Your right your not dahawks, but this is just another one of your ******ed gimmick accounts just like dahawks. I thought you could give it a rest for a week or so.

Yea dahaawks would have at least plugged Blu-Ray and got some smack talk about red rings in there. Was kind of surprised people actually dignified the OP with real responses.

Maybe they're new to the videogame forum, or had low blood sugar or something.

wtf you smoking?

gotwoot could you be any more biased? you sound like a pats fan

there is no doubt that the ps3 is a much more powerful console and will eventually be better than the 360 when better games come out

however it costs a ton more, there are no very good exclusive games for it while the 360 keeps pumping out good ones

and what is this bs about the controller, are you kidding me? you must have the tiniest hands ever. also def prefer the feel of the trigger as oppose to the L/R buttons

just please lock this crap. that other thread was bad enough, why make it worse with this garbage?

Smiglet, could you be any more biased?

First off the 40GB PS3 is $399 and the Elite is $449 and besides the extra HDD space (where you can upgrade the PS3 to 100GB for $50 and 250GB for $100), the lowest end model of the PS3 has more features. So which one is more expensive?

Secondly, there are lots of good exclusives right now like Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, UTIII, Resistance, Ninja Gaiden, Folklore and Eye of Judgement. So the 'no games' argument doesn't work anymore either. Not to mention that the PS3 lineup for 2008 is far better than the 360's w/ MGS4, KZ2, GT5 and hopefully FF13 w/ God of War expected to launch March 2009.

Lastly, which great exclusive games keep 'pumping out' for the 360? Mass Effect, Gears, Halo, Bioshock... any other shooters, I mean games, that I'm missing?

Mass Effect isn't a shooter and I really wish it was available on the PS3. I personally prefer the PS3 controller because I got so used to the PS2 one, but I haven't used the 360 controller that much and I remember the horrific controller the original xbox had.

How do you start your post with "could you be any more biased" and then compare the cheapest PS3 available to the most expensive 360 available?? Could you be any more of a hypocrite?

The only feature on the 40GB version that is not on the 360 version is backwards compatibility and the bigger HDD which can be easily upgraded for cheap. Not only that, but the PS3 comes w/ wifi, which is $100 more on the 360, and it comes w/ a blu ray player. I would go as far as to say that those two features alone trump any BC or HDD edge that the 360 has.

Not in the traditional sense, no, but it is an RPG w/ a 3rd person shooter battle system. I've only played a little of it at a friends, but I'm getting this once I'm through my backlog of current games.

What the **** are you spouting? Your post was responding to "it [the PS3] costs a ton more" and you were like "lawl the 40 GB PS3 is $399 and the Elite is $449, WHICH COSTS MORE NOW HUH??" Hi, 360s are available as low as $280, or $350 with a hard drive. Please spare me the reply I know is coming with a bunch of bull**** about how the PS3 includes a bunch of options that nobody gives a **** about. Please also spare me the reply I know is coming saying that people do care about those options, cause no, most people don't.

Calling mass effect a shooter is just plain ignorant. Might as well call mgs a shooter to.

The only ps3 game I would currently like to play is Warhawk, although I don't know if I would just refuse to play it over CoD4.

ok, you're right. The PS3 doesn't offer the consumer anything except bad ports and functions no one uses. No one uses it to play blu rays. No one uses it as a media hub. No one uses the built in wifi. No one uses the free PSN. No one upgrades their HDD to 500+ GB for a fraction of the cost of a 120GB 360 HDD. No one plugs in their external HDD and plays nearly every music and video file. Most importantly no one uses this for games that aren't available on anything else, including the PC.

Totally right, completely useless features on a machine that costs less.

This is about 90% correct.

OP

I told you to spare me the ****ing reply but no, you had to go and make it anyway, and now I have to waste my ****ing time explaining to you why you're wrong.

No, nobody uses it to play blu-rays.

Media hub? lol? Pretty sure the 360 is better at that w/ network streaming.

Dunno what PSN offers that's so great but I've never heard anyone argue that online is Sony's strong point so it probably sucks.

Built-in wifi? Go buy a 100 ft network cable for like $20 and increase reliability by like 1000x (wireless internet is inherently unreliable, this isn't the fault of MS or Sony) if your console isn't near a router. I hate playing poker connected through wireless and getting d/c'ed in the middle of an online game would probably tilt me even worse than timing out in the middle of a hand.

500+gb hd? What the **** would you do with that space? I download a ****load of stuff on my PC (to the point that I pay $10/month for an Easynews subscription) and I don't even use that much space. I haven't researched it at all but I do know the 360 can play stuff off a variety of external devices if you want to harp on that anyway.

Exclusive games go both ways.

So no, nothing that the PS3 offers for extra money is that big of a ****ing deal.

FYP

Nice rant though. I like it

$280 and $350 are both less than $399 imo.

I always thought acelubby was full of **** but didn't hate on him until he trolled in the redring thread. Then I knew he was nothing but a no good troll.

No HDD in the $280 version (no BC, little space for demos, acrade games, etc...) and add $50/yr for Live unless you only play locally.

I'm not saying the 360 isn't good at what it does, because it is. But pricing isn't an issue between the two anymore. Just look at the sales since the PS3 introduced the $399 & $499 SKUs.

These seems to be this thing with people who were all about Sony during the PS2 vs Xbox generation not wanting to give up the fight... as if what they say about the PS3 or 360 will make some difference. But something tells me it's less about that than being able to justify the purchase for themselves.

I've never been one to get involved in console wars. If there's a reason for me to own a system, I generally make an effort to get it. What's with people who appear to have some personal stake in the success of a console? What's it matter? Right now the only thing that's appealing about the PS3 is blu-ray. I may be able to justify getting one because of that bonus. Just please spare us all with the PS3 is primed to overtake the 360 and has so many great games on the way stuff. I don't think anyone objective could see it that way. From a gaming point of view, Sony is extemely close to having already lost this round.

Some people don't have broadband and thus don't want/need a harddrive and/or live subscription. Keep in mind a lot of these same people don't have an hdtv. For them the low end xbox is great. I have seen it sell for as low as $228. That is even cheaper than the wii esp for what you get.

Whatever rubbrband. So even though I own both systems I am only allowed to post in PS3 only threads? lol

Also, this is a ****ing flame thread. That was the purpose, nothing else and personally I am very amused at the responses from all sides. If you don't think it's entertaining and are actually being tilted by the same arguments you can hear on any gaming site then I feel for you. I'm glad I can afford both and enjoy both for what they do, I just feel there is more value in the PS3 than the 360 unless you play sports games religiously or don't have a computer to run Gears or Bioshock (which I don't and is the reason I bought one).

Don't stop though, because it's been an entertaining day at work.

Seriously though, I think the manner through which ANY console vs. console discussions (flamewars) needs to be -unfortunately- reevaluated(created).

I know these don't necessarily violate the TOC at times, but they inevitably degenerate into a trainwreck.