Quote:
Originally Posted by FStop7
I have both, I say 360 all the way. Many more games, much better online service. The only reason I still have my PS3 is because of Blu Ray.
|
XBox Live is a better online service I agree, and ingame dashboard access is still far ahead of the PS3's ingame XMB. Those points can't be argued. The 360 has more games, yes, but that's a quantitative answer that could use some qualitative clarification.
If you look on a site like Metacritic and look at the number of games on the PS3 and the 360, both have roughly the same number (not proportion) of games that have been given an 80% rating or more, and just about the same number of games that have been rated 90% or more.
That being said, and acknowledging the fact that the 360 has more games, does that mean the 360 proportionally has more crappier games than the PS3? The problem with the PS3 isn't as systemic as people try to make it out to be. Yes the development curve for the PS3 is longer and steeper, but top quality games are already starting to enter the market. No the PS3 doesn't have as many games as the 360, but that console was on market a year longer, and is easier to develop for.
The fact that the PS3, despite the 360s advantages, is already starting to see games that look and play better than titles on the 360 shows how developers are already past the apex in that long, steep learning curve. And it is generally accepted that the 360 has essentially reached its technological peak while the PS3 continues to give developers more room and more power with which to create. Games on the PS3 only suffered when developers ported a version of a game already made for the 360 to the PS3. That's why games like Madden 07 and The Orange Box were such a flop on it. However games like Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty 4, Devil May Cry 4, Far Cry 2 and Bioshock were all multiplatform titles that were built from the ground up for the PS3 and in all cases the PS3 versions either played/looked as well as if not better than the 360 counterparts. Yet developers still continue to say they haven't yet maximized the PS3's full potential.
Every console ever released has suffered from lack of compelling software in its first year. The 360's first must own title, Gears of War, wasn't released until a year after the console launched. Now that kicked off a year of amazing games on the 360 including Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect. But people have used the XBox's great second year to support a heuristic that the PS3 has next to no games, like it did in its first year. Yet in the 360's third year (2008) there were only two standout exclusives for the system: Gears 2 and Left4Dead. In that same year, the PS3's second year, it saw Metal Gear Solid 4, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance2, and Valkyria Chronicles. The difference may only be two games, but lets carry the trend forward into 2009 (which i've tried to do in posts above).
Yes the 360 has more games now, but if I were to buy a 360 now I wouldn't be looking at how many games are in the back library, rather I'd be looking at how many games are coming up in the future. For 2009 there is much more announced for the PS3 than the 360 and Sony has had a history of putting out a greater variety of games, support more artistic titles and original experiences. The original XBox had shooters and fighters but not much else. Let's not kid ourselves these games have hardcore appeal and in the first few years of a consoles life you need these sorts of games to establish a solid marketshare (unless you're the Wii).
But a game like LittleBigPlanet could never work on the 360. And that's not just because 360 gamers are more hardcore. XBox Live is far too centralized and content administration is far too strict for anything like level creation to work. Microsoft is doing great things with XNA, but even the XNA community suffers from the redtape surrounding Live. It's why the most user generated content ever seen on XBox Live is customized paintjobs in Forza 2.
I've written way too much on this topic, and I'll have to stop after this post. So much for breaking away from essays over the holidays. I'll just sum it up by saying XBox offers a great service in the 360 and in Live, but it is not without its share of glaring problems. For one thing the console's reliability is something that will not be solved, only marginalized for the rest of its life cycle. There is no price justification in the service especially when Sony does the networking aspect of Live better in PSN and does it for free (Gold membership afterall is the right to use Live's networking feature). The only distinguishing features are cross game invites and cross game party chat. However Sony is bringing those features into PSN and will not charge for it. Sony Computer Entertainment is the largest first party development team, and one of the largest amongst all developers. There is a massive back library of exclusive titles that reaches back to the PS1, not to mention original intellectual properties (look up information on 'Tears for Blood' and 'Silhouette'). For every third party exclusive that Sony has lost to the 360 there are many more in Sony's library to replace them.
If shooters, fighters and a racers are your thing then go with the 360, Microsoft has always done these things well. But if you want more you'll have to look elsewhere. Just look at games like LittleBigPlanet, echochrome, PixelJunk Eden, Flow, and Flower. Additionally the XBox has entered the fourth year of what is projected to be a 6-7 year lifecycle. The PS3 has entered the third year of a ten year lifecycle. Given the game support the Playstation has, its reliability advantage, value as a longer term investment, and a console that has yet to realize its full potential it just makes more sense as a purchase.
And how could I forget: Bluray too!