ps2 or ps3?

[getfree87]

I currently don't have any systems at all, my mom was going to buy me a wii but she can't find any. i was also gonna get my self a ps2 since they are so cheap now and get rock band for that platform, but now i'm wondering if we shuold just pool our money and get a 40 gig ps3? or get the ps2 now and save up for the 80 gig ps3. i need to know some stuff to make my decision.

Can the ps2 verison of RB be played on 40g ps3?
If The ps2 version is compatable, will it support the downloadable content?
can the 40 and 80 gig ps3s play all ps2 games, specificly the katamari games?
other than downloads and playing online, what makes ps3 RB better?
I'm not a hardcore gamer, it it really worth it to spring for the ps3?

thanks for your input:)

[DesiredFX]

I can't answer everything for you, but:

The 40GB PS3 will not be able to play Rock Band or any other PS2 game. One of the things that makes it less expensive is the removal of all backward compatibility.

The 80GB is currently able to play somewhere around 85% of PS2 and PS1 games, with the developers still working on improving compatibility.

[LongDarkBlues]

I'd suggest an Xbox 360. Basically zero information has come out about the PS2 version and the rumors are that it's development has been outsourced. It is probably a much crappier version of the game. Just for the fact that you can't get the downloadable songs is enough reason not to get the PS2 version. The PS3 is a better choice, but the PS3 version is currently incompatible with the Guitar Hero guitars and they get the downloadable content later. It does have a wireless guitar, though, if that matters to you.

The XBox version, while the guitar is wired, seems to be the best all around version of the game, plus the 360 is cheaper and has a much larger library of games. The new units seem to have solved their older hardware failure issues, too.

[Parodygm]

Honestly, if you don't currently own a console I don't see any particular necessity for you to care much about backward compatibility with PS2 games. The PS3 version of Rock Band is going to be superior to the PS2.

If price is somewhat of an issue, the 40GB PS3 is a reasonable price point. This is what I own (as well as a PS2). Be forewarned that for full local multiplayer, you will need to purchase a USB hub, a relatively inexpensive item. If 3- or 4-player local gaming is a necessity from the outset, then the 80GB model might be more appropriate (and expensive).


PS3 version is currently incompatible with the Guitar Hero guitars and they get the downloadable content later. It does have a wireless guitar, though, if that matters to you.

True, the first is a worthy consideration for someone with an existing console. Not too much of a problem here. The PS3 content releases come out a whole 2 days later - hardly an issue.

[DesiredFX]

It's not a rumor on the PS2 development--it has definitely been outsourced, but is based entirely on Harmonix' design and contains the same songs.

[LongDarkBlues]

Even if the PS2 version is spot-on perfect gameplay-wise, it's still doesn't have the downloadable stuff, which is really the sweetest thing about the game. I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff pulled out too - character attitudes, less venues, little stuff like that.

And yeah - I don't get the complaining about waiting 2 days for DLC, but people sure seem to.

[LZ_Reborn]

I currently don't have any systems at all, my mom was going to buy me a wii but she can't find any. i was also gonna get my self a ps2 since they are so cheap now and get rock band for that platform, but now i'm wondering if we shuold just pool our money and get a 40 gig ps3? or get the ps2 now and save up for the 80 gig ps3. i need to know some stuff to make my decision.

Can the ps2 verison of RB be played on 40g ps3?----No
If The ps2 version is compatable, will it support the downloadable content?---probably not.
can the 40 and 80 gig ps3s play all ps2 games, specificly the katamari games?--only the 80GB version
other than downloads and playing online, what makes ps3 RB better?--everything!! graphics, games, Blu-ray playback, multimedia capabilities and the fact that you will belong to an elite community of gamers the PS3 community :D
I'm not a hardcore gamer, it it really worth it to spring for the ps3? hell yeah!!

thanks for your input:)

I hope that helps.:cool:

[DesiredFX]

And yeah - I don't get the complaining about waiting 2 days for DLC, but people sure seem to.

Yeah, I don't get that one, either, and I'm one of the people who has to wait.

I think the only real advantage to the PS2 package (though not for the OP, since he has no system) is that current GH/GH2 owners can buy the stand-alone RB package and use it with existing guitar controllers and mics. For $50, I can actually get a significant life extension for several peripherals that are currently gathering dust.

[Parodygm]

I actually like the wait. If X-box people want to splash out for the DLC and YouTube the tracks then I get a nice preview of the note charts before I have even have to consider choosing whether or not to commit to shelling out cash. :)

[Bluvox]

I do that too, even with the xbox. It's called "let the early adopters see what the thing really looks like"

;)

[Apples]

The PS2 really paints you into a corner... an Xbox 360 or PS3 gives you additional flexibility, expansion, and song libraries--all of which are prohibitively strong reasons to go next-gen.

[terRize]

First, how important is DLC to your decision? If you must have DLC then you have to go PS3 (or 360).

Otherwise, wait until you can see some reviews of the PS2 version of the game then make your decision.

Just remember to take into account (which I'm sure you have) that 40gb PS3 + Rock Band will be approximately 600 hundred after tax (or 700 if you can spring for the 80 gb model). That's a lot more then the approximately 300 you'd spend for the PS2 + RB bundle (130 for PS2 + 160 for RB) and not taking into account you could just get a used PS2 and save yourself even more money.

The PS3 is definitely worth it as it has some great games* (uncharted, assassin's creed, heavenly sword, ninja gaiden sigma, rainbox six vegas, call of duty 4, rock band, etc.) and it has a built in blu-ray player which is worth the money as well. The 40gb model lacks the ability to play PS2 games, but what PS2 games would you want to play? In my opinion there are enough good games for the PS3 that you won't be wanting to spend much time playing the older games necessarily. I know RB + Super Mario Galaxy is taking up all my video game time right now.

You could get a 360 as well.. I just prefer the features of the PS3 over the 360 but everyone has to make that choice themselves.

As for the Wii, good luck with trying to find one. You may not get RB but you won't go wrong with the Wii as it has some great games* as well (Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil 4, Zack & Wiki, MLB Power Pros, etc) plus all the cool classic games as well. You will be able to get GH3 (though after playing both, GH3 is no where near as fun as RB imo). If you get a Wii please buy Zack & Wiki ;) I love this game and want to see it sell well so we some more games like this in the future. (end gratuitous plug)

In the end, I'd say if you can afford the PS3 + RB definitely get that as it's a great time and people absolutely love playing it.

*this is my opinion of the games and others opinions may vary

[DesiredFX]

...not taking into account you could just get a used PS2 and save yourself even more money.

Or wait until January for the release of the $100 model.

[terRize]

Or wait until January for the release of the $100 model.

I hadn't heard that. If you can wait till January that sounds like an even better deal. Take the 30 dollars in savings get Okami or God of War as well.

Also, I failed to mention the following: The wireless guitar is worth it, I think. Being able to move around without being constrained by the wire is a fantastic convenience.

[Rock_Starman]

PS3,unless you're in Canada then 360.

[Nate Finch]

Definitely go PS3 if you can. The 40 gig is fine, since you don't need backwards compatibility, since you have no PS2 games. The PS2 doesn't get dowloadable content, so that's a huge strike against it. There's already like 20 songs you'd be missing out on.

As for PS3 vs 360 - the price difference is pretty minimal if you don't go for the crappy version of the 360. $349 vs $399 isn't a big difference, and you'd have to pay to get online with the 360, which kind of defeats the savings. The two consoles are pretty much on par power-wise at the moment, with games looking equally awesome on both. They have very similar features and both have more games than you could realistically buy unless you're spectacularly rich (in which case, you'd just get both anyway).

If you're looking specifically at features of RB on one or the other.... here are the major differences:

360:
+ Has voice chat online
- Has wired guitar
+Can buy standalone guitars that will work with the game

PS3:
- No Voice Chat in online*
+ wireless guitar
- no standalone guitars available until January 31st*

The two starred PS3 drawbacks are ones that *could* get fixed by a patch, but there's no guarantee they will be. The problem with no standalone guitar has been officially acknowledged by Harmonix, but they haven't said anything more than "we know it's a problem and we're looking into it".

I'll admit it, I'm biased towards the PS3. I love it. But I think you'd be happy with either system.

And just in case you didn't know, and because I didn't see it mentioned - the Wii has no version of Rock Band right now, and there's no official word on whether or not they ever will make one. There's speculation that it'll come sometime in 2008, but there's no official word.

-Nate

[ThrashedKid]

I'm going PS3 route specifically because of RB, but I'm having a hard time deciding what model to get. Any advice?
-I don't care about Backwards comp, i already have a ps2 that works just fine.
-I have the cash, but price is an issue. if it's worth it, i'll go big. If not, I'll go small.

-I don't really get the hard drive deal. How much space do saved games typically take up? how about downloaded songs? what else can you dowload? Would filling up 40gb be a concern?

[jq715861]

I'm going PS3 route specifically because of RB, but I'm having a hard time deciding what model to get. Any advice?
-I don't care about Backwards comp, i already have a ps2 that works just fine.
-I have the cash, but price is an issue. if it's worth it, i'll go big. If not, I'll go small.

-I don't really get the hard drive deal. How much space do saved games typically take up? how about downloaded songs? what else can you dowload? Would filling up 40gb be a concern?

If you don't care about backwards compatibility definitely go for the 40GB. Since it is the most affordable. If you run out of room you can always swap out for a new bigger hard drive and it doesn't void your warranty and you find easy instructions all over the internet how to do it.

Yes, 40GB is alot of room and if all you use it for is dl'ing demos and DLC you probably will never fill it up. Every game you play stores some data on the hard drive that can lessen load times and do things like that so if you rent a game make sure if you don't plan on buying it to delete that data.

The only reason I would suggest buying a bigger hard drive down the road is with the announcement of DivX coming to the PS3 and if you are big on downloading movies/tv shows, you might need the extra room.

[Nate Finch]

If you can find one, the 60 gig ones are the best of all worlds, but they've been discontinued for a while now.
I think that, especially since you're getting it for rock band, it's worth it to get the 80 gig for the extra USB slots alone (the 40 only has two whereas the 80 has four). You'd have to get a hub otherwise, and there goes part of your savings. Plus the 80 comes with a Motorstorm, which is a great game.

Space is a non-issue. Not only do game saves and DLC not take up that much space, but the hard drive is upgradeable very simply with an off the shelf hard drive, and it's fully supported and endorsed by Sony.

So... Either one is good, depends on what you want.

[Rock_Starman]

I'd say the wireless guitar is a - cause I can see the batteries running out on song 58 in that endless setlist.

There's a lot of PS3 games that install very large files on the hard drive,some just have the option others force it. That's the only concern. The downloadable games are also fairly large compared to the other systems downloads.

[Nate Finch]

I'd say the wireless guitar is a - cause I can see the batteries running out on song 58 in that endless setlist.

The batteries actually last a surprisingly long time. I've played way more than 60 songs on the batteries that came with the thing.

[terRize]

I'll also second that batteries don't get drained that fast. It's lasted over 10 hours of game time. Also, it turns itself off which is nice. I haven't checked though, does the guitar have a PS3 battery meter on it if you bring up the PS menu? Never bothered to look yet.

[JB4GDI]

Can the ps2 verison of RB be played on 40g ps3? - No
If The ps2 version is compatable, will it support the downloadable content? - No
can the 40 and 80 gig ps3s play all ps2 games, specificly the katamari games? - 40 gig can't, 80 gig can.
other than downloads and playing online, what makes ps3 RB better? - Wireless guitars, no need to buy a USB hub. Really, the downloads should be the real deal-breaker since the song list is significantly smaller than GH2. It's really awesome, just smaller.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, it it really worth it to spring for the ps3? - Yes. And go with either the 60 gig or 80 gig. They're rock solid. I've got three friends who are almost jealous of my PS3 because it's got a lot of good games, and you don't have to ship it back for repairs every 3 months.


Hope that helps.

-Jaime

[Sonofmogh]

I'd suggest an Xbox 360. Basically zero information has come out about the PS2 version and the rumors are that it's development has been outsourced. It is probably a much crappier version of the game. Just for the fact that you can't get the downloadable songs is enough reason not to get the PS2 version. The PS3 is a better choice, but the PS3 version is currently incompatible with the Guitar Hero guitars and they get the downloadable content later. It does have a wireless guitar, though, if that matters to you.

The XBox version, while the guitar is wired, seems to be the best all around version of the game, plus the 360 is cheaper and has a much larger library of games. The new units seem to have solved their older hardware failure issues, too.For Sure! What kind of Sony fanboy has no consoles?? J/K...:rolleyes: I'm sure you just overlooked the possibility of buying a 360.

[Sonofmogh]

Definitely go PS3 if you can. The 40 gig is fine, since you don't need backwards compatibility, since you have no PS2 games. The PS2 doesn't get dowloadable content, so that's a huge strike against it. There's already like 20 songs you'd be missing out on.

As for PS3 vs 360 - the price difference is pretty minimal if you don't go for the crappy version of the 360. $349 vs $399 isn't a big difference, and you'd have to pay to get online with the 360, which kind of defeats the savings. The two consoles are pretty much on par power-wise at the moment, with games looking equally awesome on both. They have very similar features and both have more games than you could realistically buy unless you're spectacularly rich (in which case, you'd just get both anyway).

If you're looking specifically at features of RB on one or the other.... here are the major differences:

360:
+ Has voice chat online
- Has wired guitar
+Can buy standalone guitars that will work with the game

PS3:
- No Voice Chat in online*
+ wireless guitar
- no standalone guitars available until January 31st*

The two starred PS3 drawbacks are ones that *could* get fixed by a patch, but there's no guarantee they will be. The problem with no standalone guitar has been officially acknowledged by Harmonix, but they haven't said anything more than "we know it's a problem and we're looking into it".

I'll admit it, I'm biased towards the PS3. I love it. But I think you'd be happy with either system.

And just in case you didn't know, and because I didn't see it mentioned - the Wii has no version of Rock Band right now, and there's no official word on whether or not they ever will make one. There's speculation that it'll come sometime in 2008, but there's no official word.

-Nate
Yeah I can tell you're biased towards the PS3.

Please don't think of this only in terms of Rock Band, a console is a big purchasing decision b/c you'll be pretty much stuck with that console so you must make the decision based on future expectations as well as current performance.

First off, the PS2 is not an option, period! Buying a PS2 now would be like buying a Nintendo 64...it's okay if you're really not into quality next-gen gaming, but the idea of doing so just blows my mind!

Next, Wii is out obviously because it doesn't have Rock Band....and it's really gimmicky and is not designed for hardcore or even semi-casual gamers.

Next you have to decide between PS3 and 360.
360 would be my choice, but that's just me.
The 360 is a better console for all around gaming, whether you are hardcore or casual, developers tend to target the 360 with it's larger market share when they build games, therefore the PS3 tends to get shafted a lot because most of it's cross-platform titles are at least semi-ported from the 360...exclusive titles are a different story...MGS4 and other
PS3 exclusives look and play amzing because when a developer has time to build a PS3 title from scratch they can make use of the PS3's more powerful processors and engines and such and make a more realistic game...this is the exception though, not the norm.
You don't have to get online, but if you do want to play RB online you'll need to pay if you go with the 360...but at $50 a year it's really a bargain. 360 has a better library of games now and expected in the future. PS3 does have some cool features you might want to look at though. I'm biased towards the 360, but I'd say not as biased as some ppl are. I can see all the negatives and positives of each console...that's why I chose 360...because I weighed the pros and cons and came up with 360 FTW.

[LZ_Reborn]

I'll also second that batteries don't get drained that fast. It's lasted over 10 hours of game time. Also, it turns itself off which is nice. I haven't checked though, does the guitar have a PS3 battery meter on it if you bring up the PS menu? Never bothered to look yet.

And i'll third that as well, actually I haven't changed the original batteries on my guitar since I got the game on Nov-20 and I have played every single day for a average of 1 1/2 hour. I'm sure they will run out any day now, but hey! on the whole it's over 20 hours of playtime!.

To anwser your question, no it doesn't show the baterry meter it only shows a dash font where the battery icon should be.

[DesiredFX]

You don't have to get online, but if you do want to play RB online you'll need to pay if you go with the 360...but at $50 a year it's really a bargain. 360 has a better library of games now and expected in the future. PS3 does have some cool features you might want to look at though. I'm biased towards the 360, but I'd say not as biased as some ppl are. I can see all the negatives and positives of each console...that's why I chose 360...because I weighed the pros and cons and came up with 360 FTW.

For me, I don't see $50 a year as a bargain for something the other system offers for free. And this is before even considering what Home is going to offer on the PS3--and still for free.

As for the "better library of games," that's clearly a matter of opinion. Yes, there are more games, but the 360's biggest franchises are sports games and FPS games that primarily have an M rating. The PS3's library is smaller, but more diverse.

[SoulScreme]

For me, I don't see $50 a year as a bargain for something the other system offers for free. And this is before even considering what Home is going to offer on the PS3--and still for free.

As for the "better library of games," that's clearly a matter of opinion. Yes, there are more games, but the 360's biggest franchises are sports games and FPS games that primarily have an M rating. The PS3's library is smaller, but more diverse.

You read my mine. The PS3's library is more diverse and also, in my opinion, of a higher caliber.

Quality Games Exclusive to 360:

Dead Rising - Action/Adventure
Gears of War - Shooter
Halo 3 - Shooter
Bioshock - Shooter
Geometry Wars - Twin-Stick Shooter
Mass Effect - RPG

Quality Games Eclusive to PS3:

Uncharted - Action/Adventure/Shooter
Ratchet and Clank Future - Platformer/Shooter
Warhawk - Shooter
Resistance - Shooter
Heavenly Sword - Action
Eye of Judgement - CCG/Strategy
Folklore - RPG
Calling All Cars - Action
flOw - Exprimental
Everyday Shooter - Experimental/Music/Shooter

Hmm... wait... is that possible? Yes it is. I listed more exclusive, quality titles for PS3. Hmm...

[Nate Finch]

For overall, the two systems are pretty close, I think. One thing that troubles me with the 360 is the failure rate. The dreaded "red rings of death". I think everyone on the Rock Band forums knows how bad it is when you need to return hardware to its manufacturer..... well, now imagine not getting it back for 4-6 weeks. That's what's happening with the 360s that die.

As for game libraries... most of the great new games come out on both consoles, and each have strong exclusives. If you're new to the console, you won't ever run out of games to play on either.

I think that if you have an HD TV the blu-ray player in the PS3 makes it a no brainer. You get an HD movie player for free with your console. You just can't beat that.

[DesiredFX]

I think that if you have an HD TV the blu-ray player in the PS3 makes it a no brainer. You get an HD movie player for free with your console. You just can't beat that.

Particularly when the studios on the Blu-ray side of things heavily outweigh the studios on the HD-DVD side, both in number of studios and the depth of their libraries.

[LZ_Reborn]

When did this turn into a PS3 vs. 360 debate?? the title of the thread is "PS2 or PS3?" clearly the OP is interested in a Sony systmem and his only concern was either to buy a last or nextgen Sony system....so please people stay on topic.

[DesiredFX]

Well, with the advances the PS3 has made in the last six months and with what's expected in the next six months, it's not really fair to even call it a "debate" anymore, is it?

:p

[Nate Finch]

If it's a question of PS2 vs. PS3, the PS3 is the clear winner, even if all you take into consideration is rock band. You get downloadable content. End of story.

[Darkhorse4life]

If you havn't considered it, I would also evaluate Xbox360 as an option. If it is strictly on a PS2 versus PS3 basis then go with PS3. But if it is PS2 versus a Current Gen system, go with 360 ;).

I thought about posting some really long and drawn out comparison of the systems but I don't want to turn this into a flame war. I own both a PS3 and an XBox360 and I'm happy with both and would recommend both to my friends. I'm sure Rock Band is great for both systems.

I bought Rock Band for 360 because that is what all my friends have and I want to play with them, and Microsoft seems to have their crap together regarding downloadable content which is a core component of Rock Band.

If I were to recommend a system to a friend who wasn't interested in Rock Band I would still give the edge to XBox360, but just slightly. In my opinion it has better software support and a better pricepoint. PS3 is great, don't get me wrong, but it's easy to see the writing on the wall that 2008 is a make or break year for Sony regarding the PS3. Anyone who can't recognize is a Sony fanboy.

Oh and the guy listing exclusive titles a few posts above me is an obvious Sony fanboy ;). Comparing "quality" titles in numbers and then listing Fl0w, Geometry Wars, and Everyday Shooter in the same category of games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Uncharted is like comparing apples to oranges.

[SoulScreme]

I thought about posting some really long and drawn out comparison of the systems but I don't want to turn this into a flame war. I own both a PS3 and an XBox360 and I'm happy with both and would recommend both to my friends. I'm sure Rock Band is great for both systems.

I bought Rock Band for 360 because that is what all my friends have and I want to play with them, and Microsoft seems to have their crap together regarding downloadable content which is a core component of Rock Band.

If I were to recommend a system to a friend who wasn't interested in Rock Band I would still give the edge to XBox360, but just slightly. In my opinion it has better software support and a better pricepoint. PS3 is great, don't get me wrong, but it's easy to see the writing on the wall that 2008 is a make or break year for Sony regarding the PS3. Anyone who can't recognize is a Sony fanboy.

Oh and the guy listing exclusive titles a few posts above me is an obvious Sony fanboy ;). Comparing "quality" titles in numbers and then listing Fl0w and Everyday Shooter in the same category of games like Bioshock is like comparing apples to oranges.

I also listed Geometry Wars for 360, which is in the same area as those games. Not my fault Sony has better original DLC games.

[FakeNBake]

if you value your possesions then go with the PS3...if you have a great fire insurance policy go with the 360


as far as RB goes definately on the PS3...and with the patch confirmed for release any minute, then you can get GH3 and have an extra guitar and game:D

[Titannica]

I was a PS2 owner who made the move to PS3 specifically for Rock Band. The lack of DLC and online play on the PS2 were a dealbreaker for me. It wasn't an inexpensive decision, but given the amount of enjoyment I've already had with Rock Band (which will be increased significantly if the guitar compatibility patch allows me to use the GH3 LP that I also purchased) I don't regret the move at all.

[DesiredFX]

PS3 is great, don't get me wrong, but it's easy to see the writing on the wall that 2008 is a make or break year for Sony regarding the PS3. Anyone who can't recognize is a Sony fanboy.

Here's why I disagree with that, and it's not a "Sony fanboy" perpective.

The size of the potential audience for a nextgen console is most easily measured by looking at how many of the last generation are in the field.

With over 120,000,000 PS2s sold, it's pretty clear that there are a whole lot of gamers out there.

At this point, in the US, the 360 has sold about 7M units, the Wii has sold 6M, and the PS3 has sold 2M.

Compared to the bountiful 120,000,000 gamers out there, none of those numbers is a drop in the bucket. Even if you assume that there are 120,000,000 PS2s in the field because 60,000,000 people each bought two, it's still a huge gap between the last generation and the current/next one.

Factor in something else: while the market for HD is growing, HD penetration is also tiny compared to the number of sets out there.

Way I figure it, as long as the PS3 doesn't falter in 2008, it probably has until about 2010 to really establish itself as the platform of choice, and a whole lot of things could happen between now and 2010, the most crucial of which is the determination of which HD disc is going to dominate the other one.

If the HD-DVD drive for the 360 turns into just another paperweight because of the Blu-ray's success (and don't kid yourself--that's definitely the way it's going), the PS3 gains a huge advantage in the marketplace.

[DesiredFX]

I also listed Geometry Wars for 360, which is in the same area as those games. Not my fault Sony has better original DLC games.

And "Calling All Cars" is a blast. Simple game...inexpensive...but definitely good for hours and hours of fun, especially if you're playing with friends.

Makes a nice break from Rock Band, too.

[Darkhorse4life]

Yawn ;). Blah blah blah personal opinion. I'm just saying that comparing AAA titles is one thing. However, deciding which DLC games that you like for $5-$15 is totally different. Sure I think fl0w and Everday Shooter are great games and I own one of them (fl0w), however I think there are tons of great XBLA games that you neglected to mention that aren't available to PS3 such as Undertow and Marathon.

It all comes down to personal tate, it is obvious that both systems are quite good and have their benefits (I own both and am very happy with both of my purchases). I'm just saying as someone who was evaluating the whole picture and only had the financials to purchase one system, I'm offering up my opinion of Xbox 360 as the superior buy due to its higher availability for AAA titles and bang for your buck.

Opinion piece at best.

On the other hand, I'm not making outrageous claims or statements obviously meant to irritate 360 fanboys such as "NOTICEZ HOW I LISTED MORE WINNARS EXCLUSIVES ON PS3 THAN ON XBOX AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY FACT". :rolleyes:

[SoulScreme]

And "Calling All Cars" is a blast. Simple game...inexpensive...but definitely good for hours and hours of fun, especially if you're playing with friends.

Makes a nice break from Rock Band, too.

Good for gatherings like Rock Band too. Just so simple to control and play.

[SoulScreme]

Yawn ;). Blah blah blah personal opinion. I'm just saying that comparing AAA titles is one thing. However, deciding which DLC games that you like for $5-$15 is totally different. Sure I think fl0w and Everday Shooter are great games and I own one of them (fl0w), however I think there are tons of great XBLA games that you neglected to mention that aren't available to PS3 such as Undertow and Marathon.

It all comes down to personal tate, it is obvious that both systems are quite good and have their benefits (I own both and am very happy with both of my purchases). I'm just saying as someone who was evaluating the whole picture and only had the financials to purchase one system, I'm offering up my opinion of Xbox 360 as the superior buy due to its higher availability for AAA titles and bang for your buck.

Opinion piece at best.

On the other hand, I'm not making outrageous claims or statements obviously meant to irritate 360 fanboys such as "NOTICEZ HOW I LISTED MORE WINNARS EXCLUSIVES ON PS3 THAN ON XBOX AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY FACT". :rolleyes:

Of course not, you're simply trying to insult me by referring to me as a "fanboy" without arguing a single counterpoint. I listed more games for PS3, even if you remove the DLC games. So what games on the list did I miss? I haven't owned a 360 in a year, so there may be some great exclusives I am just unaware of.

[Darkhorse4life]

Here's why I disagree with that, and it's not a "Sony fanboy" perpective.

The size of the potential audience for a nextgen console is most easily measured by looking at how many of the last generation are in the field.

With over 120,000,000 PS2s sold, it's pretty clear that there are a whole lot of gamers out there.

At this point, in the US, the 360 has sold about 7M units, the Wii has sold 6M, and the PS3 has sold 2M.

Compared to the bountiful 120,000,000 gamers out there, none of those numbers is a drop in the bucket. Even if you assume that there are 120,000,000 PS2s in the field because 60,000,000 people each bought two, it's still a huge gap between the last generation and the current/next one.

Factor in something else: while the market for HD is growing, HD penetration is also tiny compared to the number of sets out there.

Way I figure it, as long as the PS3 doesn't falter in 2008, it probably has until about 2010 to really establish itself as the platform of choice, and a whole lot of things could happen between now and 2010, the most crucial of which is the determination of which HD disc is going to dominate the other one.

If the HD-DVD drive for the 360 turns into just another paperweight because of the Blu-ray's success (and don't kid yourself--that's definitely the way it's going), the PS3 gains a huge advantage in the marketplace.

A fair analysis. I think we all forget that the market can obviously sustain 3 console heavyweights without an issue. As for the HD-DVD drive I also agree I think blu-ray will win out in the end (hence why I own many a blu-ray and not so many hd dvds).

However, I do think this is a make or break year for PS3. They have the ball rolling with Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted which is great, but casual gamers (the 100 million that don't own a current gen system) are going to make their decisions based on what is more financially feasible and what system has more exclusive benefits. While I agree blu ray is a huge deal, the fact that this system, even after its reductions, still costs more than 360 for roughly the same features (minus the blu ray again, still a big deal ;)) is a dealbreaker for many a casual gamer. As a PS3 gamer, I'm also a bit upset that I really don't have much to look forward to that is exclusive to the system. Don't get me wrong, I'm waiting patiently for my Metal Gear (mmm Metal Gear) and Final Fantasy XIII, but if I'm one of the 100 million out there without a system, why would I buy a PS3 for gaming when I am effectively getting the same deal for cheaper and I can play Halo with all my friends that already own a 360 (currently larger fan base in the US).

I'll stick to my "make or break" theory, but your analysis is pretty good and now I officially do NOT brand you as Sony fanboy :).

[MuyMacho]

I can't answer everything for you, but:

The 40GB PS3 will not be able to play Rock Band...


WHoa, whoa, whoa... That's not really correct. I know the original question was wondering about PS2 Rock Band compatibility with the PS3, but your answer makes it sound like the 40 gig can't play the PS3 version.

A PS3 of any flavor will play Rock Band. The difference in relation to Rock Band is that the 40gig PS3 only has 2 USB ports and will require the use of a seperate USB hub to plug more instruments in. This is the case with the 360 as well, although I think the 360 version provides the hub while the PS3 version does not.

Comparing the current gen systems, as this discussion has now turned, I would say the 360 is an excellent value and offers the most bang for the buck. I own all three new systems and that's the one I use the most. However, the PS3 is a great machine, and I like mine more every month. My 360 has needed replacement twice since I got it on launch day and that was a time-consuming bummer, despite the replacement program that Microsoft has.

I opted for the PS3 version of this game as I have my PS3 in a larger, more public room than my 360 - Rock Band is definitely not a game I want to crowd people into the same smaller room I have my 360 in to play, which I primarily use to play single-player games or online.

That's only saying in my situation, the PS3 version has been a better choice.

[Darkhorse4life]

Of course not, you're simply trying to insult me by referring to me as a "fanboy" without arguing a single counterpoint. I listed more games for PS3, even if you remove the DLC games. So what games on the list did I miss? I haven't owned a 360 in a year, so there may be some great exclusives I am just unaware of.

Ok, I'll bite. And for the record, I'm a glutton for playing devils advocate. Wasn't trying to be insulting, so I apologize, just get a little fed up reading into Nintendo, 360, and Sony fanboyism all day on video game boards. If you say your not, I'll take your word for you.

Once again, opinion piece at best but:

Quality Games Exclusive to 360, you listed:

Dead Rising
Gears of War
Halo 3
Bioshock
Mass Effect

I have stripped out the "non shipped" titles because I don't think its fair to compare XBLA and DLC games in the same category as shipped AAA titles. Agreed on all accounts, 100% of your listing of AAA titles for 360. That would probably be my list as well if I had to list 360 exclusives that were of the highest caliber. I have yet to play Mass Effect, but the general consensus from review sites is nothing short of "Buy this Game". All the other games I own, with the exception of Halo which I rented.

Quality Games Eclusive to PS3 that you listed:

Uncharted - Agreed 100%
Ratchet and Clank Future - Agreed 100%
Resistance - Shooter - Agreed 100%
Folklore - RPG - Agreed 100%

4 fantastic top notch games, and you'd be hard pressed to find people or reviewers who would say otherwise.

Warhawk - Eh, here is where I begin to differ, Warhawk didn't do it for me, and at average press reviews below the games listed above for 360 I'm not sure if this should be counted

Heavenly Sword - A pretty game to be sure, but again, not in the AAA caliber of games that are Uncharted, Bioshock etc...

Eye of Judgement - CCG/Strategy - Don't feel this belongs here at all, based on review scores or personal appeal

So as you can see, both systems have the same small handful of 9/10 or 10/10 or "5 star games". What it comes down to again is what I've said before, price point. With the exception of if I particularly liked 1 game over the next (for example I really liked Uncharted more than Mass Effect) what is the incentive for me playing the role of the average consumer to spend way more to get a PS3? My reccomendation stays with 360.

The good news is we can both agree that Wii does not get the higest reccomendation :cool:.

[Mushroom]

It's not a rumor on the PS2 development--it has definitely been outsourced, but is based entirely on Harmonix' design and contains the same songs.

I can confirm this, when I did the IGN Rock Band competition I was told this by someone at EA, face to face.

[SoulScreme]

Ok, I'll bite. And for the record, I'm a glutton for playing devils advocate. Wasn't trying to be insulting, so I apologize, just get a little fed up reading into Nintendo, 360, and Sony fanboyism all day on video game boards. If you say your not, I'll take your word for you.

Once again, opinion piece at best but:

Quality Games Exclusive to 360, you listed:

Dead Rising
Gears of War
Halo 3
Bioshock
Mass Effect

I have stripped out the "non shipped" titles because I don't think its fair to compare XBLA and DLC games in the same category as shipped AAA titles. Agreed on all accounts, 100% of your listing of AAA titles for 360. That would probably be my list as well if I had to list 360 exclusives that were of the highest caliber. I have yet to play Mass Effect, but the general consensus from review sites is nothing short of "Buy this Game". All the other games I own, with the exception of Halo which I rented.

Quality Games Eclusive to PS3 that you listed:

Uncharted - Agreed 100%
Ratchet and Clank Future - Agreed 100%
Resistance - Shooter - Agreed 100%
Folklore - RPG - Agreed 100%

4 fantastic top notch games, and you'd be hard pressed to find people or reviewers who would say otherwise.

Warhawk - Eh, here is where I begin to differ, Warhawk didn't do it for me, and at average press reviews below the games listed above for 360 I'm not sure if this should be counted

Heavenly Sword - A pretty game to be sure, but again, not in the AAA caliber of games that are Uncharted, Bioshock etc...

Eye of Judgement - CCG/Strategy - Don't feel this belongs here at all, based on review scores or personal appeal

So as you can see, both systems have the same small handful of 9/10 or 10/10 or "5 star games". What it comes down to again is what I've said before, price point. With the exception of if I particularly liked 1 game over the next (for example I really liked Uncharted more than Mass Effect) what is the incentive for me playing the role of the average consumer to spend way more to get a PS3? My reccomendation stays with 360.

The good news is we can both agree that Wii does not get the higest reccomendation :cool:.

If on a budget but wanting a "true next-gen" experience, I'd agree that the 360 can be cheaper and has some great games. Much better library thus far than the original Xbox. It all depends on the person. For me, PS3 is actually cheaper. I want HD movies and 20GB is not enough storage space for me. So, that's $179.99 for the HD-DVD player and another $179.99 for the 120GB hard drive. So, assuming I buy the Arcade unit, it would be a $640 game console. Which is not too far off from what I paid for my 60GB at launch.

[Nate Finch]

what is the incentive for me playing the role of the average consumer to spend way more to get a PS3?

DarkHorse..... I really appreciate your level-headed promotion of the 360, it's far more effective than most people's (on either side).

I have to take umbrage with this specific comment though. What is "way more"? $50? The "pro" XBox 360 bundle is $349 vs. the PS3's $399 for the 40gig. I'm excluding the Arcade version for $280 because it lacks a hard drive, which is essential for downloadable content. If you buy the cheapest hard drive for the Arcade, at $90 on Amazon, it comes out to $370, which is more than the Pro version. Plus, neither of them have integrated wifi, which the PS3 does, so you'd need an adapter for that, unless you're running an ugly wire to your console. And that's not even including paying for Live.

The idea that a PS3 system is more expensive needs to be put to bed forever. One year of Live evens the cost completely, even if you don't care about wifi.

-Nate

[terRize]

Next, Wii is out obviously because it doesn't have Rock Band....and it's really gimmicky and is not designed for hardcore or even semi-casual gamers.

Off topic:

The Wii is designed for all kinds of gamers. The fact that it can cater to a crowd that no other platform has really been able to cater to before doesn't make it any less of a machine for hardcore gamers. People have listed in this thread AAA titles for the PS3 and 360. Here's some for the Wii:

Super Mario Galaxy
Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
Zack & Wiki
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

I'm not saying that there isn't a glut of bad "gimmicky" games as you call them but there are just as many high quality games in its first year as there the other 2 systems. I would recommend playing Prime 3 and medal of honor heroes 2 before calling it gimmicky.

Back on topic:


You don't have to get online, but if you do want to play RB online you'll need to pay if you go with the 360...but at $50 a year it's really a bargain. 360 has a better library of games now and expected in the future.

How can it be a bargain when every other platform offers it for free?

As for price:

I bought my 60gb PS3 for 500 (in August) and that's all I'll spend on the system. For those who buy their 360 at the same time will end up paying just as much in 2-3 years. Considering you can expect the console to last at least 5 years that'll mean to play online with the 360 you've ended up making a bigger investment than the PS3. Also you get the blu-ray player, as some have mentioned. Which at the time I got 5 free movies (which given the current blu-ray movie sales is about 60 dollar value.. not sure you still get that offer on newer PS3's).

As for games:

The PS3 has just as many good games in its first year as 360 did. In my opinion they both have great games. This is the biggest factor to me. Looking at the library of games the 360 has and what games it has coming as compared to the PS3 and what is has coming, which looks more appealing to you?

Overall:

Both systems are good, but what games appeal to you? What do your friends have more of? Are you interesting in the integrated blu-ray player? Does XBL seem worth it to you?

As for my opinion, I'm pro PS3 but many are happy with the 360 so you'd probably be fine with that as well.

[MuyMacho]

There are other factors than cost however...

I own both and I like both. The PS3 can be considered pricey. But the 360's cost can mount up over time, if you want more than what they give you in the box.

I'll list some advantages I find with both:

PS3: Quality unit, no external power supply, quieter than the 360, wifi, 4 usb ports, Blu Ray ( I like HD movies ), larger harddrive than my 360, free online, faster dashboard navigation than the 360 and less advertising in my face when I use the unit, uses more 'standards' than the 360 (bluetooth, hard drive, USB for controller recharging, standard power cord, download images/etc from the built-in web browser, etc) which means more options for headsets/periphs, plays all sorts of video files, from external hard-drives as well as USB thumbdrives. Light-weight controller. Superior controller battery life to 360. Demos. Weird interesting things like remote play on the PSP, Folding@Home. I have the original 60gig unit, so I have good backwards compatibility too, although I haven't found it to be that important to me.

360: seems to be the system most devs are using as their base system now (meaning OF COURSE their multi-platform game will be on the 360, and likely that version will get top priority), superior online friends organization, friend-visible achievements, rumble controller, every system ships a headset with it, web integration for gamer info/friends list and communication, more games over the last year that I've played, and nice backwards compatibility for the games I play (Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon all got bumps in resolution). Solid marketplace options. Demos.

However... Disadvantages I've felt:

PS3: A little pricey for the wait until it's gotten good, poor handling of communication/chat/friend management while already playing a game (No 'In-game XMB' to allow calling up a friend from the dashboard like you can on the 360 to invite them to play. No private chat via the XMB while playing a game), no friend-viewable achievements, has had mildly inferior multi-platform versions of games (no chat in PS3 version of Rock Band, for instance), controller loses contact with PS3 for 2-3 seconds while gaming sometimes (UNACCEPTABLE for a game system, and likely why HMX went with a dongle-system for their own wireless communication), less friends own one and thusly, I opt for more 360 versions of multi-platform games. No rumble yet. Will need to buy a rumble controller once it ships. Mildly annoying front triggers on controller.

360: Red Ring of Death. Despite immaculate care, my launch 360 died after 5 months, and it's replacement died 12 months later. New one arrived and seems OK. But they all seemed OK. Noisy, hot unit. DVD drive uses a sliding tray. No built-in HD-DVD drive. No internal wifi. Dashboard is slow and clunky, with too many ads and redundant options. Slow to set-up and end a chat. LIVE costs money despite the amount of ads and content they now sell. All periphs are proprietary and some can be disproportionally expensive (new harddrive, wireless headset, wifi-dongle are all a bit steep). No rechargable controller right out of the box. Microsoft 'units' instead of dollar amounts. Huge power-block makes the total space used more than the 'larger' PS3.

Which one to buy if you have neither... Tough choices, but the 360 is still my most-used unit. I just wish it was as rock-solid as my PS3. I'm liking it more and more every month.

[Nate Finch]

Very nice post, MuyMacho.

[dfjdejulio]

I bought Rock Band for 360 because that is what all my friends have and I want to play with them
Just consider this and stop right there.

If you don't want to rule out playing online, then don't get the PS2 version. Period.

(Even if you're willing to rule out playing online, don't get the PS2 version unless you're also willing to rule out getting DLC. If you're perfectly happy, not even a twinge of regret, ruling out both online play and DLC forever, then sure, go ahead and grab the PS2 version.)

If you want to play online, well, for me it's more fun to play with friends than with strangers.

Find out what consoles the people you want to play with have. You need the same kind in order to play with them. Get that.

As an added bonus, you'll be able to grab your guitar and head over to their house to play in person, too -- that won't generally work cross-console. On the XBox, I can also throw my DLC and profile on to a memory card and take it over, and I would assume there's got to be something exactly similar for the PS3. Point is, playing on the same kind of console as your buddies is going to end up being more of a big deal than having the absolute best console for solo play. The difference between the PS3 and XBox360 is small enough (relative to that factor anyhow), so you should let that be the main deciding factor.

People will go back and forth about whose online presence is better and who gets DLC faster and so on, or playing BlueRay, or streaming from Windows Media Center, or whatever. None of that is as important as the simple question: can I play with my friends? So find out what your friends have.

[SoulScreme]

On the XBox, I can also throw my DLC and profile on to a memory card and take it over, and I would assume there's got to be something exactly similar for the PS3.

Sure is, and it can be a good deal cheaper. With PS3 you can simply use any USB memory stick. Just wanted to clarify that for his decision making, not trying to rehash which is better.

[Nate Finch]

Another great post. It really is all about the friends.

And yes, PS3 users can give downloads to a friend, too. Currently you can't take it on a thumb drive, but you can let your friend download them from the store using your name. Great thing is that he then can keep and use that content forever for free. Up to 4 other people can use the content you purchased on their machine (and that's 4 people per piece of content, not just overall).

Pretty cool about taking your DLC on a thumbdrive, I didn't know the 360 could do that.

[edit] Ooops... sounds like it's a memory card, not a generic thumb drive. Still kinda cool, but having to use a MS memory card is annoying.


With PS3 you can simply use any USB memory stick. Just wanted to clarify that for his decision making, not trying to rehash which is better.

You can? How do you get DLC (like the song packs for RB) onto a thumb drive for the PS3?

[SoulScreme]

Another great post. It really is all about the friends.

And yes, PS3 users can give downloads to a friend, too. Currently you can't take it on a thumb drive, but you can let your friend download them from the store using your name. Great thing is that he then can keep and use that content forever for free. Up to 4 other people can use the content you purchased on their machine (and that's 4 people per piece of content, not just overall).

Pretty cool about taking your DLC on a thumbdrive, I didn't know the 360 could do that.

[edit] Ooops... sounds like it's a memory card, not a generic thumb drive. Still kinda cool, but having to use a MS memory card is annoying.



You can? How do you get DLC (like the song packs for RB) onto a thumb drive for the PS3?

Haven't tried with the DLC, guess they might be copy protected, hell, even the regular save file is friggin' copy protected.

[Nate Finch]

Haven't tried with the DLC, guess they might be copy protected, hell, even the regular save file is friggin' copy protected.

I just think that you're not given the option in the UI. Media and game saves, sure, but stuff like the demo installers and DLC, I didn't think there was any way to move it to a thumb drive.

[dfjdejulio]

I just think that you're not given the option in the UI. Media and game saves, sure, but stuff like the demo installers and DLC, I didn't think there was any way to move it to a thumb drive.
Is there an option to download it to a thumb drive to begin with though?

On the XBox, there's some content I wasn't able to move (a game that was bundled on the memory card when I bought it), but the downloader let me download to any storage device that supports DRM (so hard drive yes, MSFT memory card yes, but USB thumb drive no, that's only for DRM-free stuff).

[ShadowOfEden]

I'm a PS3 owner and I really like it, but for you, I think the PS2 might be a better choice. The 40gb cannot play PS2 games and you would miss so many awesome games.

But that's for gaming in general. For Rock Band, I wouldn't even consider the PS2 version. It cannot get any DLC, and Rock Band doesn't have much songs. Adding the DLC in the BWT is an awesome feature that will make Rock Band live much longer.

But if you CAN get the money, the 80gb is the better deal. It does almost everything the PS2 can and much more. But really, money is the issue.

[DesiredFX]

WHoa, whoa, whoa... That's not really correct. I know the original question was wondering about PS2 Rock Band compatibility with the PS3, but your answer makes it sound like the 40 gig can't play the PS3 version.

True, my answer was poorly phrased: the intent was to say that the 40GB PS3 would not be able to play the PS2 flavor of Rock Band or, indeed, any PS2 games.

Thanks for catching that.

[LongDarkBlues]

I just wanted to point out that anyone touting either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video playback as a feature is just being silly - physical media is dead, and in 3 years nobody is going to be watching movies on either. Developers aren't going to be designing games or discs larger than a DVD until the next generation, either. If you really want to watch a HD Spider-Man 3 for $35, that's fine, but considering that neither format wins here since it's all going to downloadable it doesn't make much sense to act like either is a 'feature' of any real value.

Personally, I'll take a $5 HD download rental on Live over a $35 Blu-Ray of HD-DVD disc any day of the week

[Nate Finch]

Is there an option to download it to a thumb drive to begin with though?

No, for downloadable content, you just say "download", there's no choice as to where, it just goes straight on the hard drive. If you download stuff using the web browser, you can pick where (hard drive/thumb drive/memory card), and you can take media to and from a thumb drive. You can also get OS updates from a thumb drive. There's just no way to move/load DLC. Unfortunately.

Chalk one up for Microsoft and DRM - that's a really neat feature.

[SoulScreme]

I just wanted to point out that anyone touting either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video playback as a feature is just being silly - physical media is dead, and in 3 years nobody is going to be watching movies on either. Developers aren't going to be designing games or discs larger than a DVD until the next generation, either. If you really want to watch a HD Spider-Man 3 for $35, that's fine, but considering that neither format wins here since it's all going to downloadable it doesn't make much sense to act like either is a 'feature' of any real value.

Personally, I'll take a $5 HD download rental on Live over a $35 Blu-Ray of HD-DVD disc any day of the week

Wait, what? I can't understand your points about games on physical media. For one, there are already games on PS3 pushing 20-30GB. Second, even if the game is small enough to fit on a DVD, that's 9GB to download, current broadband speeds are not high enough to handle that.

[SoulScreme]

No, for downloadable content, you just say "download", there's no choice as to where, it just goes straight on the hard drive. If you download stuff using the web browser, you can pick where (hard drive/thumb drive/memory card), and you can take media to and from a thumb drive. You can also get OS updates from a thumb drive. There's just no way to move/load DLC. Unfortunately.

Chalk one up for Microsoft and DRM - that's a really neat feature.

I thought I'd heard that M$ DRM had the song tied to the hardware...

[Joke]

Go for the PS3.

The xbox 360 has been out for almost a year more than a PS3.

This means that the PS3 is probably going to last longer in gaming, until there's a PS4, that is.

The PS3's online gaming is free, and Home is coming, which is going to be fantastic.

The games on the PS3 are awesome, and have high graphics.

The PS3 can also store all your music, pictures, videos and other media.

It also has an internet browser, which the 360 lacks.

Blu-Ray, online chat with video, Rock Band, internet browser and many other things are what
make the PS3 great.

[DesiredFX]

controller loses contact with PS3 for 2-3 seconds while gaming sometimes

Wow...really? I have never had any problems with either of my SIXAXIS controllers. The only thing that has happened is a warning when the battery gets low, but it still plays straight through.

I always figured that Harmonix skipping over Bluetooth connection plus recharge had more to do with expense than with system issues.

[dfjdejulio]

I thought I'd heard that M$ DRM had the song tied to the hardware...
Doesn't, not in practice. I played my DLC on two different XBoxes today.

Here's how it works in more detail for those who are interested.

When you download any DLC, it knows who downloaded it and what console they downloaded it onto. As long as either one is involved, you can use the content. The XBox you used to do the download is stored on MSFT's servers for future reference.

So, if I download a song via the XBox at work, then anyone on that XBox can use it, regardless of whether I'm logged in on that machine, or logged in somewhere else.

And if I downloaded a song via the XBox at work, then I can use it on any XBox. As long as I log in with my profile, that DLC can be used from that XBox.

So if I download a song via the XBox at work and then re-download it at home, anyone at the office can use that DLC, and as long as I'm logged in at home, I can also use it there with no problems. If I lost internet access at home, I would lose the ability to play that song at home until I got internet access back, but the copy at work would still work fine.

I put my profile, my DLC, and my game saves all on the same memory card and keep it in my pocket, because I always want my "real" avatar to get credit for whatever I do on any XBox. So I can plug it into any networked XBox anywhere and get full access to everything, and my avatars can join the bands that people made on their hard drives.

[Nate Finch]

I just wanted to point out that anyone touting either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video playback as a feature is just being silly - physical media is dead, and in 3 years nobody is going to be watching movies on either. Developers aren't going to be designing games or discs larger than a DVD until the next generation, either. If you really want to watch a HD Spider-Man 3 for $35, that's fine, but considering that neither format wins here since it's all going to downloadable it doesn't make much sense to act like either is a 'feature' of any real value.

Personally, I'll take a $5 HD download rental on Live over a $35 Blu-Ray of HD-DVD disc any day of the week

HD downloads take forever and use a buttload of disk space. They're certainly not going to push out traditional media in the next three years.

Games and movies are already expanding past the size of a single DVD. Even non-HD movies usually take up more than a single DVD including extras, and some take up more even without extras (Lord of the Rings anyone?). As for games - aren't there already 360 games that require you to switch disks in the middle? I'm not up on my trivia, but I'm sure I saw someone posting about it somewhere.

I agree that rentals are generally a better deal than buying, but you can rent physical media movies, too.

[ShadowOfEden]

I just wanted to point out that anyone touting either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video playback as a feature is just being silly - physical media is dead, and in 3 years nobody is going to be watching movies on either. Developers aren't going to be designing games or discs larger than a DVD until the next generation, either. If you really want to watch a HD Spider-Man 3 for $35, that's fine, but considering that neither format wins here since it's all going to downloadable it doesn't make much sense to act like either is a 'feature' of any real value.

Personally, I'll take a $5 HD download rental on Live over a $35 Blu-Ray of HD-DVD disc any day of the week

You compare buying and renting... That's not the same thing at all. I can rent a BR for barely more than 5$. HD movies are far from being widely available for download. Not everyone can download over 10 gigs just for a movie rental. Physical discs aren't about to go away as long as downloads aren't efficient enough.

For games, that's where the difference between games making use of the PS3 and those that don't comes.Take a look at Ratchet and Clank. Not only does it look very good, but there's hundreds of quotes put here and there, for different situations. That's making use of the space. Some games are already being limited by DVDs, like Epic said for UT3 on X360, so it won't include all the maps. Or take a look at Oblivion. So many important NPCs share the same voices and there's a very limited set of textures in dungeons. Clearly, space was an issue in such a big game. And that's just the beginning. Games more than quadruple in size between 2000 and 2007, so imagine games in 2012...


[QUOTE=MuyMacho;173162]controller loses contact with PS3 for 2-3 seconds while gaming sometimes [QUOTE]

Wow...really? I have never had any problems with either of my SIXAXIS controllers. The only thing that has happened is a warning when the battery gets low, but it still plays straight through.

I always figured that Harmonix skipping over Bluetooth connection plus recharge had more to do with expense than with system issues.

My friend has the same issue. It's a common one. I heard that it was due to blue-tooth interference, probably from his cell phone. But it happens to him like once per 2 weeks (or maybe he doesn't play enough) so 2 sec per 2 weeks isn't quite a big deal.

[Nate Finch]

When you download any DLC, it knows who downloaded it and what console they downloaded it onto. As long as either one is involved, you can use the content. The XBox you used to do the download is stored on MSFT's servers for future reference.

Wait, does that mean that you can simply make a single Live account to share among any number of friends and they can all download Live content for free (well, after one person pays for it) as long as they know that account's password?

[DesiredFX]

I just wanted to point out that anyone touting either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray video playback as a feature is just being silly - physical media is dead, and in 3 years nobody is going to be watching movies on either. Developers aren't going to be designing games or discs larger than a DVD until the next generation, either. If you really want to watch a HD Spider-Man 3 for $35, that's fine, but considering that neither format wins here since it's all going to downloadable it doesn't make much sense to act like either is a 'feature' of any real value.

Personally, I'll take a $5 HD download rental on Live over a $35 Blu-Ray of HD-DVD disc any day of the week

If you say so.

And movie theatres are dead, too, thanks to home theatres, DVDs, and now downloading.

There will always be people who prefer formats. At this point, I use downloading for one thing: Netflix.

Along with the DVD rentals--which I prefer for several reasons (primarily extra features and much easier, chapterized random access)--I can stream 17 hours/month of material they have online.

None of this material is in HD, and depending on my connection, may not even qualify as DVD-caliber SD.

So until you can get to the point where that $5 download through XBL is a better deal than 12 DVDs plus 17 hours of viewing for $17 (my typical month through Netflix), I'm not buying your argument.

I find it very, very hard to believe that anyone will be downloading files that will allow them to have deleted scenes, commentaries, quick menus, PIP chapter searches, etc. all in a single file with a reasonable download time.

[DesiredFX]

As for games - aren't there already 360 games that require you to switch disks in the middle? I'm not up on my trivia, but I'm sure I saw someone posting about it somewhere.

Blue Dragon is a 3-DVD game for the 360 that would no doubt fit on a single BD or HD-DVD.

[dfjdejulio]

Wait, does that mean that you can simply make a single Live account to share among any number of friends and they can all download Live content for free (well, after one person pays for it) as long as they know that account's password?
Technically or legally?

Technically, yes, as long as only one is logged in at a time. You'd have to coordinate play time among them. The same account simply cannot be logged into multiple consoles at the same time. The authentication servers don't permit it.

I do not believe that is legal, and I believe that if MSFT caught you doing it they'd deactivate the account and everyone would lose everything (except on the boxes things were originally downloaded to, as you can always use the content on the console the content was downloaded to, regardless of what accounts are on it).

Edit for more detail: in addition, it is a pain in the tuchas to switch accounts between consoles without using a memory card. I tried it between work and home for a little while, and ended up just buying a memory card instead. Every time you log in on an account on one console, it is forcibly deactivated on all other consoles, and you have to go through an annoying process to reactivate it. It's okay as something you do rarely, but it's really not something you'd want to deal with every day (or even week).

[DesiredFX]

My friend has the same issue. It's a common one. I heard that it was due to blue-tooth interference, probably from his cell phone. But it happens to him like once per 2 weeks (or maybe he doesn't play enough) so 2 sec per 2 weeks isn't quite a big deal.

That's really weird. I have a Bluetooth headset, keyboard, mouse, two SIXAXIS controllers, the PS3, my phone, and a Bluetooth dongle on my computer all within a 15-foot radius of each other and I have never had any interference at all with my game controller.

[Nate Finch]

Ahh, ok, I knew there had to be a catch. For the PSN downloaded content, you don't have to be logged in to access them, but it's restricted to 5 consoles.

And yeah, I figured microsoft would squish you if you tried, but I was thinking technically :)


[edit]I just wanted to say - thank you to all the XBox guys who are making intelligent conversation about the two platforms possible in here. I'm learning a lot and enjoying the discussion.

[dfjdejulio]

Ahh, ok, I knew there had to be a catch. For the PSN downloaded content, you don't have to be logged in to access them, but it's restricted to 5 consoles.
Is there a way to issue a revocation for one of those five, or is it the case that once you've used up five, that's it forever?

There's a local gaming center near my house that has the full Rock Band kits with drums and all. I wouldn't hesitate to plug my memory card with my profile into one of their XBoxes to play the drumming mode. (I bought the standalone game and am using the GH3 wireless guitar and XBox headset mic to play it, so I do not have access to the drum kit normally.) Even if they changed XBoxes every week forever, I could keep doing this. Is something similar possible with the PS3? Mind you, I haven't done this yet, and they don't switch hardware every week, so I know this is a contrived hypothetical case.

(Genuinely curious. It seems to me that both approaches have advantages. For my own real situation, a console both at work and at home, it seems like either approach would work out perfectly well.)

[dfjdejulio]

I find it very, very hard to believe that anyone will be downloading files that will allow them to have deleted scenes, commentaries, quick menus, PIP chapter searches, etc. all in a single file with a reasonable download time.
Here's my own take on this:

Today, when I get DVDs, I do not generally watch them via a DVD player. I load them on a computer and do a rip to my iPod. Then if it's something like a documentary or comedy, I watch it on the bus or whatever. And if it's something like an action or scifi movie, I hook the iPod up to whatever TV I actually want to watch 'em on. If I'm renting the DVD, I delete the files when I send the DVD back. (Yes, for real, I really do. I've written copyrighted software and worked on a patent, I respect intellectual property rights religiously.)

If I ever make the jump to an HD TV set (game lag issues have me hesitating right now), I would want to do the same basic thing. I'd want to load the media into a computer and rip, and transfer to whatever device I was going to use to play back. Don't care if it's a PS3 or an XBox or an Apple TV or a MythTV box. The actual ability to read movie media on that device is pretty much not relevant to me most of the time. So to me the whole BlueRay versus HD-DVD versus whatever thing is just annoying nonsense.

(And no, I'm not going to claim the XBox has an advantage there. Yeah, it's streamlined for streaming content from a PC... if you've got media center and all that junk. But I use a Macintosh, so...)

I know that's probably pretty unusual, but that really is the way I prefer to watch movies when I get them on physical media.

[DesiredFX]

Is there a way to issue a revocation for one of those five, or is it the case that once you've used up five, that's it forever?

The DLC can be downloaded to five different machines--it records the ID of those it was downloaded to. I don't know what happens if someone deletes the download, though.

The original machine that purchased and downloaded the game can download it until the end of time, which is probably why they don't make the download files themselves transferable.

For the most part, the only game data that can normally (except for Rock Band) be copied off to a USB flash or hard drive is the save game data.

[DesiredFX]

Being in software, myself, I agree with your respect for intellectual property.


I know that's probably pretty unusual, but that really is the way I prefer to watch movies when I get them on physical media.

Wow, to me, that just wouldn't be worth the time involved. I've ripped a few things for use on my iPod, but only stuff that I want to keep long-term (like favorite shows, the movie I made a few years back, music videos). The rest, I'm just happier to pop in the disc, have my way with it, then pop it back out and put it back in its case or mail it back to Netflix or whatever.

[Nate Finch]

Is there a way to issue a revocation for one of those five, or is it the case that once you've used up five, that's it forever?

I've never seen a way to revoke it (a la iTunes), and I don't think you could, because authorization isn't checked after the initial download. So, yeah, 5 and then you're done.


There's a local gaming center near my house that has the full Rock Band kits with drums and all. I wouldn't hesitate to plug my memory card with my profile into one of their XBoxes to play the drumming mode. Even if they changed XBoxes every week forever, I could keep doing this. Is something similar possible with the PS3?

You can totally take game saves with you, which I think is essentially what you're talking about. A USB drive or standard memory card plugged into the PS3 would allow you to load up your game save for RB and save all progress you made, as well as opening up whatever you'd opened up previously.

There's currently no way to automatically log in using data on an external drive, so if you wanted to go online with your data, you'd have to log in manually (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the case).

[dfjdejulio]

The DLC can be downloaded to five different machines--it records the ID of those it was downloaded to. I don't know what happens if someone deletes the download, though.
Okay, sounds like there's risk and benefit both ways.

If you download to five PS3s, and then for example a fire in your apartment building melts all five of them, sounds like you lose access to that content forever. An XBox would be fine in the same circumstance.

But if you downloaded to an XBox, and it caught RROD and had to be replaced, and you lost internet access, you'd lose access to that content. A PS3 would be fine in the same circumstance. This gets really scary if you think about MSFT ever going out of business and/or turning off their authorization servers.

(But since they still support network play for the original XBox, I'm personally not too worried about that. Compare to Sony, which has shut off the network servers for both FreQuency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreQuency) and Amplitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_%28video_game%29) in North America already, which annoys me very much. It makes my PS2 network adapter completely useless to me, since those two games are the only reason I installed it.)

[Nate Finch]

(And no, I'm not going to claim the XBox has an advantage there. Yeah, it's streamlined for streaming content from a PC... if you've got media center and all that junk. But I use a Macintosh, so...)

Actually the PS3 streams content straight from PCs, too, and it's not connected with Media Center at all, it's an open standard. It happens to be implemented by Media Player 11 (making it easy for Joe Average), but there are also standalone apps that you run on your computer for it. AND they have Mac clients (servers really, but you know what I mean).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance

[DesiredFX]

If you download to five PS3s, and then for example a fire in your apartment building melts all five of them, sounds like you lose access to that content forever. An XBox would be fine in the same circumstance.

Well, it would actually be five plus the original, but yeah, point taken.

The real question here is whether, should my PS3 flame out, I will be able to get the DLC when I get a new one.

I imagine Sony has something in position for that, because they're extremely unlikely to shaft someone for having a warranty issue. I've never had to do it, and--God willing--never will, but I'm sure someone has had to deal with losing a machine that they had paid to download content to.


(But since they still support network play for the original XBox, I'm personally not too worried about that. Compare to Sony, which has shut off the network servers for both FreQuency and Amplitude in North America already, which annoys me very much. It makes my PS2 network adapter completely useless to me, since those two games are the only reason I installed it.)

Despite Sony's efforts to prove otherwise, the PS2 was never really an online machine. Very few games had online support, and very few people used it when they did. One reason why Insomniac left online play out of Ratchet & Clank for the PS3 was that they had determined that only 5% of players who bought the PS2 games that had online features ever actually used them. It didn't seem to be worth the resource investment if players weren't using it.

Given how obscure--relatively speaking--Frequency and Amplitude are, it doesn't surprise me at all that the servers have been shut down. It's a shame, but it doesn't surprise me.

[dfjdejulio]

IYou can totally take game saves with you, which I think is essentially what you're talking about. A USB drive or standard memory card plugged into the PS3 would allow you to load up your game save for RB and save all progress you made, as well as opening up whatever you'd opened up previously.
Right, okay, but I couldn't play my DLC there. With my current setup, if I buy a song at home and bring the card with me to the gaming center, I can play the drums for the DLC I bought at my local gaming center.

It's not just game saves for the XBox, due to XBL integration and the Achievements system. But I guess for the PS3 a game save would do the trick? For XBox, you really really really want to take your actual for-real network account with you, or you won't get "credit" for what you've done.

If you click on the gamer card link at the bottom of my messages, you can see the progress I've made on every game I've ever played on the XBox, so you can see for example that in "Rock Band" I've unlocked "Axe Assassin", which you do by beating the solo guitar tour on Hard, but for BWT the highest I've unlocked is "Got Wheels", which means I don't yet have any vehichle more advanced than the van. You can also see how far I've gotten in Bioshock, Mass Effect, GH2, GH3, The Darkness, and every other game I've ever played.

[DesiredFX]

At this point, I don't know if anyone with Rock Band DLC for the PS3 knows where it actually is--neither the save game file nor the supporting assets file is big enough to account for the approximately 300 MB I've downloaded.

For a second, I wondered if that DLC might actually be on the game's BD and I'm just paying to unlock it, but then why would they require about 30MB per song?

[Nate Finch]

Right, okay, but I couldn't play my DLC there. With my current setup, if I buy a song at home and bring the card with me to the gaming center, I can play the drums for the DLC I bought at my local gaming center.

Oh oh oh. I see. That's awesome. No, can't do that with the PS3 right now (and I would imagine, it's probably not likely any time soon, either).


It's not just game saves for the XBox, due to XBL integration and the Achievements system. But I guess for the PS3 a game save would do the trick? For XBox, you really really really want to take your actual for-real network account with you, or you won't get "credit" for what you've done.

For right now, yes, game saves are it. Supposedly Home is going to bring achievement-like things, but there's really been no details and no one knows when Home is actually truly going to arrive, so I don't even bother talking about it most of the time. When finally arrives, then we'll see what it can do.


If you click on the gamer card link at the bottom of my messages, you can see the progress I've made on every game I've ever played on the XBox

Yeah, achievements are cool, and the web access is pretty nice touch. I'm kinda lazy about my games, though, so I would probably have a pretty unimpressive gamercard :)

[DesiredFX]

This link will take you to a 25-minute video demonstration of Home on YouTube. (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/139445.html?playlist=featured)

The character customization even makes Oblivion's look silly.

They're still talking about it for April release, but from what I hear about the Beta release this guy is using for the demo, a lot of very basic features were finally opened up, and there is quite a bit more to go.

[dfjdejulio]

Given how obscure--relatively speaking--Frequency and Amplitude are, it doesn't surprise me at all that the servers have been shut down. It's a shame, but it doesn't surprise me.
This is one of the reasons I'm not bothered that XBL carries a fee.

They've got one common network infrastructure with authentication and matchmaking and so forth that every game uses, and which (so far) persists across console generations. So even if we're talking about a small niche game that only seven people bought for the console two generations back, if its networking is via XBL it will keep working. My experiences on the PS2 and GameCube (yes, I have the GameCube network adapter too) really put me off the more ad-hoc networking mechanisms those systems used, even though they were free.

I assume that the PS3 has a single shared network infrastructure that every game uses, just like the XBox (original and 360 both) does? It's really got to, I just can't imagine that people will tolerate their network games cutting out on them like they did with the previous generation of PlayStation and Nintendo console when the individual game servers were no longer worth running.

[dfjdejulio]

Oh oh oh. I see. That's awesome. No, can't do that with the PS3 right now (and I would imagine, it's probably not likely any time soon, either).
You can if you can revoke access to a machine once you've granted it.

If you can revoke access, then you can go, download the content, play, and revoke the access. If you can't revoke access, you'd quickly use up your five "buddy" downloads.

(Basically, if the PS3 can't handle revocation of rights, you PS3 folk really ought to be pestering Sony for that feature.)

[DesiredFX]

I assume that the PS3 has a single shared network infrastructure that every game uses, just like the XBox (original and 360 both) does? It's really got to, I just can't imagine that people will tolerate their network games cutting out on them like they did with the previous generation of PlayStation and Nintendo console when the individual game servers were no longer worth running.

Yup. Rock Band is using it, as did Resistance.

I think GH3 uses it, too, but I'm not sure on that one.

The silly thing about the way Rock Band uses it is that it's very rudimentary--you can use it to send emails to your friends and invite them to play. And that's it.

RB completely ignores the "friends met" feature which records the IDs of everyone you play with so that you can choose to befriend them later.

It also overlooks PSN's voice chat feature, which is fully implemented. In fact, if you're chatting with people with the Playstation Eye, you can fire up a six-person video chat.

[DesiredFX]

You can if you can revoke access to a machine once you've granted it.

If you can revoke access, then you can go, download the content, play, and revoke the access. If you can't revoke access, you'd quickly use up your five "buddy" downloads.

(Basically, if the PS3 can't handle revocation of rights, you PS3 folk really ought to be pestering Sony for that feature.)

Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the purpose of the five additional downloads is for sharing something you paid for with five friends, not allowing everyone you know to get a copy of it. The five buddies are part of the license for the DLC.

I imagine someone will eventually find a way to exploit that, but I'm not sure why they would: the most expensive thing I've seen for DLC on the PlayStation Store is Warhawk, at $39.99. Most other items are typically between $5 and $10, with some going up to about $15, and, of course, RB songs going as low as $2. At those prices, it doesn't seem to me that there's much point in cheating.

For example, a friend downloaded Calling All Cars for $10 and shared it with two of us. That's three people for one $10 download fee.

And honestly, any game I enjoy enough, I'll probably buy myself, eventually, just to support the developer. If I don't care for it, why waste the disc space?

[dfjdejulio]

Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the purpose of the five additional downloads is for sharing something you paid for with five friends, not allowing everyone you know to get a copy of it. The five buddies are part of the license for the DLC.
Yeah, I think you're not getting what I mean.

I'm thinking of it in terms of machines, not people. You have permission to install on five machines besides the original, right? But you can't change which five machines? I see that as a problem.

If you could change which five machines, you could grant permission to a machine at a gaming center while you were there and then revoke it (remove the content and the right to play it) from that machine before you walk away from it.

If you could do that, you could download a song at home, go to a gaming center, install the song there, play it and save the results on that USB thumb drive, remove the song from the gaming center machine, and leave -- the result would be exactly like what I can do by putting the assets on an XBox memory card (though the steps would be different).

[DesiredFX]

Okay, I gotcha now.

It still sort of goes back to my last post: the purpose of the extra downloads is for sharing with friends, nothing more. I don't think anyone gave any consideration to gaming centers in making this decision.

And, as we've reported, the DLC for RB isn't really an independent entity on the PS3 as it is. Once I've installed it, I honestly can't find it anywhere on my machine, so I couldn't copy it if I wanted to.

[dfjdejulio]

It still sort of goes back to my last post: the purpose of the extra downloads is for sharing with friends, nothing more. I don't think anyone gave any consideration to gaming centers in making this decision.
Yeah, it's an interesting difference in philosophy between the two consoles. The purpose of the XBox method is, "no matter whose console I am on or where I am, I always have full access to all of my content". (Infinite free redownloads are allowed for all content to any XBox -- you just can't use the content on additional consoles unless you are actively logged in, so you can't really use this method for sharing.) I can't really share with friends very much, but there's no real risk that I'll be denied something that's mine, no matter where I am.

[DesiredFX]

Well, the unsurprising minus that comes with the PS3 approach is that at least one person has reported being shafted by someone he shared with.

Rather than handing out a friend code for you to give to five friends, the PS3 system requires you share your account with someone else long enough for them to download things. The expected way to do it is--assuming you're not going to that friend's house--to change your password, delete your credit card info, share the account with a friend, and let them download.

Well, if you happen to forget to delete your credit card info and share your account with someone unscrupulous...

[PHiNiX]

Xbox 360-- Everything Else Isnt Worth It

[PHiNiX]

I currently don't have any systems at all, my mom was going to buy me a wii but she can't find any. i was also gonna get my self a ps2 since they are so cheap now and get rock band for that platform, but now i'm wondering if we shuold just pool our money and get a 40 gig ps3? or get the ps2 now and save up for the 80 gig ps3. i need to know some stuff to make my decision.

Can the ps2 verison of RB be played on 40g ps3?
If The ps2 version is compatable, will it support the downloadable content?
can the 40 and 80 gig ps3s play all ps2 games, specificly the katamari games?
other than downloads and playing online, what makes ps3 RB better?
I'm not a hardcore gamer, it it really worth it to spring for the ps3?

thanks for your input:)

if i was in your position id wait to get a 360

[Rock_Starman]

I thought the point of the 5 DLs was in case it breaks so you don't have to go through the hassle of trying to get it back when you get your new system and believe me it's quite the fn hassle at least with MS.

The DLC is probably in with the game data utility,that's where the GH 3 DLC goes and I would guess it's only one file.

[DesiredFX]

I thought the point of the 5 DLs was in case it breaks so you don't have to go through the hassle of trying to get it back when you get your new system and believe me it's quite the fn hassle at least with MS.

No, the five additional DLs were designed for sharing with friends. Sony has specified this.

I expect changing out hardware is going to have an impact on someone wanting to re-download, but I imagine establishing yourself as the originator of that account would do enough to get them to change your account's "home machine."


The DLC is probably in with the game data utility,that's where the GH 3 DLC goes and I would guess it's only one file.

I just re-checked the Game Data Utility, and you're right: the DLC must be there. It's up to about 300 MB, now, when it started at somewhere around 6 MB. What's weird, though, is that I'm absolutely sure I checked it after downloading the first DLC stuff on the 20th...it should have been up to about 200 MB, then, but it wasn't.

[DesiredFX]

Xbox 360-- Everything Else Isnt Worth It

Depends what you want the console for.

Can't play Ratchet & Clank, Folklore, or Uncharted on a 360. That's enough reason for me to feel my PS3 is "worth it."

[ShadowOfEden]

Okay, sounds like there's risk and benefit both ways.

If you download to five PS3s, and then for example a fire in your apartment building melts all five of them, sounds like you lose access to that content forever. An XBox would be fine in the same circumstance.

But if you downloaded to an XBox, and it caught RROD and had to be replaced, and you lost internet access, you'd lose access to that content. A PS3 would be fine in the same circumstance. This gets really scary if you think about MSFT ever going out of business and/or turning off their authorization servers.

(But since they still support network play for the original XBox, I'm personally not too worried about that. Compare to Sony, which has shut off the network servers for both FreQuency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreQuency) and Amplitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_%28video_game%29) in North America already, which annoys me very much. It makes my PS2 network adapter completely useless to me, since those two games are the only reason I installed it.)


That's why I would never use my 5 downloads on friends, because if something happens to my PS3, I would have to pay it again. I like that, when I go at my friend's house, I can redownload my DLC content for RB and then we can both play online together with our own accounts.

For the PS2 games, they were shut down because barely no one was playing PS2 games and that keeping the servers running for free was not worth it.


This is one of the reasons I'm not bothered that XBL carries a fee.

I assume that the PS3 has a single shared network infrastructure that every game uses, just like the XBox (original and 360 both) does? It's really got to, I just can't imagine that people will tolerate their network games cutting out on them like they did with the previous generation of PlayStation and Nintendo console when the individual game servers were no longer worth running.

I'm not a big online gamer, so I prefer that it is free or else it wouldn't be worth it for me. The PS2 and GC were never really online consoles, so I'm not surprise that they shutted some servers for those.

But that Sony allows other things than it's own servers, unlike MS, has its advantages. Like for UT3, Epic talked about a possibility of making PS3 players play with PC players (since the PS3 version supports mouse and keyboard, it's all fair). For the X360 version, that would be impossible to do unless they would host UT3 servers for PC on XBL, but there would probably be fees for Epic to do that, and they wouldn't have as much control. Sony's more open standard also allows for user made content to be available for free, like the mods for UT3 on PC will work on the PS3 version as well. For the X360 version, they said that they might release packs of the most popular mods on XBL's marketplace... for a fee.

So there's pros and cons on both sides. Wether the pros are better than the cons for one of them is up to your opinion and needs.



If you can revoke access, then you can go, download the content, play, and revoke the access. If you can't revoke access, you'd quickly use up your five "buddy" downloads.

(Basically, if the PS3 can't handle revocation of rights, you PS3 folk really ought to be pestering Sony for that feature.)

That would hardly work on the way Sony made it. If I go at my friend's house and download the Metallica pack. Then I delete my user from his PS3. All accounts would still have access to the DLC, but they can't share it, because only I, when logged to the PS Store, can redownload it. How can I revoke the access now? What if he never returns online? (you can log onto an account without logging on the PSN) Let's say they use the console's code to know on which console it was downloaded to. (that code can be used to access your stats from certain websites, so I could make a Gamercard for Resistance with my stats, but that's game independent and not every games offer it) What if he would buy a new PS3 and swap his HDD? He would have all his datas but a different console code. So it is VERY difficult to revoke access to shared data. It's entirely up to you to manage your data intelligently.

[nicko68]

Next, Wii is out obviously because it doesn't have Rock Band....and it's really gimmicky and is not designed for hardcore or even semi-casual gamers.

Oh please. So the Wii has a different control mechanism. So does the DS, is the touch screen gimmicky too? Is everything gimmicky other than a controller with 12 buttons? I'm sick of hearing this kind of argument against the Wii.

[SoulScreme]

Oh please. So the Wii has a different control mechanism. So does the DS, is the touch screen gimmicky too? Is everything gimmicky other than a controller with 12 buttons? I'm sick of hearing this kind of argument against the Wii.

Umm, actually, the touch screen is incredibly gimmicky.

[DesiredFX]

Umm, actually, the touch screen is incredibly gimmicky.

I was thinking that myself.

One of the reasons I got the PSP over the DS was that when I'm out of the house with my portable, I'd prefer to be able to control it while holding it with both hands.

[SoulScreme]

I was thinking that myself.

One of the reasons I got the PSP over the DS was that when I'm out of the house with my portable, I'd prefer to be able to control it while holding it with both hands.

Even with both hands I've dropped my PSP. Sucker is sturdy as hell.

[ShadowOfEden]

I'm not into portable consoles, because video games for me are more of a relaxation when I'm home. If I'm out, I'm usually too busy to play games, and if have to take the bus or subway (even if the only times I do, it's to go to shows downtown, because parking is very rare or too expensive), I just read the newspaper. But yeah, that's me. If I were to pick one, it would be the PSP, for music, remote play and its games. I love MGS and R&C, so I would be more interested in playing those games.

But wasn't this thread about PS2 and PS3? Okay, the X360 can be thrown in because it can also play Rock Band, but the DS, PSP and Wii can't, so no need to talk about it, at least here.

I also liked how the discussion was, in general, smart. Not much "get that because it's better", mostly providing pros and cons or boths sides and arguments. Keep the intelligence comings. It proves me that not all hardcore gamers having a single console (for whatever reason) are suffering from fanboyism.

[tbradshaw]

I think we've drifted a little too much from the topic. For general console hardware comparisons, try a thread in General.

Thanks for trying to bring it in ShadowOfEden. You're right, this thread started out very nice!