360 or upgrade…

[Kuld]

360 or upgrade…

I’m thinkin’ about buying an X-box 360 or upgrading my computer just so I can play Elder Scrolls Oblivion.

Is that wrong?

Is it wrong to temporarily deprive my family of my monetary resources in order to play a video game? Can I actually have fun playing a video game with my wife and son looking at me with hungry eyes?

Hehe, maybe.

It doesn’t come out for a few months yet. We’ll see.

 

[trancejeremy]

I would go with the PC. Because of mods. While I hope the 360 will support them, I dunno.

Honestly, from what I've seen of the 360, which is basically just the kiosk in stores, the graphics don't look any better than my PC. Which is not that great (xp 3400, nvidia 6600 GT). While I would imagine that games will look better once they start taking advantage of multithreading and all that. (I would also add, the 360 looks much better if you have a widescreen plasma TV. Like the setups at Best Buy. The one at circuit city didn't even look like it was in HD)


Here's an article on that very subject (of early titles not looking that much better):

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145953

In a year or so, when I plan on getting one, hopefully games will look much better.

 

[Zappo]

I'm going to purchase a PS3 when it comes out (well, after one or two months, so that the inevitable initial issues, see 360, have been resolved). It is certain that it will be at least as good as the 360, and it seems almost certain that it will be a lot better. And none of the announced 360 titles really appeal to me...

...except for Oblivion. I'd really like to play Oblivion. But one game isn't a good enough reason to get a console - or to upgrade a PC. I've learnt that lesson when I bought a costly new graphic card to play Morrowind. No game is worth 400$, no matter what.

 

[KenM]

I don't like console games. I just did a major upgrade on my system, motherboard, memory, CPU. It was worth it IMO.
I read that the PS3 will only have 256 MB RAM while the 360 has 512 MB RAM. I'm surprised Sony is only going with 256.

 

[Zappo]

I read that the PS3 will only have 256 MB RAM while the 360 has 512 MB RAM. I'm surprised Sony is only going with 256.

I posted this on another console-related thread, but you must have missed it - the PS3 will have 512 MB RAM.

The table you linked there is misleading, because it only mentions video RAM - and, since the 360 doesn't differentiate between video and system RAM, it counts all of the 360's RAM as video RAM. The PS3 does differentiate, and it has 256 MB of video RAM and 256 MB of system RAM, but the latter got left out of that table.

The same table also has a few other relevant biases against PS3. Bottom line, it's better to get facts from multiple sources... news reporting on next-gen consoles seems to be made by rabid fanboys, so you can't trust any single site.

 

[Mercule]

Is it wrong to temporarily deprive my family of my monetary resources in order to play a video game?

I hope you're joking. If you're serious, the answer is: "Yes, it's wrong." If you can afford it, though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing video games.

I'm debating where I'm going to go with the "next gen". I'm strongly considering getting a Windows Media Center PC (with new, wide screen, HD monitor) and just picking up a couple of X-Box style controllers that are PC compatible. For the most part, the games my family plays are also available on the PC. Plus, it'd be nice to have a computer in the living room. The problem is that the $1,500-2,000 for the WMC-PC puts it in a slightly different budget category than the $300-400 X-Box 360, which is where the difficult decision comes in. Wouldn't be so bad, if I already had the HDTV.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I posted this on another console-related thread, but you must have missed it - the PS3 will have 512 MB RAM.

The table you linked there is misleading, because it only mentions video RAM - and, since the 360 doesn't differentiate between video and system RAM, it counts all of the 360's RAM as video RAM. The PS3 does differentiate, and it has 256 MB of video RAM and 256 MB of system RAM, but the latter got left out of that table.

The same table also has a few other relevant biases against PS3. Bottom line, it's better to get facts from multiple sources... news reporting on next-gen consoles seems to be made by rabid fanboys, so you can't trust any single site.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't touch the PS3 with a ten foot pole. Why? A few reasons:

1. I hate Sony as a company, but I won't get into that here. I'll just say that I question the intelligence of a company that blasphemes against a major religion as a marketing gimmick.

2. Sony customer service...or lack of. While the reports of X360 problems have been blown wildly out of proportion...well...let me give you an example. On one of the other boards I frequent, there are about 100+ people who have 360s. Only one had to send his back to Microsoft. They paid for next day shipping both ways, replaced his system with a brand new one, and gave him a complimentary hard drive. That's impressive folks.

Got dead pixels on your Sony PSP screen? Tough. According to Sony, it's "acceptable", and they won't do jack about it.

3. The PS3 is more powerful... or is it? While early speculation was that the PS3 would dominate the console market this generation in terms of power, developers (Epic comes to mind...) who have been working on it have said many times that the Cell chip isn't all it's cracked up to be. Many have said that if you could tell a difference between a 360 a PS3 version of the same game, they'd be surprised.

4. Price. Sony has all but said the PS3 will cost more than the 360. On top of that, Microsoft plans to drop the price of the 360 by $100 on the PS3's release day. It's also rumored that Halo 3 will be released around the same time.

I've got the 360, I've had zero problems with it, and the thing is amazing. High definition games. Music. Movies. X-Box Live. Downloadable game demos, downloadable arcade classics, the ability to talk to other computers on a network and stream media from them...and the controller is by far the best console controller I've ever seen. Have you seen the PS3's controller?

When the PS3 launches, it will be launching against a system of roughly equal power, about $200 cheaper, a year's worth of games including Halo 3, and Xbox Live.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I hope you're joking. If you're serious, the answer is: "Yes, it's wrong." If you can afford it, though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing video games.

I'm debating where I'm going to go with the "next gen". I'm strongly considering getting a Windows Media Center PC (with new, wide screen, HD monitor) and just picking up a couple of X-Box style controllers that are PC compatible. For the most part, the games my family plays are also available on the PC. Plus, it'd be nice to have a computer in the living room. The problem is that the $1,500-2,000 for the WMC-PC puts it in a slightly different budget category than the $300-400 X-Box 360, which is where the difficult decision comes in. Wouldn't be so bad, if I already had the HDTV.

For what it's worth, the 360's "corded" controller is PC compatible. It is USB based.

 

[Zappo]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't touch the PS3 with a ten foot pole. Why? A few reasons:

That's ok. But KenM had some false information (PS3 having 256 MB RAM), obtained from a severely biased source. I wanted to correct that, giving information that is confirmed and official (PS3 having 512 MB RAM).

By "confirmed" I mean not only that Sony has stated it, but that it has stated it several times, in different contexts, and that the information has withstood in-depth analysis. I don't trust information that has merely been said in an interview somewhere.

Your reasons are valid - but they are all either subjective or based on speculation, much like me when I say that none of the 360's titles interest me, or that I believe the PS3 is going to be a whole lot more powerful based on the real-time demos that are available.

Developers can be paid, demos can be doctored, you can't even trust spec sheets! Much like statistics, hardware specs can be made to say everything and the opposite of everything, while still being technically true.

100% certain information is few and far between, so when I can share that - PS3 having as much RAM as the 360, half of it faster - I'm glad to do it.

As for the rest, wait and see; it's the wise thing to do. The reason for which my mind is set on PS3 is the launch titles. Console power is a factor, but I recognize that it is still up in the air.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

I'll give you that the 360 launch titles have been lackluster thus far. Not being a sports fan, there were only a few games that I've been excited about. Call of Duty 2 is great, but you can also play that on a high end PC. Conemned: Criminal Origins was really good, the best horror game I've ever played by far.

I'm mostly looking forward to Gears of War, Oblivion, and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Sure you can get the last two on PC (not sure about GoW), but not without a powerhouse of a system. And of course, Halo 3 is coming.

As far as PS3 games go, I haven't seen anything about launch titles. I saw the Metal Gear trailor, which looked cool, but developers are saying you could run it on a 360. Though, I doubt it'd appear on the 360 since Sony needs some IP to hang on to. In fact, I can't think of a single next gen game shown by Sony that isn't going to also be released on the 360. Though, I'm sure I may have missed some, since I don't keep up with Sony that much.

So what's it got? God of War will surely re-appear on the PS3, but I can't think of anything else. SquareEnix is working with Microsft now, so likely both systems will get the Final Fantasy franchise. The 360 will have to wait 6 months to get any Grand Theft Auto release, but that's no big deal.