Agent ONE Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 We have 3 new threads for 3 new systems and the same stuff if being posted in all of em. Why not consolidate in to one poll since its all the same subject? I was thinkin PS3, but I am not sure. I want to read what you guys have to say before I make up my mind.
Hikuro Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I Better not have been the only one who said he was sexy or I'm gonna rip ppl a new hole and insert a doorknob so he comes after you. My thoughts to be serious...I'll be getting more than one, I'll probably end up getting all 3.
Godzilla Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I voted none. Why? because they are just too expensive when they are initially released. I already have Xbox and GC. I dont see the need to get a PS2. I have enough console and PC games... Also, does anybody know if PS3 will have HDTV support like X360? I think X360 it is a requirement.
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I say none, give me a PC or give me death. I second. ... plus Agent One: The Real Life Experience is only available on PC!
mikeszekely Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I went with more than one. Right now, I'm most excited for the Xbox 360, but I know I'm going to break down and wind up buying a PS3 as well. I'm really not interested in the Revolution, though, on account of how little I've been enjoying Nintendo's products lately. Also, does anybody know if PS3 will have HDTV support like X360? Yes, up to 1080p. I don't know if Sony is pushing developers to utilize it, though, the way Microsoft is. where`s GBA2 ! It's coming. And for all the Nintendophiles hopes and dreams of a Gameboy with more power and features than the PSP, I'm afraid that it has no extra features. It's just smaller.
Anubis Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Not buying any. Only one I might be interested in is a PSP, but even that is unlikely at this time. GBA and PC are plenty, end even then I rarely toucghgames anymore. I was surprized when I actually sat and played through Metroid Zero Mission.
Effect Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 (edited) The new Nintendo system might get picked up. Most likely in the end I'll get both Nintendo and the Xbox 360. I really have no desire to pick up a PS3 to be honest no matter how great the graphics look. Edited May 18, 2005 by Effect
bandit29 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I say none, give me a PC or give me death. Not for me. I hate FPS, MMORPGs and RTS games lol. Enough with the WWII FPS games. Plus I don't have a good enough PC to play most of the new games and I don't feel like upgrading. PS3 for me. I most likely won't buy at launch though. X-BOX 360?eh maybe... Nintendo Revolution....no. My nephew will probably have one so I can check his out.
mikeszekely Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I say none, give me a PC or give me death. I second. ... plus Agent One: The Real Life Experience is only available on PC! Most of the best PC games wind up on the consoles, anyway. And without going into another debate about the merits of the mouse and keyboard over the controller, for those of us who grew up with consoles, we're fine with the controllers. 'Sides, at least you don't have to upgrade your console everytime a new game comes out. Speaking of PC games jumping to consoles, with the huge push toward getting on the consoles broadband ready, I'd be suprised if at least one of the consoles didn't get a version of World of Warcraft.
Fort Max Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I think it's far too early to be making this decision but if we're just talking boxes then I like Revolution the most. But my friends all swear by Halo live and keep moaning at me to buy a Xbox so I may be considering 360. I won't buy more then two though.
RichterX Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I going with Sony with this one still, of course it will depend on the price and what mods for the console will be available.
do not disturb Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 i'll pick up a PS3 when its cheap. the xbox is ghey, i refuse to put more of my money into that nutsacks pockets and nintendo is for the kiddies.
MGREXX Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 SONY PS3 all the way!!!!!!! It's the most powerful of the 3 next gen systems, it's the sexiest and a true next gen system......plus Blue ray technology is the cherry on top. (A+) XBOX 360 is really XBOX 1.5 It looks like MS sacrificed power and innovation for speed which is a mistake IMO. At least the box looks great. (B-) Revolution is the weakest entry. No style, no grace, no revolution, no nothing man........unless the controller's rumor proves true. Still, I give Nintendo the thumbs down but at least they finally jumped to DVD's and online. (C-)
mikeszekely Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Sony is, probably, the safest bet. Developers know there's money to be made developing for the PlayStation brand. I just feel like Sony might be a little too content to rest on brand, be it PlayStation or one of the franchise sequels planned for launch.
Mechafan Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I say more than one. The Xbox 360 for sure because I already have Xbox Live. I was thinking about the PS3 but want to see more on it. I just recently upgraded my PC so I so not see me getting all the next gen consoles.
mikeszekely Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 SONY PS3 all the way!!!!!!!It's the most powerful of the 3 next gen systems, it's the sexiest and a true next gen system......plus Blue ray technology is the cherry on top. (A+) XBOX 360 is really XBOX 1.5 It looks like MS sacrificed power and innovation for speed which is a mistake IMO. At least the box looks great. (B-) Revolution is the weakest entry. No style, no grace, no revolution, no nothing man........unless the controller's rumor proves true. Still, I give Nintendo the thumbs down but at least they finally jumped to DVD's and online. (C-) What's innovative about the PS3? The fact that it can use more expensive Blu-Ray discs, which may or may not replace DVD movies, despite the fact that games don't even fill a dual-layer DVD? And if I'm reading the specs right, the PS3 is only superior in the video card. The Xbox 360 has the edge in memory, bus speed, and processing power.
NoSuchFile Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 What's innovative about the PS3? The fact that it can use more expensive Blu-Ray discs, which may or may not replace DVD movies, despite the fact that games don't even fill a dual-layer DVD? PS3 uses a 8 cpu core, so that's plenty of revolution for ya. Back on the topic, buy a bigass PC, if you whant a console that's gonna have loads of good games, go with the PS3
Noyhauser Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 (edited) What's innovative about the PS3? The fact that it can use more expensive Blu-Ray discs, which may or may not replace DVD movies, despite the fact that games don't even fill a dual-layer DVD? PS3 uses a 8 cpu core, so that's plenty of revolution for ya. Back on the topic, buy a bigass PC, if you whant a console that's gonna have loads of good games, go with the PS3 ACtually its more than that, Its one of the first real cell processors available on the market (I think the Mac G5 uses a similar architecture). PS-3s when they come out will actually be faster than the slowest 500 supercomputers currently available (I think they run at 800+ gigaflops, while the new IBM/Toshiba/Sony cell architecture will be at 1.3 terraflops). The xbox will use a less powerful IBM chip instead. Really its ironic because last time around the PS-2 came earlier but was less powerful than the xbox, now its completely reversed. However these are just matters of minor importance beside A-1's blinding presence Edited May 17, 2005 by Noyhauser
Ghadrack Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I will not buy a microsoft game machine unless I have no other choice for access to key game developers like Square and Rockstar or any other developers that start putting out games I want to play. The games make the system. Let's face the facts, Game-cube, PS-2, X-Box it doesn't matter what the thing you stick the games in looks like for real. If the games are good, run smooth and handle nicely it doesn't matter.
VF-0S FAN Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I vote for the Revolution cause I work for Nintendo France and I'll get the console for free
bsu legato Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I probably won't get any of them, but IF I did I'll likely wind up with a PS3. Nintendon't hasn't impressed me since the SNES days (excepting Goldeneye) and XBOX just has too few games that interest me. But all things considered I'll simply spend half the cost of a next-gen console and upgrade my PC. Especially if we see an increase in the number of games for the PC being simple (and crappy) ports of console games. I already have my PC so I might as well get all the mileage I can out of it.
kanedaestes Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Like someone else said it comes down to games. I know that the xbox is more powerful than the ps2, but why have such a strong machine and either not enough games, or not enough fun games. It took awhile for ninja gaiden, and halo2 to come out and in that wait I had devil may cry, gungrave, metal gear solid, and all the cool and good rpgs, and so on. Hell I still play ps1 and nintendo games, they are a lot more fun that most games out now, give me a snes and four ppl and super bomberman, and watch me and my friends play for days, and the graphics on that a childish compared to todays standards, all in the gameplay. So who wants a piece of bomberman?
Radd Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 It's honestly just too early to really say. I'm certain people will once again flock to Sony's system, making it the most supported no matter how powerful or weak it is compared to the other consoles. This time around, it does indeed appear that it will be more powerful than the XBox 360, but time will tell. I hate trying to decipher a system's potential power. Anyone else remember when people were claiming the tech spechs proved that the PS2 would have better graphics than the Cube, and that the XBox would completely dominate everyone? I'm withholding my vote until the games are here.
MGREXX Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 How can you say that the Xbox360 is more powerful when the PS3 is in fact the more powerful system. Here are the specs of all 3 systems, although Nintendo seems to be hiding their specs for an obvious reason but I included them anyway: SONY PS3 specs XBOX360 specs Nintendo "Revolution" specs As you can see, the SONY PS3 is the overall more powerful system. Don't be fooeld by Xbox360's 3 3.2GHZ processors. This is misleading, just like what ATARI tried to do with their jaguar multi processor Bull$hit specs. More processors don't necessarily make the machine faster or better. The PS3 has a more powerful Graphics card with impressive specs while the Xbox360 just says custom. hmmmmm.... The graphics core clock speed is 550MHZ vs Xbox360's 500MHZ. 100 billion shaders vs Xbox360's mere 48 billion. It has an additional resolution of 1080p while Xbox360 only goes up to 1080i. The PS3 has less Video RAM but it's faster and better. It has Blueray which is the next standard in digital format. Why spend big bucks for a blue ray machine when they come out (or wait years for lower prices), when you can get one in the PS3 for a good price. Just look at the PS2. It was the cheapest DVD player around. Xbox 360 uses old DVD technology. Who really needs another DVD player? Now let's talk input connector's: PS3 has 6 USB slots while Xbox 360 only has 3. PS3 has slots for Compac flash, SD media and Memory stick/Duo slots while Xbox 360 only has two slots for Xbox memory cards whicle only hold 64MB of RAM. PS3 has 1 optical audio input while Xbox 360 has none. So, you clearly have more flexibility and room to add you digital multimedia lifestyle onto the PS3. Now about the controllers. PS3 supports up to 7 of those via bluetooth. Xbox 360 only supports 4 via old fashioned 2.4GHZ technology. With a lot of home electronics using the 2.4GHZ, you are just asking for trouble. The PS3 has 2 HDMI connectors and 1 AVI output, while the Xbox 360 only uses 1 AVI output. PS3 uses wi-fi and bluetooth while Xbox 360 only has wi-fi. The PS3 has a performance of 2.18 teraflops while Xbox 360 only has 1 Teraflop. A huge difference!!!!! The PS3 has the brand new Cell processor with 234 million transistors, while the Xbox 360 only has a custom of the shelf CPU. PS3 Main memory bandwidth is 25.6GB/s while the Xbox360 has 22.4GB/s. Finally, the PS3 has Dolby 5.1, DTS and LPCM while SBOX360 only has multi-channel output. Clearly, the PS3 is the hands down winner, specs wise. Now, we know that raw power is not everything, as the original XBOX showed. Yet, with such superior power AND the diversity of Playstation titles, the PS3 will be unstopable. You can take that to the bank.
CoryHolmes Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 I'll be getting an XBox 360, if only because there are no PS-exclusive games that hold any interest for me. Final Fantasy bores me like no other game series, and the generic Japanese RPG is even less interesting.
valk1j Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 I will probably go with the PS3. Everybody I know has a PS2, so the backward compatibility is big for sharing old games. The specs look good for the PS3, the Blue-Ray is another plus.
Graham Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 I'm gonna say none. I don't have much time for playing games these days, so I don't see the need to spend big bucks on a next gen console that's hardly going to be touched. Perhaps when my son is older and we can play games together, then I'll consider upgrading, but as my son is only 11 months old, there's still a while to wait. However, if I was going to buy one of the new consoles, it would be the PS3, mainly due to the backward compatibility with PSX and PS2 games. Graham
JB0 Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) Personal preference is leaning towards the Revolution. I'll very likely wind up with all 3 eventually*, however. There's invariably a few "must-have" titles for everyone's system. Hence, I vote "more than one." *Eventually means "oncepeople get hyped about XBox720, PS4, and HyperNES. Edited May 18, 2005 by JB0
Dangard Ace Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 PS3. I've already got a nice library of PS1 and PS2 games and it interfaces with my PSP. Plus the next Macross games will most probably be PS3. X-Box....I'll just rent that whenever Halo XXX comes out. DOA....I'll just go down to nudie bar. Revolutions....rent for Super Smash Bros. XXX for parties.
Mr March Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 While my PC has (and thanks to the continued production of the best titles like Half-Life 2, it appears it always will) hold the number one priority, I have to say I'll go with whatever console produces that one killer app that I absolutely MUST own. When I purchased my Super Nintendo, it was Super Castlevania IV. My Dreamcast, it was Soul Calibur. My X-Box was originally supposed to be purchased for Soul Calibur II, but Halo and Halo 2 snuck in and stole the top spot right from under poor SCII's nose. Right now, the only app I'd consider enticing enough to prompt the purchase of the fourth gaming console of my life would be Halo 3. As always, I'm open-minded to purchasing any console, regardless whether it's hot (X-Box) or not (Dreamcast). All depends on that app.
mikeszekely Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) Don't be fooeld by Xbox360's 3 3.2GHZ processors. This is misleading, just like what ATARI tried to do with their jaguar multi processor Bull$hit specs. More processors don't necessarily make the machine faster or better. What the Jaguar did (like what the Dreamcast did) was to claim to have a certain bit processor, when they actually had two half-bit processors. I forget the Jaguar's numbers, but in the case of the Dreamcast, they claimed 128-bit with two 64 bit processors. And as you can see, the Dreamcast was more powerful than the 64-bit N64... damn near the true 128-bit PS2. Bottom line... three 3.2GHz processors might not be the same as having one 9.6GHz processor, but it's still more powerful than a single 3.2GHz processor. Don't pretend it's not just because you're a Sony fanboy. The graphics core clock speed is 550MHZ vs Xbox360's 500MHZ. I'm sure I'm really going to notice that 50MHz. Especially if one of cores is assisting. 100 billion shaders vs Xbox360's mere 48 billion. How many shader operations per second do you need? Do you even know what that means? It has an additional resolution of 1080p while Xbox360 only goes up to 1080i. If you're one of the few people that has a TV that can support 1080p, I'm sure that'll matter. Unless, of course, developers don't take advantage of it. As I understand, Microsoft is the only one pushing for high-def support in game, and they only require 720p. The PS3 has less Video RAM but it's faster and better It has a lot less. You don't need to be as fast (mind you, I didn't catch the PS3's speed, but the 360's is 700MHz) if you don't have to read and write from it as often. It has Blueray which is the next standard in digital format. Why spend big bucks for a blue ray machine when they come out (or wait years for lower prices), when you can get one in the PS3 for a good price. Just look at the PS2. It was the cheapest DVD player around. Xbox 360 uses old DVD technology. Who really needs another DVD player? MGREXX, I'm tired of going over this with you. Blu-Ray is NOT the next standard. Blu-Ray is a canidate, but then again, so is HD-DVD. A possible hyrbid deal is in the works, too. Reguardless of which format wins, I'll buy a player for it when movies start coming out for it. In the meantime, I don't need a console that plays movies. I don't watch DVDs on either the PS2 or the Xbox, and I don't give a rat's ass if which of the next-gen consoles can play movies, either. Bottom line, games don't even take up a full dual-layer DVD. Why add to the cost of a console to use a medium with more storage than you need? Now let's talk input connector's:PS3 has 6 USB slots while Xbox 360 only has 3. PS3 has slots for Compac flash, SD media and Memory stick/Duo slots while Xbox 360 only has two slots for Xbox memory cards whicle only hold 64MB of RAM. PS3 has 1 optical audio input while Xbox 360 has none. So, you clearly have more flexibility and room to add you digital multimedia lifestyle onto the PS3. It's a console, not a PC. I haven't found a use for the two USB ports on the PS2. Why the hell would I care that the PS3 has three more than the Xbox 360, then? As for the CF, SD, and Memory Stick slots, why do I need them in a console? For multimedia? You mean the same multimedia that I can stream wirelessly from a PC to the Xbox 360's harddrive? If you really must use some form of flash memory, the Xbox 360 is supposed to support the USB card readers... including the PSP. How's that for flexibility? Now about the controllers. PS3 supports up to 7 of those via bluetooth. Xbox 360 only supports 4 via old fashioned 2.4GHZ technology. With a lot of home electronics using the 2.4GHZ, you are just asking for trouble. When was the last time you played a 7 player game? And while I'll admit that it'd be nice if Microsoft had thought to use Bluetooth, the Logitech wireless controllers both use 2.4GHz technology, and I've never had any problems. Besides, the Xbox 360 is supposed to use subtle frequency shifts to minimize interference. Finally, the PS3 has Dolby 5.1, DTS and LPCM while SBOX360 only has multi-channel output. Microsoft isn't going to downgrade. The Xbox 360's "multi-channel output" will include, at minimum, Dolby 5.1, because the current Xbox already does. In any case, all we're really doing is niggling on the details of extra features now. I've already said that the PS2 has a more powerful videocard, but the Xbox 360 still seems to have the better core. I stand by that. Edited May 18, 2005 by mikeszekely
MGREXX Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Graham, Do what I do and play games after the wife and kids are asleep. Sure, you get less sleep but at least you get to do both things. Works for me.
Recommended Posts