XBOX 360, PS3 or Wii?

[pokeboy21 7]

Wii! Nintedo is the originall big gaming company. Plus the wii2 is coming next year.

[GreekMan 246]

360 all the way baby!!!!!

[LastTrueChamp 196]

Given the fact that I've put in more hours on games other than SC4 (I've put it ALOT of hours on SC4), and that most of those games were on 360, I got to with Microsoft. In my personal gaming tastes I think XBOX LIVE and the Microsoft gaming library beats both systems, not to mention it's on par with PS3 level of visual quality which is a tie for 1st among consoles.

[Timmystwin 201]

Why is PC not here

[Kifflom112 355]

PS3, only because all 360 wants is money. Why do I have to pay to get gold just to play a dang demo, but then when I played PS3, I got my demo for free, like it should be. I love the exclusive games on Xbox 360 though.

[Jelendria 3]

My granny uses a Wii.

[suomi2005 52]

I just love the games on the PS3 some of my favorite developers are owned by sony Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Polyphony Digital and and now Sucker Punch. Insomniac and Kojima Productions has also made good exclusives for the ps3 and this year has a wide range of ps3 exclusives being released LBP2, Killzone 3, Infamous 2, Resistance 3 and Uncharted 3 to name some of the ones I have bought this year or have pre-ordered.

[Larks2242 251]

If this was asked in 1996 then the answer would be Sega.

If it was asked in 1999 the answer would be Nintendo.

However now the answer without a doubt is Sony.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I would probably have said Nintendo until 1998 when I played Gran Turismo. It's been Sony ever since (except for PC where I've logged most of my gaming hours since college).

[lobsterav 91]

I've played countless hours on my trusted Xbox, so I'm going to have to vote Xbox. They both have pros and cons though, to name some off the top of my head I would say:

Xbox360

Pros; Much faster download speed, Xbox exclusive games, Cross game chat (did they add that to PS3?), and In my opinion easier to hold controller.

Cons; Costs money...lots of money. PS3 exclusive games.

PS3

Pros; Cheaper, platinum trophies, Blueray player, PS3 exclusive games

Cons; Slow download speed, Xbox exclusive games.

Edit: I've tied up the vote...who will come on top

  Edited January 18, 2012 by lobsterav  

[Sniper296 83]

PC IS KING! > Xbox 360 because of online > PS3 because of hardware (there was only 1 game that would have made me buy it and THEY CANNED IT!) > PS2 because of a large library of games >>>>>>>>>...>>>>>>>>> WII because for children & people who who are too lazy to go out to exercise and rubbish graphics, and I say that after playing PS2 games recently!

  Edited January 18, 2012 by Sniper296  

[Duke87 1,070]

Despite my previous bashing of it, I've actually owned a PS3 for about a year now. Although, it didn't work out quite as well as hoped. I bought it for Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (which turned out to suck), Duke Nukem Forever (which also turned out to suck), and for Megaman Universe (which got cancelled). So... right now all it's really good for is playing blu-ray discs, of which I own exactly zero (though I have borrowed a couple).

And, besides, none of my consoles (also own Wii, Gamecube, PS2, DS, and GBA) have been seeing much action lately. I don't play video games anywhere near as much as I used to.

[HomerSPC 22]

I'm an Xbox, although I do own all three, Xbox gets the majority of my time. My playstation (broken disc drive) is sued as a media centre and the Wii is mostly my 7 year old brother's system, but I do watch netflix on there as well.

[samima 92]

I am an Xbox 360 guy, but i own both the 360 and wii, but the PS3 is my brothers. I like the Wii, but only for Netflix, i got tired of the wii a long time ago.

[Dannibee 138]

I love my Xbox. Despite it being extremely loud and overheating a lot, having to kick it several times to read a disk and getting the RROD 13 times I still don't want to get rid of it, it still soldiers on now even though it's on its last legs.

[Timmystwin 201]

I love my Xbox. Despite it being extremely loud and overheating a lot, having to kick it several times to read a disk and getting the RROD 13 times I still don't want to get rid of it, it still soldiers on now even though it's on its last legs.

My old one does that. Still working, and to be honest after the first generation they're fairly reliable. Also I gotta go with 360. (Turns out I didn't vote after my earlier post). It's cheap, it works, and if you just want a games console that doesn't piss about pretending to be something else its great. Not sold on the whole kinect thing though.

  Edited April 16, 2012 by Timmystwin  

[Samerton 833]

Gotta go with Xbox on this one. I love my 360, the only reason I'd ever go for a PS3 is for Gran Turismo 5. Apart from that game, I don't find it too appealing... the controllers on an Xbox are much nicer to hold.

[Larks2242 251]

Disagree, the Ps3 controller feels better and less complex for me.

[Moskva 75]

XBox 360 is king. If PS2 vs XBox was hard to decide or perhaps PS2 won it, there's no doubt the 360 overbeaten the PS3, in all important fields. Anyway i agree, computer is future, gaming consoles perhaps will be thrown out of the present and become history.

[+Guest bdwmft]

wii is fun, but there are little games to play.

ps3 is slow, ugly and graphics aren't that special.

xbox360 is what i stick to

same here

[cashmoney 5]

xbox defeats wii in a close one, with ps3 very,very,very far behind.

[nukeu123 307]

hmm funny how opinions change within the years of this topic

1.pc <upgradable hardware and software, could build games and apps

2.ps3

3.game cube< possess my favorite game series other than Simcity

4.360<can't judge have only played once

5.N64 <love the games though

6.wii <absolute terrible system, it had potential but none of the games were fun without friends

[GMT 389]

pc, then ps3 and far behind 360.

If microsoft wouldn't have bought developpers from the get-go, the 360 would've been dead after 2 years. but instead of putting money into a decent hardware, microsoft decided to put even more money into developpers to buy exclusive game titles and exclusive launch dates to boost the sales of their console.

swapping discs? srsly? where are we?

disc drive: 12x dvd 7gb (360) vs 8x dvd + 2x bluray 25gb (ps3). nuff said. 360 is faster in reading but the bluray storage outweighs any reading speed on a dvd-only platform.

processor: 3,2ghz, 3 dualthreaded, at 77gflops (360) vs 3.2ghz at 7 +1 singlethreaded, 230gflops (ps3) says it all. you want an as fast as possible processor in your pc but not in you console? really?

graphics: up to 512mb gddr3 ram shared with the system (360) + 10mb edram vs 512mb dedicated gddr3 ram + 244mb shared (ps3). nice call x360. good someone spend you a tuning kit, otherwise the ps3 would outrun you here for not having dedicated gram.

ram: 512gddr3 shared with gpu at 700mhz with 22,4gbps (360) vs 256mb xdr ram at 3,2ghz with 25,6gbps. again, ps3 on tops for not just having the faster ram, but also no sharing with gpu.

hdd: own creation with up to 250gb(360) vs 2,5" sata up to 320gb (ps3). ps3 again for not just the higher stock value but also for the easy swapping as they stick to a standard

video: 720p (360) vs 1080p (ps3). nothing I care about but worth noting that the higher resolution on the ps3 wins.

audio: pro logic 2, 5.1 dolby digital (360) vs standard analog, 5.1 dolby digital and 7.1 lcpm (ps3). sony up again with their digital output and more surround

ports: 5 usb + kinect (360) vs 2 usb + bluetooth 2.0 (ps3 slim). ps3 again for supporting bluetooth 2.0, although xbox comes up good with their sd card readers that dropped out of the ps3 with the slim edition

network: 100mbps and 802.11n (360) vs 1gbps and 802.11g (360). hard choice. 360 has better wireless, ps3 better hardline. as wireless becomes the standard, I think I award a point to the eggbock

backwards compatibility: yes (360) vs no more (ps3). the ps3 slim doesn't do it anymore, the old ps3 did it. sure call, if you don't want to have a quadrillion of consoles, you must take 360.

after all that's a 7:3 win for ps3 in terms of hardware. all said and done here, off to work.

[jdenm8 362]

I have to condense some of the quotes because ST won't let me post that many.

If microsoft wouldn't have bought developpers from the get-go, the 360 would've been dead after 2 years.

disc drive: 12x dvd 7gb (360) vs 8x dvd + 2x bluray 25gb (ps3). nuff said.

That's funny, I remember the PS3 being dead for the first 12 months, when Sony decided to do exactly that.

I would argue the disc drive, but since my 360 would have already finished loading the game by now, I don't have the ten extra minutes needed to wait for yours to finish.

processor: 3,2ghz, 3 dualthreaded, at 77gflops (360) vs 3.2ghz at 7 +1 singlethreaded, 230gflops (ps3) says it all. you want an as fast as possible processor in your pc but not in you console? really?

It's also one of the worst to program for architectures in gaming history. It costs far more to develop for the PS3 than it does to develop for the 360 or PC because of the awkward architecture.

graphics: up to 512mb gddr3 ram shared with the system (360) + 10mb edram vs 512mb dedicated gddr3 ram + 244mb shared (ps3). nice call x360. good someone spend you a tuning kit, otherwise the ps3 would outrun you here for not having dedicated gram.

512mb dedicated compared to 512mb shared, whoopdedo. You're still comparing two six year old graphics cards. Also less operations to move models from storage to the GPU because of that shared memory.

ram: 512gddr3 shared with gpu at 700mhz with 22,4gbps (360) vs 256mb xdr ram at 3,2ghz with 25,6gbps. again, ps3 on tops for not just having the faster ram, but also no sharing with gpu.

The PS3 and 360 both have less RAM than my mobile phone. Your argument is invalid.

hdd: own creation with up to 250gb(360) vs 2,5" sata up to 320gb (ps3). ps3 again for not just the higher stock value but also for the easy swapping as they stick to a standard

Easy swapping? Last time I checked, you had to almost completely disassemble the PS3 whereas a 360 is a single button on the top. I do agree though that going with the monumentally slow but large standardised mSATA laptop hard drives in the PS3 compared to the 360s customised SATA2 HDDs are easier and cheaper to replace.

video: 720p (360) vs 1080p (ps3). nothing I care about but worth noting that the higher resolution on the ps3 wins.

The number of true 1080p games available on the PS3 is less than twenty and every single one is an exclusive or was designed to be an exclusive.

audio: pro logic 2, 5.1 dolby digital (360) vs standard analog, 5.1 dolby digital and 7.1 lcpm (ps3). sony up again with their digital output and more surround

And yet they still only bundle the old Stereo Video Out lead. Which is exactly the same as the one that came with my PSone.

ports: 5 usb + kinect (360) vs 2 usb + bluetooth 2.0 (ps3 slim). ps3 again for supporting bluetooth 2.0, although xbox comes up good with their sd card readers that dropped out of the ps3 with the slim edition

Name me a single non-Sony product (That isn't a headset) that can connect to that Bluetooth. You can't name one can you?

network: 100mbps and 802.11n (360) vs 1gbps and 802.11g (360). hard choice. 360 has better wireless, ps3 better hardline. as wireless becomes the standard, I think I award a point to the eggbock

That's funny, my brother's PS3 doesn't have an Ethernet port. Regardless, Sony's online service is so monumentally slow the point is moot.

Also, considering we're arguing the 360 and PS3, not 360 Slim and PS3 Revision 10,000,000, you can't factor in the 360's wireless because it was a separate module.

backwards compatibility: yes (360) vs no more (ps3). the ps3 slim doesn't do it anymore, the old ps3 did it. sure call, if you don't want to have a quadrillion of consoles, you must take 360.

Nope, the first PS3s did it. The very first revision got rid of the EE Chip on the board. Regardless, the backwards compatibility on both systems just really sucks.

  Edited September 5, 2012 by jdenm8  

[GMT 389]

same quote problem here, so I compress the first 3 points.

That's funny, I remember the PS3 being dead for the first 12 months, when Sony decided to do exactly that.

I would argue the disc drive, but since my 360 would have already finished loading the game by now, I don't have the ten extra minutes needed to wait for yours to finish.

It's also one of the worst to program for architectures in gaming history. It costs far more to develop for the PS3 than it does to develop for the 360 or PC because of the awkward architecture.

512mb dedicated compared to 512mb shared, whoopdedo. You're still comparing two six year old graphics cards. Also less operations to move models from storage to the GPU because of that shared memory.

disk drive: alright, just answer in full when you gotta pause gameplay to swap your disks, I bet that leaves you with enough time to type. But no novel please, I'm gonna read it while I wait for my game to load.

Nah, seriously, it was a lucky shot that thing with bluray, could've also been the hd-dvd that won. but yes it is a tidbit slower but so much more comfort. Plus one item less to dust as the bluray player is still at the store for I don't need one.

cpu: thats true

gpu: of course I'm comparing 6 years old graphics cards, most likely due to the fact that the topic is about 2 6 years old consoles...

The PS3 and 360 both have less RAM than my mobile phone. Your argument is invalid.

let me answer with 2 quotes of yours:

considering we're arguing the 360 and PS3,

Your argument is invalid.

Easy swapping? Last time I checked, you had to almost completely disassemble the PS3 whereas a 360 is a single button on the top. I do agree though that going with the monumentally slow but large standardised mSATA laptop hard drives in the PS3 compared to the 360s customised SATA2 HDDs are easier and cheaper to replace.

well it's not easy swapping as in plug and play, but with my first generation ps3, all I have to do is open the tray and pull a screw to unlock the HDD and afaik it's about the same on the slim version... far from "almost completely dissasemble" if you ask me...

either way, my easy swapping wasn't aimed at the actual swapping as a mechanical work, but at the fact that sony made it easy by deciding to use a common standard rather to create their own little world of harddrives for this console.

The number of true 1080p games available on the PS3 is less than twenty and every single one is an exclusive or was designed to be an exclusive.

although the number is well beyond 20 and by far not all are exclusives (except the PSN downloads), that doesn't change a thing about the fact that the ps3 is the only console that natively supports full hd in gaming and video.

but you're right when saying that the 1080p option is a rare one.

And yet they still only bundle the old Stereo Video Out lead. Which is exactly the same as the one that came with my PSone.

if you use stereo video out only, yes. I used to have a 5.1 system and that worked like a charm

Name me a single non-Sony product (That isn't a headset) that can connect to that Bluetooth. You can't name one can you?

tell me how much bluetooth you hook to your xbox... further, I never talked about interconnectivity, but I still totally enjoy playing my pc games with the ps3 controller...

EDIT: also, what else do I possibly want to hook to a console beyond controllers and headsets anyways? most bluetooth stuff makes only sense on a pc or phone. if any at all; my impression is that the vast majority of bluetooth gadgets is in the funny nonsense regime.

That's funny, my brother's PS3 doesn't have an Ethernet port. Regardless, Sony's online service is so monumentally slow the point is moot.

Also, considering we're arguing the 360 and PS3, not 360 Slim and PS3 Revision 10,000,000, you can't factor in the 360's wireless because it was a separate module.

and your brother is sure he owns a sony ps3? I gotta be honest, I don't know all the specs of all the different ps3 versions from the top of my head, but I never heard of a ps3 without ethernet altho I know there was versions without wifi.

Nope, the first PS3s did it. The very first revision got rid of the EE Chip on the board. Regardless, the backwards compatibility on both systems just really sucks.

ehm... that's what I said, you probably missed

I can also played the reliability card but this would blow every proportion. focusing on the large brands, the 360 was the most unreliable piece of entertainment hardware in the last years, with figures going up as high as 60% of all units have failed, more than twice as much as the total fails of the ps3 and both far ourtranked by the wii which barely ever fails. but microsoft has done a lot on this side of the track, extended warranty and constantly overhauled hardware... but there were also legal actions taken against microsoft for this unreliability, even by the BBB, which must have really hurt cuz it takes some time for companies as big as microsoft to get the BBB on their tail)

I must say, I have had my playstation replaced due to a hardware error just a few weeks after I got it. I mean, you're never save from this kind of problems, be it with a console or any other piece of hardware (especially me, although I'm a caring user, I have a lucky hand for bad hardware and had more things replaced due to malicious hardware) but what happened with the 360 is far out of proportion if you ask me.

but again, microsoft has done a lot to get a hand on the problem and the newer generation 360s seem to run as reliable as one might expect it to be with a product from a company like this.

On the other hand, the psn hack affair really blows the limits on the ps3 side, but that's also something you can never be safe of, nowhere...

Anyway, I know you're aiming at me being a ps3 fanboy and yes, I'm with playstation since the first playstation and stuck to it because a) there's some games I totally love playing which are playstation exclusives and b) I just can't adjust to the xbox controller, it's totally incompatible in my hands, please don't ask me why it is like this but yeah that's how it is... but I don't want to fanboy about it as this is a petty size-in-the-pants comparison thing I generally dislike, so I try to be as fair as it can get and which better way there is than to compare the facts, eg hardware.

and no matter how much ppl fanboy over either system, overall the ps3 has the better values on it's side. sales figures are slightly the other way around but that doesn't say a thing about the quality but only about the popularity and the pricing, which was definitely a huge factor aswell. over here, on their respective release dates, the 360 was 300 bucks cheaper than the ps3, 299 vs 599, so basically half the price (right now, they're at about the same price from 200 to 300 depending on the bundle) and since most games are the same anyway and to most people fanboyism/exclusive titles play no factor at all, it's nothing to wonder about that the 360 leads the sales-race.

but in the end, it's up to anyone to decide on their own. I had reasons for a playstation that go beyond fanboyism - at least I have a hard time placing the exclusive titles I like and my comfort-problems with the 360 controller in the fanboy regime - and so do others have their reasons to buy a 360.

and, since most games are cross platform and you barely notice the hardware differences in the background anyway, people should all buy a wii.

on a completely unrelated, personal matter: I really enjoyed reading your comments

  Edited September 5, 2012 by GMT  

[jdenm8 362]

Argh, I only just remembered reading that the PS3's GPU is so slow, most of the operations are handed off to the CPU or SPU so the frame rate can break 15FPS. Then again, the standard Direct3D implementation in the 360 is regarded to be similarly slow.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by jdenm8  

[GMT 389]

I've read something similar 6 years ago, prior to release, a pretty big rant about how bad the ps3 hardware is for internal problems and that, although it's better on the papers, it'l only give about half the performance of the 360 on the cpu side... but then again, this was a regular bashed source where basically everyone can post their bullspit and call it journalism. but - except that it made pretty big waves - I think it has been deconstructed pretty fast, at least I find nothing that proves the claims in reliable sources.

also ingame performance barely differs on both consoles so either this article was all about ps3 bashing or sony did some tricks to even that out.

[jdenm8 362]

Nah, this was from a developer with a major studio who had worked on pretty much everything since about the 64 and expressed his opinion on each of the different platforms (Except the Dreamcast and GameCube which I believe he never worked on games for) and only came out about six months ago. I think Kotaku reported on it.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by jdenm8  

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Wii all the way. The ps3 and 360 have nothing but sports and dull mindless shooters

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Wii all the way. The ps3 and 360 have nothing but sports and dull mindless shooters

I take that back

But I still like the wii best