ANY DAY.

With PS3 I can use an external USB drive of my choice, or just a industry standard USB Flash drive.

I think you are vastly overstating the PS3 system advantages. Most articles I have read state that the 360 has a slightly better graphics card. Most critics seem to prefer the 360 controller over six-axis. Both systems have the same amount of memory, but the 360 can be shared anyway the developer sees fit, while the PS3 splits it in half. I agree Blu-ray is a nice value add for a gamer that wants to watch HD movies. As far as games go though, its actually a hinderance to the PS3. Its read/scan times are horrible compared to DVD. Why do you think a lot of PS3 games are now starting to install to hard drive? The only gaming advantage of blu-ray is more space and other than RPGs full of cinematics, it simply isn't needed. The PS3 probably does have more potential processing power, but it is EXTREMELY complicated and developers don't want to deal with it.

mnvike

Your reading to many biased articles. Uncharted throws all that in the trash. Uncharted better graphics than anything on X360 and you can play the game start to finish with no loading screens and no install.

Its like a roll reversal of last generation,

Xbox had the horsepower as well as a TON of of extra's, yet PS2 had the software.

This gen its a switcharoo,

[QUOTE="mnvike"]

I think you are vastly overstating the PS3 system advantages. Most articles I have read state that the 360 has a slightly better graphics card. Most critics seem to prefer the 360 controller over six-axis. Both systems have the same amount of memory, but the 360 can be shared anyway the developer sees fit, while the PS3 splits it in half. I agree Blu-ray is a nice value add for a gamer that wants to watch HD movies. As far as games go though, its actually a hinderance to the PS3. Its read/scan times are horrible compared to DVD. Why do you think a lot of PS3 games are now starting to install to hard drive? The only gaming advantage of blu-ray is more space and other than RPGs full of cinematics, it simply isn't needed. The PS3 probably does have more potential processing power, but it is EXTREMELY complicated and developers don't want to deal with it.

EmperorSupreme

Your reading to many biased articles. Uncharted throws all that in the trash. Uncharted better graphics than anything on X360 and you can play the game start to finish with no loading screens and no install.

I would have agreed with you prior to getting my 360 Elite.

Uncharted through an HDMI cable on an HD TV looks better then ANYTHING on 360 pumped out through comp cables,

Although in terms of the detail and graphics as soon as I was comparing HDMI to HDMI it really became apples to apples, the detail in Bioshock is comparable to that of Uncharted.

None of the console's should be anything... The consumers make the decisions and they decided that the PS3 was Dead Last! The PS3 is an outstanding system from a technical standpoint, however it was priced way too high. And it's library was lacking especially compared to a $200 cheaper system. Sony doesn't have anyone to blame but themselves.. OhSnapitz

Actually for 2007 X360 was last for unit sales. So the consumer is choosing. They are choosing Wii, PS3, then X360.

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]None of the console's should be anything... The consumers make the decisions and they decided that the PS3 was Dead Last! The PS3 is an outstanding system from a technical standpoint, however it was priced way too high. And it's library was lacking especially compared to a $200 cheaper system. Sony doesn't have anyone to blame but themselves.. EmperorSupreme

Actually for 2007 X360 was last for unit sales. So the consumer is choosing. They are choosing Wii, PS3, then X360.

That sounds about right.