you cant download many retail games, there smaller more unique games usually, COD series is not on live. you need gold account to play online with others, its £40 a year.
Wikipedia says that 1000 points is £8.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Points I don't think that it has changed much.
ow so their not the game points u win when playing games?, so what the hell are the G points i got when playing on a game at my mates on xmas day....confised lol.... man they don't make this easy do they, i mean so much to know, any how im pretty sure that the xbox is the one for me but ill let you all know when i buy either as im not sure if it still worth it yet, i could sell my 4870x2 and use my backup 8800gt, and then use the console to game i assume this will save on electric as my pc is a power hog i must use approx £35~45.00 per month on this thing im going to try and play cod5 on controller later maybe its easier than i remember lol,
You're really not going to get an answer you want, cause its to everyones taste, alot prefer the 360 and others like the PS3. Each one has its pros and cons. You should test them again or see if anyone you know has either and try that, because asking in forums, will not really be helpful.
The points you win by playing games are just for bragging rights. Nothing else. The microsoft points is there money system. It makes it easier for worldwide release. Most should be the same amount of points to buy. But the points will cost different due to exchange rate. Sony PSN is completely free. If you buy games you use REAL money not points. Alot more Full games are available like Burnout Paradise. They are thinking of making a Premium version too where themes and some games will be free(and other xtras), but the current PSN will still be free. So you can still play online.
ok all thanks loads for the support on this, you all gave some good advice, i have decided to find a mate with a ps3 and play on it for a few hours before i decide finally what to buy or if i will at all as im thinking of ditching the pc and moving laptop and console, not sure why yet though
I would keep your PC like i did, but just dont spent lots of oney upgrading it all the time, as i found that i didnt really need the latest and greatest as my current system plays everything fine.
I'm already late to this thread so I'll avoid rambling and just throw some random tidbits of opinion your way. For what it's worth, I own both consoles and a decent PC. The PS3 is ugly as sin but lovely and quiet; the 360 is less ugly but noisy during gameplay - although installing the game to the hard drive significantly reduces noise. The 360's noise is not without it's own awkward benefit, that of theoretically faster read-speed from the disc - most noticeable for me in the general speed of navigation through a game's UI. Basically, it feels to me that I'm constantly waiting for the PS3 to do something (in the UI) whereas the 360's just appears the moment I press the button. The PS3 does of course function as a Blu-ray player and though you've said this is not a consideration the reality is that it's the sort of feature that could be useful in the future. I've had a Blu-ray drive in my PC since Sept 2008 but had no inclination to buy any films for it, getting a PS3 and having an easy BD-playback option on the TV has already made me order two Blu-rays *shock*. Having said that, they were only visually-striking films that I though the format might benefit. The PS3 online service is free, but underwhelming. The 360 online service is £35 a month but works like a charm. The PS3 does have more included in the box (ie, built in wifi versus a £50 (official) or £25 (unofficial) adapter for the 360) but I've already spent £70 on what I deem to be necessary accessories for the PS3 - expenditure that was not required for the 360. That money was spent on a headset; apparently Sony don't think talking to friends is important. A remote control; apparently Sony think you want to control your nice Blu-rays with a gamepad, and don't think you should be using a Logitech Harmony One in place of all your normal remotes. A bluetooth keyboard; because apparently Sony don't think you have any reason to speak (verbally) to friends that aren't playing the same game as you, necessitating the use of cumbersome text-chat. They don't even supply an HDMI cable, for a console supposedly built around being awesome and all-inclusive it feels, to me, lacking in these regards. The 360 allows you to chat (verbally) to friends (plural) at the same time, even if you're playing seperate games or doing seperate things. Depending on how sociable you are this is quite nifty; it's nice to see a mate sign on and have some banter with him without having to be playing the same game. The 360 controller is extremely comfortable for my large-ish hands and - once you're used to it - is surprisingly adept at all manner of games, even first person stuff. Although UT3 didn't end up appealling to me I played it on the PC successfully using a 360 pad (disability makes it hard for me to game with a KB&M), it's not as much of a hinderance as a lot of people think. The PS3 controller is light but for my hands it feels awkward and uncomfortable before long. From an input point of view, the PS3 has an immeasurably superior D-pad but that's about it. Subjectively, the triggers, sticks and normal buttons feel nicer and more conducive to happy-gaming on the 360 pad. The PS3 uses Blu-ray for its games but so far the main difference between that and the smaller DVD-9 format is that you face slower load times (trying to do anything quickly in GT5-P is impossible) and frequently face mandatory installs - which can rapidly fill your hard drive (see below). This also has the negative impact of making the traditional initial "pop in and play" attraction of a console somewhat redundant. In putting LittleBigPlanet (which is awesome) in to my PS3 for the first time it was an hour before I was able to play the first level, thanks to an installation of the game and a worryingly long update download & installation process. The 360 has a fixed hard drive, that is to say it's not user-upgradeable. The PS3 can utilise any 2.5" SATA drive, making increasing capacity a breeze from a hardware point of view. The 360 hard drive, though not upgradeable by the user, has an indirect (but probably intended) bonus ability of being able to essentially take "your console" to a friends house to show them stuff you've done in a game or what-have-you. I didn't word that right but basically, I'm housebound; my brother lives six miles away, he comes to visit once a week and he brings his hard drive over. Once here, he pops my hard drive off the 360, puts his in, and my Xbox essentially becomes his. Everything he's done, his achievements, his saves, his media, it's all there ready to show me. Although you can't logically argue in favour of a fixed-capacity storage system the ease at which you can take it to a mates house is brilliant. The PS3 charging cable is extremely short, necessitating the use of a USB extension cable if you wish to game while it's charging. The 360 charging cable - assuming you bought the battery pack - reaches across the room. Needing to buy a rechargeable battery pack (about £10-15) for the 360 is of course a negative though it's negated to an extent by the fact you can just whack AAs in to the controller by default. AAs have an unfair reputation of being inconvenient but compare the capacity of the non-replaceable built-in pack of the PS3 (300mAh) to a pair of modern Ni-MH AAs (2700mAh) and it's not difficult to work out which will last longer. Modern battery chargers charge AAs so quickly and the batteries themselves have such capacities these days I've actually ended up going back to AAs and leaving the rechargeable battery-packs on the shelf. The 360 has limited backwards compatibility, though if you're new to console gaming this is probably a moot point. If it is indeed a moot point the PS3s total lack of backwards compatibility won't matter. The reality is that if you're looking toward some nostalgic gaming you'll probably be thinking about PC games anyway. Neither the 360 nor the PS3 match a decent PC for graphics performance. It doesn't matter how many fanboys say "Omg <console-name-here> has teh l33t graphics" they're probably just comparing it to other games on consoles, not other games on the PC. I foolishly bought in to the idea that Killzone 2 for instance had quite subliminal graphics that belied the inherent weakness of the console's graphics card but firing it up for the first time was a disappointing experience to say the least. Sure it looks alright and the developers obviously made an effort but, fleh. Though I haven't played Uncharted 2 it's predecessor looks alright (and is a huge amount of fun) but it doesn't even remotely compare to the highest end PC games of the same year. If you're looking at console gaming to provide the same graphical thrills of the PC you'll be disappointed - the saving grace of console gaming is that you're generally playing on a bigger screen. This is either a good thing - as you're more immersed; or a bad thing - you're noticing all those blurry textures on an even bigger screen. You have games like Gran Turismo 5 (Prologue, atm) where the devs have clearly spent a month of sundays making the cars look nice but the whole "thing" is ruined by more jaggies than you can shake a stick at. On that note, the "free 4x AA" on the 360 was a marketing gimmick that never really amounted to anything. Games on the 360 have jaggies as well. The PS3 has BBC iPlayer functionality; though not a deal-breaker this is a good feature that has nothing negative attached to it that I can see. Both consoles have decent online stores offering a huge variety of "arcade" style games - the sort of games you see released on PC for £10~ basically. That doesn't mean they're crap, they're just not fully-fledged titles. PixelJunk Shooter, Super Stardust HD (both on PS3) and Trials HD (360) are some of the most enjoyable games I've played recently and they're all "arcade" titles. The 360 does offer some "full" games for purchase through digital distribution but frankly MS have missed the point somewhat. Offering full games at a considerably higher price point than you can buy a boxed copy is a bit silly. The PS3 has a browser built in, the 360 doesn't. Though this is a feature in favour of the PS3 I can't say I've ever felt any need to use the "traditional internet" on a console and the browser has remained redundant. The PS3 has "VidZone", an application that allows you to search and watch music videos. However, it seems to lack most of the videos I've searched for and the ones it does have been in poor quality yet stream badly - to the point that I can't see me using it much at all. Though I've had problems with my connection lately BBC iPlayer streams perfectly fine, even though moments before VidZone might have been spluttering like a worn out Skoda. The 360 is "Microsoft's Console" and it shows. I enjoy the "360 experience" but you're very much shown what MS want to show you. It's a bit like renting a pre-furnished house, if you like it, brilliant. If you don't, well tough, you've already paid for it. The PS3 feels a bit more open but this is almost to its detriment, it can do more in some ways yet it feels like it lacks cohesion as an overall experience. Whereas MS seem to treat the Xbox like a baby that they must molly-coddle, Sony seem to treat the PS3 like a baby that takes second fiddle to more interesting things. The 360 allows you to play music (from a CD if you're playing an "arcade" game, an MP3 player, memory card or the hard drive) over any game. Most games appear to treat the music as a seperate "track" to the normal audio so by default your personal selection plays in place of the games, it doesn't over-rule everything. The PS3 allows personal music to be played but it's game-specific as opposed to console-wide. While many games take a lot of effort to hammer out a good soundtrack it's nice to be able to pop some music on depending on what you're playing. The PS3 supports more file formats than the 360 but for my purpose this is irrelevant. The important format for me was MKV as I have a hard drive I back my DVDs up to as it's difficult for me to stand up and move around. Playback on the PC couldn't be simpler, playback on either console requires a file conversion and I just can't be bothered. I can't speak from personal experience as I've never downloaded a film illegally but I'm pretty sure the PS3 has better support for DivX/XviD so if that's your thing it could be a good feature. The PS3 has PlayTV available; a hardware addon that turns your console in to a Freeview decoder and PVR. If you don't already have a Freeview tuner or PVR this could be extremely useful and, uncharacteristically for Sony, is very fairly priced at £40. You can even connect a PSP to the PS3 and watch live TV streamed to the PSP across your wifi network, which brings me to: The PS3 has a "remote play" feature that allows some games to be played via the PSP. For instance the recent game PixelJunk Shooter can be streamed from the PS3 to the PSP; your inputs are relayed from the handheld to its bigger brother, which "plays" the game and relays the relevant picture to the PSP. Sure, it's laggy and it doesn't work on a huge amount of games but it's quite nifty and I find myself using it once a week or so. Early 360s in-particular were notoriously unreliable but later models don't appear to be so prone to exploding - yet. The PS3 has seemingly started to have reliability problems with the "yellow light of death" becoming increasingly common. While it's unfair to expect either console - or indeed any hard-working piece of electronics - to work flawlessly with no chance of failure arguably the most important thing is what happens if something does go wrong. Your 360 gets sorted for free if it "red light of death"s whereas unless something's changed in the recent past Sony won't acknowledge that the yellow light of death is even a legitimate issue, let alone replace faulty consoles without charging you for it. That's about all I can think of from a "physical" difference between the consoles but of course the real kicker is the games but that's entirely down to your personal choice. I love the "directed freedom" of the Halo games, the almost caricatured violence of Gears of War and the arcadey realism of the PGR racing games on the 360 but I love LittleBigPlanet for it's uniqueness, the bizarre Gears of War/Army of Two/Tomb Raider combination in Uncharted and I really must earn enough credits to unlock the F1 car in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, even if the game itself is more sterile than the average NHS ward. Check out somewhere like Play.com and look at its bestseller lists for both consoles. Wade through the sports titles (unless they're your thing) and look for stuff that interests you. I was surprised at how little variation there really is between what's available as the cost of development for many modern games tends to lend itself to a multiplatform release and with many such titles awkwardly scoring favourably on the 360 (most people say due to lazy programming for the PS3) that could sway your answer. Whatever you pick, hook it up, pop a game in, slouch on your favourite chair and enjoy. I'm in the fortunate position where my favourite chair is the chair I use my PC from so it's a win-win situation :nerd: I just realised I typed a wall of text comparable in size to the Old Testament, sorry about that, that's what happens when insomnia kicks in :infinity: EDIT: Just a quick PS, the spec sheet of the PS3 you posted is wholly outdated; modern iterations of the console don't feature a memory card reader on the front and only feature two USB ports, both front-mounted.
Yes it is. Call of Duty Classic is on Arcade, and Call of Duty 2 and 3 are both available for download on the Xbox 360.
i would have said no i cant help it like 6months ago but im changing in this department, i now look at my pc and see that i have my gpu running with one core off all the time as even at 1080p res i still get at least 35fps in all games so i dont bother wasting the over core for the increase in heat
@Miller some great insite here, thank you for the time it took to write all this, i really do like the ps3 for the looks and outputs and the more in depth menu settings but i dont like the controllers, i will hopefully decide what to get after i go to my mates to play on the ps3 as hes just got one for xmas so i will test it with a few games OK im going to play on a ps3 today so i will let you know my thought
ok ive just seen 360 for sale under 2nd user, it comes with matte white hdmi output cables Wireless Controller does this mean its a Xbox 360 Arcade or an older model? as it dint have a hdd slotted into the top, only some sort of memory card in the front slot is the hdd buyable for it still??. its only £79.99 so im trying to work out if its worth getting it for this price EDIT hold on come to think of it, to buy a 120 hdd and the extra stuff id get with a new elite its not worth it is it,
With out even reading to deep into your choice let me put it like this. You have a PC for gaming yes? Then you in a nut shell have a 360, except for maybe GOW2 and Halo stuff you can play everything the 360 has on the PC. Even LIVE though not as 'adapt' as the 360 is much the same. PS3 on the other hand has far more games only on the ps3 and are pretty good at that. Killzone 2, Uncharted,Metalgear Solid 4, Infamous, Demons Souls and more I forget atm. You have a Blue Ray player and internet access plus to join and get all you need out of PlayStation network is free. Its a simple decision in favor of a PS3 as long as A. you have a good gaming PC. B. all your freinds dont own a 360 of which you would want to play with or C. you are a diehard GOW or Halo fan
LOL probably consoles is not for you both 360/ps3 run games with 1280x720 – 1024x600 and have 2xAA(and some times 0xAA)
Most 360 games run 1080p, atleast it says at the back of the games, like 1080p/1080i @michaelmk86 Didn't know that some games have 2xAA
It is common knowledge that 360/ps3 run games at 1280x720 –1024x600. Here is a big chunk of 360 games that don’t even have 1280x720, let alone the 1920x1080. Alan Wake = 960x540 (4xAA) Alone in the Dark = 1040x600 (2xAA) Avatar = 1280x696 (only black borders 2xAA) Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA) Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA) Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood = 1280x672 (4x2 custom edge AA + black borders) Conan = 1024x576 (no AA) Darksiders = 1152x648 (no AA) Don King Prizefighter = 1024x630 (2xAA) End of Eternity/Resonance of Fate = 1120x720 (2xAA) Fable II = 1120x720 (blur filter, 2xAA) Far Cry 2 = 1280x696 (only black borders 2xAA) Fifa 2006 = 1024x576 (2xAA) Fifa 2007 = 1200x675 (no AA) Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA) Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA) Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA) Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 = 1024x576 (2xAA) MK vs DC = 1040x624 (2xAA) NCAA Football 08 (demo) = 1024x600 (2xAA) Ninja Gaiden 2 = 1120x584 (2xAA) Overlord II = 1280x612 (custom edge blur, black borders) Perfect Dark Zero = 1152x640 (no AA) Phantasy Star: Universe = 1152x648 (no AA) Pro Evolution Soccer 6 (demo) = 1024x576 (2xAA) Project Gotham Racing 3 = 1024x600 (2xAA) Prototype = 1120x640 (2xAA) Saint's Row 2 = 640p (2xAA) Sonic Unleashed = 880x720 (2xAA) Star Ocean 4 = 1248x702 (2xAA + edge blur/DOF, in field), ~936x512 (no AA, in battle) Tekken 6 = 1024x576 w/motion blur (no AA) Terminator: Salvation = 1152x648 (blur filter) Tomb Raider: Legend = 1024x600 (2xAA) Tomb Raider: Underworld = 1024x576 (2xAA) - depth buffer is 1040x576 Tony Hawk's Project 8 = 1040x585 (2xAA) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen = 1120x720 (blur filter) Wanted = 1120x640 (no AA) Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA) Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA) Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600 (2xAA)
