1. FIRST!!!


And you're right pal, it won't be too long of a wait before everyone playin that $600 blu-ray player says "man, my pals playin 360's have been doin this for over a year, their games look way better, their consoles have 2x's the vid ram, and crap.... they're downloading demos, tv shows, AND FULL LENGTH MOVIES IN HD.

Good call pal. Keep suckin' on that binky while you're at it. You got robbed if you bought one of those hunks of shit.

Posted at 9:45PM on Nov 20th 2006 by jasonb 0 stars

2. Fanboys are funny... sort of.

Good luck Jasonb downloading those FULL LENGTH MOVIES IN HD, on your 20gb (cough, im mean 17gb) harddrive. Unlike Microsft, Sony actually owns a great deal of content, and can provide all the above you mention with out having to go to an outside company once. Its too early to predict whats going to happen, the 360 had a lame launch with only a couple of good games, so did the ps2. I dont see you talking about how much you loved "GUN" from the 360 launch. All launches suck.

Posted at 10:09PM on Nov 20th 2006 by bobeotm 1 star

3. Except for the Wii, which has the greatest launch EVER!

Posted at 10:20PM on Nov 20th 2006 by Sponge 0 stars

4. This is to bobeotm.

I'm not going to talk like a fan-boy, but with pure facts. The PS3 sucks ass, it doesnt look nice, to expensive, no good games, has the same or lower graphics then the Xbox 360, does not have the same quality online network that the Xbox 360 has, the PS3 does not come with a mic to talk to your friends while playing games, all the exclusive PS titles have already gone to the Xbox 360 except GT4 and a few other "its a matter of time that that does also come to the Xbox 360, just my opinion."

My 1 million dollar question is why should people buy the PS3 if the Xbox 360 offers much more with a lower price tag?

All does Sony fanboys should give up and say that the Xbox 360 is a much better console. Hell, i was a Sony fanboy until i played with the PS3.

Posted at 10:34PM on Nov 20th 2006 by Edwin 0 stars

5. some pleople here looks like they dont understand its obvious xbox360 has better graphics this time, developers have a year creating games for it,getting use to it, gears of war is like a second gen xbox game while ps3 games are first gen if u are a gamer u should know this crap

Posted at 10:59PM on Nov 20th 2006 by naruto007 0 stars

6. 2.

yeah mang, and with the 80gig hard drive upgrade in the shoot.... I'm sure to not be able to download and store much of anything.

Keeeeeeeeeeeep reading and try again!


viva la 360

Posted at 11:01PM on Nov 20th 2006 by jasonb 0 stars

7. oh and p.s. numero 2.....

Yeah, sony owns all kinds of stuff that they can release for media/movies. And they've also got two other blu ray providers online. WB and Disney.....

You must be a big Little Mermaid fan eh? hahahaha

Posted at 11:04PM on Nov 20th 2006 by jasonb 0 stars

8. To naruto007,

Ridge Racer 6, 360's first gen game, launched last year is even graphically better to Ridge Racer 7 on PS3, also a launch title.

Posted at 11:05PM on Nov 20th 2006 by airwolf 0 stars

9. AFAIC Xbox/Wii is fine if all you want to do is play games.

Posted at 11:36PM on Nov 20th 2006 by Kraus 0 stars

10. ps3 has only been out for a couple of days. I say you have to give them a few months chance before you start bagging on them... besides, just because a game sucks doesn't mean the system is crappy... it just means the game developer didn't make the game good enough to show what the system is capable of. as it has always been, it will always be "only time will tell". now instead of flaming each other for having opinions, can't we all just get along? hahaha!

Posted at 2:11AM on Nov 21st 2006 by shiggityshwaar 0 stars

11. Once again, I see uneducated, unsubstantiated comments by XBox 360 fanboys (one even who claims he isn't one although he stinks of it). The XBox 360 has been out and had games developed for it for a year and like it was mentioned prior, has a lot more features with their games, this is true. What it had at launch though blew ass and everyone knows it. The PS3 launch titles may be a majority ports that are multi-console, but anyone who has seen the same game on all three of these consoles this generation would have to be blind to not see the intense realism inherent in the PS3's visuals compared to the competition. This is easy to see just by looking at the media delivery. Will you get more impressive visuals, sound, physics, etc. when you have 4.7Gb to work with total or 50Gb? XBox 360 uses DVD's with 4.7Gb of total space available on a disc, whereas PS3's Blu-ray technology allows up to 50Gb of data (Resistance:Fall of Man utilising 23Gb on their game disc) which allows for an insane amount of extra textures, improved rendering, you name it. Also, you have to understand that out of the box, the PS3 is the only one that truly delivers. Without buying anything extra for your PS3, you can play CD's, MP3's, DVD's, Blu-ray discs, PS, PS2, and PS3 games, in addition to browsing the internet with a full-fledged browser (complete with Flash, JavaScript, Java, etc. support) and playing games online for free. The Wii doesn't even play DVD's. The XBox 360 needs a remote control (sold separately) to play DVD's and will not play high-def movies unless you buy the HD-DVD player ($200 extra) which at that point will have cost you roughly $650-700 total when you could have just gone with the superior system from the beginning and spent $500 for it all. You'd have to be crazy to think that the XBox 360 is superior to the PS3. Only 4 days into launch of the PS3 it already shows massive potential and kicks XBox 360's capabilities and especially visuals in the nuts. The only games on XBox/XBox 360 worth noting as awesome would be Halo 2 (for it's gameplay and innovation) and Gears of War (for it's graphics). Even these games lack in themselves the same aspects of the other (Gears of War boasts impressive visuals but lacks good gameplay and innovation, whereas Halo 2 is the opposite). I am not saying that XBox 360 and Wii are crappy systems, but there is good, better and best and only the gullible and biased will say that the XBox 360 is the best. Don't kid yourselves folks. It is painfully obvious that the majority of negative posters regarding the PS3 are wannabe PS3 gamers who couldn't grab a PS3 and are pissed because of it and also at the fact that they decided to "settle" with the second best system. Save your comments as they will only strengthen Sony in the long run.

Posted at 2:20AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Harry 0 stars

12. Man F-all three... Give me a NES, a copy of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out and Contra...

You can keep your next gen of crap.

All kidding aside... Harry, why would you compare a single layer DVD to a double later Blu-Ray Disc? The correct statement would be Xbox will have 9.4 GB discs vs PS3's 50GB... which is waaaaay too much space for a friggin' game anyway.

The way I see it... the PS3 serves ONE purpose for Sony... Make BLU-RAY a name product... "forget this DVD thing... it's BLU-RAY... Hell we'll we'll sell you a video game system for 300 dollars less than what it costs us to build it to tell you about our BRAND NEW BLU-RAY!!!"

This monstrosity isn't a video game system, it's Sony's plan to create and dominate a medium... again... for the 5th time in my lifetime (BetaMax, SACD, MD, UMD, BR). BR will fail as a movie format just like UMDs have. It's a great storage medium... BUT... are you willing to back up your 50GB onto a SINGLE disc? Better not scratch it... and better hope the discs don't erode... we'll find that out in 10 years.

Graphically it's nice... but NOT $600 nice. Sorry...
They'll sell me when they drop that sucker to $300 & $400 respectively, even if I was loaded I'd still stick with getting a Xbox and a HD-DVD drive right now.

Meanwhile I'm sticking with my Wii. Cheap is good... and my god, motion sensor is amazing... I haven't had this much fun since U,U,D,D,L,R,L,R,b,a,b,a, Start.

Posted at 5:30AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Joe 0 stars

13. to #12

I like that you have a long post, but you really have some things wrong. First wrong comment is about the 360 using single layer DVD's (4.7 GB) when they actually use dual-layer. Now Sony does have an advantage of using the Blu-Ray disc, but you can look at that as a good thing, or you can look at it as a downfall, meaning that developers feel they have more room to misuse and don't feel they need to compress or really focus on main things. I don't care about high def cut scenes and and cgi stuff. It's about the game that I play. And any serious gamer knows that as time goes on they make great games using no where near the amount of media space they are given. Splinter Cell 3 was only like 3 Gb. Next, You look at what the system can do out the box. I want the full experience out the box. Why have a blu ray player if you don't have high def cables. So more money goes else where for the cables. You can play DVD's out of the box on the 360, you don't need to buy another controller and you have high def cables for high def gaming. And from what I recall, it's suppose to be about gaming, not being able to go on the internet or watch high def movies. And if you can afford the PS3 I'm sure that you have a computer. So the full fledge browser is pointless. It's about playing the games and making the in game experience better. Now here comes the ever growing thing about Blu-Ray and HD DVD. Microsoft gives you a choice, Sony tells you what you should like if you want their system. The 360 has been out for a year and will have better games at this point. But don't be on here acting like the 360 didn't get bashed by everyone at the very beginning. The developers are the ones that make use of the equipment and they trully decide which one is better. The people outside of that, buy the system of their choice because of hope and past evxperience with that company. And as for the negative posters, I belive this article was done by people that have played a PS3. So what they think of the system is from experience. As for me I haven't played the systembut my roommate is a true PS fanboy and was really upset by the system, and is now going to get a 360 instead. I'm not going to comment on the visuals and gameplay. Only on what you have mentioned above. On the last note, you'll have to pay more than $500 for it all once you add in the cables, headset, remote control.

Posted at 5:53AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Sincere7745 0 stars

14. This monstrosity isn't a video game system, it's Sony's plan to create and dominate a medium... again... for the 5th time in my lifetime (BetaMax, SACD, MD, UMD, BR)

hey joe you left out dvd sony and philips developed dvd together just thought i'd complete your list you got going there

Posted at 7:58AM on Nov 21st 2006 by pagetwo 0 stars

15. If you want to compare the dual layer DVD to the 25G single layer, the Blu-Ray drive load speeds are faster. When you get into reading that second layer of the disc, the drive speed is decreased, thus putting Blu-Ray at an advantage. You could say that Blu-Ray is faster than a 12X DVD for 3/4 of it's content. If you do the math, you will see it's pretty close. Max speed on a 12X DVD is faster, but it's a game of diminishing returns, after you hit mid-point on the DVD the Blu-Ray is still clocking the same transfer speed and thus becomes the faster choice. When you go dual-layer, that 12x speed you claim is flushed down the toilet, but your Blu-Ray drive is still chugging away.

As far as games never breaking the 9G barrier, all you have to do is look to the games coming on PC now. Dark Messiah is over 10G installed, another game that I'm in Beta for is over 22G, and it's not cutscenes (in fact, there are no cutscenes.) The game world is huge, seamless and the texture count is amazing. The textures don't take up all the space, it's the detailed polygon models of everything in game that makes it huge. The folder that contain the models for it is 8G in itself.

If the PS3 on release looks as good as the 360 after a year, the PS3 can definately do more as the devs get used to it. In fact, some of the games coming over to the PS3 are only running on a few of the Cell's SPEs. Once the devs go beyond that you can almost guarantee a better experience.

Why would I buy a PS3 instead of a 360? Because I will not buy Microsoft unless I am absolutely forced to (read: Windows for work.) I do not support MS in anything they do if I have a choice. I cannot force myself to buy into the monopoly, and I fully support Sony taking the initative to at least try new media and try to innovate the market instead of sitting by idle. I still think Sony is one of Microsoft's major competitors, so I will support them. So that withstanding, and the fact that I don't have a "next-gen" console, the PS3 is definately my "power console" choice followed by the Wii for party games.

For my the PS3 is a win. If you don't see it as such, you are clearly blinded by a glittery interface, just as Microsoft would have you. An XBot, if I may.

Posted at 9:13AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Andir2.0 0 stars

16. In order to explain why Blu-Ray is actually faster, let me explain:

If you look at the load speeds of the 12x DVD for the max value only, it looks like it's faster. But that speed is only faster for half of the Discs 4.7G on single layer DVDs. So, you may be agle to load that 2.35G faster than the Blu-Ray drive, but after that point, the Blu-Ray drive loads faster. Do you think the game developers will be able to fit all thier assets into that 2.5G of the disc so it loads quicker? I didn't think so. Even if you did use adaptive texture generation (which is still hypothetical, albeit infant in nature) you'd have to decompress those textures. This requires CPU clocks, which takes away from other things in game.

So, keep thinking your 360 load times are going to be better...

For once, why don't you learn to think for yourself. Even the claim that HD-DVD was better quality was flawed in the fact that the Blu-Ray disc they compared used an old Codec for compression. The media can spin it any way to make it look better, just as your trying to do with your 12x DVD read speed.

Posted at 9:24AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Andir2.0 0 stars

17. the sheer amount of stupidity in the above postings, on BOTH sides of the argument, is almost sad. stating your opinion as fact, is laughable at best.

ive sat down with rr6 and rr7 side by side.... there is no comparison. the ps3 blows the 360 out of the water. its not even close. past that though... the two are on par right now, and probably will be for some time. the difference: the ps3 has overwhelmingly more potential than the 360 does (and the wii is a joke... dont even get me started there.) thats not opinion... thats fact. if for no other reason, outside of the debate over the cell and rsx... it boils down to two simple things: EVERY system has a hdd, and EVERY system has a blu-ray drive. the programmers can cater to it as the standard. but if you cant see that... if you choose not to acknowledge it because it would make your inner fanboy cry, thats your choice.

to date... there has only been one game that almost made me buy another 360 (i sold my original.... the 360 has the worst hardware and quality control on the planet, hands down. after swapping out for my third system, i gave up.) that one title is/was oblivion. and its now on the ps3, so i no longer have the need.

online gaming.... absolutely no argument there. xbl is a lot more refined. i never got into online gaming too much though, even when i had the 360. it just wasnt my thing. however, now that i can game for FREE... i have found myself playing resistance online a hell of a lot more frequently now.

everyone loves arguing over the nitpicking bullshit details. blu-ray is better... no hd-dvd is better... no blu-ray. WHO FUCKING CARES? blu-ray has more storage capacity by a long shot, and at the same price point and THAT is why im rooting for it. the movies are identical. if you claim otherwise, you are an idiot. the "experts" can kiss my ass. i have both sitting here in my house... an hd dvd player, and a blu-ray player... of the some odd 50+ people that have come through my place and watched movies on it... NONE can see a difference. NONE. and the whole speed issue... jesus christ people give it a rest already. my ps3 loads up as quickly (or possibly a hair quicker, but im not going to argue over fractions of a second) as the 360 does. on top of that... some games (rr7) load QUCIKER as i get to utilize that nice 60gb (soon to be replaced by a 200gb) hdd to load from.

when im not playing... having fedora installed on my ps3 makes life a hell of a lot more enjoyable as i can stream crap off my home server to it (movies, music, etc) as well as have it functioning as a mail server for my home. can your 360 do any of that? no? great. but you dont want or need it to do any of that you say? even better... dont. dont buy one. maybe its not right for you. but the ps3 was EXACTLY what i was wanting.

but its all about the games, right? so far... as i stated earlier... there has been 1 game that looked good to me on the 360. oblivion, which is now coming to the ps3 (supposedly with a ton more packed into it... but who cares). but what about the ps3? there are games coming to it that i want, that i cant get elsewhere... lair, final fantasy 13, ff versus, gran turismo, heavenly sword, god of war, white knight story (which will most likely wind up being game of the year next year), devil may cry series, metal gear solid series, and a fucking armada of rpg and jrpg games that the 360 STILL doesnt have but a teeny tiny speckling of... even a full year later. the ps3 has the games i want. the 360 doesnt. its as simple as that.

right now though, it boils down to one simpel thing: personal preference. i want the extra functionality. i want the games. i want the ability to do the extras. im tired of dealing with shitty hardware with m$ (supposedly its fixed, some say its not, i dont care. it shouldnt take me three systems to get one that actually WORKS as intended... and i STILL have people on my board... actual 360 FANS that are having issues. people that just bought the system. so that tells me, the issues are still there. you either get a good one, or you get a bad one.) and im not going to put up with them anymore. the original xbox was a great system. i owned one. i say that past tense, as it is dead as of last week. would no longer boot. my original ps2, that i purchased on launch day some 6 or 7 years ago now..... is still sitting on my shelf. i even bought a slimline a couple of years ago for a second one for my son. still going strong. sony hasnt fucked me over int he gaming dept. m$ has. big time. over and over again. maybe you have a different experience. maybe yours is the opposite. then... by all fucking means... get a 360 and be happy with it.

when are you fucking morons going to wake up and realize that the overwhelming majority of this is personal preference. if you want to listen to "the experts" and let them do your thinking for you... go for it. i prefer to use the brain i have, and form my own opinion. you dont like the ps3... super for you. dont fucking buy it. end of your problems. but please just STOP FUCKING CRYING already. you sound like a bunch of uneducated shitbags whining and making outlandish excuses for a chance to suckle at mommies tit.

Posted at 10:25AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Microdot 0 stars

18. ^^^^^ CHECKMATE! LOL!

Nicely put Microdot. :)

Posted at 10:54AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Jen 0 stars

19. the ps3 software experience and support is crap simply because Sony's software has always been crap. They have never released a single MP3 player or camera that had software that was worth a damn.

You think Sony is suddenly going to start laying gold software eggs in an update to the PS3? Keep dreaming. Microsoft is always going to school up on Sony when it comes to the online/software/multimedia software experience. That is all Microsoft does, every day of it's waking life. They have built entire operating systems (or did you forget).

Get used to it. Sony is a dead duck in the long haul. They simply lack the expertise needed to make a truly usable and compelling online experience. These are just the facts. All you have to do is look at what they have made in the past software wise to see this for the truth.

A consistent C average student doesn't just wake up on Friday and become an A student. It takes a long time.

This isn't yesterday's console days, when all you had to do was make some hardware and a crappy dev kit and depend on developers making usable games for it.

It's today... and you need online voice, online demos, online communication, and online marketing and merchandise that is done in a compelling, usable and TIGHT manner.

The PS3 needs a hell of a lot more than an "update" to fix what is lacking. It needs about 2 more years of complete redesign. And since they didn't begin with the infrastructure in place (the way xbox 360 did) they simply won't be able to any of the cool things the xbox 360 does until the PS4. Sad, but true.

Posted at 10:57AM on Nov 21st 2006 by meh 0 stars

20. here we go again... opinion as fact. meh: my last post was directed at you. pull your fucking head out.

you are correct... sony does not match up with microsofts online offering yet. its very rough, but the bonus, especially for those curious... is that it, unlike xbl, is free.

and here we are again, thinking online play rules the world. newsflash: not everyone that owns a 360 uses xbl. in fact, only half do. of those half, how many are paying gold members do you think?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160081.html

but hey... i mean, under your assumptions, the original xbox which sported online play would have surely dominated the market right? if you guessed no, you are correct. in fact, the 360 is still, to this day, being outsold by the "inferior online gaming service" known as the ps2.

again... it boils down to what YOU want... and you think what YOU want, EVERYONE wants. thats not the case. far from. in fact, your opinion here is the small minority.

Posted at 11:30AM on Nov 21st 2006 by Microdot 0 stars