XBox 360 is old technology, without a Blu Ray Player, near 50% or greater fail rate, and charges for their online service where as others offer it for free.

No matter how much polishing Microsoft does, you just can't polish a turd.

Xbox 360 satisfies everyobody's gaming needs. When you take a look at how much £40 a year gets you, you see it is incredible value for money. I am not a hardcore gamer and not the sort of person to get into a "which is better" argument but I bought the Xbox 360 simply because it was cheaper than the 360 and now I have it I don't feel that I am missing out and need to run out and buy a PS3 or Wii. It's only a preference, if you're happy you bought the right console there is no need to argue with people/

Xbox 360 satisfies everyobody's gaming needs. When you take a look at how much £40 a year gets you, you see it is incredible value for money. I am not a hardcore gamer and not the sort of person to get into a "which is better" argument but I bought the Xbox 360 simply because it was cheaper than the PS3 and now I have it I don't feel that I am missing out and need to run out and buy a PS3 or Wii. It's only a preference, if you're happy you bought the right console there is no need to argue with people/

Interesting comment by Micheal, unfortunately whilst 'older' technology, it's also better technology, i feel the experience is better and the gaming on live just blows PS3 and Wii away (after all it is a games console), and the blu-ray player on the ps3, well it does'nt compare to my standalone unit, shame, i like the PS3, i own one, but my Xbox gets much more use, thats just the way it is, and from what i hear, a lot of people feel the same way.

The 360 processor was developed at the same time as the PS3 processor. In fact, it is an off-shoot of the PS3 processor as IBM used what they learned from developing the PS3's cell processor to make the 360's processor

The 360 GPU has been praised routinely as being better than the PS3's GPU as well as the unified memory architecture.

Both consoles do some things better than the other but you can't call the 360 old tech.

It's not that I entirely disagree with your statement, it's that you're blatantly some arse-hat PS3 fanboy who's incapable of forming his own opinion.
Stop touting the same old tired crap you people have used time and time again and argue your point based on the subject being discussed.
The Xbox Live Service is either free OR charged and they're quite right in saying that the Gold version is the best available on consoles in terms of functionality and usability.
I like the PS3's blue ray, the price is now about right and the games portfolio is now decent enough for it to stand it's own - the live's still a massive let down though.

360 cool ps3 uncool. simple really. online gameplay is massive. get a grip get a 360

I don't own a 360 and i wouldn't want to. i say this after borrowing a friends 360 for a few months (needless to say it wasn't much of a sacrifice for him, lol). there are some very nice features to xbox live i'll give it that. i played blue dragon (sucked), gears (meh so-so) mass effect (absolutely awesome :) and of course the halo games (love the single player, despise the multiplayer). but i dont see paying for it. i always read how you get what you pay for in regards to the launch problems with MW2 and yes that was inconvenient (btw the game rocks, yall should get it) but since the servers are serviced by IW i really can't fault sony. it only lasted a day, in that time i finished the first player mode and some of the spec op. stuff. but all that is free. @home is free and all those f'n addicitive mini games >< websurfing, picture editing, music server (with psp), dvd/br inc. player. (no special peripherals needed), internet accessablity inc.(no special accessories). now there is video streaming, etc. etc. there is just so much you can do with a ps3 but not 360 with all kinds of added fees. yes i paid the 650 at launch and that same system is still chug'n along. my point is, i bought the ps3 mainly because of the community. i'm an older gamer and i believe ps3 if for the more... settled crowd. single greatest factor in regards to multiplayer games was the title SOCOM. most of you 360ers wouldn't know it or only heard of it in passing. that community for team based tactical shooters is very tight, very serious and very pro-gaming older crowd... they have nothing like that for 360. all i've ever seen on xbox live are bickering children talking about how well they can please each others (and their own) mothers... funny as hell for the first 2 mins... then i just kinda lose interest... not my scene and the deciding factor for me and most older gamers when chosing a console. 360 has the same games as ps3 minus a few, but they certainly don't have the same type of community. btw the move from SOCOM to MW2 has been oh so sweet.

developers have finally taken ps3 seriously enough to start allocating resources to the ps3 dev teams... so as i said its all about preference now.

I would really like to see crossplatform skirmishes... that would be nice :) (as in 360 mw2 vs. ps3 mw2 or a mix of the two)

Microsoft has to keep saying these things to convince themselves that they are leaders. Sony just leads. It's easy to "innovate" when they're charging $50 a month for services and dumping money on exclusivity deals. Sony has free online play and is able to offer the same services and then some. Firefox on the PS3? If not, we still have a browser LMAO.

I'm really surprised there arent' any cross platform games. the programming for the game specficically isn't the same, but the actual connection to the servers, ie. microsoft's servers for say MW2 vs IW's servers hosting the ps3 servers...same connection just different servers, cross platform gaming ftw!

360 sucks

Xbox 360 is old tech? With a GPU way more powerful than its rival, the PS3, and twice as much the RAM, one wonders which one is the old tech...
PSN is a great service and is quickly catching up with Live, reason why MS should stop charging for their service or Sony should start charging for theirs.
The real thing though is not the blu-ray as some claim but the games and in that field, XBox 360 takes the cake. The ps3 has some good games coming but nothing that comes even close to Mass Effect 2, Alan Wake or the new splinter cell.

Xbox live may have paved the way for online play and other stuff but it is PS3 that is bringing it to the masses. PS3 online is just a couple of steps behind microsoft and in some cases ahead. what took microsoft 7 years sony did in 3.

some say what you get on the 360 is worth the money, i dont think so, i can do it all on my pc for free and better. there is no excuse to charge 50 bucks when you can do it free on pc and PS3. now what you get on the PS3 is worth way more than what you have to pay. lol. and the PS3 has a web browser, not the best but more than the 360, and in fact that is what i am using to type this comment.

so microsoft may have started online with home consoles but it is sony that is making it better.

If the 360 tech is better than ps3 how come xbox has yet to put out a game that rivals games that sony pumps out. Alan Wake? Are you serious, hey i kill invisible things with my flashlight! Lame. Mass effect was good but halo and gears sucks. Uncharted 2 and 1 show that gears is absolete with great story telling amazing cutscenes and awesome gameplay, not to mention the voice acting. God of war 3 will dominate anything the 360 brings to the table KRATOS IS A REAL SPARTAN, not some gay guy in a green suit. Games on the ps3 beat every game on 360 hands down. Crackdown? Ha lame, how about inFAMOUS! Most innovative and target a wide audience. And besides that white piece of crap box is the ugliest console to date. I would rather have my nes sitting on my entertainment center than that ugly brick. PSN is awesome they have the best downloadable games and have been offering full ps3 games on the store for a long time but no one takes notice of that. Last.fm? I can stream music plus download it straight to my HDD from the ps3 web browser using download.nl or pandora. Facebook and twitter? Been doing that since 2007 on the browser plus the entire internet plus porn plays excellent with tube sites. Avatar mii look a likes? Uhh how about a whole virtual world with real looking avatars that can chat watch videos play mini games or launch into real games together with HOME, which is getting better every week and is FREE. Netflix? Have that already with a sleeker prettier interface. Party Watch on Netflix? Dumb very dumb i would rather that friend just come over and have a beer and watch the movie, i dont want to hear him through a ear piece while im watching a movie. Zune HD? Cant even come close to Blu Ray. Hmm so all we need is cross game chat(which is coming) and thats it! Thats all xbox has for 59 dollars a year? But PSN does it free? Pretty easy decision when buying a new console if u ask me. Ps3 takes the whole effin cake. What i talked about is just a small amount of things the ps3 can do to offer a online service like xbox live. There are tons of cool things that the ps3 can do like a computer. It would take all day for me to list every thing the ps3 can do.

To the 360 fanboys on here claiming that the 360 has a better GPU and whatnot compared to the PS3 - would you mind telling me then why no game on the 360 looks even HALF as good as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2???

Why do the 360's games look like crap by comparison if it has better hardware???

You fanboys really are some of the biggest idiots on the planet.

Facepalm.

The guys that say PSN is great are blinded by their loyalty to sony...PSN is not really amazing its just a bit of well executed software with a shitty store for free...I own a ps3 and my brother has got an xbox and while im in the ps3 camp and think its far better...it seems incomprehensibly stupid to claim that PSN is close to XBL cause it's just not FACT!..P.S. I'm european check out our PS store and then bang on about how great it is because you certainly won't be able too...i have a US and JPN account and your stores are better but still a bit shitty...And whoever start saying Alan wake and splinter cell are titles that a game on the ps3 couldn't touch is fucking deluding themselves...Splinter cell will be MGS4's bitch and alan wake will be heavy rains bitch (genre rip off's anyone?)...wake up u idiot..........gears is epic tho....i like the 360 tho before you fanboys start moaning...just sounds like a jet taking off or a monkey masturbating

Michael's comment is a quote from some other site

Actually you can polish a turd
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html

joel u r the biggest fanboy i have ever seen. go get laid, u ignorant fool. does the ps3 gives u a blow job too? lol get all consoles and shut the fuck up!!

I dont care about the system specs, GPU, RAM etc. and the differences between each platforms online services, all I care about is that I can play Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, etc.

As many people on both XBox and Playstation, us gamers really dont care about Facebook, Twitter etc, let's just concentrate on the games...

:D

I own all three consoles and let me tell you, the Wii sucks, hardware wise the XBOX sucks, PSN sucks including home.
Wii is good to play with my wife or kid for 15 minutes, that is it
PS3 is great for single player massive games looking at you Uncharted 2, and movies.
Xbox 360 is the king of online, and the person who said old school gamming shit, I'm a 35 year old games who started playing 25 years ago. And SOCOM is not what it used to be, and the xbox community is way better than the PC, who are (including me) geeks with a huge self steem.
Cheers and game on!!!!!

I still find it funny that people use the word "unified" when talking about the 360 RAM. We in the buisness call it "shared RAM". It's a dirty tirm, since shared RAM is a haven for bottlenecks. The 360 RAM is innoficient. Not only does the PS3 have the same size RAM (although not shared), their RAM much much quicker. Not even close. It's not just the size that matters, it's what you do with it kiddies.

i would have to agree with all the 360 fanboys yeah you get all the features you want but you don't get to have HQ movies such as blu-ray the movies that sony brings out are insanely AWESOME on blu-ray the games we have will never be on 360 killzone2 littlebigplanet god of war 3 because SONY published them on there own and it won't go well if microsoft wants the games we have sony would tell them to F-U-C-K OFF or get lost but the way i see it yeah some times the firmware updates are pointless on ps3 but hay the XMB is doing well i didn't hear anything about MS trying to win the award for creating the best interface for consoles but thats what sony is doing with the XMB they win with out thinking about CRAP that MS does it really takes for ever to go through the xbox live dashborad to fine what you want it took my 30 min to fine out how to download demos from live but it takes 5 seconds to get the demo and download it from PSN store soo its quicker and better then xbox live MS SUCKS 360 can eat my SH*T

Xbox live batter service period.

Who fed you that lie? Anyway if the 360's so powerful where are the games that are top of its class in tech? Everytime I see impressive lighting, character modeling, titles pushing a lot of polys , great combos of art and tech....these are PS3 games in the console space. If it wasn't for Cryengine 3 tech demos and blind faith in Halo Reach 360 fanboys wouldn't even have anything to compare yet you say your system is more powerful still?

Produce something that utilizes tech and art like Uncharted 2 or KZ2 first before we move into the real technical marvels like Ueda's Last Guardian or Polyphony Digital's Gran Turismo 5.

im not sure why people dont see this but ps3 had a web browser first. facebook, twitter, youtube, hotmail, and whtever else is on the net was on ps3 since its launch. xbox360 may have slightly better features like cross game voice chat but PSN is faster in network speed and has most of the 360's features. theres articles that prove the network speed is faster on psn. at the end of the day, dudes who are playing modern warfare 2 on ur 360s are paying 50 bucks a year to do so while people on the ps3 are doing the exact same thing for free.
i can check facebook/twitter etc from my web browser. so is cross game voice chat and 1-2 other useless features worth $50 a year.
those dudes who have had a 360 since its release have paid 50x4 years. so add $200 to the cost of ur console kids.
good luck with all that. ill be playing MW2 on ps3. peace

Everyone who says that the 360 and or live sucks, have not used one or the other. I have both the 360 and PS3. Live is organized, easy to use and is funner to use with friends. PS3's only advantage is it's easier to make new friends because of Home. PSN is a mess compared to Live. Everything they offer (other then Home) is a weak attempt to do what Live has already been doing. Don't get me wrong, I love my PS3, but In terms of on line, it way behind Live. So, for everyone talking shit about Live should really STFU, because you don't have a 360. If you really want to bitch about something, Log onto PSN, got to one of their forums and bitch about the things the PS aren't doing right and try to make it a better system.

I kind of doubt blue ray will ever catch on like the old DVD's did. So much is becoming online digital content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyeemtS1jII

I can't get over this 'fanboy' attitude, i own a wii, xbox and PS3, i like them all, personallly i prefer the xbox, mainly it's online experience works best for me, hence i get the most use out of it and thats that, other people may have a different opinion, fair enough, but all this 'xbox sucks a**' or vice versa is laughable, perhaps it betrays the youth of some commentators on here.

I personally wouldnt want blu-ray on the xbox. I've got a standalone player and never use it. The picture quality from a DVD suits me fine. I dont see why consumers should pay more for what is esentially the same product (i'm talking blu-ray discs here). They blatantly havent been as popular as predicted.

I think the services available on 360 are superb, although I would prefer it if they introduced the BBC Iplayer. The skyplayer is just too much of a money grabbing venture. (paying to watch old episodes of guiness world records, ummm no thanks)

ive had both couldnt get away with ps3 online too wooden it took 6 hours to download demo then i had to install it that took ages xbox you get loads for bout 60 pence a week including

online gaming

stream instantly 1080p films(no need for expensive blu ray or paying £20 for superman 2 on blu ray disc)

facebook

twitter

sky player

last fm music channel

1vs 100 live gameshow where you can will real prizes like cars n shit every night

party mode up to 8 people in party private chat and you can watch sky or hd movies together also look at each others photos

to me its the perfect entertainment package for 60 pence a week thats not even 10 pence a day

People keep talking about Blu-Ray strictly Movie based, what about the fact that Forza 3 is on, what 2 disks? When Blu-Ray would be on one. With games becoming larger in size, think you will see more of those?

I dont own an Xbox, so Im not sure if one of these disks is strictly for install. Still seems like a pain, all I can think of is PS1 disk swapping.

i have been a ps fan for year but the ps3 just cant match up the 360 it is just not as fast in its gameplay and its just polishing an old idea it is just the ps2 with better graphics and slightly faster game speed in some games where as the 360 most of the new game run at a 60 fps minimum thats fast than needed anyway because the human eye sees 24 fps as movement so the two main problems with the 360 is the having to pay for live even though its worth it and the backward compatibility

. "We knew that the hardware component was important, but really wasn’t the vital thing.”

WTF, look what the xbox360 executive is saying,that they dont give 2 shits about the quality of the console. so what if they breakdown.

get a ps3 you poor motherfuckers

yeah that was the first xbox 360s that came out were shit but now with the jasper motherboard there much better.just wait til project natal comes out then its over

360 is a loud poorly built peice of crap

PS3 is the best thing ive ever bought its the only thing hooked up to my TV its all i need.

360 wouldnt be anything without live and the only reason its got a bit tighter grip than the PS3 with all you xbots is because it was out a year early!

PS3 will overtake it you can already see the signs

Sony have announced they will start to chagre for some parts of PSN = then its just like silver and gls XBL - only not as advanced.
Also, whats the problem with 2 disks on Forza?
You only put one in once to add extra cars. Then just use disk one for ever after. Don't most PS3 games need an instal just to run?
360 can run most games even with no hard disk. PS3 is a very good machine - but it was built to get BluRay into homes. Games were secondary. Thats why, even when most people say PS3 has a more powerful processor, 360 has the games with the best graphics. Remember, Microsoft are a Software company - Thats why they can do much more with what they have. And XBL is by far the best. This is not bias but fact. rue, Sonys service has been built in half the time, but then copying is easier than inventing

The xbox 360 needs wi-f- & Blueray to compete with PS3

Honestly,the ps3 is the best console of this generation that i have bought,my 360 has been collecting dust since halo 3....keep on arguing but the fact remains the ps3 as of now is the console of choice.

Why do you need a BluRay player?? .... Download / stream /store is the future. BluRay is the last time a new physical format will even be talked about.... Just look at music. As bandwidth increases movies ........

i dont really know why people are going on about the bluray part of things, bluray was a might have been format, no matter which way you spin it, bluray sales are a fraction of dvd, and with streaming becoming more prevalent, and with the likelihood of more advanced disc storage methods on the horizon, its pointless, very betamax in fact. as for ps3, or 360 for that matter, so what?

Any console is just a poor imitation of the gaming prowess that a pc wields.

thought there was wifi for the 360... crappy expensive USB thing or just buy a wireless access point and connect it to the ethernet port

as for BluRay... I'd love to see al game that actually needs 50GB of space. I agree bandwidth will increase dramatically over the next few years and true video on demand will become a reality meaning BluRay would only be useful for 50GB backups of personal data etc

Completly agree NottsBloke, and btw my wife has just got me a 360 for christmas.

At the end of the day Blu ray is pointless right now (games wise), so thats not an advantage.
The 2 systems are practicaly identical, and If you have a decent PC, the PC blows both of them out of the water anyway.

As for 360 only for children, thats nonsence. Ive been looking which console to get for a while, and pritty much (apart from xbox slightly cheaper) the reason for going for the 360 is most of my mates have 360 and only a couple of a ps3 and there all in their 30's

Seems as long as their is a version x of playstation, people are always arguing about which is better ps than xyz.

There is a reason Sony are not charging for their online service, and is because they cant get away with it. Beleive me if they thought they could pull the same as MS they would!

As this is turning intoone big fanboy argument i would like to ask how people get the idea that 360 is more powerfull?
Yes specs wise it may be slightly however this does not relate to real wold performance.

I would like to point out that modern warfare 2 on my 360 only runs below hi-def at 600p. However on my PS3 runs at full HD 720p.

If my 360 is sooo amazingly superl33tcapacopkiller pro how come it cant support one of the latest games in hi def ? (just do a quick google search or go look at ya TV's res for sources)

P.S I would just like to say to joel with his comment of

"Xbox 360 is old tech? With a GPU way more powerful than its rival, the PS3, and twice as much the RAM, one wonders which one is the old tech..."

That this is totaly incorrect, Yes my 360 has 512 MB of ram however this is shared between the CPU and the GPU.

The PS3 has 256 MB of didicated ram for the GPU and 256 MB dedicated for the CPU and joel let me be the first to tell you 256+256=512. The same as the 360.

on launch night in asda for MW2 ps3 sold 400 copies and 360 sold just over 1100 copies , of course i bought a 360 copy . the 360 pad is way better than the ps one !! , LIVE is brilliant it,s perfect for multiplayer there is also sky t.v. zune music and video downloader and streamer , my p.c. connects to live through media player to stream music , pictures , video . you can download older and new games like bioshock straight to hard drive and for £40 per year its well worth it ...

Michael, you have missed the point. Bluray is old tech. Discs are old tech. Online distribution is the way of the future - not old shiny discs.

Granted the infrastructure is not quite there yet, but there will be a time when your console will have no processing power at all - it will all be in the cloud.

if ps3 games play in full HD why do 360 games look much better , if you look on game sites and watch games running side by side in comparison tests the 360 games look more clearer , sharper and colourfull and the 360 pumps out way better frame rates always

Let's face it. If you are at all serious about having a decent all-round digital entertainment system in your living room, the 360 is not it. It all boils down to the noise. I loved my 360, but playing games, watching movies, listening to music was always hampered by the loudness of the machine. The DVD drive is loud, the fans get loud, all atmosphere in a game or movie is destroyed by the 'whooshing' 360. It's unacceptable for a home system to be this loud. When I traded my 360 for a PS3, the difference was incredible and immediate. So quiet, is it on? Blu-Rays (games/movies) play near silent in the drive, DVD's are a little more audible, but no where near as loud as the 360's whoosher.
I do miss the media extender provided by Vista and 7even on the 360, but the PS3 works perfectly with PS3MediaServer and provides all the functionality of MCE without the fancy GUI. It does the same job so that's good enough for me.
I loved the 'blade' interface on the 360, then they changed it to that awful flippy, kiddy avatar mess. It's a nightmare. System blades looked polished. If it aint broke, don't fix it. The PS3's XMB coupled with dynamic themes are a much more pleasant experience to what the 360 currently offers. Easily navigable, and also customisable. Nice.
PSN had it's problems early on but is very stable now. Not as featuresome as Live. But let's talk about value for money. I can play online any day of the year never worrying about when my subscription will run out. PSN is free, works perfectly. There is no competition.
Most of the top games excluding the exclusives are available for PS3 and 360. Differences? Difficult to see. People will say that one title looks better on one console over the other but it's personal opinion.
I think the shared titles look the same on both tbh.
PS3 exclusives show just how powerful the console is though. Uncharted 2 (to name one) is just incredible and I have not seen anything come close (maybe uncharted 1!). It lives up to the hype and does feel like you are playing a movie. Like a pre-rendered movie. Just incredible. Nothing I have seen on any other console comes close. Would a game of this depth and quality even fit on a DVD? I doubt it. The benefits of Blu-ray for game media is obvious. It's evolution, CD has become too small for todays games, DVD only just about manages it with some big games, Blu-ray has bags of space.
The PS3 is the jack-of-all-trades for home entertainment. Even more so when you put a 500GB drive in it.
Twitter? Facebook? Youtube? etc... Was already there in the PS3 browser.
Do I sound like a fanboy? Don't care. Nothing will make me go back to the noisy, ugly beige brick.

I can't believe people get so worked up over Facebook, Twitter and movie streaming on their consoles. I have a PS3, and use it all the time. But to stream movies, music and to check Social Netoworking, just log on to your PC or Laptop. And plus, Blu-Ray is amazing, but doesn't make as much of a difference as it should for the extra money. Xbox Live has got a better user interface, but that doesn't make it justifiable to charge people for it. PSN is very impressive, especially in Home (which may I say is fantastic), but the user interface is rubbish. The two consoles both stack up, but I think (having played a 360 aswell as owning a PS3) the gameplay is much better on Single Player on the PS3. Much better. And for people arguing over the Wii, it just isn't the same console. The Wii is for group entertainment, and does it brilliantly. Xbox is an affordable alternative to the PS3, which in my eyes is the best console.

Just thought i would add that people saying Blu ray is already dead as its all going to be streamed. In order to stream 1080p HD along with HD sound in an MPEG2 compressed format is ~30 Mb/sec

The average UK download speed is around 3Meg if you google it.

Yes it is possible to stream 1080p at 3mbps by using 'Smooth Streaming' However the quality is absolutly dire

I mean come on what do u think your going to get quality wise at 3mbps compaired to 50mbps read on a blu ray disk :S when a proper 1080p movie is ment to run at around 30mbps

As Mark points out streaming is the way of the future however for the majority of people this future is as long away as blu ray was when DVD was first released!

While the 360 has Twitter, Facebook, cross game chat and music portal Last.FM the PS3 also has facebook integration, a web browser (supposedly getting updated to firefox), bbc iplayer, sonys own video store (more choice than netflix downloadable service) as well as netflix and you are not paying for PSN, instead of wasting hundreds of pounds/dollars over the 360s lifecycle, that could have been used to buy an xbox 720 or PS4 or whatever. I stopped paying for live end of last year- it wasn't worth the cost when I had PSN. Somehow PSN has dedicated servers for many games too over the p2p the 360 is stuck with.
When it comes to games 360 has lost all its momentum. Forza 3 is the only notable mention since gears of war 2 last november, with halo ODST, GTA, L4D2 all being expansion packs. This year PS3 has had a host of great games throughout the year including killzone 2, infamous, demon souls, uncharted 2, NGS2, ratchet and clank etc. With Uncharted 2 being the best game this year on any platform. Next year for 360 looks just as bleak with only alan wake, splinter cell (PC also), mass effect (PC also) and halo reach (probably 2011). Sony has around 20 announced exclusives (heavy rain, god of war 3, the last guardian, gran turismo 5, modnation racers, quantum, white knight chronicles, MAG, FF vs XIII, Agent etc.) and 13+ studios getting ready to drop their announcements.
With the 360 this was always going to happen as sony owns 4 times the number of games studios than microsoft. I have a PC I can game on too so I basically holding onto it just in case alan wake and halo reach is any good. However it might get sold before they even come out.

i loved the 360 and said nothing but crap about ps3 till i had 2 white 360s 2 black ones all had the 3 red lights so no more i got a ps3 and not looked back sorry but the ps3 has a lot more 2 it and am very happy with it killzone 2 is just the best

I have a 360 but am please that Sony has the PS3 out there and that Nintendo have the Wii. Reason being, if Microsoft were left to monopolise the console market, you would have crap Technology at a ridiculously high price.

i think 50% is a little high, highest claimed figure ive seen so far is 33% even so i also must object to anyone saying the xbox is too loud! instal the game to hard drive and its almost silent, and even when it is loud its not a touch on the ps3 when it turns its fan on (i.e. after 20 mins of bieng on regardless of what your doing) which becomes absolutly deafaning, to be fair i do have both consoles and the ps3 does give much better media playback, the xbox's always seems like the colours are washed out and its not as sharp. that said its impossible to tell ingame graphics apart at all. overall i now have about 15 xbox games and only 2 ps3 games, and ive had the ps3 a lot longer, its just not as easy or comftorble to play games on at all in my honest opinion. but that said it is worth the money just for the blu ray player. Quite frankly i also think calling the xbox old tech is a bit rich, the ps3 isnt exactly light years ahead despite claims, and i think ull have the next xbox and the next playstation within 2 years of each other.

A few points. The 360 Live service is great - I watch Sky on mine - and there's no need to pay £40 to use it. It costs between £25-£28 when you get your sub from eBay which I have everytime. I'd rather it was free and points to Sony for making theirs free, but it's hardly as a good a service, so you get what you pay for.

This talk about games is funny. The PS3 is still at the stage where the animation in games is still iffy in a lot of them. Compare Fight Night on both consoles and the 360 version was much better. As developers get to grips with the hardware I expect this will all get smoothed out by next year. Second, now that there are two next gen consoles (and btw ALL consoles have been described as that compared to the previous ones) developers, unless they are paid to only make one version, will develop the same game for both, so that any slight technical superiority on any platform will not be used and the game will basically be the same on both. It makes MUCH more financial sense for the developer.

The other thing about games on the two platforms is that 360 games have a slightly more western slant, PS3 have a slightly more Japanese slant. Sorry, I don't like Jap games - I'm not 15 - so there's less interest there.

LAstly, blu-ray. I want a blu-ray player, but i can get one for £100. I don't need to buy a PS3 to get one when there's nothing i want to really play on it anyway. If you dont have a 360 or a blu-ray player then yes, the PS3 is a great option to get a gaming platform and a blu-ray player together.

The thing is, both platform are very good hardware, and they offer slightly different things. Just choose the platform that gives you what you want and enjoy your gaming!

Blue ray is dead before it started. Why do you think apple have not included it in its Macs? Everything is moving online to digital downloads and that's where Xbox Live is best hence why they can afford to charge for it. People vote with their wallets if they didnt think it's worth it they would not buy it. Sometimes free is not best...

PS3 simply lacks the number of games the 360 has never mind the better hardware when it sits at home unused.

The PS3 has had the ability to use facebook and twitter since launch. BBC iPlayer has been available since about 2 years ago, and has recently been incorporated into the XMB. A lot of people don't seem to notice that the PS3 can browse the entire internet, including youtube, and other such sites from the comfort of its internet browser.

Some people don't realize also that the PS3 gives out a HD feed regardless of what you have it plugged into, the only limitting factor is the method of connection. The Xbox however, does not, it puts it out in SD, then upscales it.

When i was a kid it was about gameplay rather then graphics... but as all you fanboys are arguing, allow me to shed some Nerd light on your feeble minds:

XBOX 360 stats;
CPU: 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon
GPU: 500 MHz ATI Xenos
RAM: 256mb x 2 working together = 512mb

PS3 stats;
CPU: 3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs
GPU: 550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'
RAM: 256mb x 2 working together = 512mb

so what have we learnt?

1. they use the same amount of RAM
2. Sony's CPU is better - CEL technology is much higher then core*
3. Sony's GPU is better & 50gHz faster

and before you all start - im not a PS3 fan! i actually own a Wii :P if you want to educate youselves, and i suggest some of you should! look at their wiki pages;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

All consoles suck cant beat pc for graphics and online play

A PC Fan Boy, the argument is about to go down a diferent road. :-)

Blu-ray dead? HD Streaming the future? You have got to be kidding! As someone mentioned, currently the bandwidth achievable over a broadband connection compared to the data bandwidth from a blu-ray disk is one huge gap. 1080p streamed it may be, but the loss in detail on your shiny 40"+ LCD will be very noticeable! And don't forgetting network congestion, achievable speeds and that old nutshell 'monthly usage limits'. How many ISP's offer no-strings unlimited with no throttling? Very, very few. Enjoy your HD streaming and your monthly usage is up after 1 or 2 films on what a lot of ISP's offer.
I agree that HD streaming is the future. Very far into the future when the UK finally get's it's act together on broadband.
Blu-ray is far from dead. Get real.
I, like a lot of people prefer to 'own' my movies. Nice shiny disk, nice box-art, fits on a shelf with the rest of my collection. If it's a film I'll frequently watch, I'll rip it to my PS3's HDD.

No disrepect 'theMechanic', but specs mean nothing unless you understand them :). Ask any multiformat dev today and they'll tell you that it's not as simple as looking at numbers.

In power terms, the PS3's CPU (Cell) is better for calculations, but the 360's CPU (Xenon) is better for running game code. The 360's GPU (Xenos) is also more advanced and hence slightly better than the PS3's GPU (RSX), hence Cell is used on PS3 exclusives to make up the difference. Blu-ray has greater capacity per disc compared to DVD, but the 360's DVD drive is faster.

In otherwords, their are strengths and weaknesses to both consoles, and so in the end, the differences ballance out (hence multiformat games look/perform about equal between 360 and PS3).

The Specs theMechanic Gave in the above comment are correct. I have an 360 & My friend has a PS3 we set them up next to each other with 2, 32" Hd Tv's and used Bioshock as the benchmark. There was no noticable difference. However then we jump to Live vs PSN, Subscription vs Free and what did we find. Sure you can play online games for free with the PS3, its still going to cost you to download add-on stuff. Now i know a lot of people out there think Microsoft are robbing its users by making them pay a subscription fee so they can play games online but really it doesn't bother me and you get a good quality online service. Next on the list Well with the PS3 as you know can handle mostly any video file (which i think is a good feature) where as the 360 can only do WMV.

@Momiji, being able to browse the internet (via Linux) on the PS3 and hence access Facebook and Twitter is NOT the same as having Facebook and Twitter intergated into the gaming platform, and hence this is only a recent addition for BOTH 360 and PS3.

Regarding HD, BOTH consoles can output in HD (up to 1080p NATIVE in games, not upscaled), the main difference is the connection method, which is HDMI on all PS3s, but was component only on the first 360s and then component+HDMI on later models. BOTH consoles are capable of upscaling SD, where the 360 has a built-in scaler chip for that purpose.

There's clearly not enough difference to be in a position to hate one of them and claim to love the other.

Personally I use the xbox mostly because thats what my mates have got. I'd have no probably using the PS3 either because they're both very similar!

XBox has the edge over the PS3 for gaming, but as an overall package the PS3 edges ahead of the XBox. Adding Social Media capabilities is fine - I'm sure Sony could do it in a heartbeat if they thought it was THAT important - but the PS3's blu-ray player, coupled with the iPlayer app and now the ability to purchase or rent HD movies via the PlayStation Store, not to mention music streaming, Videozone and so on, means it's more futureproofed than the XBox.

I'm sure Social Media apps will come to the PS3 when they think it's necessary, but for now I don't see the value in having it on my games/video console, and I'm a big user of both Twitter and Facebook.

Well said, I agree with you completely. It's a shame so many gamers out there look for reasons to convince themselves that one console is superior to the other when in fact, they are both GREAT gaming machines.

If you really want Blu-ray then buy a Blu-ray stand-alone; they are now far better value than the PS3 and (even after the slim) far more energy efficient.
You can also buy region-free stand-alones (for DVD & Blu-ray) and benefit from cheaper and/or better film releases from the USA etc, something which PS3 cannot do.

For games I prefer the Xbox.
A 250gb Super Elite Jasper with Forza 3 game & 2 wireless controllers for the cost of a bare PS3 slim.
For me that's far better value and all about what it should be about, gaming.

It also helps that Xbox has a far bigger game library & far more games with a high metacritic score.

Your all idiots for sucking up to these companys and their FUD and Spin... The video game industry as a whole sucks, just play the dam game, or go outside.

I like how MCV continue to delete my comments and yet allow the site to fill up with the amount of shit found here. roll eyes indeed.

Are you the JB9867 from yesterday? If so, then I'm not surprised your post were deleted, since I can only imagine the contents of your posts. ;)

You were right the 360 doesn't have twice as mouch RAM (although it does have slightly more *available* for games than the PS3), but as I mentioned above, both consoles have there advantages and disadvantages, and in general are on par with each other. The best results possible come from exclusives in the hands of the RIGHT devs (i.e. those willing and able to get the most out of the hardware), and in this respect, we have yet to see devs push the 360 as much as the PS3 (but that's another argument :)).

im a serious gamer and have had both consoles since they came out, you all put across some good points but in my view the playstation is leading the way, the only thing the xbox has for its self any more is great games, the playstation not far behind with some classic numbers of its own. as for the online service by the end of this year they will be the same offering different versions of the same services its just personal choice one you u go for but more more my 360 is looking tired up against the playsation, i know there is real difference in hardware but ive never seen it in the game play. for the xbox to survive it needs to bring out a new model like the ps3 slim, the xbox one should be better lookin and contain a blue ray player or it by the end of the year it wont be able to stand up against the ps3. its a tough market but more more games are moving into online play and i have to say playstation is far better service that the 360 simply because its offers everything the 360 does and no extra cost .

No matter what people think of the PS3 or the 360, they will play the console the is fit for purpose of their own needs. The xbox is good for some, the ps3 for others and it will always be that way. If you don't like it don't buy it but one things for sure neither console is going nowhere. So get on with your life, u bunch of losers.

the ps3 is an ok blu-ray player , and the ps3 slim can bit-stream HD audio now . someone else wrote that 360 only ran at 600p resolution and the ps3 runs at 720p full hd .
wrong ! , full HD is 1080 x 1920 , hd ready is 720 x 1080, blu-ray movies run at 1080 x 1920 24p, and no blu-ray isn't dead as no download or stream can compare to the data that blu-ray uses, average video 30-40 mbps , add HD audio , dts master audio 25mbps , so 40mbps + 25mbps =65mbps , does anyone have that sort of broadband connection ?!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO

Microsoft are claiming they understand elements that would lead to success ? charging £40 a year on top of poor hardware (without wireless as standard) it was for these reasons that i sold my elite (for £100 less that i paid originally because nobody would pay it) and bought a Playstation 3 as Sony offers very good online for free,inbuilt wireless and good exclusives. the online servers are private and therefore very fast so there's never any lag for most games (unlike Gears) and an update is released every two weeks or so bringing great new (and free) features for all to enjoy. The Ps3 experience does lack a few of lives features such as cross game voice chat and quick joining of games, but are definitely going to be implemented by Sony in the near future. so anyone that says "both great consoles" or "the 360 is better" should really play both for a good year and decide then.

With all due respect Adam, I DO have both consoles and have had them for years, so yes, I do consider BOTH to be great consoles (as any REAL gamer would). There are pros and cons to both, and so it's easy for gamers/fanboys to list pros of one and cons of the other (including exaggeration, ignorance and even lies) just to support his/her opinion, but in the end these are GAMES consoles, it's about PLAYING games, it's about having FUN, not going around saying "mine is better than yours!". I think too many gamers forget that as they seek to justify having one console instead of another.

@ Jay - I just don't see xbox live being king... maybe drama queen?

@ 360slowride - Ha! Hilarious.

@ Shunter Doji - "Batter" service... ya maybe, but if so I don't want any. eww.

@ David - Nail on the head.

@ Mechanic - wow thanks for those numbers (all you guys that posted stats).

(subjet: and i know how to use it.)

Robb said,
"the only thing the xbox has for its self any more is great games, "

So, the only thing that particular GAMES console has is great GAMES?

God help Sony if you work for their advertising department!

i only own a ps3 but i still think that for what you get free is good. the speed is as fast as your internet and the browser lets you do virtually anything you can do on a pc. i personally would not buy an xbox simply for the "better" only just to pay an xtra £40 a year ontop of my internet price. when you add up over 4 years a ps3 is cheaper.

Ps3 costs:

£250 for console
£20 for headset
total: £270

xbox
£ 130 for console
£60 wireless
£40 per year live membership
total £230 (for first year)

in the short term xbox is cheaper but i still wouldn't buy it since within 2 years you could sacrafice intergame chat for a bluray player, an extra game per year and play with the web browser.

so by just looking at price for features (i may have overlooked some) ps3 is far better value for money. oh and did i mention ps3 has the abillity to run as a pc with linux. now i'm pretty sure xbox can't do that.
i will always be a ps3 fan as xbox is just not upto it.

@sean

The 360's wireless adapter is not required to go online sean, so that £60 is a slight distortion. My 360 is connected to the wireless access point I used last gen with my PS2 and XBox, I could also have connected it directly to my router via an ethernet cable. Yes the wireless adapter is more convenient, and relatively expensive, but it's not a 'must have' to get the 360 online.

That said, if you are going to go online with the 360, then you're better off with a model that includes a HDD. And btw, being able to install linux doesn't make the PS3 better. Besides, that linux capability has been removed from the PS3 slim, and yet most gamers (rightfully) don't care.

So is the PS3 (when used online) cheaper in the long run? Yes. Does it offer more 'bang for the buck'? Yes. But those points are irrelevent, since there are many reasons (besides games) that gamers will choose to buy one console over another. Same with any product.

For example, my current mp3 player is the Cowon S9. Like many other mp3 players, it offers more features (for the money), better screen and better sound quality than any of the iPods out there, and yet the iPod dominates. Does that make the S9 better? Yes, for ME it does, but it doesn't have anything like iTunes, it doesn't have the iPod's user interface, and so for others, the iPods are better for others.

Hence the PS3 is better for YOU, the 360 is better for OTHERS, and some of us simply enjoy both. :)

The PS3 has a built in web browser.
PS3 owners had twitter, facebook and every other social networking site because of the built in web browser.
Sure Live has some awesome features, but don't let Microsoft fool you. It is playing catch up to the PS3 because of not allowing a web browser on the 360

Having access to the internet and therefore access to sites such as Facebook, Twitter and others is NOT the same as having Facebook and Twitter INTEGRATED INTO THE CONSOLES'S OS. That's a BIG difference! That's why it's big news for Sony and Microsoft, and that's why it's big news for BOTH PS3 and 360 gamers.

Also, these are primarily games consoles, therefore the 360 not having a browser does not put it behind the PS3 in that respect. Like I said, Facebook and Twitter support is only NOW being intergrated into these consoles.

" m.j Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm76
the ps3 is an ok blu-ray player , and the ps3 slim can bit-stream HD audio now . someone else wrote that 360 only ran at 600p resolution and the ps3 runs at 720p full hd .
wrong !"

You sir need to learn to read what that post said!
He said that MODERN WARFARE 2 runs at 600p on 360, which is correct due to the 360s native antialiasing it doesnt have enough VRAM to display the antialiasing with a 720p res. The ps3 version does not support antialiasing and so outputs 720p.

I wanted to like the 360. I bought one. After so many died on me I had no choice but to go with the ps3. All this talk about how the 360 is king of online and it has this and that. I don't see what good it is when you turn on the console and cross your fingers it doesn't die. The most important thing use to be which console had the best games. The 360 changed all that. Now it's about what console won't die on you over and over and over and over again.

I had 3 PS3s die on me, can you prove that I didn't? What's that you say, you can't? No more than I can prove you had multiple 360s? So cut the BS please.

It's still about the games, always has been and always will be. Yes the 360 has had it's reliability problems (current new models are fine), but for the most part it was covered by the 3 year warranty.

It's because of the games that the 360 still maintains a healthy lead over the PS3, despite PS3 fanboys claiming no-one would be interested in the 360 once the PS3 comes out, and expected the PS3 to overtake 360 sales quickly. So what's it now, 3 years since the PS3 launch, and after a nice little sales bump because of the PS3 slim, it's still over 6 million behind the 360 in worldwide sales.

If as you claim it's about reliability and not games, then 360 sales should have dropped to practically nothing given the problems. So again, cut the BS please. :)