Top
690°

XBOX 360 vs. Playstation 3 - Two years Later

From the same site that has been comparing these articles since before the PS3 launched (with the help of a multi-platform game developer) comes the latest article in their XBOX 360 vs. Playstation 3 series.

This article objectively compares the two consoles, and considers all the changes that have taken place during 2008. This includes new interfaces, better multi-platform support, a look at the quality of exclusive titles, and more.

If you're still on the fence about which console to buy, this won't tell you outright. But it will give you all the information you need to make an informed decision.

Read Full Story >>
hardcoreware.net
The story is too old to be commented.
Pennywise3444d ago

"If you pay attention to actual game developers, and not the angry fanboys, you will learn that no, the Playstation 3 doesn’t have “more graphics power” than the 360. In fact, it’s quite inferior in terms of raw graphics power"

I stopped reading here. This guy that wrote this is so wrong it isnt even funny.

Please any dual console owners, let they users of N4G hear your opinion of this with the exclusive games on both consoles!

hitthegspot3444d ago

I plan on doing a "taste test" later this year once the PS3 has a price cut. Fingers Crossed...

Kratos193444d ago

I own both and it is indeed nonsense. PS3 has better graphics.

lowlight3444d ago

Facts are facts. The Xenos GPU on the 360 is better than the RSX on the PS3. There is literally no way to deny that. That is a fact, and it was stated as such in the article.

Now do games "look better" on one console? That's subjective, and totally up to you to decide. And subjective opinion is not what the article is about (except at the end, where the author writes that he simply prefers to game on the PS3).

Does the PS3 have more potential, thanks to its superior CPU power? Perhaps, but that is conjecture, and yet to be seen. And conjecture is not what the article is about.

This article is an objective comparison of the two consoles, comparing objective facts over the past 3 years. That's it.

If this is too much for you to comprehend.. wow. Just, wow.

Powertesties3444d ago (Edited 3444d ago )

The post above is certainly on the money. There is no evidence that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Games are the truth here.

If you own a PS3 and a 360, then you know this to be true. If you don't, then you will argue.

I love my PS3, it is a rocking system. No offense to anyone else.

I will take some bubbles now. He He I need them!

In response the Chaosatom,

Resistance isnt that impressive of a game. Yes, it plays smooth and is awesome, the graphics are lacking. Metal Gear, AWESOME! Looks amazing. But how can you doubt it can be done on the 360? Seriously people, seriously?

Uncharted = AMAZING. Again, 360 could do it. Killzone 2, I think we all need to play it ourselves before we throw that in the mix. I know it will be amazing but again, 360 could handle it.

Unreal engine? I have seen titles using that engine that look like complete number 2 on both systems.

Listen, not bad mouthing the PS3. I love it the system. I love the games. We are talking purely graphics here. Not saying it isn't powerful. Please listen.

chaosatom3444d ago

:)

Ps3 has had trouble with unreal engine, so it's graphically inferior? LOL.

Aaron Greenterd3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

Here is where the author fails. Pay attention:

Quote: "the Playstation 3 doesn’t have “more graphics power” than the 360."

Now if he stops right here, nobody would argue this too much. Both systems have their graphical beasts, and in my opinion, the ps3 wins with MGS4/Uncharted/soon to be KZ2 over Gears (what else is there?). We just had an article the other day where Uncharted and Gears were compared side by side, and Uncharted made Gears look kinda silly, I have to admit.

But here is where the author goes all fanboy:

Quote: "In fact, it’s quite inferior in terms of raw graphics power"

Now this is plain silly. The fact is the ps3 doesn't run the Unreal engine well because it's not optimized for the ps3 on a large scale. The best UE game for ps3 is, you guessed it, Unreal 3...someone please correct me if there is a better UE3 game for ps3.

And to those saying it's a fact that the RSX is inferior to the Xenos, please provide a link or proof, and do not link to the Microsoft press release from 05/06 where they show the Xenos at some ridiculous GB/sec, this has been proven to be fake.

There was a podcast by Criterion awhile back where the devs said that the RSX could be just as powerful as Xenos, it just works differently. The end result is this: if the RSX + Cell > Xenos + Xenon, then it really doesn't matter. That's why the Cell is in there guys. So lets recap:

Is Xenos > RSX ? Let's say "Yes" for this exercise.
Is Xenon > Cell? NO
Is Xenos + Xenon > RSX + Cell? NO
Is 360 > Ps3 ? NO
Is 360 < Ps3 ? Yes

And there you have it. The End.

HDgamer3443d ago

Their fanboy statement would be true if mgs4 was only on 360, killzone 2, uncharted and other games. But this article is a fanboy dream come true. An argument with uninformed mess.

Traveler3443d ago

I do have both systems and I think Killzone 2 looks better than anything on the 360. Otherwise, both systems seem to have about the same graphics to me.

But it's true that there are a few more really good looking games on the PS3. Gears 1 and Gears 2 look fantastic, but PS3 has Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, MotorStorm, and Killzone 2. But it's also true that I have noticed a lot of multiplat games that look a bit better on the 360. So far I would say that they are pretty close overall.

GWAVE3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

This article is hilarious. PS3 versus 360 two years later? Really? I'll ask 360 owners the very same thing they asked the PS3 when it first came out: where are the games?

Let's be serious here. Where are Microsoft's 1st-party studios? Where are the graphical powerhouses? Where are the industry-changing titles that make the competition jealous?

And the author's little bit about graphics? Oh Lord. Although graphics aren't everything, you'd have to be wearing pretty thick fanboy glasses to think 360 games have better graphics than the PS3, not only in terms of textures but also in terms of physics, polygon counts, skeletal movements, the number of enemies, etc.

When most people think "graphics" they are foolish enough to take a screenshot from Game A and a screenshot from Game B and draw a conclusion. Graphics are so much more than that. Compare Resistance 2 to Left 4 Dead: both games have a high number of enemies on the screen at once, but which one has better textures? Resistance 2. Which one has huge environments and draw distances? Resistance 2. Which one has complex AI even with dozens of enemies on the screen at once? Resistance 2. Heck, which one DOESN'T make enemy bodies disappear two seconds after you kill them? Resistance 2.

Want to compare another set of games? Gears 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4. You want to talk about enemy AI? MGS4 is the clear winner there. You want to talk about skeletal movements (especially facial animations)? MGS4 takes the crown. You want to talk about which game DOESN'T have framerate problems and texture pop-in? MGS4 again.

Fanboys can compare screenshots and 30-second gameplay footage all they want, but what truly matters is when you sit down and play the actual game. With that being the case, no honest gamer can say that the top-tier 360 games perform better than top-tier PS3 games. It's just silly to say that the 360 can match the PS3.

Why dis3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

You guys keep bringing up KZ2 like KZ2 devs couldn't get better results on the 360 working on the game for 4 to 5 years lol.

Confusing Dev talent with PS3's supposed power is throwing you off.

I think gamers will be shocked about the progress of some games coming for the 360 later on like: Warhound, Splinter cell and maybe Alan Wake.

no-spin3443d ago

Its a fact that PS3 exclusives graphics destroys anything 360 has.
The RROD is a known fact, happened to me, and he fails to mention the reliability issues.
The author is having a nice day with the 360, oh and this is just the beginning of the viral campaign due to Killzone 2
i feel sorry for the people who write such stupid articles

El Zorro Rojo3443d ago

Oh come on, GWAVE. Anybody can do a slanted comparison like you did. I have both systems and you're full of it. Personally I think Gears 2 easily looks better than MGS4. Gears 2 has much better textures and details, just as solid of a framerate (I have no idea what you are talking about), sharper image quality (Gears 2 runs at 720P, while MGS4 runs at 3/4 the resolution), bigger scale and better anti-aliasing (I hate all the jaggies on shadows in MGS4).

Gears 2 > MGS4, no doubt about it. But I give props where they are due and I have to say that Uncharted looks at least as good as Gears 2 and Killzone 2 looks better than anything.

Don't get me wrong, MGS4 is a very nice looking game but it just annoys me the way some of you parade it around as supposedly looking better than any game on the Xbox 360--when people like me who own both systems know it is just complete baloney.

GWAVE3443d ago

@ El Zorro

Oh laughter. You're tired of people saying that MGS4 looks better than anything on the 360? You think it's baloney? Get over it. What makes your opinion more valid than mine? The fact that you own both systems? Don't make me laugh. I own both systems too. Oooooo! Who's opinion are we going to trust now?!?! After all, owning both systems automatically makes you objective in your opinions, right?

You didn't like my comparison? How about you address it? Resistance 2: show me a 360 game with the same amount of draw distances, the same amount of enemies, the same quality of textures, oh...and able to run 8-player co-op against 40+ enemies without a single drop in framerate (or how about 60-player online with no framerate drop?)

If you didn't see the pop-in in Gears 2, I envy you because you apparently weren't looking. Unreal Engine has LONG been known to have pop-in issues and Gears 2 is no exception. You must be yet another person who is afraid to criticize his/her favorite game. Gears 2 was buggy as hell, especially in multiplayer. You can pick favorites if you want, but there's no denying that if you match up the PS3's 2008 lineup (GT5P, MGS5, R2, LBP) against the 360's 2008 lineup (NG2, Gears 2, Fable 2) you're going to find that the 360's lineup is glitchier, shorter (as in, it lacks content), and boasts worse graphics.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Metacritic.

GUNS N SWORDS3443d ago

"If you pay attention to actual game developers, and not the angry fanboys"

cut the rest out and I'll just leave it at that. none of the people here can give ANY pointers on gaming development and that's a fact.

calling either console anything doesn't prove what a console can do or what might do in the future.

ultimolu3443d ago

Inferior my ass.

Uncharted, Rachet & Clank, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, MLB and MGS4 all wave and say aloha!

SL1M DADDY3443d ago

I love both the PS3 and the 360 but let's be honest, when Uncharted was released, it was said to be the best looking game on consoles to hit the market and that was post Gears release. Now, Killzone 2 is taking that crown but not prior the short stint that MGS4 had it. What do each of these games have in common? They are all PS3 exclusives. Now, to me, IMHO that would indicate that ether one, the devs for the 360 are not on par with the devs for the PS3 or that the PS3 is in fact the graphical powerhouse that many of us PS3 owners know it is. Once Killzone 2 holds the crown for best looking console game, Heavy rain will borrow it and then God of War III. Once again, PS3 exclusives. No offense to 360 and it's current install base, heck, I am one of them but the PS3 has already proven, time and time again that it has the best looking games in terms of exclusives. PS3 exclusives win over 360 exclusives.

lordgodalming3443d ago

My understanding of his comments about graphics were that the 360 has more resources devoted to processing graphics, but the PS3 has much more processing power period, which would lend itself to truly excellent graphics.

He says, "The CPU power is another story however; on paper the Cell has a lot more potential than the triple-core Xeon that resides in the 360."

I think he was comparing hardware, not necessarily which has the "best" graphics.

Rusted3443d ago

Don't be so bitter Pennywise, is a good read.

lordgodalming3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

I knew no one would listen. Did you guys even finish the article? In his conclusion he says, "It is my personal opinion that it just ‘feels’ better to play games on the Playstation 3." Many of the people griping on here are precisely the type of fanboy the author is trying to calm. Oh well.

Cenobia3443d ago

In the end it doesn't even matter which console has better graphics power. The fact is Sony has better developers, which is why their exclusive games look better. Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch, all the SCE branches, etc. all make excellent games. That's why the PS3 is seen as graphically superior. In the end, the specs don't make a difference, it's how games use them that counts.

And if you really care about small differences in multiplatform games, you'd own a PC for them. Otherwise the differences are minimal for games with competent developers. You can say one looks better, but they're so close that no one really even cares (except the graphics whores, who should own a PC anyway).

Consoldtobots3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

I agree, this article is fanboy banter trying to pass off as objective and non-biased. Worse yet it inspires to write pure ignorance. I mean how do you call the cell/rsx processing tandem conjecture?? Like it's someone's opinion of what happens? Is the code that's written to create the rendering pipeline between the cell and rsx conjecture too?

The fact of the matter is that grahical power can ABSOLUTELY be argued as it comes from hard numbers and hard science. Some fanboy saying KZ2 looks like PS2 game is what cannot be argued. Frankly leave discussions about graphical power to those who know what they are talking about. The rest are just fanboys looking silly and ignorant.

oh wow I just realized lowlight is the author of this "article" and the one calling the cell/rsx tandem "conjecture". Dude......do everyone a favor and find another profession cause you KNOW NOTHING about console hardware.

JeffGUNZ3443d ago

A lot of your points seem well thought out and well researched, but your replies venture too much in the ps3 fanboy side. We all get it. You LOVE PS3, but if you're taking the time to post well though out, well researched replies, why ruin them by acting like a fanboy? If you are trying to show WHY the ps3 is a good system, there is no need to trash-talk the 360. If you like PS3, then that's fine, but bashing the 360 makes your whole reply look bias.

If you need an example, here is one...I came across one of your replies where you said something like "if you like the 360 then your either paid of by microsoft or are bias". Maybe some people just prefer 360 over PS3. It's a shame, because you do have some good points, but your immature jabs at the 360 make your enitre reply and all your replies look juvenile.

uie4rhig3442d ago

aaron greenterd is pretty much correct, in RAW power, Xenos pwns the RSX easily (well probs not easily, but it is more powerful), however, RSX was designed with the Cell in mind. so yes, Xenos is more powerful than RSX, however, Xenon is less powerful than Cell and Xenos+Xenon is less powerful than RSX+Cell..

Cell CPU can be used for both general processing and graphics processing, sony's original plan was to include 2 Cell CPU's and no GPU's, where one Cell CPU was used as a CPU and the other as a GPU..

phosphor1123442d ago

Actually, here, let me post the specs (according to beyond3d)
RSX
- 550 MHz
- 8 vertex units
- 24 pixel pipelines
- 24 texture units
- 48 pixel ALU's + mini ALU's (burdened with doing texture work)
- more overall horsepower

Xenos
- 500 MHz
- 48 pixel ALU's (burdened with doing vertex work also)
- 16 seperate texture units
- better at shading many small fragments, and code branching
- load balancing, and less chance of stalls

According to RAW horsepower, the RSX beats the Xenos, BUT the Xenos is ALOT more capable of pixel shaders (ed bump/normal maps on textures..the stuff that makes games like gears look so good). Like you said, the RSX was made with the Cell in mind, but it still has more "raw" power.

So far the Xenos has had a lot more success in using Pixel Shaders, while it has awesome effects (but sometimes glossy IMO..thats another topic though) it has a huge trade off. The more pixel shaders they use, the less PPI (pixels per inch) they can render things at, explaining alot less native 1080p games (1 game to be exact). Not saying that is a bad thing, because the games that really used them well, like COD4, Gears 2, look great. The thing that puts the PS3 in top (by far) is that because the RSX isn't good at shaders, it can focus on the PPI, while great devs (like GG, Konami, Naughty Dog) can program the Cell SPU's to do the shaders for the RSX, making the Cell specific games look fantastic.

So, in the end, you are mostly correct Super, I just wanted to correct what you had wrong and tell people why it was incorrect..so I didn't just look like a fanboy that was hating on the 360.

TY All.

Horny3442d ago (Edited 3442d ago )

i own both, even though Im pissed at Sony at the moment because my PS3 broke there is no denying they have better looking games. The PS3 has extras to support the RSX which the 360 doesnt have, so more can be done with it. The overall presentation of the games is better on the PS3. They seem bigger, theres more of everything, and it all looks good.
There is no game on the other consoles that look better than MGS4, GT5, Uncharted, and Killzone. Honorable mention Ratchet and Clank FTOD

rubarb233442d ago

those 'i own both console' comments. Hey guess what, I own both - big whoop.
in the end, IN MY OPINION - yes read that turd sniffers, MY OPINION, Gears 2 was the graphics champion until now. and yes I do have uncharted. Loved it. Graphics are sick, but gears still has the better graphics.
Anyways, shiiiiiiiiiiit man, Killzone 2 has set the bar high as f*ck for graphics yo. Can't wait to see if MS can get a game out that can up what Killzone 2 has blessed our eyes with.
I love the console wars! hope they never end man.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3442d ago
lowlight3444d ago

This article is not going to tell you which console has "better graphics". That is a completely subjective matter, and up to you to decide. If you think "better graphics" is the most important thing, than go with the console you think has "better graphics". If that's the PS3, fine. If it's the 360, fine.

If you want to objectively compare facts to one another, then read the article :)

hitthegspot3444d ago

I don't own a PS3 and I'm planning on getting one. That said, the first time I saw Heavenly Sword in demo at BB it looked awful. White lines every where. It may have been due to the settings on the display, but I'm willing to wait to see it again in my home.

Aaron Greenterd3443d ago

This isn't a bad article at all.

I just think you have to be careful when you make claims that graphics are subjective, then turn around and claim the 360 has "superior graphics power".

If it's subjective, than how can you claim this to be an absolute. So far, the only thing the 360 does better is the lesser-scoring multiplatform games. The framerate on some multiplats is better on the 360, yes, but the ps3 has better textures/lighting in these games (Fallout 3 comes to mind).

I understand you are trying to objectively compare the systems, but from reading your article, you are doing everything to make the 360 look like the "old dog" who's "still fighting", but it's clearly starting to show its age.

Perhaps you should update your article after Killzone 2 comes out, you may have a different take on things then.

Thanks.

Kleptic3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

the only thing anyone is really saying is that coming to conclusions like 'the GPU in the 360 is more powerful' undermines the major differences between the two systems...don't preach to us about how objective the article is, when some of the arguments are taken completely out of context...

the big picture is that the only agreeable fact that every multiplatform developer has said is...'they are completely different platforms'...so you can't make such standard comparisons between the two architectures...that is what people are calling out...

the RSX by itself is, on paper, slightly slower than the 360's...the PS3's memory bandwidth, on paper, is faster than the 360's...the CPU of the PS3, on paper, is about twice as powerful as the 360's, albeit only at CERTAIN tasks...

and none of that matters...the RSX has major differences from the 7800 series Nvidia chipsets (which is where ALL the specs are being based, as the true specs of the RSX are hidden from the public by Sony and Nvidia...the fact that none of your articles point this out is nearly grounds for dismissal...you are basing your comparison off of unconfirmed specs)...look back at every tech article released on the PS3...the Cell and the RSX are designed in a way to complement each other...you don't get anywhere saying discussing the two processors on their own, as they are not intended to be used that way...

that problem is illustrated more when the 360 is the lead platform...as in that sense, the coding of the game is designed in a more normal PC environment where the GPU handles pretty much everything graphically, and the CPU simply runs task code telling the GPU what to do next...when you develop a game for the PS3 in that fashion, the 360 will ALWAYS win, as that is not even close to how the PS3 needs to be addressed...

now take it the other way...when you start to utilize the ps3's Cell for calc intensive code, running multiple streams in parallel, with the GPU also handling some of it...you start to see things a little more clearly...killzone 2 for example...Killzone 2 has a physics based animation system handled entirely by the CPU...the lighting engine is also calculated nearly entirely by the CPU...other games do this as well...and when developers take advantage of the PS3's architecture, things like Uncharted, MGS4, and Killzone 2 are the result...games that are simply unmatched on a tech level by the 360...there simply is no arguing that...saying killzone 2 looks 'great' is fine...but this guy acts like the 360 has something remotely close visually...which is blatantly wrong, nothing on that platform comes within 3 miles of killzone 2...take one major advantage of the 360 GPU over the RSX for example...compressed texture handling and pixel fill rates are undeniably better on the 360's GPU...but what happens when developers do what Guerilla did...which was store uncompressed textures on the high capacity disc itself (a 100% pipe dream for the 360's DVD drive), then stream the uncompressed textures in and have a single SPE of the Cell plumb it straight to the GPU...the GPU calculates nothing there...its just 'displays' it...the CPU of the 360 CANNOT do this, it doesn't have the bandwidth to do this in the background while running the base code...and what is the end result?...

you guessed it...it results in the 'weaker' PS3 GPU displaying unmatched texture quality on screen...something the 360 has yet to come close to matching...all the while saving processing and memory usage overall...as nothing is wasted on 'uncompressing' textures off the disc...no HDD install...and more power to use on lighting, particle effects, and animation...see how simple that is...and see how these two processors can absolutely sing when coded correctly?...if you don't believe me, find a nice video of the review build of killzone 2...and just pause it any time you want with a good up close look at ground textures, or even wall textures now (of which were not uncompressed until the latest build iirc)...you will see exactly how the 'weaker GPU' argument holds zero weight whatsoever...

when you discuss hardware of two different systems...you have to discuss ALL the hardware, and how it works together...the 360 has a familiar PC layout architecturally (even if it is similar to a budget laptop in layout...not processor wise, but in the sharing memory sense)...the PS3 is nothing like that...the CPU and GPU are designed to compliment each other in ways that no other gaming architecture ever has...judging the specs of one or the other means absolutely nothing...

...but this guy said it himself...let the games do the talking...and they sure as feck are...killzone 2 is trashing competition on every tech level...killzone 2 proves that the PS3 is a very powerful system, at a level which the 360 has yet to come close to matching...wouldn't the big AAA exclusives for the 360 display similar prowess if these systems are so similar?...maybe they would if MS wouldn't insist on using UE3 for everything...but for now...the PS3 is kind of graphics argument...hands down...

thebudgetgamer3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

but my opinion is the only one that matters

:)

edhe3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

I think all that killzone2 proves is if you spend 4-5 years working solid on a massively funded and hugely backed project that's made a flagship by one of the largest entertainment powerhouses in the world you can finally make something that may or may not look better than another game.

Just think about that investment right there. You think it'll pay back the coffers? How many other development houses get that kind of backup?

If killzone2 *doesn't* blow everyone away at release then it's going to be marked as an overhyped flop. After all the hype and attention it's received for it to be anything less than halo/gears/cod in any way then.. bad news.

It needs to be uber if not to get slaughtered.

So let's hope it is, otherwise 4-5 years down the drain.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3443d ago
LightningPS3PS33444d ago

Time to end the embarresment, drop out guys. Can't wait till December NPD.

GWAVE3443d ago

Can't wait till sales numbers equate to reliable hardware and a high number of 1st-party devs...

lowlight3444d ago

This is NOT an "anti PS3" article. How anyone could even possibly think that blows my mind. Did anyone actually bother to read the words? Or did they just get to the part where they said one GPU was more powerful than the other (which is an indisputable fact), immediately stopped reading, and came here leaving ignorant comments and reporting the story as "lame" with nothing to back up the claims?

Do I even need to ask?

Pennywise3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

You must of wrote the article to defend his words like you are. If not, I suggest you read it again.

If that article is not biased towards the 360, I will stop commenting on N4G.

He recommends the 360 if you like online games and then suggests the PS3 if you want a Bluray player that you can play games on. Utter joke of a non-bias article.

I love my PS3... I will let everyone know it. I have played enough on friends 360's to know that XBOX LIVE is GREAT - But hardware to hardware comparisons, PS3 has a lock on all playing fields. Its reliable, has the best graphical games to date... and come Feb 27 I think there will be NO DOUBT left.

I reported your article as lame, because N4G has become a breeding ground for anti-sony spam. Its uncalled for. I can go home with peace of mind my gaming machine wont take a crap on me tonight.

AND - another point... If this article wasnt a flaming piece of crap it would have more than 1 approval in the whole time it has been waiting.

lowlight3443d ago

So you think that the XBOX 360 doesn't have better online support? Or that the PS3 doesn't have Blu-Ray? Are you retarded?

I'll give you that the PS3 has "better graphical games" because that's just your opinion, and that's fine.

But to tag an article as lame because you incorrectly think it is biased, and then post the comments you're posting.. You really can't be older than 12. Maybe 13.

People approve submissions based on a few things, like "heat" and what kind of negative reports are on it. Reports lower heat, and bring down everything.

Basically, your retardedness is preventing N4G from experiencing this great, well researched, objective, unbiased article. Simply because of the fact that you have the comprehension skills of a 12 (or 13) year old.

Pennywise3443d ago

Your little fluffy avatar basically sums you up.

I can bet I am older then you. I read your whole stupid article and after I read it all I could think was how lame it was. So I marked it LAME. Just like your cut downs.

My agree/disagree ratios speak for themselves man... I speak common knowledge, not console war bs. Ive seen it all as far as graphics go and the xbox does not have better graphics.

LIVE might have a few more cool features than PSN, but PSN does not go down like your favorite paid service. And again the comparison of LIVE and PSN - The price should be taken into consideration. Ive never had any problems jumping online and playing games - LAG FREE. R2 - 60 man MP, runs like butter.

You should try playing PS3 before you bash it.

lowlight3443d ago

So not only are you a moron, but a liar too. Because if you had read the article, you might have gotten to the end, where it says I prefer to play games on the Playstation 3.

Yeah, real PS3-bashing article, this.

plain rice3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

You're a moron lowlight. Saying "you prefer the PS3" in the end of your article DOES NOT make the rest of your article credible by any chance. That's just a sorry excuse to pass your article as unbiased. lol

PS3 owners can rightly "brag" about better graphics on the PS3 because it is proven with the games. Tech specs don't mean squat. Isn't the 360 supposed to be "easier" to program for? Why isn't there one game even in the 360's third year remotely close to PS3 exclusives? I'll tell you what, inferior hardware. Simple as that.

Give me a game that looks better than Uncharted. Gears of Wars 1/2 is probably the only game comparable to the graphics Uncharted offers. BUT uncharted still has the advantage with the wide range color palette. What about a game that looks better than MGS4. Sorry the 360 has nothing like it. What about Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. NO racing game even comes close to rendering a game like GT5p. HIGH resolution exterior AND interior models on top with very complex racing physics. Forza 2 and Project Gotham are laughable. Forza 2 looks like Xbox 1 graphics in HD res. Now what about a game like Killzone 2? That game is being compared to Crysis for Christ sakes. K2 is a generation leap of all games currently out on consoles.

thewhoopimen3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

We all here at N4G have seen the numbers this year... and your claim the MS outsold sony by a wide margin this year is utter fluff. I found your writing to be highly irresponsible. Read my lips.... you are dreaming up assumptions out of your ass. Even historically inaccurate VGchartz doesn't have enough of a margin between the two consoles to make your claim. How do you lie out of your ass and claim you're a writer? look at 2008 numbers for yourself. Who are you trying to lie to with this article? Your professionalism or us?

thebudgetgamer3443d ago

telling me reasons cupcakes stink compared to brownies but at the end you say but i really like cupcakes to appease the cupcake lovers.

:)

edhe3443d ago

lol..

I'm right 'cos i'm older than you.
No I'm right 'cos i'm bigger than you.

I'm right 'cos my daddy's bigger than your daddy!

Above folks is why internet opinions are so redundant.

NB The article is a straight comparison, and any straight comparison will always give the GPU power to the 360, anything else is ps3tardation.

InMyOpinion3443d ago

This is how it's like on N4G:

PS3 biased = objective

Everything else is 360 biased.

Your article proves points that the overly defensive PS3 fanboys can't handle, such as facts, and that's why they resort to calling you '360 biased'.

Oner3443d ago (Edited 3443d ago )

I wouldn't EXACTLY say this article is TOTALLY biased as a whole, but with certain comments as Pennywise described along with the BS one below (that I found odd along with another point afterwards) it's validity can be questioned/questionable -

"After all, XBOX 360 sold almost twice as many units this past Christmas as the PS3 (1.26 million vs. 797 thousand)"

By doing some simple math we have 797 thousand x 2 = 1.594 Million. So how in the hell does that equate to "almost twice". "Almost" would be more like 1.47+ Million or something even higher as 1.594 is EXTREMELY close to 1.6 and 1.26 is NOWHERE near equal to the "almost twice" comment being off by 330,000 is NOT even close to being almost "twice".

Lastly I have to add that when looking at the track record of the 2 previous "comparisons" there is no reason why the 3rd should be passive aggressive in it's nature by NOT choosing the PS3 because of how far it's come, reliability, MUCH better game choices in 2008 along with them being higher scored across the board and it showing it's graphical superiority...then there's the future of 2009 in which I didn't mention or factor in ;)

But OVERALL this ***3rd article*** does give some very good points ultimately and in the end I would use it for reference with a minor addendum.

mint royale3443d ago

sure there are some contentious points but just becasue you don't agree with them doesn't make the author a fanboy or the article biased. Its OPINION, something I don't think many on here understand. Anything that doesn't proclaim the ps3 as superior in everyway is called out for being biased. Its PATHETIC.

Bathyj3442d ago

Jenzo, just like every OPINION that favours XB you stick up for, claim is fact and say fanboys run the show at anyone who isn't agreeing with it.

Drop the "Holier than thou" you've just as much sh*t on the bottom of your shoes as everyone else here.

plain rice3442d ago

People like Jenzo are just hypocrites that's all. Thinking they're much better than anyone on here. That's fanboyism at a new level.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3442d ago
DarkSniper3443d ago

PLAYSTATION®3 provides you with up-to-date hardware that stands through the test of time. The system itself is future proof and through firmware upgrades, will always contain the latest multimedia, online and gaming features that the consumer wants.

In terms of gaming content, only Sony's PLAYSTATION®3 Home Computer Entertainment gives you the true bang for your buck reward with critically and commercially acclaimed software that spans across all genres. PLAYSTATION®3 has done a fantastic job on ensuring that each exclusive takes full advantage of the Cell Processing chip and the RSX underneath the hood.

With that being said, PLAYSTATION®3 exclusives are always being developed to suit the grand vision of the developer's idea and not something that is done in fractions like Xbox 360. Stories, content, visuals etc. are all enhanced when you immerse yourself in PLAYSTATION®3.

The PS3 is a supercomputer. Designed to trump the even the most sophisticated PC's out there, PLAYSTATION®3 is viewed upon as the prime example of sheer technological power in such a compact design. While Sony Snipers are enjoying themselves with true High Definition gaming to the fourth dimension, Xbox 1.5 is steady playing catch-up to Sony's last generation console PS2.

The sales figures show that overall, the Playstation brand is still the household brand in consumer electronics. With PS3, PS2 and PSP on the market simultaneously to this date, each platform has outsold Xbox 360 on a consistent basis each month. Proving that people want Playstation and not garbage.

If you havent done so already, trade your Xbox 360 while it still works and prepare yourself to play b3yond the fourth dimension of gaming.

$niper

Why dis3443d ago

PS3 gets beat multi platform game after multi platform game no matter the lead console.

I wonder what PS3 games would look like on the 360?

CliffyBee3443d ago

I agree with everything DarkSniper said. Its all the truth.

JUMP OUT XBOTS!!!

BleuStreeks3443d ago

I agree with dark sniper as well... but if after two years of next gen gaming and people still haven't bought one of these consoles...my question to you is what in the world are you waiting for you idiots?

SSCOOLCHEA3443d ago

ask the devs that ? Don't ask us that . MORON......Thats the reason why I don't buy multiplat games no matter what the game is . But I do have 15 games all ps3 exclusive. the first and second party devs know the beast that is the ps3.

na2ru13443d ago

Its the PS3 they'r waiting for! The price!

Stubacca3442d ago

Bubbles for you mate.

360 Fanboys (whilst amusing) defy logic.

The PS3 is the ultimate gaming console to have. It supports a great online service, the best games and is fully-loaded for HD content. I wouldn't be seen dead with the other two.

Especially the wii...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3442d ago