Xbox 360 has PS3 beat in most factors that determine a quality gaming machine.

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Fair enough. I agree.

*Waits for "PS3 has AAAAE"*

Fair enough. I agree.

*Waits for "PS3 has AAAAE"*

SOedipus

lol ya its gonna come. But the surplus A-AAA can counter that.

I was expecting a angry cow, thx for your logic and understanding.

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Cole-Protocal

You must love bashing the PS3, your harbouring on obsession.

1) Of course the Library is bigger, its been out a year longer than the PS3.

2) Quality, and Variety, PS3 will come up with better titles, but it's a year behind. Sony had a bad release.

3) As for Online, you get what you paid for. My online is still fun, and free.

4) Your pulling number of sales when the PS3 was released A YEAR LATER! Of course its sales are lower.

5) Hardware and reliability I think both are equal, Xbox has the annoying RROD but its almost fixed.

Your making the usual argument and its not using unbiased opinion. Everything you just said is mostly due to the PS3's late release, I think you'd be singing a different tune had both consoles released simultaneously..

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Cole-Protocal

[QUOTE="Cole-Protocal"]

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Lalucar

You must love bashing the PS3, your harbouring on obsession.

1) Of course the Library is bigger, its been out a year longer than the PS3.

2) Quality, and Variety, PS3 will come up with better titles, but it's a year behind. Sony had a bad release.

3) As for Online, you get what you paid for. My online is still fun, and free.

4) Your pulling number of sales when the PS3 was released A YEAR LATER! Of course its sales are lower.

5) Hardware and reliability I think both are equal, Xbox has the annoying RROD but its almost fixed.

Your making the usual argument and its not using unbiased opinion. Everything you just said is mostly due to the PS3's late release, I think you'd be singing a different tune had both consoles released simultaneously..

1. Thats an excuse. WHat matters is where they stand today, regardless of how they got there.

2. Again, right now, 360 has an edge and ur making excuses.

3. It may be free but again, not the #1 service.

4. another excuse..... PS2 was a year sooner!

5. Agreed

[QUOTE="no_handlebars"]Wait....logic....anti-PS3..... Is that you Ghost? You were always one of the more educated lemmings.Cole-Protocal

Im super flattered.....if I were this person you speak of, which im not. Educated lemmings are very common.

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

You must love bashing the PS3, your harbouring on obsession.

1) Of course the Library is bigger, its been out a year longer than the PS3.

2) Quality, and Variety, PS3 will come up with better titles, but it's a year behind. Sony had a bad release.

3) As for Online, you get what you paid for. My online is still fun, and free.

4) Your pulling number of sales when the PS3 was released A YEAR LATER! Of course its sales are lower.

5) Hardware and reliability I think both are equal, Xbox has the annoying RROD but its almost fixed.

Your making the usual argument and its not using unbiased opinion. Everything you just said is mostly due to the PS3's late release, I think you'd be singing a different tune had both consoles released simultaneously..

1. Thats an excuse. WHat matters is where they stand today, regardless of how they got there.

2. Again, right now, 360 has an edge and ur making excuses.

3. It may be free but again, not the #1 service.

4. wah wah wah. Deal with it. PS2 was a year sooner!

5. Agreed

[QUOTE="Lalucar"][QUOTE="Cole-Protocal"]

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Cole-Protocal

You must love bashing the PS3, your harbouring on obsession.

1) Of course the Library is bigger, its been out a year longer than the PS3.

2) Quality, and Variety, PS3 will come up with better titles, but it's a year behind. Sony had a bad release.

3) As for Online, you get what you paid for. My online is still fun, and free.

4) Your pulling number of sales when the PS3 was released A YEAR LATER! Of course its sales are lower.

5) Hardware and reliability I think both are equal, Xbox has the annoying RROD but its almost fixed.

Your making the usual argument and its not using unbiased opinion. Everything you just said is mostly due to the PS3's late release, I think you'd be singing a different tune had both consoles released simultaneously..

1. Thats an excuse. WHat matters is where they stand today, regardless of how they got there.

Hows that an excuse? Its the dam truth. 360 was out first and longer thefore getting more games then the PS3. So of course it has a bigger libary with more A and so on. Also the the only thing I see that xbl has over PSN is instant invite to a game,private chat,party chat and netflix which on can use on my PC if I had it.

True. But I still prefer the PS3s gamesCouth_

I mostly agree with it but i think it is funny he uses quality and XBOX 360 in the same sentence. RRODRex369

In there defence at least its one aspect of the 360 that stays constant :lol:

[QUOTE="Cole-Protocal"][QUOTE="Lalucar"]

You must love bashing the PS3, your harbouring on obsession.

1) Of course the Library is bigger, its been out a year longer than the PS3.

2) Quality, and Variety, PS3 will come up with better titles, but it's a year behind. Sony had a bad release.

3) As for Online, you get what you paid for. My online is still fun, and free.

4) Your pulling number of sales when the PS3 was released A YEAR LATER! Of course its sales are lower.

5) Hardware and reliability I think both are equal, Xbox has the annoying RROD but its almost fixed.

Your making the usual argument and its not using unbiased opinion. Everything you just said is mostly due to the PS3's late release, I think you'd be singing a different tune had both consoles released simultaneously..

finalfantasy94

1. Thats an excuse. WHat matters is where they stand today, regardless of how they got there.

Hows that an excuse? Its the dam truth. 360 was out first and longer thefore getting more games then the PS3. So of course it has a bigger libary with more A and so on. Also the the only thing I see that xbl has over PSN is instant invite to a game,private chat,party chat and netflix which on can use on my PC if I had it.

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Cole-Protocal

Still sore from game of the year, dude just get over it the PS3 had a much better year than the 360 More AAA's and AAAAE's A game of the year, and 2 best graphics awards for MGS4, and VKC the DC is funny

"Xbox 360 has PS3 beat in most factors that determine a quality gaming machine."

Except one of the most important things.......reliability.

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

360 also has more crappy games to play because of having more games. 360 has a lower average game scores than the ps3, the ps3 sits around 78% scores while the 360 is around 75or 74% review score average so qulity isn't better on the 360. GreyFoXX4

Those are two of the silliest, least relevant rebuttals I think I have ever read on SW....

Library - 360 simply has more games available, more then 200 if you include XBLA. 200 ppl........

Quality - More A, AA, and AAA games then PS3. Thats quality right there.

Online - XBox Live has more features then PSN period.

Variety - With more then 200 games available, 360 naturally has more casual offerings and more games per genre to choose from in comparison to PS3s library.

Sales - The true measure to determine ones success in the marketplace. Also so developers continue to show support for the console. Here the 360 currently has a 8 million and climbing lead on PS3 globally.

Cost - Xbox 360 is at a more mass market price point and easier to buy then PS3.

Hardware - PS3 simply includes more out of the box.

Reliability - PS3 wins here too, but RROD failure rates have dropped dramatically since 2005.

Just figured I lay it all out there....im seeing a lot of cows that act like they are in 2nd place...........you arent.

Heres a link to show average scores, and read more aswell cause they show the amount of shovel ware the 360 has hence more bad games to play lol.

Theres alot of variety in the job market aswell, doesn't mean I want to dig a ditch though lol.

Heres a link to show average scores, and read more aswell cause they show the amount of shovel ware the 360 has hence more bad games to play lol.

Theres alot of variety in the job market aswell, doesn't mean I want to dig a ditch though lol.

GreyFoXX4

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] 360 also has more crappy games to play because of having more games. 360 has a lower average game scores than the ps3, the ps3 sits around 78% scores while the 360 is around 75or 74% review score average so qulity isn't better on the 360. SpruceCaboose

Those are two of the silliest, least relevant rebuttals I think I have ever read on SW....

lol. i agree.

but i agree with his other points, though.

Hows that an excuse? Its the dam truth. 360 was out first and longer thefore getting more games then the PS3. So of course it has a bigger libary with more A and so on. Also the the only thing I see that xbl has over PSN is instant invite to a game,private chat,party chat and netflix which on can use on my PC if I had it.

finalfantasy94

Because you're using the 360's one year head start as an excuse. Nobody told Sony they had to delay their PS3 either. You can't change the fact that it came out a year earlier it is what it is. Harboring on the whole one year thing is an excuse. It is what it is and reality isn't changing from what it is. This is exactly why you see people go, "But but you can't count 360 games that were out before PS3 you have to count the ones that came out from PS3 onward!"

No you don't. I mean hell you realize that there is an advantage of coming out first and now you're seeing it. You just can't go and discredit on means about how its not fair or whatever. It is what it is.

1. 360 also has more crappy games to play because of having more games.
2. 360 has a lower average game scores than the ps3, the ps3 sits around 78% scores while the 360 is around 75or 74% review score average so qulity isn't better on the 360

GreyFoXX4

Those are the two most irrelevant answers I've heard in a while

1. Based on your critera of crappy games (which is probably reviews) the 360 has more quality games. I wouldn't care about a platform having 1,000 of bad games if it still had more games then the other platforms. Why you ask? Because BlackBond doesn't buy gutter trash he only buys the good games. So the amount of bad games is meaningless as long as there are good ones and by your logic the 360 has more critically acclaimed games.
2. Again what does a lower average mean? One could still have more critically acclaimed games and have a lower average. Nobody forces you to play bad games lol

Heres a link to show average scores, and read more aswell cause they show the amount of shovel ware the 360 has hence more bad games to play lol.

Theres alot of variety in the job market aswell, doesn't mean I want to dig a ditch though lol.

Well nice post.

I don't agree dough.I admire the fact that you're a educated fanboy :D

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"]

Heres a link to show average scores, and read more aswell cause they show the amount of shovel ware the 360 has hence more bad games to play lol.

Theres alot of variety in the job market aswell, doesn't mean I want to dig a ditch though lol.

GreyFoXX4

You are completely wrong.

Console A has = 100 quality games and 2000 crappy games

Console B has = 50 quality games and 500 crappy games

Which console has the better average and which console has the more quality games? I mean seriously unless you play all the crappy games then averages for the games are meaningless. I don't play gutter trash and neither do a lot of people here. Hell I don't even expect you to be playing this amount of junk to even make your statement a valid one.

If you're talking scores then scores show that the 360 has more A, AA, and AAA games then the PS3. To be defeated by your own logic.

Ok you rather have a batter in baseball that bats .100 but when he does hit its a homerun. While I'd rather have a .300 batter that consistantly gets a hit.

Not to mention the trend that is being set by the ps3 this year and looking at the titles for next year. It comes a time when you got to realize that the 360 hit the ground running but has fizzled basically 1 1/2 years since the last AAA game on the 360 before gears2. While the ps3 just like other gens from Sony, started off slow but builds momentum and fully explodes with great games after its 2 1/2 year and 3 year mark. And they look to be doing the same thing this gen looking at its games coming in 09.

I mean come on, you've got to see somethings is amiss with the 360 when lemmings on the boards are bragging about and listing dlc for games that are 6months or older. While ps3 users are proudly looking into 09 with great exclusives to possibly look forward to through out the year.

I would agree, except that I think the PS3 has better games, hence is the better game machine. So.......I disagree.Floppy_Jim

Ok you rather have a batter in baseball that bats .100 but when he does hit its a homerun. While I'd rather have a .300 batter that consistantly gets a hit.

Not to mention the trend that is being set by the ps3 this year and looking at the titles for next year. It comes a time when you got to realize that the 360 hit the ground running but has fizzled basically 1 1/2 years since the last AAA game on the 360 before gears2. While the ps3 just like other gens from Sony, started off slow but builds momentum and fully explodes with great games after its 2 1/2 year and 3 year mark. And they look to be doing the same thing this gen looking at its games coming in 09.

I mean come on, you've got to see somethings is amiss with the 360 when lemmings on the boards are bragging about and listing dlc for games that are 6months or older. While ps3 users are proudly looking into 09 with great exclusives to possibly look forward to through out the year.

GreyFoXX4

Using a baseball analogy? Thats failure from the start. If I beat .500 in baseball I am a god. If I bat .500 in college I get kicked out.

Going by scores the 360 has more critically acclaimed games. End of discussion. You chose to use reviews and you are always going to lose if you do.

Name those games then, please.GreyFoXX4

Will the "better online" thing please stop? Not everyone wants to pay $50 a year to play multiplayer games. Live might be a plus for some people, but for some others (like myself) it is a huge reason NOT to use 360's online features. Two years of Xbox Live and the 360 [with a hard drive] costs the same as a PS3, minus the Blu-ray player (which was not addressed here, why get an incomplete high definition setup?). No thank you.

Perhaps Xbox 360 does have the PS3 beat as a pure gaming machine per the cost (especially if you only play single-player games, have no interest in DLC and multimedia features and therefore don't need the hard drive). I don't know if cows really try to argue that point. The idea is that the PS3 gives you more for the money, a quality gaming machine with more functionality, more durability and less need to spend money on accessories or other things in general, and more multimedia options.

If those things don't matter to a gamer, then the 360 is the better option for them.

I dont get this i find that the 360 is just a bad version of the xbox the games on the first one i find were better like the first halo and fable but the 360 ones arnt as good i dont like my games getting worse over time i must say... plus im sick of a console that cant do a native 1080p image and has no games to look forward to next year and has to pay to play online. its top exclusives it does have now are getting old and with nothing to coming out its playing older games to brand new ps3 exclusives which wont end up on pc shoemen22

wow. BIGGEST FANBOY POST EVER!!!!

please tell me that you know almost no games run at 1080p. i can really only think of 1 game rite now that can actually run 1080p and thats the crappy nba game that was rated 4.5/10. so that rite there is no relevance to anything that has to do with gaming!!!!!! paying for online and getting a better overall experience is definitely better than the psn. it took me 13 mins to find my friends in mgs4 while it takes me 2 secs to find friends in gow2/halo3. i have both systems, but there is no way you can throw the 1080p for games out there, and that the psn is better than live. because those arguments are so false its not even funny

True. But I still prefer the PS3s gamesCouth_

Will the "better online" thing please stop? Not everyone wants to pay $50 a year to play multiplayer games. Live might be a plus for some people, but for some others (like myself) it is a huge reason NOT to use 360's online features. Two years of Xbox Live and the 360 [with a hard drive] costs the same as a PS3, minus the Blu-ray player (which was not addressed here, why get an incomplete high definition setup?). No thank you.

Perhaps Xbox 360 does have the PS3 beat as a pure gaming machine per the cost (especially if you only play single-player games, have no interest in DLC and multimedia features and therefore don't need the hard drive). I don't know if cows really try to argue that point. The idea is that the PS3 gives you more for the money, a quality gaming machine with more functionality, more durability and less need to spend money on accessories or other things in general, and more multimedia options.

If those things don't matter to a gamer, then the 360 is the better option for them.

Itinerant_Voice

So, you wanna talk about LIVE costing 50 dollars A YEAR an issue (Considering LIVE trumps PSN in every form) yet include Blu-ray in the arsenal of PS3's greatness. Well...what do you need to do to take advantage of this? BUY movies and MOSt of these fancy, dancy Blu-ray movies cost 30 dollars and up, so where's the justification in that? People can buy DVD's for a THIRD of that! Not to mention with digital download (like on Xbox or from your cable provider) becoming the norm AND cheaper I might add in HD no less what's the point of Blu-ray? 360 can also do just about EVERY other multimedia function as PS3 other then surf the web, but really is it worth it?

The 8 million sales lead is simply false, seeing as how the lead was roughly 4.5 million back in August.EVOLV3

actually is was about 5.5 million in august. but since september the 360 has been gaining ground at a considerable rate. If it isnt 8 million now it will be by January.

Plus we got Home.PrinceofSarcasm

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!! :lol:

You're kidding right...right?

Home?????

PLEASE say you're kidding?