Best Hardware of 06 goes to Xbox360

[DuckRacer]

Besides the fact that price isn't hardware, apples to apples, PS3 is an absolute bargain compared to the XB360:

$ __600 PS3
$ 1,370 XB 360

• $400 XB360
• $250 5 Years XB Live
• $200 HD DVD Drive
• $200 2x20GB Hard Drive
• $100 Wireless Network Adapter
• $ 50 Wireless Controller
• $ 20 Play & Charge Kit
• $150 Original Xbox (Unlike PS3, XB360 isn't backward compatible)

...and even then, the XB360 will still fall short in its lack of support for HD DVD games, HDMI, HDCP, Dolby True HD, DTS-HD, and 3rd party HDD's.

Okay, you're exaggerating. You were going good until you got to the hard drives.

Having three separate 20GB HDDs is just plain retarded. For what you're going to be mainly using the X360 with, you don't need 60GB for tons of music, videos, photos, a partition for Linux, etc etc. You could argue about movie downloads, but having 3 HDDs isn't going to solve anything.

You list a second wireless controller when the PS3 only comes with one, not two. That shouldn't be on the list at all.

Play & Charge kit sucks, and shouldn't be on the list. I would rather replace that with the $30 Quick Charge kit for the name of quality.

And adding the original Xbox is retarded too. Even more so at $150. MS doesn't even make them anymore. You can get one off eBay for $90 with multiple games. Not to mention, most of the original Xbox games you'd want to play are already playable on the 360.

And even still, PS2 games look like total ass on the PS3, except for the few 480p games. And even still they look like ass. Original Xbox games are rendered at 720p/1080i/1080p with x4AA, so they look excellent and playable. On the PS3, they're "upscaled" to 480p without any true HD rendering or anti-aliasing.

Personally, I prefer the X360's BC, believe it or not. Sure, you could play all your games on the PS3, but the horrible quality quickly makes you eject the disc, whereas on the 360 it looks perfectly fine. Not next-gen per se, but totally manageable. I'd much rather have quality over quantity.

And I agree with your last sentence.

 

[Zrow]

A few things from the list, adding on to what Duck said:

- I don't think that $250 bucks for "5 years of xbox live" is realistic. The price may very well drop withing the next one or two years, and if you ask me it's gonna be free eventually. Besides, you don't pay one lump sum for how many years you want to play it.

- What if I don't use wireless because I get a better connection through wired? That's 100 bucks right there.

Ours cost about 500 bucks in total for the Premium system, and that includes a year of Live. Not anywhere near $1300

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

So in what sense is my Xbox 360 going to cost me $1370?

It isn't... for you. But your needs/wants are different than others.

You might as well be claiming that my PS2 cost more than it actually did because of the extra cost of adding the hard drive and ethernet adapter which the original Xbox came with.

And I would if comparing apples to apples.

ETA: My comment was simply an offhand comment meant to reflect that reality that the Xbox360 is cheaper than the PS3. It wasn't meant to be some sort of serious comment on the other pros and cons of either system.

Fair enough, but I was comparing prices of equally equipped consoles. MS's a la carte pricing of the XB360 masks its true costs for those that do want to take advantage of what these next gen consoles are capable of doing... because if not, and cost is important, then the original Xbox and PS2 are wayyyy cheaper than the 360 and PS3 and have many times more games.

However, for next gen consoles, even a bare bones XB360 system is hardly a major cost savings from a $500 20G PS3, and the moment you use XBL, or buy some of the add-on to expand the use, those cost savings are immediately wiped out.

Bottom Line: Apples to Apples, the PS3 is less expensive than even a lesser equipped XB360 with some of the add-ons and features that come standard in the PS3.

Can you buy and an XB360 for less than a PS3? Absolutely.

Can you buy other consoles for less than the XB360? Absolutely.

 

[DuckRacer]

Can you buy other consoles for less than the XB360? Absolutely.

Reminder: The Wii is the only cheaper "next-gen" console.

 

[Pako]

Okay, you're exaggerating. You were going good until you got to the hard drives.

Having three separate 20GB HDDs is just plain retarded. For what you're going to be mainly using the X360 with, you don't need 60GB for tons of music, videos, photos, a partition for Linux, etc etc. You could argue about movie downloads, but having 3 HDDs isn't going to solve anything.

You list a second wireless controller when the PS3 only comes with one, not two. That shouldn't be on the list at all.

Play & Charge kit sucks, and shouldn't be on the list. I would rather replace that with the $30 Quick Charge kit for the name of quality.

And adding the original Xbox is retarded too. Even more so at $150. MS doesn't even make them anymore. You can get one off eBay for $90 with multiple games. Not to mention, most of the original Xbox games you'd want to play are already playable on the 360.

And even still, PS2 games look like total ass on the PS3, except for the few 480p games. And even still they look like ass. Original Xbox games are rendered at 720p/1080i/1080p with x4AA, so they look excellent and playable. On the PS3, they're "upscaled" to 480p without any true HD rendering or anti-aliasing.

Personally, I prefer the X360's BC, believe it or not. Sure, you could play all your games on the PS3, but the horrible quality quickly makes you eject the disc, whereas on the 360 it looks perfectly fine. Not next-gen per se, but totally manageable. I'd much rather have quality over quantity.

And I agree with your last sentence.

I loaded 30gb's of music and pictures on my 60gb PS3 lastnight. Add another 10gb's of game data that's installed on the drive and I'm on my way to being tapped on hard drive space.

Quality vs. Quanity? Nintendo felt it more important to emphasize game play over graphics with their latest console. A good game can capture your imagination and attention regardless of graphics.

Anyways... Just something more to think about I guess.

 

[DuckRacer]

I loaded 30gb's of music and pictures on my 60gb PS3 lastnight. Add another 10gb's of game data that's installed on the drive and I'm on my way to being tapped on hard drive space.

That's why I said this...

Having three separate 20GB HDDs is just plain retarded. For what you're going to be mainly using the X360 with, you don't need 60GB for tons of music, videos, photos, a partition for Linux, etc etc. You could argue about movie downloads, but having 3 HDDs isn't going to solve anything.

...Meaning you really can't fill up the HDD with tons of photos 'n stuff. On the PS3, you can upload all the videos you want (as long as they're .mp4), and photos, and music, and other random crap. On the 360, you can only do music, and even still it's a clunky process since you simply can't copy all your music from a PSP or iPod for example and have all the metadata come with it (so you don't have to enter artist, title, etc manually).

Quality vs. Quanity? Nintendo felt it more important to emphasize game play over graphics with their latest console. A good game can capture your imagination and attention regardless of graphics.

The thing is, PS2 games on PS3 look a lot worse than Wii games (even when displayed in 480i), with more jaggies 'n crap. Wii games are very manageable.

 

[KieranMurphy]

However, for next gen consoles, even a bare bones XB360 system is hardly a major cost savings from a $500 20G PS3

How many people are even buying the bare-bones systems of either the 360 or PS3? Like I said, I've no interest in online gaming, but being able to download game and movie trailers and demos is pretty neat and not having any hard drive (like the 360 Core) wouldn't be cool.

I'm not sure of the advantage of this goddamned wireless controller though. I only ever sit about six feet from the Xbox and I'm sick of that little flashing light telling me I need new batteries. Couldn't they designed it with a rechargable battery that you can simply plug into one of the USB ports on the Xbox to recharge it or to use it wirefully (is that a word?) when the batteries dead or being recharged?

I agree pretty much with your last post, I just thought the previous one was way over the top, implying that an Xbox 360 didn't really cost $400, it really cost well over a grand, because people actually need to or are going to all buy those add-ons to make the same as a PS3.


KM.

 

[DuckRacer]

I'm not sure of the advantage of this goddamned wireless controller though. I only ever sit about six feet from the Xbox and I'm sick of that little flashing light telling me I need new batteries. Couldn't they designed it with a rechargable battery that you can simply plug into one of the USB ports on the Xbox to recharge it or to use it wirefully (is that a word?) when the batteries dead or being recharged?

Some people hate wireless controllers, others love them. Personally, I don't like being tethered to a console, and when I play my 360 on the big TV, I'm usually about 15 feet away from it, and I need wireless.

Edit: You could just buy a wired controller.

 

[Zrow]

EDIT: Read a previous post wrong, which renders this pretty redundant. Carry on (my wayward son).

 

[socomplayer2]

Price?


KM.

lmao... great point. The 360 deserves it.

 

[socomplayer2]

Couldn't they designed it with a rechargable battery that you can simply plug into one of the USB ports on the Xbox to recharge it or to use it wirefully (is that a word?) when the batteries dead or being recharged?



KM.

They did, I ahve them and they work quite nicely.

 

[KieranMurphy]

They did, I ahve them and they work quite nicely.

And I intend to buy one. But couldn't that have been something that was included with the base Xbox360 unit itself?

I'm just after disagreeing with Digital-Nitrate about the overall cost of the Xbox 360 but if I have to buy a set of new batteries every 2 weeks (25 sets of batteries a year!) over an assumed 5 year console life, then that WILL make it more expensive than a PS3! 250 AA batteries = a lot of cash!


KM.

 

[harrytuttle]

What else does "the best hardware of 2006" mean to you then?

It means the best of what's been released in 2006, not what happens to be available. I refer you again to car roundups: "Car of the Year" never refers to last year's car.

It's just an awkward title. If they called it "Best Current-Generation Console", then there never would have been a bug in my shorts to begin with.

To simplify the debate, the hardware..., no matter how good it is, doesn't mean squat without the software. They clearly use the term 'hardware' loosely and were tailoring their headline for the general populous describing the console 'hardware' as an entire package of gaming entertainment.

Agreed. 👍


I actually don't care which one is "best". I'll be buying both the XBOX360 and PS3 soon after the release of GT5 anyway. Unless the Wii has games I'm interested in, it means nothing to me; great console, but it just doesn't fly my goat. Quite honestly, I thought that's how everyone chooses a game console: if it's got an exclusive game that you really dig, then you go ahead and buy the console & the game, go home and have fun. The hell with brand loyalty. These companies sure aren't loyal to you, so why should you care about them? Vote directly with your wallet. If they make something you like, buy it. If not, let someone else enjoy it.

 

[the Interceptor]

What else does "the best hardware of 2006" mean to you then?

It means the best of what's been released in 2006, not what happens to be available. I refer you again to car roundups: "Car of the Year" never refers to last year's car.

It's just an awkward title. If they called it "Best Current-Generation Console", then there never would have been a bug in my shorts to begin with.

Yes, but that system only works because there are plenty of cars being released every year, but only a new console now and then. What if in 2006, there had only been one single new release?

"The hardware of 2006 award goes to the Nintendo Bing Bang, because it was the only one released in this year!"

... kind of doesn't work, does it? I suppose they make these awards every year, so it's only natural to name them after the current year, and judge every important console that is available at the time.

To simplify the debate, the hardware..., no matter how good it is, doesn't mean squat without the software. They clearly use the term 'hardware' loosely and were tailoring their headline for the general populous describing the console 'hardware' as an entire package of gaming entertainment.

I would have to agree that for 2006, the 360 clearly won the console war....how could they not, they were the only ones at the battle field for the majority of the year. I'm sure we'll see different results for 2007.

Thank you!!! 👍