OT (sort of): Why should (or shouldn't) I get a 360 now?

[jLp vAkEr0]

I recently sold my 360.

There was really no game that could hold my interest for long. I just spent less and less time gaming.

Right now, a PSP is more than enough for me.

[kevinpars]

My number one issue with the 360 has been reliability. As I posted earlier, I just had my second go bad and it took Microsoft a week to finally match up my refurb unit's serial number with my extended warranty. I am still waiting for the box to return it so I have been out of the game for over a week.

Consequently, I can't say much about the football games as I have not played Madden yet. I will say that i feel like NCAA is a better game on the Xbox. It is just more feature rich and the momentum is toned down so that you don't get the absurd turnover margins and AI team collapses that I saw in the 360 version.

Like others have said, it was the non sports games and the interface that won me over to the 360. I played about 150 hours of Oblivion - easily a record for me. But it was one of those games that sucked me in and kept me playing. I also really liked COD2 - it was not ground breaking but it was the first FPS game that made me think that I could live without a keyboard and mouse.

But overall, if I was you I would wait. I think that the release of the PS3 will mean good things for 360 owners because MS is going to bend over backwards to try and outdo the PS3 November release. Game releases, lots of arcade games, a dashboard update, it will be a busy fall/winter. See what shakes out and make a decision after the holidays.

[Brando70]

I think if you play mostly sports games, the system will be a disappointment. It's not that those games are bad -- I like Madden 07 and NCAA a lot and they are way, way ahead of last year's XBox versions. However, I wouldn't call either great games or system sellers, the way NFL 2k and NBA 2k were on the Dreamcast. NBA 2k7 could change that if you're a hoops gamer, as 2k6 was very good.

However, if you play sports games and other titles like RPGs or action-oriented games like Ghost Recon, it's well worth it. The library is much better than the PS2's first-year library and I think better than the DC's --Sega had four or five great games overshadowing dozens of crap titles for the first year. The 360 has a lot of good-to-great games to choose from.

The overall design and XBL interface is incredible. If you play mostly online, even with sports, it's probably worth it.

I am happy and feel I have gotten my money's worth. No interest in the PS3 and don't see anything there justifying $200 extra dollars. Blu Ray is a push as I imagine Sony will take a lot of quality shortcuts with the player capability to keep the price down.

[ScoopBrady]

The launch of the PS3 and Wii will likely end the current gen sports development and turn the PS2 and Xbox versions into the roster updates that the PS1 saw. Maybe it will be different this time because the PS2 sold so damn many consoles but if it's anything like when the PS2 launched the current gen games will receive little attention.

[Kazuya]

Addtionally, many games released now no longer have exculsivity to either the 360 or PS3. So, my question then is why would one spend an extra $300 to play the same game on the PS3?

I am happy and feel I have gotten my money's worth. No interest in the PS3 and don't see anything there justifying $200 extra dollars.

To clear things up, the PS3 is not $200 or $300 more than the 360. The two comparable models are the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. The features missing from the pricier PS3 are not factors in a comparison because the 360 doesn't have built in Wi-fi, a 60GB hard drive or 1080p Blu-Ray support anyway. I know some of you wouldn't consider buying the cheaper PS3 (as with the Core 360) and that's fine. But from a gaming point of view the difference is $100. Not trying to start another 360 vs PS3 war, just clearing things up as I don't want Jared to think the PS3 is $700 (I don't know if he's as up on this as everyone else).

[wco81]

The launch of the PS3 and Wii will likely end the current gen sports development and turn the PS2 and Xbox versions into the roster updates that the PS1 saw. Maybe it will be different this time because the PS2 sold so damn many consoles but if it's anything like when the PS2 launched the current gen games will receive little attention.

They have to dress it up somehow so expect some flashy features but if the unit sales of the current gen are higher than the next gen, they might as well crank out a version to cater to the much bigger installed base.

Don't they still release PS1 versions of games or did until fairly recently?

But they won't worry about optimizing because the stutter people talk about in the 360 version between plays is like a second or two pause in the PS2 version.

[Brando70]

Addtionally, many games released now no longer have exculsivity to either the 360 or PS3. So, my question then is why would one spend an extra $300 to play the same game on the PS3?

I am happy and feel I have gotten my money's worth. No interest in the PS3 and don't see anything there justifying $200 extra dollars.

To clear things up, the PS3 is not $200 or $300 more than the 360. The two comparable models are the $400 360 and the $500 PS3. The features missing from the pricier PS3 are not factors in a comparison because the 360 doesn't have built in Wi-fi, a 60GB hard drive or 1080p Blu-Ray support anyway. I know some of you wouldn't consider buying the cheaper PS3 (as with the Core 360) and that's fine. But from a gaming point of view the difference is $100. Not trying to start another 360 vs PS3 war, just clearing things up as I don't want Jared to think the PS3 is $700 (I don't know if he's as up on this as everyone else).

Except that the $500 PS3 is the worst value of any next gen console because of the lack of HDMI, which is going to give you a Blu Ray player that can't play Blu Ray movies in 1080p. Developers are already saying 1080p games are going to be few and far between, which means you're paying an extra $100 for a machine that is more or less Sony's version of the Premium 360. The PS3 is more powerful on paper, but I think the actual difference in terms of visuals and sound will be pretty even, especially for the first couple of years.

So you really need to buy the $600 PS3 to get a machine that truly offers more features than the 360, and I'm pretty skeptical that Sony can deliver a well-built next gen console that doubles as a next gen DVD player for $400 less than standalone Blu Ray player. They either have a goose crapping out golden eggs to minimize their losses or they are cutting corners in build quality.

[dbdynsty25]

So you really need to buy the $600 PS3 to get a machine that truly offers more features than the 360, and I'm pretty skeptical that Sony can deliver a well-built next gen console that doubles as a next gen DVD player for $400 less than standalone Blu Ray player. They either have a goose crapping out golden eggs to minimize their losses or they are cutting corners in build quality.

Finally, someone sees the light. So let me get this straight...Sony, master of blu ray, is going to sell a standalone blu ray player for $1,000, yet, they will just go ahead and sell you one for 600 bucks that will allow you to game, store music, and a whole lot of other sh*t...for $400 cheaper? Something is severly wrong with that concept. I'm pretty sure the goose must be crapping out the golden eggs...at least gold plated anyway.

[wco81]

Most people who care enough about gaming to post on the web about it would probably go for the $600 SKU, if they got it at all.

The main difference is going to come down to the optical drive. You either think the $200 price difference is worth it for high-def movie discs or you don't (although recently, it was revealed that Resistance would be 21 or 22 GB in size).

On paper, the PS3 is shaping up to be a better Blu-Ray player than the $1000 Samsung, with HDMI 1.3, ethernet connection and support for Dolby TrueHD and DTS MasterHD.

There are hopes that the HD-DVD add-on for the X360 would be only $50 or $100 but there are also reports it will be $200. But the likely way to get HDMI output would be to re-design the whole box with a built-in HD-DVD drive and HDMI output.

As for launch consoles, hasn't consoles redesigned a few years after launch always proved more reliable despite lower prices and costs? Both the X360 and PS3 will go to chips made on smaller die, which means they should result in quieter and cooler console designs.

[wco81]

So you really need to buy the $600 PS3 to get a machine that truly offers more features than the 360, and I'm pretty skeptical that Sony can deliver a well-built next gen console that doubles as a next gen DVD player for $400 less than standalone Blu Ray player. They either have a goose crapping out golden eggs to minimize their losses or they are cutting corners in build quality.

Finally, someone sees the light. So let me get this straight...Sony, master of blu ray, is going to sell a standalone blu ray player for $1,000, yet, they will just go ahead and sell you one for 600 bucks that will allow you to game, store music, and a whole lot of other sh*t...for $400 cheaper? Something is severly wrong with that concept. I'm pretty sure the goose must be crapping out the golden eggs...at least gold plated anyway.

That's not uncommon though. The first Sony DVD player was over $1000 and it was big and heavy because they called it a reference design with a heavy-duty chassis. It wasn't even progressive though and a few years later, when they came out with a progressive player, it was a fraction of the price but much lighter and smaller after they integrated a lot of the chips together and found ways to reduce the optics assembly and transport.

It is however a legitimate question of why most of the big consumer electronics companies signed on to make Blu-Ray players when Sony is going to offer a game console which can also play back Blu-Ray for about half the price. I don't think anyone is sure how it will play out.

But a company like Matsushita (Panasonic) holds a lot of patents in Blu-Ray technologies, so it stands to benefit if Blu-Ray wins, even if its players don't sell as well as the PS3. In the Beta vs. VHS battle, Matsushita was considered the king-maker because they shipped way more VHS VCRs than either Sony or JVC, the company which invented VHS.

The $1000 players are for early-adopters and home theater enthusiasts who are not as price-sensitive. So they will go for the heavy-duty chassis, nicer remotes, etc. and let the PS3 increase the installed base and win over studio support. Or at least that's the plan.

The other part of it is that Blu-Ray recordability is suppose to be a lot better than DVD or HD-DVD. So that would be the opportunity eventually to probably sell combo DVR/Blu-Ray recorder/player boxes for big bucks.

[Kazuya]

Except that the $500 PS3 is the worst value of any next gen console because of the lack of HDMI, which is going to give you a Blu Ray player that can't play Blu Ray movies in 1080p. Developers are already saying 1080p games are going to be few and far between, which means you're paying an extra $100 for a machine that is more or less Sony's version of the Premium 360. The PS3 is more powerful on paper, but I think the actual difference in terms of visuals and sound will be pretty even, especially for the first couple of years.

So you really need to buy the $600 PS3 to get a machine that truly offers more features than the 360, and I'm pretty skeptical that Sony can deliver a well-built next gen console that doubles as a next gen DVD player for $400 less than standalone Blu Ray player. They either have a goose crapping out golden eggs to minimize their losses or they are cutting corners in build quality.

I agree but this doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I simply said that if you're going to say "X is this much more than Y" and compare then you need to compare the correct two units. If you're going to say you have to get the $600 PS3 to compare to the $400 360, then you need to list all of the things that the $400 360 has that the $500 PS3 does not. Obviously, you won't be able to do that.

Additionally, even if the consoles were dead even in power they are still different and some people may find value in the extra $100 to be able to play online for free, to play exclusives like MLB, Final Fantasy or MGS or to play Blu-Ray movies at SOME resolution. Obvioulsy you don't, but saying you *have* to get the $600 version to get value over the 360 when the 360 doesn't have the extra stuff in the first place is ridiculous. Buy the pricier version if you want the extra stuff, period. If not, the $500 version is still easily competitive with anything out there.

[Kazuya]

Most people who care enough about gaming to post on the web about it would probably go for the $600 SKU, if they got it at all.

Oh I would too... but for me cost is not really a factor and I already have a 360 too.

If a person had $500 to spend in his pocket, and chose $400 360 because it's $100 cheaper for basically the same thing (that being his reasoning), then that would be logical. If a person wanted the PS3 but thought the $600 PS3 was too much and didn't want the $500 PS3 because it had no WiFi, no unrestricted Blu-Ray, and no media card reader (that being his reasoning)... so he goes and buys the $400 360 with -- guess what -- NO WiFi, NO Blu-Ray and NO media card reader... well that person is pretty damn stupid. Either that or multiple SKUs is confusing, like Sony said when criticizing M$ last year...

[JackB1]

Saves you a whopping $20

Well just saw a Fry's ad for the X360 Premium and Madden 07 for $430.

Softens the blow a bit.

[Diablo25]

I can't wait to see MLB on the PS3...that should be something. However, I can't see myself dropping $600+ for the only game I really care about from Sony.

[wco81]

Actually the Fry's deal saves you $30 and $20 is still $20.

Circuit City has a deal an X360 Premium and a 30-inch Samsung HDTV for $999. Supposedly that is $200 less than buying separately.

[Blublub]

Well, I recently rushed out and bought one on a impulse. It's definitely been a mixed bag for me, and I could just as easily lived with the old Xbox for a few months longer. I don't have XBox Live, so I know I may be missing out on a big piece of the equation.

1. As Dave said, the backwards compatibility is an absolute joke. I think exactly three of something like 40 Xbox games I have left will run, and other than Halo 2 are nothing I care too much about.

2. I absolutely don't get all the raves over the interface. I'm still thoroughly confused by things like profile handling. Half the time it seems to lose my profile or I'll be logged in at the console but not in the game, etc. Maybe this all makes sense with Live, but I can't get broadband at the moment so it's not an option.

3. The machine just seems a bit cheap and plasticy, gets hot and the drive sounded like it was on its last legs from the first use. The controllers (wired and wireless) also have more of a plasticy feel to me than the Xbox ones. Could just be bad luck with my stuff, but I'm not at all impressed with the build quality. I guess for the price I just expected something more substantial.

4. Don't make the mistake of getting the core unit and thinking you could upgrade everything to the premium package for not much more. It will cost you at least $75 more over the premium package to add a wireless controller, component cable and HD. I learned this the hard way.

5. The graphics are very nice, bordering on the amazing, in 720p or 1080i. I'm in the process of moving and had to wait for the HDTV to arrive. While I waited I had an old 20" Sony and in this setup the graphics were barely distinguishable from the old Xbox, and even the brief slowdown between plays in NCAA made me yearn for the old Xbox version. That said, NCAA is a thing to behold in HD, and even early titles like NHL '06 look very good. Most impressive is that WWII Crimson Skies ripoff (I can't remember the name) that looks stunning and is surprisingly fun as well.

6. The $60 title pricing flat out sucks. Makes you pass on what are probably marginal games. There are bargains to be sure - Table Tennis and last year's Sega titles, but I'm going to think long and hard about buying things on a whim for the 360.

7. The biggest issue for me right now is the stripped-down versions of series titles being offered by EA, and at a premium. One camera angle in NCAA and Madden? No 1-AA teams in NCAA? Having to buy (with real money) alternate uniforms? Pisses me off.

But one more thing on the 1080p output issue. It's worth noting that there are only a handfull of current sets that can take 1080p input, and there's a lot of debate as to how much better, if at all, things look at 1080p compared to 1080i.

[Brando70]

I agree but this doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I simply said that if you're going to say "X is this much more than Y" and compare then you need to compare the correct two units. If you're going to say you have to get the $600 PS3 to compare to the $400 360, then you need to list all of the things that the $400 360 has that the $500 PS3 does not. Obviously, you won't be able to do that.

Additionally, even if the consoles were dead even in power they are still different and some people may find value in the extra $100 to be able to play online for free, to play exclusives like MLB, Final Fantasy or MGS or to play Blu-Ray movies at SOME resolution. Obvioulsy you don't, but saying you *have* to get the $600 version to get value over the 360 when the 360 doesn't have the extra stuff in the first place is ridiculous. Buy the pricier version if you want the extra stuff, period. If not, the $500 version is still easily competitive with anything out there.

Okay, fair enough. But if you buy the $500 PS3, you're basically spending $100 for something that has many of the same features as the 360. The main differences are that you'll be able to play a few 1080p games, you'll get different exclusives, and you'll get a free Sony online setup. That may well be worth $100 more for some gamers, especially if you're a big fan of games like MLB.

[Kazuya]

Okay, fair enough. But if you buy the $500 PS3, you're basically spending $100 for something that has many of the same features as the 360. The main differences are that you'll be able to play a few 1080p games, you'll get different exclusives, and you'll get a free Sony online setup. That may well be worth $100 more for some gamers, especially if you're a big fan of games like MLB.

Right... I think the main point is that there isn't necessarily the same relationship between each manufacturers two units. I absolutely agree that if you are absolutely, no questions-asked going to buy a PS3, you almost are compelled to buy the $600 version for the "value" reasons you listed in the other post. However, if it's "either or" with the 360, then you are already considering and willing to buy a 360 without WiFi and Blu-Ray, so I think you definitely have to throw the $500 PS3 into that equation.

[reeche]

Basically, the title explains it all. Now that I've moved and started a new job, I've been thinking about getting a 360. Currently have an XBox and PS2 (almost exclusively used for imports). However, there are a lot of factors that are making me wait.

1) The lukewarm reception to NCAA and Madden. My hope was that games in the next gen football titles would not only have better graphics, but also show some serious improvement in AI and the like. When I'm hearing that the AI is better on the XBox version of NCAA compared to the 360 version, I worry a bit (especially since I have some problems with the NCAA XBox AI). And when I hear that Madden 360 isn't great...I wonder if it's worth it to get a 360 now for average football titles.

2) A possible holiday price drop, or (more likely) the introduction of a better premium SKU (larger hard drive).

3) Region lock. This may not be important for most, but it looks like the PS3 won't have any region lock, while the 360 does. I import quite a bit (soccer games), and this is somewhat important.

4) The release of the PS3 in the fall. Getting both consoles is not an option, and there's the slight fear that (somehow) the PS3 will be much better in some unknown dimension that's important.

So basically, how happy are you 360 owners with what you have. Would you suggest buying now? Waiting until after the PS3 release/holiday season?

My takes.

1.) If your mainly getting it for the sports games I don't really see the difference between PS3 and 360. The same stuff is going to be on either one. (Except for soccer this fall I guess) Madden and NCAA are still behind their old gen versions but they'll most likely catch up next year...So if your main reason is to play football games your probably better off with the old systems.

2.) As far as the price drop it seems unlikely even though Microsoft maybe should have done it over the summer when sales basically died. It seemingly doesn't make sense for Microsoft to do any special deals since there aren't going to be enough Wii's or PS3's and people will buy all the consoles they can get their hands on this fall either way.

3) Is the 360 region locked? I thought that was up to the game....If this is a big deal Sony probably has the edge here but I won't trust them until they do it.

4.) As far as the PS3 launch this fall being better that seems unlikely. I can tell you for a fact that are still way behind. Both in hardware terms and software terms. The initial batch of software will not blow you away and more depressingly I'm hearing very middling things about the hardware itself. The fact is developers are struggling right now to even get their PS3 stuff up to 360 quality as insane as that is for hardware that is a year later. And even more scary developers don't quite know which basket to put their eggs in (at least for this country) so less special coding is being done for the PS3 because the install base will be low this fall. It's like a catch 22. People aren't going the extra steps with the hardware right now because Sony doesn't seem like they will have a large install base for quite awhile.

Finally as far as the 360 If I were to grade my enjoyment of it right now I would put it at a 5 out of 10 scale. Fairly average.

At this point I play

Dead Rising
Ghost Recon
Texas Hold-Em Poker
Whichever NBA game I so choose.
Oblivion

and that's pretty much it. I don't crave the system or anything. I still play my DS more truthfully and the distinguishing factor for the system for me is still Xbox Live. that's my favorite thing about my 360 but I'm not sure there are enough games in diverse categories to recommend a purchase at the current price unless your a diehard gamer. I'm honestly more jazzed about the Wii instead of the PS3 or the 360 titles this fall, mainly because of price. So that's my 2 cents.

[Danimal]

I'm seriously begining to believe that we have a gorilla marketer in our midst here at DSP.
EDIT: Whoops forgot the

EDIT2: Reeche it was most definetly NOT directed at you.

[reeche]

I'm seriously begining to believe that we have a gorilla marketer in our midst here at DSP.

I'm assuming this is directed at someone else. I could personally give two hoots as to which system anybody buys. The OP asked a serious question and I gave a serious answer. If this wasn't directed at me ignore the slight bit of attitude.

[Kazuya]

I'm seriously begining to believe that we have a gorilla marketer in our midst here at DSP.

I'm assuming this is directed at someone else. I could personally give two hoots as to which system anybody buys. The OP asked a serious question and I gave a serious answer. If this wasn't directed at me ignore the slight bit of attitude.

Relax, I'm pretty sure it was a thinly-veiled swipe at me. He is unable to discern the difference between simply discussing facts and "gorilla marketing". He feels insecure for some reason about the PS3 being correctly represented instead of being "a $700 machine". I guess he has his own agenda, which is hardly a surprise given all of the agendas he's had in the past. One could lose count...

[wco81]

4.) As far as the PS3 launch this fall being better that seems unlikely. I can tell you for a fact that are still way behind. Both in hardware terms and software terms. The initial batch of software will not blow you away and more depressingly I'm hearing very middling things about the hardware itself. The fact is developers are struggling right now to even get their PS3 stuff up to 360 quality as insane as that is for hardware that is a year later. And even more scary developers don't quite know which basket to put their eggs in (at least for this country) so less special coding is being done for the PS3 because the install base will be low this fall. It's like a catch 22. People aren't going the extra steps with the hardware right now because Sony doesn't seem like they will have a large install base for quite awhile.

There are rumors about specs. being downgraded, like lower clock speed for the CPU and GPU than previously advertised.

That would be a severe setback, since they are coming out a year later at the highest price of all the next-gen consoles.

If anything, they should have used a later design but instead, nVidia has said the RSX was tapped out earlier this year and yet, they haven't actually manufactured any of the PS3s? Of course, the chips could have been fabbed months ago but they haven't done any assembly.

Blu-Ray on paper was superior and yet, the first player and discs are widely considered to have inferior picture quality compared to a much cheaper HD-DVD player.

Same thing with Cell and the RSX coming a year later. But if they can't even match X360 graphics, the perceptions of overpriced, underperforming would be hard to overcome.

Part of the PS2's success and the huge demand for its launch was due to the perceived superiority compared to all previous consoles. The PS3 is seeming incrementally better at most and if the initial lineup (you don't expect launch games to wow but first impressions could be crucial) is lackluster, Sony may have a hard time catching up.

[kevinpars]

Personally, I think full backward compatibility alone would be worth the $100 difference. If I was a PS2 owner who loved MLB The Show and some other games like Black, it would be nice and convenient to have the BC. I know that it has sucked to either not be able to play games like MVP NCAA baseball or NFL 2K5 or pretty much any of the sports games I played on the xbox or to have to switch back to the old console. And when Oblivion came out I would have loved to throw in Morrowind and take a spin for grins and giggles. But ironically, the fact that Xbox games are 480p make it a tiny bit easier to drop down from high def to play an old game. Not sure that I could take the graphical drop from a PS3 to a 480i PS2 game - at least very often.

As for whether the PS3 will live up to all that is advertised, all we have to do is wait a few months. I thought getting a 'free' DVD player with the PS2 was great until I started watching movies with it and having all kinds of freezing and synch issues. So it could go either way.

IF the PS3 turns out to be reliable, that would also be worth the price increase. From here on out I will always be uneasy with the 360. It could work great one day and not work the next. Having it happen right in the heart of football gaming season is also a worst case scenario that has soured me a great deal.

Speaking of rumors, the latest one that I heard was that Nintendo has downplayed the graphical improvements of the Wii so that they can get a big positive bump when they show off the 'real thing.'

[Danimal]

I guess he has his own agenda, which is hardly a surprise given all of the agendas he's had in the past. One could lose count...

It must be nice going through life making up bullshit to try and make your arguments correct.

Saying I've had so many agendas here? Good lord if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

I'll just go back to the sidelines and watch your Sony marketing campaign.