+- World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: Other (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Other)
+--- Forum: Closed Threads (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Closed-Threads)
+--- Thread: X-Box vs PS3 (/Thread-X-Box-vs-PS3)
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Wraith - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 12:17 AM)DaijoubuQuest Wrote:(Oct. 22, 2010 8:16 AM)bestblader123 Wrote: xbox is just simply better.cooler games.FUNNER games.oh and wraith if you are reading this than dont come to shcool on monday and be like hasbro:Uh duh!noooooooooo playstation better UH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
And why are you implying that Wraith is stupid?
Somebody stands up for...UHHHHHHHHHH DUUUUUHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHH DARK WOLF IS BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UH DUHHHHHHHHHH PLAYSTATION BETTTTTTTTEER UH DUH!
Where was I? ..me. Thanks
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 12:17 AM)DaijoubuQuest Wrote: As stated before, the games don't make the system
I don't know about you, but when I buy a video game console, I buy it to play games. I usually pick out the games that I like that are on that console to determine which one I want. That would mean the games make the system.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - LeonTempest - Oct. 23, 2010
heres my thing. Sony still makes games for the PS2 every now and agian (meening PS3 isnt doing so well in sales) and also, PS Move? Wtf? that makes the wii look better by comparison, and that is sad for older gamers (note: wii is mostly for T and under, so this comment does not apply to younger gamers)
Also, xbox has almost every game that comes out for the PS2 and 3 + more. True, Sony may have free live, but it kinda sucks. and also, its really not free because the PS3 cists more than the new xbox360.
for thosr who fear the red ring if death, it happned to me 3x. my console still works perfectly. it has been highly exagerated by propoganda, though i will admit, all of it is not entirly false.
Normally, i would say that Xbox360>PS3=Wii, but now that "move" is out, Xbox360>Wii>PS3
off topic (sort off)
Spoiler (Click to View)
PS3 sucks
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Wraith - Oct. 23, 2010
No, they make new games so that they get EVEN MORE MONEY. Not because PS3 isn't selling well. And your argument about online makes no sense...
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - LeonTempest - Oct. 23, 2010
how does it not make sense?
Xbox 360 + 1 year of live = approx $400usd
PS3 + live (free) = approx $450usd
regarding the PS2, then why not have a virtual consolr market for that like the Wii of 360? why still make PS2 games? my point exactly. even if you look at sale satistics right now, 360's in 1st, Wii is in 2nd, and PS3 is in 3rd (only a little bit behind wii)
ps3 isnt a bad system, but it isnt great. its sales are also not bad, but agian, not great compared to wii and especialy 360
(Oct. 22, 2010 8:16 AM)bestblader123 Wrote: xbox is just simply better.cooler games.FUNNER games.oh and wraith if you are reading this than dont come to shcool on monday and be like hasbro:Uh duh!noooooooooo playstation better UH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
well said. in order to fully support a side, one must have a valid argument, in which case, PS3 thus far has almost none on this thread
join the FUNNER side
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Aqua - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 4:18 AM)Leonwind Wrote: heres my thing. Sony still makes games for the PS2 every now and agian (meening PS3 isnt doing so well in sales) and also, PS Move? Wtf? that makes the wii look better by comparison, and that is sad for older gamers (note: wii is mostly for T and under, so this comment does not apply to younger gamers)
Also, xbox has almost every game that comes out for the PS2 and 3 + more. True, Sony may have free live, but it kinda sucks. and also, its really not free because the PS3 cists more than the new xbox360.
for thosr who fear the red ring if death, it happned to me 3x. my console still works perfectly. it has been highly exagerated by propoganda, though i will admit, all of it is not entirly false.
Normally, i would say that Xbox360>PS3=Wii, but now that "move" is out, Xbox360>Wii>PS3
off topic (sort off)Spoiler (Click to View)
PS3 sucks
Excellent post. Great, fair assessments of the consoles.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 4:18 AM)Leonwind Wrote: heres my thing. Sony still makes games for the PS2 every now and agian (meening PS3 isnt doing so well in sales) and also, PS Move? Wtf? that makes the wii look better by comparison, and that is sad for older gamers (note: wii is mostly for T and under, so this comment does not apply to younger gamers)
Sony hasn't made a PS2 exclusive title since 2006 outside of regional Singstar, and Buzz expansions and some titles made for developing countries (like India). The reason they still occasionally release a PS2 version of MLB: The Show, or a PSP title is because the assets are all finished, it's incredibly cheap, and you know, the fact that there's 150 million PS2s out there (which by the way, makes it the best selling console of all time). It has nothing to do with how successful the PS3 may or may not be. If Microsoft hadn't taken a bath on the original Xbox, and it sold similar numbers, they'd probably do the same.
You seem like a 12 year old, so why are you so concerned about older gamers? I'd imagine that for many older gamers Move would actually allow them to experience some games that the non-Move PS3s weren't allowed to experience. Such as light gun shooters. In fact, I'd argue Kinect is a bigger "threat" to older gamers, as that offers such limited gameplay experiences that only "casual" titles could be made. Besides, it's not like Move is taking away resources from Gran Turismo 5, or The Last Guardian. Developers who are making Move exclusive games are small teams who regularily wouldn't be making a PS3 game, unlike Kinect, where Rare has been entirely devoted to that. The developers who are making strides to put Move features in their PS3 games are doing so because it benefits their genre. FPS games are helped with pointer controls, so it makes sense that Killzone 3 would use it. LittleBigPlanet is all about user creation, with Move you're able to draw like you would in real life, so it makes sense that LittleBigPlanet 2 would have Move functionality.
Leonwind Wrote:Also, xbox has almost every game that comes out for the PS2 and 3 + more. True, Sony may have free live, but it kinda sucks. and also, its really not free because the PS3 cists more than the new xbox360.
The PS3's costs don't go towards paying for PlayStation Network services. Premium PlayStation Network services, such as Hulu+, PlayStation+ or in Store advertisements pay for that. Hardware costs are associated to the actual cost of production. The average PS3 is rumored to cost around $250-$270 to make. MSRP is $299, so the margins there aren't great. It's expected that Sony isn't going to sell at cost since until the Slim was released last year, Sony was losing money on each PS3 sold, and now would be a nice time to recoup some costs on that front.
Leonwind Wrote:Normally, i would say that Xbox360>PS3=Wii, but now that "move" is out, Xbox360>Wii>PS3
Go away.
Leonwind Wrote:Nintendo will own Sega one day, its inevitable in my opinion
Nintendo would be stupid to do that. SEGA doesn't have any valuable IPs except one that they've run into the ground. Besides, SEGA has stronger ties to Sony and Microsoft than Nintendo. Especially Microsoft, as Xbox Live is actually SEGA's doing, and SEGA agressively supported the original Xbox with Shenmue II, and the like after the Dreamcast had proven to be a dud.
Leonwind Wrote:PS3 sucks
You know what really sucks, the fact that I've spent about a half hour replying to a twelve year old troll who likely won't read this entire post.
(Oct. 23, 2010 4:33 AM)Leonwind Wrote: how does it not make sense?
Xbox 360 + 1 year of live = approx $400usd
PS3 + live (free) = approx $450usd
You live in 2007? Xbox 360 Slim Arcade- $199 + $60 Live = $259. PlayStation 3 Slim Core = $299. I don't bother with taxes since that varies by region.
(Oct. 23, 2010 4:33 AM)Leonwind Wrote: regarding the PS2, then why not have a virtual consolr market for that like the Wii of 360? why still make PS2 games? my point exactly. even if you look at sale satistics right now, 360's in 1st, Wii is in 2nd, and PS3 is in 3rd (only a little bit behind wii)
The PS2 is a difficult platform to emulate properly due to many parts that Sony developed themselves. Even the PS3s that are backwards compatible with PS2 parts aren't 100% perfect. So unlike the Virtual Console for Wii, Sony would have to re-develop a lot of the games to change the code. So in that regard, they might as well release HD compilations, which they do. As for a Virtual Console market, Sony does have the PSone Classics, and in Japan that's expanded to NeoGeo, and TurboGraphx titles. With a plan to eventually get Genesis titles as well.
True story, your numbers are wrong. Sales are more like this Wii>>>>360>PS3 worldwide (Numbers are something like 40 million PS3s, 47 million 360s, and 70 million Wiis). Wii's slowing down considerably worldwide, where as the HD consoles are gaining ground. Well, except the 360. In the US it's making great gains (it was the top selling console last month, with the Wii being last), but in Japan it's a platform that sells less than 10,000 units a month. Europe's an unknown, but it's generally the PS3>360 in every country that isn't the UK.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - LeonTempest - Oct. 23, 2010
you get off telling me that they dont make PS2 games, and then you give me like 20 exceptions...
12?!?!?!? you think I am 12???????!!!!!!! I am a 15 with a job and a good education. how dare you accuss me of being a child just because you do not approve of my ideas? i look at facts. everything i said there is based off facts, which then i elaborated on with opinions
and while Kenect sounds cool and all, it will have the same fate as Wii and Move, crapoy arse games that only appeal to the family gamer and not the individual or more mature gamers
do you live in 2009? Ps3 costs went waay up and then the new xbox 360 design came out, so at this time, there is no arcade version. get with the program
regarding my Sega comment, it was off topic and hidden for a reason you should not have responded to it (truth be told, there were some rumors going around, but they mostly stopped)
i gave all 3 consoles a fair evaluation. i do not completely disagree with your ideas, some are valid points, however others are not. and calling me a 12 year and saying i am 100% wrong is childlike and idiotic
learn how to tolerate other people's opinions. if you cannot do that, then simply dont post at all
and btw, trusting google search for these statistics isnt reliable. look at real gaming magazines, like i do. and for the record, i am consodering a future carear in the video game industry, so there
on a lighter note, i will give you all some advice. Never screw with me when it comes to the followong things -Music, video games, engineering, plastic beys, and Zoids. and I mean never (lol)
(Oct. 23, 2010 2:47 PM)Aqua Wrote: Excellent post. Great, fair assessments of the consoles.
thanks Aqua. i know how much you wanted an intelegent post! besides, I agree with you. Simple "it sucks" or "ftw" related posts prove nothing to no one and are a waste of time to read and even talk about. there should have been a therad rule here that said "Intelegent posts only or risk a warning!"
i actualy have whole assesments on all 3 consoles, but this isnt the place to post such things. another time... once agian, thanks aqua =D
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Wraith - Oct. 23, 2010
The reason PS3 sales are lowest because of the facts:
1. 360's have been out longer!
2. Every family owns a Wii, basically.
3. You may have noticed that PS3 sales are catching up because of the PS3 slim.
You have a good argument, but I shall still win.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)Leonwind Wrote: you get off telling me that they dont make PS2 games, and then you give me like 20 exceptions...
I gave you three exceptions. PS2/PSP titles exist because honestly put, no one buys the average PSP game due to rampant piracy, and it couldn't be PS3/PSP due to the vast hardware differences. Games with PS2/PS3/PSP releases (like MLB) only occur because there is still a market for those games on all platforms. Those are few titles (I'm not even sure Sony has released a PS2 game this year outside of MLB). Sony doesn't even bring the PS2 releases to trade shows because they're just not important.
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)Leonwind Wrote: 12?!?!?!? you think I am 12???????!!!!!!! I am a 15 with a job and a good education. how dare you accuss me of being a child just because you do not approve of my ideas? i look at facts. everything i said there is based off facts, which then i elaborated on with opinions
I didn't call you twelve because of your opinion or ideas. I called you twelve because you present your opinion in a manner a twelve year old would, with poor grammar, and incorrect information. I'm usually lax with the English comprehension if you're not from a primarily English-based country, but according to your profile, you're from New York...
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)Leonwind Wrote: do you live in 2009? Ps3 costs went waay up and then the new xbox 360 design came out, so at this time, there is no arcade version. get with the program
Sorry for being behind in reading my Microsoft PR catalogue, but by the $199 Arcade model, I mean this. I called it the Arcade since it's in the pricepoint the Arcade model was. As for the PS3 cost, I refer to this. Which by the way, is very much still in production. You seem to be referring to this , which is a premium model that isn't replacing the $299 or $349 models. Though, I'm not sure where you're getting the extra $50 from.
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)Leonwind Wrote: regarding my Sega comment, it was off topic and hidden for a reason you should not have responded to it (truth be told, there were some rumors going around, but they mostly stopped)
True story: If you don't want someone to respond to something on the internet, don't post it.
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)Leonwind Wrote: and btw, trusting google search for these statistics isnt reliable. look at real gaming magazines, like i do. and for the record, i am consodering a future carear in the video game industry, so there
I don't use Google Search or VGChartz for sales numbers. I use the NPD Group's monthly releases for US data, MediaCreate for Japanese data, and the European tracking group (the name slips my memory at the moment). I also use shipment information from the manufacturers themselves with numbers rounded a bit up or down due to memory fuzziness. I'd imagine if you're serious about getting a "carear" in the industry, that you'd be well aware of those sources.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Moss-Da-Boss - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 9:13 PM)Wraith Wrote: The reason PS3 sales are lowest because of the facts:
1. 360's have been out longer This affects anything how?
2. Every family owns a Wii, basically. incredibly inacurate statement
3. You may have noticed that PS3 sales are catching up because of the PS3 slim. ?
You have a good argument, but I shall still win.
The PS3 may not have been out longer but you are paying that little extra for free online Better graphics and a more continuous design.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
An earlier release than the compeitition allows a head start in sales. The 360 was released in 2005, with the PS3 and Wii in 2006. At the launch of the PS3, the 360 had already sold 10 million odd units. Sony's been eroding that lead to where it's rumored to be around half that. That's without them going to every pricepoint, and dropping their largest title (Gran Turismo 5).
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Wraith - Oct. 23, 2010
Moss, why did you change my statement?
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 23, 2010
To, XBL is $50 not $60(to be more specific $49.99), which would put Xbox 360 slim + live at $249
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 11:10 PM)Thresher Wrote: To XBL is $50 not $60, which would put Xbox 360 slim + live at $249
It's not $50 anymore.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 23, 2010
Buy it from someone else. I have never payed the Microsoft standard price for 12 month gold, because SOMEBODY is selling it much cheaper somewhere else. I don't use Amazon I'm just using them to make that point.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - To - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 11:29 PM)Thresher Wrote: Buy it from someone else. I have never payed the Microsoft standard price for 12 month gold, because SOMEBODY is selling it much cheaper somewhere else. I don't use Amazon I'm just using them to make that point.
We were using MSRP standards. I can get a new PS3 for less than $299 today, but it doesn't mean everyone can or will.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 23, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 11:32 PM)To Wrote:(Oct. 23, 2010 11:29 PM)Thresher Wrote: Buy it from someone else. I have never payed the Microsoft standard price for 12 month gold, because SOMEBODY is selling it much cheaper somewhere else. I don't use Amazon I'm just using them to make that point.
We were using MSRP standards. I can get a new PS3 for less than $299 today, but it doesn't mean everyone can or will.
Oh, I get ya.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - LeonTempest - Oct. 24, 2010
i wont argue with your other points To, simply because most of them are valid and as I have said before, I hate fighting. plus its good to hear that you did some research like i did. however...
(Oct. 23, 2010 8:11 PM)To dateline=
[quote='Leonwind Wrote: 12?!?!?!? you think I am 12???????!!!!!!! I am a 15 with a job and a good education. how dare you accuss me of being a child just because you do not approve of my ideas? i look at facts. everything i said there is based off facts, which then i elaborated on with opinions
I didn't call you twelve because of your opinion or ideas. I called you twelve because you present your opinion in a manner a twelve year old would, with poor grammar, and incorrect information. I'm usually lax with the English comprehension if you're not from a primarily English-based country, but according to your profile, you're from New York...
[/quote]
i am using my itouch, so if there are any errors, I apologize. the touch screen isnt very accurate
Xbox360-Join the FUNNER Side. and i agree, you are paying extra for the better graphics and live connection.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 24, 2010
I've heard nothing but horror stories about PSN, so if ever buy a PS3 it will be for single player games. As for lag on XBL that only happens to those with crappy connections, or when somebody is lag switching.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Newt - Oct. 27, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 10:22 PM)Moss Wrote:(Oct. 23, 2010 9:13 PM)Wraith Wrote: The reason PS3 sales are lowest because of the facts:
1. 360's have been out longer This affects anything how?
2. Every family owns a Wii, basically. incredibly inacurate statement
3. You may have noticed that PS3 sales are catching up because of the PS3 slim. ?
You have a good argument, but I shall still win.
The PS3 may not have been out longer but you are paying that little extra for free online Better graphics and a more continuous design.
I LOL at this everytime. The graphics are no different on both consoles if the game is made by the same developer because they are lazy. That and most teenagers wont have a 42" 1080p tv to apriciate those grapics on. maybe a 9" portable or a 26" or lower 720p tv.
That and for the ps3 having the blueray with a 25gig capacity i dont think they are using it at all.
(New MoH ps3 size 7.2 gig ripped xbox 360 7.2 gig ripped)
(DJ Hero 2 7.3gig filesize for both consoles)
surely sony could just save ps3 owners some money by burning the games to a duallayer dvd instead of a blueray if its not needed.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 27, 2010
(Oct. 27, 2010 12:43 AM)Newt Wrote: I LOL at this everytime. The graphics are no different on both consoles if the game is made by the same developer because they are lazy. That and most teenagers wont have a 42" 1080p tv to apriciate those grapics on. maybe a 9" portable or a 26" or lower 720p tv.
That and for the ps3 having the blueray with a 25gig capacity i dont think they are using it at all.
(New MoH ps3 size 7.2 gig ripped xbox 360 7.2 gig ripped)
(DJ Hero 2 7.3gig filesize for both consoles)
surely sony could just save ps3 owners some money by burning the games to a duallayer dvd instead of a blueray if its not needed.
That is hilarious to me, because that is My TV exactly.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - DaijoubuQuest - Oct. 27, 2010
(Oct. 23, 2010 2:32 AM)To Wrote:(Oct. 23, 2010 12:17 AM)DaijoubuQuest Wrote: As stated before, the games don't make the system
I don't know about you, but when I buy a video game console, I buy it to play games. I usually pick out the games that I like that are on that console to determine which one I want. That would mean the games make the system.
No it doesn't. The PS3 is made so you can play those games. However, those games are external. Not one game out there helps create the PS3 or the Xbox 360. You're thinking about this from a consumer perspective, which, in your case, I would share the same view as you. However, the topic title clearly states, X-box vs PS3.
If taken literally, this means CONSOLE VS. CONSOLE. Not CONSOLE w/ fancy accessories and games that come with it VS. CONSOLE w/ other fancy accessories and games that come with it
And if taken even more literally, this just means that it's not the Xbox 360 versus the PS3, but the original Xbox versus the PS3, which, in both cases, would definitely beat out both in terms of quality.
Quote:12?!?!?!? you think I am 12???????!!!!!!! I am a 15 with a job and a good education. how dare you accuss me of being a child just because you do not approve of my ideas? i look at facts. everything i said there is based off facts, which then i elaborated on with opinions
Everything? Dare I quote all the things that ARE NOT facts within your previous post.
Quote:that makes the wii look better by comparison, and that is sad for older gamers
Not a fact.
Quote:Also, xbox has almost every game that comes out for the PS2 and 3 + more.
Not a fact.
Quote: True, Sony may have free live, but it kinda sucks. and also, its really not free because the PS3 cists more than the new xbox360.
"Kinda sucks" is an opinion. "its really not free" because "PS3 cists more" is a joke. It's free, and that's a fact.
Quote:PS3 sucks
Opinion.
Quote:i gave all 3 consoles a fair evaluation. i do not completely disagree with your ideas, some are valid points, however others are not. and calling me a 12 year and saying i am 100% wrong is childlike and idiotic
No you didn't.
Quote:and btw, trusting google search for these statistics isnt reliable. look at real gaming magazines, like i do. and for the record, i am consodering a future carear in the video game industry, so there
Real gaming magazines /=/ statistics
If you're looking for a source, you go straight to the developer.
Quote:thanks Aqua. i know how much you wanted an intelegent post!
He was probably kidding since neither of yours and his posts have even contributed the least bit to the topic.
Quote:I LOL at this everytime. The graphics are no different on both consoles if the game is made by the same developer because they are lazy. That and most teenagers wont have a 42" 1080p tv to apriciate those grapics on. maybe a 9" portable or a 26" or lower 720p tv.
BS. They are different. Playing with an HDMI cable on the TV YOU JUST MENTIONED is much more enjoyable than playing with regular wires for the Xbox 360. The graphics' differential is substantial and Uncharted 2 shows how the PS3's graphics dominate.
The Xbox 360 can't even handle Final Fantasy XIII's immense graphics engine without using multiple discs. And even then the frame-rate drops.
I LOL whenever I see someone saying there isn't a difference when there are images all around the internet that compare and contrast the PS3 to the Xbox-360.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Thresher - Oct. 27, 2010
You speak as though the 360 has no HDMI port.
RE: X-Box vs PS3 - Dirge - Oct. 27, 2010
LOl i dont know why this is still going,
1. its a fact the ps3 is better then the 360 from the technical aspect (blu ray player, better graphics ect)
2. Price wise ps3 cost more but your paying for a better product.
3. game wise is personal preffrance which doesnt deterimate which console is better.
4. Controler design Ps3 is better then that tumb/hand destorying thing microsoft calls a controller.
So any argument that 360 is better is kind of pointless i dont undestand why people keep this going
