I found that I had to tell the PS3 to "show all" or something similiar and then I could see the songs in an apparantly empty folder.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
PS3 a worthwhile purchase?
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
I found that I had to tell the PS3 to "show all" or something similiar and then I could see the songs in an apparantly empty folder.
Hopping Vampire
First Post
totally worth it, especially for 299. I paid 449 for mine in 07 and im happy with it. The upcoming exclusives (God Of War 3, Uncharted 2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, DC Universe Online) just sweeten the pot.
Where did you go to do that? Is that in the settings menu? I'm having a miserable time trying to get my PS3 to stream anything. I can find maybe 6 songs, and I keep getting these DSLM (I think that's the acronym) errors that result in things taking forever.
I've tried Windows Media Player, PS3 Media Player, and Tversity, and have the same problems with all of them. It's aggravating. And Sony's tech support has been utterly useless. They can't tell their....uh...butts from their elbows. They just point out forum posts about optimizing my wireless network....but the network is fine.....all my other devices work fine...the PS3 is the one that has issues.
Banshee
Navigate to where you think the music is. (say a USB device or folder of HD you stored it in)
Press triangle for options (prompt shows up in lower right of screen)
Select Display all.
You should be able to see all your music in whatever folder structure you have. Copy to PS3...done.
You have to do this everytime (at least I do).
Press triangle for options (prompt shows up in lower right of screen)
Select Display all.
You should be able to see all your music in whatever folder structure you have. Copy to PS3...done.
You have to do this everytime (at least I do).
Welverin
First Post
I may be late to this party, but I feel compelled to comment anyway.So far as standout games go in addition to the two you mentioned I'd add:
inFamous
Uncharted 1&2
Heavenly Sword (so long as you get it for cheap, it's really good, but also incredibly short)
God of War 3 (not out yet, but I doubt i what be good)
Pixeljunk Eden (a PSN game)
Those are the exclusives I have (GoW3 being the exception, since it's not out yet).
I went with the PS3 over the 360 because of MGS4 and GoW3 and the lack of any 360 exclusives I cared about that weren't or wouldn't end up on the PC. Uncharted and Heavenly Word were nice bonuses, LittleBigPlanet alone, however, justified my purchase of a PS3. I absolutely love the game and anyone who owns a PS3 needs to give it a try and since there is now a demo out there's no reason not to.
I can't agree with that at all.
John Crichton
First Post
If you prefer the PS3 exclusives over the 360 ones, that's fine. Doesn't make my statement untrue, however.
Steel_Wind
Legend
I have a 2 Xbox 360's, a PS3 and a Wii on the console side of our gaming setup.
If you did not already have a Blu-Ray player, I think the PS3 is in the running and maybe surging to the top. But as you do already have a Blu-Ray player, the clear choice is the 360. The 360 has a far larger library of games, far better DLC, better multiplayer live service (note: but it costs $$) and with Natal coming, a long 2-3 year upgrade path where the 360 will continue to be THE major game console that plays all the new Triple A games.
FWIW, the 360 in the living room easily sees the most use in our home. The PS3 is principally used as media server/Blu-Ray player and DVD player. I have about 20 games for the PS3, but three times that number for the 360. (very large library of used games is a big selling point for the 360, imo). The Wii is essentially ignored, even by my four year old. We have a dozen games for it, but we might as well not have any. It's used sporadically maybe once every six months? Something like that. The Wii was a waste of money in my house.
In general, the PS3 is used for games in my home too, but not as much as the 360. Because the DLC and online play is far more robust on the 360 than on the PS3, it is rare that I will ever pick up a game for the PS3 that is also available for the 360. Usually, the PS3 version of a game gets less of the developer's attention - and so it is the inferior product. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue. On the hardware side, the PS3 is a more capable platform. But that advantage is rarely seen in practice. In practice, it's just the opposite by the time a game is released.
I like having both major adult aimed consoles (and the Wii is certainly not aimed at adult gamers) and I would urge anyone to get both a 360 and a PS3 if they can. But If you can afford only one, the Blu-Ray is a big selling point for the PS3. Once that issue is off the table - the advantage to the 360 as a better overall gaming machine with a larger library of games is pretty clear, imo.
Which does not mean that PS3 is not the more capable machine, hardware wise. It is, in fact, a better and more capable platform. But in the real world, the major games are made for both consoles and so any advantages that might go to the PS3's technical edge are rarely, in practice, seen in any game except for exclusive PS3 titles (MGS4 is the best example, LBP and Valkyria Chronicles are other good examples).
Meanwhile, amongst games that are produced for both consoles, (and that is far and away most games in the marketplace), the 360 has a larger market share with more robust DLC, so more of the developer's time and money is spent on the 360 version. The 360 is simply where the most money is to developers. (Note: Notwithstanding this sweeping generalization, Dragon Age appears to play more smoothly and looks better on the PS3 than it does on the 360.)
By the way, my money is on Natal. I think Natal is going to be such a hit for the 360, that the 360 is going to totally capture all momentum in the marketplace from the Wii in the later half of 2010 and all of 2011.
Final result, the 360 is a better overall game console than the PS3 where the rubber meets the road in terms of how it is actually used, even though the PS3 is a more capable machine in terms of hardware potential right now. But with Natal coming in 2010, the choice is clear and the 360 is the winner.
If you did not already have a Blu-Ray player, I think the PS3 is in the running and maybe surging to the top. But as you do already have a Blu-Ray player, the clear choice is the 360. The 360 has a far larger library of games, far better DLC, better multiplayer live service (note: but it costs $$) and with Natal coming, a long 2-3 year upgrade path where the 360 will continue to be THE major game console that plays all the new Triple A games.
FWIW, the 360 in the living room easily sees the most use in our home. The PS3 is principally used as media server/Blu-Ray player and DVD player. I have about 20 games for the PS3, but three times that number for the 360. (very large library of used games is a big selling point for the 360, imo). The Wii is essentially ignored, even by my four year old. We have a dozen games for it, but we might as well not have any. It's used sporadically maybe once every six months? Something like that. The Wii was a waste of money in my house.
In general, the PS3 is used for games in my home too, but not as much as the 360. Because the DLC and online play is far more robust on the 360 than on the PS3, it is rare that I will ever pick up a game for the PS3 that is also available for the 360. Usually, the PS3 version of a game gets less of the developer's attention - and so it is the inferior product. That's a software issue, not a hardware issue. On the hardware side, the PS3 is a more capable platform. But that advantage is rarely seen in practice. In practice, it's just the opposite by the time a game is released.
I like having both major adult aimed consoles (and the Wii is certainly not aimed at adult gamers) and I would urge anyone to get both a 360 and a PS3 if they can. But If you can afford only one, the Blu-Ray is a big selling point for the PS3. Once that issue is off the table - the advantage to the 360 as a better overall gaming machine with a larger library of games is pretty clear, imo.
Which does not mean that PS3 is not the more capable machine, hardware wise. It is, in fact, a better and more capable platform. But in the real world, the major games are made for both consoles and so any advantages that might go to the PS3's technical edge are rarely, in practice, seen in any game except for exclusive PS3 titles (MGS4 is the best example, LBP and Valkyria Chronicles are other good examples).
Meanwhile, amongst games that are produced for both consoles, (and that is far and away most games in the marketplace), the 360 has a larger market share with more robust DLC, so more of the developer's time and money is spent on the 360 version. The 360 is simply where the most money is to developers. (Note: Notwithstanding this sweeping generalization, Dragon Age appears to play more smoothly and looks better on the PS3 than it does on the 360.)
By the way, my money is on Natal. I think Natal is going to be such a hit for the 360, that the 360 is going to totally capture all momentum in the marketplace from the Wii in the later half of 2010 and all of 2011.
Final result, the 360 is a better overall game console than the PS3 where the rubber meets the road in terms of how it is actually used, even though the PS3 is a more capable machine in terms of hardware potential right now. But with Natal coming in 2010, the choice is clear and the 360 is the winner.
Last edited:
Orius
Legend
If the potential momentum hasn't been killed by the nasty Red Ring of Death problem. That's one thing that's making me wary about the 360, even though it seems like it has the best overall library, I'm leery about the hardware failure rates. I can't afford to support both of the high-end consoles, and having a 360 that's likely to fail is not a good thing.
The DLC situation seems to largely be down to MS backing huge trucks of money up to the developers doorsteps. They've been paying for that exclusivity (for a time).
From all the reviews and comparisons I've seen the 360 version does tend to have a slight edge, but it's just a slight edge. Though there is the odd game (F.E.A.R. IIRC) where the PS3 version just sucked compared. I think that was mostly an artifact of when both systems were new. I don't recall that being the case for any of the recent games.
Natal or any of the "motion capture" stuff is pointless without compelling games. Tech like that on it's own, is nothing more than an interesting oddity and I'm not convinced that being able to wave your arms in the air is necessarily better or even more desirable than using a controller for a lot of the things they were showing in the demo video. I certainly don't want to have to be waving my arms in the air for hours while playing GT5/Forza/Tekken/GTA or what ever.
Last edited:
