Cnet Prizefight PS3 Versus Xbox 360

It has been two years since the Playstation 3 hit the market, and three years since the Xbox 360 hit the market. Two years is a eternity in the gaming world with new features and games that have come out on each of the consoles. Cnet decided it was time to visit the Prizefight ring again, last time the Xbox 360 won, but much has changed since then on Sony's side. Lets see who comes out on top. Lets hope the Cnet editors remember that MGS4 and Killzone 2 aren't the only PS3 exclusives (hint hint) and that multi-platforms look better on the 360 due to porting.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GWAVE3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

EDIT: Awwww. Look. I got bubbled down from 9 to 8. Fanboys just can't stand hearing the truth, huh?

LOL. A comparison by Cnet. Hmmmmm. Wonder which one is gonna get praised?

In case you want to know:

360 - 3.3 PS3 - 3.7

360 - 3.7 PS3 - 5.0

360 - 5.0 PS3 - 3.0

360 - 4.0 PS3 - 4.0

360 - 4.0 PS3 - 3.0

"Bang for your buck"

360 - 4.0 PS3 - 3.0

sonarus3529d ago

I thought it was pretty fair except for the last round where they compare bang for your buck

Timberland2K93529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

How the 360 fanboys say, Oooo graphics aren't everything yet they go rave about how much better multiplats look on 360.


Funny how they don't talk about the extremely inovative ps3 games on the PSN and how much the 360 red rings.

Idk because the reviewers rated ps3s games on the psn way too low. and who the he(( plays xbox originals.

Mindboggle3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

I sort of agree with the list, and yes both consoles are great value for money, but considering the PS3 has a built in blu ray player, built in wifi, rechargable controller in every box, hard drive in every box and free online I dont entirely agree with the last round.

I think you get an equal amount of "bang for your buck" with both consoles but for £299 the PS3 is very good value, and the £100 360 is also a very good price for what you get. I think the last round should of been scored equal. But hey thats just my opinion.

Kushan3529d ago

Innovative games like Braid?
Seriously, comparing the games on the PSN with XBLA is a little silly, for every "innovative" title on PSN, there's about 5 quality titles on XBLA. They might not be innovative, but they're still pretty good games. I'm glad I have both consoles because I get a mixture of both. And just for the record, Wipeout HD is my favourite downloaded title yet.

I think both services are pretty evenly matched in the end, plus people seem to not care about Microsoft's Community Games idea. If you're seeking innovation, that's the place to look for it because as long as someone with a good idea is dedicated enough, they can get their game on there without anyone stopping them - and for a very affordable sum (you're talking < 3 figures, not counting equipment like a PC and a regular 360). I'm not saying this is bad for the PS3 or anything, like I said most people seem to be ignoring them at the moment, but I still think it's a great idea.

pwnsause3529d ago

"Seriously, comparing the games on the PSN with XBLA is a little silly, for every "innovative" title on PSN, there's about 5 quality titles on XBLA."

such as?

Why o why3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago ) tell and remember you said for every 1 there's 5 on xbl so please name me 25. ill actually let you get away with 20 as im gunna name 6

pixel junk monsters

HV bowling

Super stardust hd

Wipeout HD



yes i know ur exaggerating but still its obvious you dont have a ps3 to even make such flippant comments like that. It wasn't even funny


dont disagree with me guys, he said it not me;)

La Chance

just a question or 2. Are you French?

Do you see how the UK press have some type of slant against everything non british especially the French and Germans because of past......lets say......issues?

The reason you seem never to acknowledge media bias is probably because most of the western media is actually in favour of the console you prefer and a high proportion of that media is from the country of that very same console. Would you at least tell me that you know that 'variety' is biased against the ps3 OR in favour of the 360 because its like im taking pigeon steps right about now. Did you read the david jaffe article earlier on??

La Chance3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )


You got to be kidding !

All you do is whine how the media is biased bla bla bla , you've actually ended up believing your own conspiracy theories...

Funny how the media wasnt biased when a couple of months ago LBP was getting great scores.And its weird too they werent biased when MGS4 came out...the conspiracy theories always pop back out when "insert name here" doesnt score better as good as the highest rated 360 games.

Moreover you bring up stupid invented figures like those sales figures that you post in almost every thread that are a pure product of your imagination.

EVERYTHING that doesnt show Sony as winner in one way or another is of course biased and a part of the intergalactic conspiracy against Sony.

And of course you are NOT a fanboy.No of course not!
According to N4G standards all that makes you "unbiased".

@why o why above : yes Im french and live in France and no I didnt read the David Jaffe article.

And to be honest I havent noticed anything type of "slant" from the UK media...or maybe were just used to it and dont notice it.But saying that I dont perceive the anti-sony "thing" thats going on because Im a 360 fan isnt correct , I mean I can say the same thing about you : I can say you think the media is biased simply because you prefer the PS3.

The thing is if the media IS biased then its biased EVERYDAY and NOT only when it suites people.

It wasnt biased when the ENTIRE WORLDWIDE MEDIA was predicting the death of the 360 in 2008 for no good reason at all but when the very same media predicts bad times to come for Sony for instance...well all of a sudden theyre biased...sorry but in my opinion it just doesnt work that way.

AJKanismajoris3529d ago

So that Cnet comparison was another 360 apraisment (not a real word)
Bang for your buck? and the 360 wins? thats bullshit to make the 360 have the same stuff the ps3 has it would cost alot more and didn't say earlier that the ps3 has alot MORE FEATURES!!

The graphic comparison was a joke coz alot of comparisons between the 360 and ps3 are done in HD right?, alot of the time the "testers" (Cnet)
forget to set the HDMI range on the ps3 from Limited to full and they leave Superwhite OFF.

They can;t compare the games because Cnet don't control peoples minds, remember different people like different things.....that's why Cnet sucks

CrazzyMan3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Just curious... =))

Anyway, in terms of games, it depends on person`s TASTE.
I mean:

Resistance 1 & 2
Motorstorm and M:PR
Heavenly Sword
Ninja Gaiden Sigma
White Knight Cronicles
Disgaea 3
Valkyria Chronicles
WipEout HD
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ratchet and Clank
Naruto: UNS
Killzone 2
Yakuza 3
And many PSN titles

These exclusive games should satisfy anyone`s taste. =)

Kushan3529d ago

@Why o why - I've already embarrassed one person on this forum by posting a picture of my PS3, do you really want me to do the same to you?

But getting back on topic, you missed my point entirely. I never once said that XBLA's titles were BETTER than PSN's and that was precisely my point. I simply said that XBLA has a lot more titles than PSN, "Quality" titles being ones that aren't the likes of Yaris or even that free Doritos one we got the other day. Nothing special, just decent games. And the point I was making (because I'm sure you still haven't got it) was that while the PSN has fewer titles, they're more innovative. While XBLA has less innovation, it has more (decent) titles in general. And, let me stress this, I never said one was better than the other, although it may have looked that way. But I'm trying to get through to you is that both services are just as good as each other (I'm not talking about Live here, I'm talking about XBLA), but in different ways. Got it yet?
There's no need to get so defensive, you know.

Anon19743529d ago

...after all, their parent company does have deals with Microsoft that need protecting. Anyway, here we go.

So, they admit that the PS3 has better graphics - and yet score them the same in the graphics department. O..K....

XBL is apparently the hands on better online experience vs the PSN. 5 vs 3. Just don't ask us to explain why.

Games. 4 vs 3 for the 360...and again, you're not supposed to wonder why there was a different score, just accept it because they don't explain.

Ugh. And bang for your buck, the 360? Despite listing all the features of the PS3, let alone the Blu-Ray, and bang for your buck goes to the 360?

Wake me when CBS's partnership with Microsoft expires so Cnet can go back to being unbiased again.

Why o why3529d ago


calling me defensive......o k

anyway, ive come across your type before. The type that has everything which somehow leads them to think that they should be exonerated from any claims of bias, favouritism or unbalanced. U know the 'how can i be racist because i have a black friend' type (bad analogy but im in a rush). Just because you have both consoles (ill take your word for it even though i dont really care) you're preference clearly shines green. I've no issue with that but please. Cut the 'im immune to talk sh!t' act as like i said i felt you may of been making such 'flippant' comments as some type of joke. I even pointed out that i got snagged.......unless you really believe what you said.....nah

Kushan3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Dude, let me ask you straight - what exactly is it that I've said that you're so upset about? I sitting here stating that I like both PSN and XBLA for different reasons, that they each have their advantages, pros and cons, yet you're getting very defensive, like I've said something horrible or made out that the PSN is rubbish. I'm at a loss, I can't be any more clear here. Yeah, sure, I've got a "preference" for green, I prefer my 360 over my PS3 and I'm not afraid to admit that (The difference is that I'm not a fanboy, I can happily point out the 360's flaws, the PS3's strengths and not get upset about it), but why on earth are you so upset at me claiming they're equal in this area?
In fact, considering the article claims the XBLA is better, I'm actually defending the PS3 (in a slightly roundabout way), so once again I ask you - what have I said that you're so upset about?

Narutone663529d ago

partners are:
wait for the partners to appear and you will see that MS is one their partners in business. Yep, obvious bias there if you ask me.

Why o why3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

im smiling whilst i type. Ive been away from n4g for a while and i was just having a little fun. Have a bubble mr s-s-sensitive ;)

Why o why3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

truth is the british dont really like the french or foreigners for that matter. I love the french (Arsenal supporter) but trust me there is always an angle out here. We call the french arrogant when you are just confident. We say we are reserved when sometimes that just a way of saying we're repressed. A negative angle is used more often than not and thats a british person telling you. That stuff you were saying about having to be bias all the time/everyday couldn't be more further from the truth. I hate having to use analogies but people may be sexist. It doesnt mean they wont give a female a job, No but it they may not give that same female the opportunities as the males (glass ceiling). Thats an instant of being bias without being bias 100%. Another thing is Gametrailers, i mean cumon lachance. You telling me you cant see how MS's affiliation with viacom hasn't filtered down to them. The company they are in favour of are the same company that hired a boat to sale past the ps3 launch with banners on the side and people close by to hand out chairs with messages on to people queuing. Ok its all a joke and that but it shows you how far some people will take viral and manipulation. The want for the power to sway the thoughts of rational people cannot be underestimated.

You can also show me the 360 is dead articles from variety gamespot 1 up etc. For every 1 of those you'll find 5 saying the ps3's dead *see what i did Kushan* ;)

MNicholas3529d ago

Even when they talked about how MGS4 looked good they showed a tiny shot of a bland setting with a simple nearly overhead camera angle but for Gears they showed a full-screen clip with a dynamic camera angle.

These things might seem small to you but anyone who's been in marketing can tell you that these are not accidental.

Still, Cnet has never really determined market winners. They always backed Pioneer Plasma's using ridiculously unrealisitic "tests" yet Pioneer is now getting out of the plasma manufacturing business.

thereapersson3529d ago

"It wasnt biased when the ENTIRE WORLDWIDE MEDIA was predicting the death of the 360 in 2008 for no good reason at all..."

Uhm, I believe that was the PS3 being predicted as "dying"....

Death3529d ago

Maybe Sony is in third place because of Microsofts interests. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Bang for the buck is a phrase that many people use to rank a products perceived value based on price. The PS3 has more features, but on average the system costs more. This means you are essentially paying for these features. Free online would have been a benefit had the online services ranked evenly. The PS3 has some kick ass games in it's library and it's growing everyday. So is Microsoft's. The one year advantage also applies to software which is how the Xbox 360 can be ranked higher.

Which system ranks higher? That depends on the individual's needs. If you are looking for a system that plays Blu-Ray movies and online isn't your number one priority, the PS3 is for you. If you don't care about movies and simply want to play games, the Xbox 360 is a great choice. You can't really go wrong with either system which is probably why you can't be right about which system is better. My advise, buy both. If you can't afford to own both systems, find a friend that has the system you don't and enjoy gaming.


cmrbe3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

They said bang for your buck goes to x360 because its cheaper than the PS3 and yet they rated xboxlive above PSN even though PSN is free ?.

What a Bullcrap comparison.

Bang for your back?. You get a heck of alot more with the 400 PS3 than any of the x360 SKU. In built wi-fi, Blu-ray drive, Standard HD.

On top of this. The PS3 solid as a rock unlike the x360. Why reliability wansnt included completely baffles me until i found out its from Cnet.

I hope not. As i definatley don't want the same failure rate as the x360.

Powertesties3529d ago

Day one! All the fanboys do is take my poor bubbles. Oh well.

CNET is right on the money in this video showdown. RIGHT ON.

Both systems rock but at the moment the 360 has the edge. Listen Sony fans, this doesn't mean that the PS3 won't at least equal the 360 in the future, we are simply saying that as of right now, the 360 has the edge.

If Sony can do some firmware updates (the recent rumored list is exactly what the PS3 needs) and as the lineup of games continue to grow, there is no reason why the PS3 can equal that of the 360.

Heck, they may even be able to bypass it later on!

Good job CNET!

Doppy3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

I have some grips with this, but they are other people's opinions even though I don't agree. So I decided to score the systems myself, but remember their scores are the average of 3 people while I'm just one person.

Design: Based off the scores the Xbox 360 got a 3, 3, and a 4. While the PS3 got a 4, 4, and a 3. How on earth can you say the Xbox 360 and the PS3 tie in design? The PS3 looks much better than the Xbox 360 and the 2 judges who said their designs are equal need to be slapped. The only negative about the PS3 is that it's a huge and a dust and fingerprint magnet (the 360 also collects A LOT of dust, but on the inside used air to clean mine).

360 - 3.0
PS3 - 4.0

Features: The 360 has nowhere near as many features as the PS3 has PERIOD.

360 - 3.0
PS3 - 5.0

Online: The 360 reigns supreme here, but the PS3 deserves more than a 4 TO ME. I use the Internet Browser often, because I have A LOT of friends who seem to come over EVERYDAY now, and when someone's on the computer and laptop the PS3 is the next choice, and since I have a mouse and Keyboard it works pretty well. PSN is free, Home is nice to play in every once in a while, you can download movies from the PSN Video store, or watch them using DivX support or PlayOn to make up for the lack of Netflix which you also have to pay for to use on the 360.

360 - 5.0
PS3 - 4.0

Graphics: Now I agreed with this score until they mention Killzone 2. Killzone 2 is the best looking console game to date, and it's exclusive to PS3. Multiplatform games do look better on the 360, but no multiplatform game looks better than Killzone so to me the PS3 gets the edge. No perfect's here, because I'm still waiting for a game to WOW me with it's graphics, and I haven't been awestruck by a game yet.

360 - 4.0
PS3 - 4.5

Games: The 360 has more and a larger variety of games PERIOD. Even though I prefer the PS3 exclusives the 360, the fact is the 360 has a larger quantity of games to choose from in every genre. And while the PS3 has quality, both are needed to win this category. We'll see how this category goes next year.

360 - 4.5
PS3 - 3.5

"Bang for your buck": This was complete BS. The PS3 just crushed the 360 is Features earlier on, so how can it get a 3/5 compared to the 360 in this category when they compared it to the $299 360 which is only $100 less than the PS3. I think both systems are completely worth the money, at the price they are at now. I don't include the arcade, because they can't use or get any of the XBLA stuff that Cnet mentioned (5 BS games that come free don't count).

360 - 4.0
PS3 - 4.0

Overall: I love both of my consoles, but I do prefer the PS3 more than the 360. I completely agree with the statement they made at the end that the 360 is the better gaming console as of now, and the PS3 is more of a multimedia device which is why I love it. If you are a true gamer you should have both of them anyway (360 owners who bought the $400 360 at launch have no excuse since PS3 is $400, and PS3 owners have no excuse at all), which makes this whole prizefight pointless. But here's what I think. Again, remember their scores are the average of 3 people while I'm just one person.

360 - 3.9 Online, Games, Price
PS3 - 4.1 Do-It-All system

NNNW3529d ago

still waiting for you to name the 20 games..

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 3529d ago
Microsoft Xbox 3603529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

CNET. nuff said.

Best bang for your buck? 360 wins? haha.
Graphic comparison? Tie? WTF?!?
Games? 360 wins? What games?

The guy even said it himself, graphics seen in games like Killzone 2, aren't found on the 360, yet he gives it a tie because of the "slight" difference in multiplatform games. Tsk tsk.

Where is the 7th round? Which is RELIABILITY. They knew it's an automatic 1/5 for the 360 so they left that round out. There's your bias right there. What a joke.

II Necroplasm II3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

YAY!!! another flamewar whhoooooo!

Enjoy the excitement in your life.

lociefer3529d ago

graphics = tie ? srsly ? ur comparing 360 games wich r all fckin unreal engines to awesomly crafted ps3 games ? i mean, fuk , ppl still compare gears 2 to uncharted 1 coz gears cant even match killzone 2, best bang for ur buck = 360 , LOOLLLLL , ya if u think that payin for online / repairs / accessories = good value then yea, its a good bang for ur bucks , remove this crap article

Sir Ken_Kutaragi3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Does the 'C' stand for C......

Erm i better not say, i'll get banned again...
It begins with a 'C' Next letter is a 'U' Next letter is a 'N' Last letter is a 'T'

+ 'xBox 360' Vs 'PS3' - "Graphic comparison - Tie"???????????? WTF are they SMOKING??? ;-D
It's a 'Tie' if it's 'xBox 360' Vs 'PS......2'!!! ;-D
+ Actually the 'PS2' would win that!!! ;-D

GiantEnemyCrawdad3529d ago

Sorry PS3rd droids, maybe you'll win next time. But you probably won't.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3529d ago
HDgamer3529d ago

real gamers would own both or play one without caring about the ignorance that follows console wars.

INehalemEXI3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

I own both and a wii but I think im going to trade in my 360. This the 3rd one and its starting to act funny.

sometimes it does not respond when I hit eject. Then I got to powerdown and powerup before it will eject a disc. Today when I powered it up it seemed to not want to for a few seconds....thats what I ment by acting funny.

Megaton3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

lol @ equal graphics. That one is determined by fact, rather than opinion. A fact in which the PS3 clearly tops the 360. The whole multiplat comparison is seriously flawed. They run on multiplat engines, which are forced to function on the unit with the lowest specs. A realistic graphics comparison is done by flexing exclusive titles, the ones that actually utilize everything the console has to offer.

Kushan3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Definition for a FAIR test: "A 'fair test' is one in which you only change one thing (variable). "

When you compare a multiplatform game, the only difference is the platform it's running on. When you compare exclusives, not only is the platform different, but so is the game. How the game differs decides how it's designed. It's like comparing an RTS to an FPS - the FPS will "look" better, but it wont have hundreds of enemies on screen at once.

Yes, it's a bit sucky, but the truth is it's not easy to directly compare the two consoles. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a truck, the expensive Ferrari will be faster, but the truck can pull more weight. Which is better? The Ferrari? Not if your task is carrying a huge trailer.

Even inside genres, like FPSs, the engine design can differ vastly depending on it's intention. I'm going to do something I'll probably regret 10 disagrees from now, but lets compare Killzone 2 to Halo 3 for a second: Killzone 2 looks, by far, infinitely better than Halo 3. I'll give you that witohut question. It also runs in a higher resolution than Halo 3. Once again, no problem giving you that. But does Killzone 2 have split screen? No. Halo does. In fact, halo 3 can do 4 player split screen. This one difference alone makes a huge impact on what you can do with a game, graphically speaking. For Killzone 2 to do even 2 player splitscreen, it'd have to tone down the visuals a bit. 4 player split screen, even more (You have to render the same scene 4 times, after all, possibly even more depending on how many rendering passes you have for lighting and such). Halo 3 never looked good, I don't care what the fanboys say, but 4 play split screen is no easy task.
So in the end, which is more technically superior? Well, neither. They both do their own thing for their own reasons and you cannot compare them directly.

I hope even if you disagree with all of this, you at least take away one point: The comparisons are stupid, the only reason people do them is to validate themselves in some way. Just play the games already, that's what we're all here for.

Why o why3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

so your eyes cant tell what better graphics are unless its a comparison of the exact same part of a game done by gametrailers. Your whole wall of text has failed on so many levels. Actually i think im being over sensitive and your just having a laugh at our expense. touche

oh so halo is better than gears 2 because it can do split screen right? and with that Uranus logic motorstorm 2 smashes forza 2 just because it has 4 player split screen too. hmm. Whats your angle on gt5p vs forza + every other driving game i wonder....... any takers???

'The comparisons are stupid, the only reason people do them is to validate themselves in some way. Just play the games already, that's what we're all here for.'

.........damn................ .you're right. now i've got eff all to do *sigh*

Kushan3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

@Why o why

Once again, you missed my point entirely, except this time it went completely over your head and into a field nearby.

"oh so halo is better than gears 2 because it can do split screen right?"

Where did I say Halo was better than anything? Where did I say Split screen made a game better? What I said was it made the game DIFFERENT and that's why the comparison isn't so black in white. How on earth did you miss that? Look, I'll quote the key point that you managed to miss:

"So in the end, which is more technically superior? Well, neither. They both do their own thing for their own reasons and you cannot compare them directly."

Why o why3529d ago (Edited 3529d ago )

thats like saying you cannot compare different cars from different manufactures or different football or basketball players to each other. Everything is comparable mate, rightly or wrongly. Our brains are not that placid where comparisons have to be almost identical for us to make a valid judgement. Thats like saying the oscars should not have a best actor award because the actors are not all doing the same role in their version of the same film. Sorry mate that really is ridonkulous. You can break graphic comparisons into different smaller more palatable groups if you want.

Art style, (bioshock vs folklore) facial animation (mass effect vs heavenly sword) lifelike (gt5p vs forza *cough*) Scale (resistance 2 vs Gears 2) etc. CNET just folded thats all.

The whole time i thought we were talking about graphics and why exclusives ARE in fact comparable and its seems you were on about other things. Seems again ill have nothing to do but go to sleep;)

GWAVE3529d ago

Funny how late 2006 and for all of 2007, 360 owners bragged and bragged about exclusives. If it wasn't exclusive, it didn't matter. Sure, most of the best games of 2007 were also on PS3, but PS3 didn't have TEH EXCLUSIVZ!!! 2008 rolls around and the tune changed. Now it was all about TEH HIGHEST RATED EXCLUSIVZ!!! Yet, as 2008 went on, that tune changed, too.

Now, is it all about TEH MULTIPLATFORM GAMEZ?

LOL. This is hilarious.

Kushan3529d ago

We ARE talking about graphics, but now you're talking about the very basics that constitute graphics, yet when you do that you can't outrightly say that one game is graphically superior to another. Does Killzone 2 have the best lip syncing technology out there? The best Facial animation? Probably not. Best particle physics? Maybe!

To really get to the core of this "argument", you do actually have to step back and ask the question "What do we mean by 'graphics'?". I'm seriously, how do you define graphics in a game? It's not just number of polygons on screen or texture resolution (Which is a shame, because those are things we could directly compare on the consoles), it is all about art style, creativity, plus what the game is actually trying to accomplish in the first place. I stand by my statement that Killzone 2 couldn't do Split screen on the PS3, or if it did the overall graphical appearance would have to drop somewhat. It's impossible to say how much, but you know what, it doesn't matter, it's not an issue and I only picked "split screen" as an example because it's something everyone knows immediately. If I started talking about scene graphs, BSP trees, quad trees and various other things, I'd probably lose most of the people here. Forget "split screen" being something that makes one game "better" than another, think of it as something that makes one game DIFFERENT from another. Now imagine that there are thousands of things that any two games could differ with, internally, and you should (hopefully) see what I'm getting at.

Going back to your car analogy - Comparing a 360 exclusive against a PS3 exclusive isn't like comparing two different cars, it's like comparing two different cars on two different tracks. You might be able to draw some rough conclusions, but the conditions are vastly different. I stand by my point on "Fair testing". It's one of the first basic concepts you learn in school and it applies here as much as anywhere else.

But I also stand by my original point - it doesn't really matter. It's not like the most powerful console of a generation is sure to be the "winner". The Xbox didn't beat the PS2, the Dreamcast didn't beat the N64 and the N64 didn't beat the PS1. Hell, the Wii is laughing at both the PS3 and 360 and it's nowhere near as powerful, so why do people get so upset and adamant about comparing the 360 to the PS3?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3529d ago
Rice3529d ago

I thought the comparison was quite fair except for the graphics department, and bang for your bucks can be more arguable.

ukilnme3529d ago

Agreed. I prefer the games on 360 but I would have to give bang for the buck to the PS3 because it can do a few more things.