Best Hardware of 06 goes to Xbox360

[CAMAROBOY69]

Between the Wii, PS3, PS2, xbox360, and DS gametrailers.com voted the 360 as the best console of 06.
Best Hardware 06(28mb)

 

[DuckRacer]

They're on crack.

 

[the Interceptor]

If you watch the video, you must agree they do have a point. They basically say that the Wii is very nice and fun, but not for real console gamers, and the PS3 looks very promising, but has just been released and has only few games available.
As a conclusion, if you are a serious console gamer, you've got to have the 360, because it offered the best and most versatile experience in 2006. And I think that's the right conclusion, even if I'm no 360 fan.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[harrytuttle]

So they voted on a 2-year-old console as the best of this year? The XBOX360 is nice, but it's two years old. It's like comparing the McLaren F1 to the Carrera GT and calling the F1 the "Best of 2004".

 

[Tornado]

So they voted on a 2-year-old console as the best of this year? The XBOX360 is nice, but it's two years old. It's like comparing the McLaren F1 to the Carrera GT and calling the F1 the "Best of 2004".

This just in: Sega Dreamcast wins best console of 2001.

 

[DuckRacer]

Okay, so I watched the video (I couldn't since my previous post was on the PS3), and they should've renamed "Hardware" to "Software". Or "Console". The PS3 beats the 360 hardware-wise in almost every single category you can think of. You name it, it beats it. The things the 360 excels at fall into the software category (games, XBL, etc).

It's a misleading title. And because of that I still think they're on crack.

 

[KieranMurphy]

You name it, it beats it.

Price?


KM.

 

[the Interceptor]

So they voted on a 2-year-old console as the best of this year? The XBOX360 is nice, but it's two years old. It's like comparing the McLaren F1 to the Carrera GT and calling the F1 the "Best of 2004".

You're missing the point. The question is: which one was the best console between the 1. of January and 31. of December 2006? The Nintendo DS is nice, but not really popular. The Wii is fun, but no serious console compared with its main competitors. The PS2 is still great and has grown loads of top titles over the years, but it has also aged. The PS3, although looking very good, just came out in November '06 and is still missing the really big titles. Therefor, the only serious next-gen console you could have and play good titles on in 2006 was the XBOX 360, and therefor, it is the winner.

Okay, so I watched the video (I couldn't since my previous post was on the PS3), and they should've renamed "Hardware" to "Software". Or "Console". The PS3 beats the 360 hardware-wise in almost every single category you can think of. You name it, it beats it. The things the 360 excels at fall into the software category (games, XBL, etc).

It's a misleading title. And because of that I still think they're on crack.

Nope, it isn't. They're not saying that the XBOX 360 is superior in terms of computing power to the PS3. All they say is that the XBOX 360 is the best piece of console hardware in 2006, as in contrast to games, which are software. I find that quite obvious to be honest.

Man, it sounds like I'm a real 360 fan, which is weird, cause I don't like it, and I'll most likely never buy one. I'll buy the PS3 and GT5 blindly instead, and I mean it. You guys are giving me a really hard time getting the facts straight here.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Tornado]

The Nintendo DS is nice, but not really popular.

I'm positive that the DS has sold at least double what the XBox 360 has.

 

[the Interceptor]

I'm positive that the DS has sold at least double what the XBox 360 has.

It has sold way more than double that. The point is that it is not considered as a true competitor to Wii, Playstation and XBOX.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

If you include software, yes. If you go off of just hardware and features, then no, it's not the "best".

I think it's very ridiculous, but hey, the media will be the media.

 

[DuckRacer]

Price?


KM.

Well, that can go either way. If you have no use of Blu-ray or Wi-Fi, the 360 is cheaper. If you do, however, the PS3 is theoretically cheaper ($400 console + $200 HD-DVD + $100 Wi-Fi = $700 < $600 60GB PS3).

The Nintendo DS is nice, but not really popular.

Riiiight. Explain to me how the DS Lite sold almost 1mil last November when the X360 sold a tad more than 500k and the PS2 600k. Not to mention it's a phenomenon in Japan. They sell 200k each week, and you'd think by now every living thing over there would have a DS Lite.

And the DS (both phat and lite) have sold around 30 million since launch.

Nope, it isn't. They're not saying that the XBOX 360 is superior in terms of computing power to the PS3.

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about hardware features, Blu-ray, card readers, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, console heat and noise (or rather, the lack of), etc.

All they say is that the XBOX 360 is the best piece of console hardware in 2006, as in contrast to games, which are software. I find that quite obvious to be honest.

I'm not really understanding you. The 360 is not the best hardware, excluding games. It is the best console, including games, though that's not saying much.

 

[the Interceptor]

Riiiight. Explain to me how the DS Lite sold almost 1mil last November when the X360 sold a tad more than 500k and the PS2 600k. Not to mention it's a phenomenon in Japan. They sell 200k each week, and you'd think by now every living thing over there would have a DS Lite.

And the DS (both phat and lite) have sold around 30 million since launch.

Actually, Nintendo says they've sold 35 million, and I see no reason not to believe them. Anyway, if you consider buying a console, would you buy a DS instead of a 360 or a PS3? I wouldn't, because for me it is "just" a handheld (may it be a good one), and not a console. Therefor, I would add it to the list of the best piece of gaming hardware in 2006, but I'd rather elect the 360 as well.

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about hardware features, Blu-ray, card readers, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, console heat and noise (or rather, the lack of), etc.

I'm not really understanding you. The 360 is not the best hardware, excluding games. It is the best console, including games, though that's not saying much.

They obviously do include the games. There's an award for the best hardware and an award for the best software in 2006. The software award goes to the best game (in their opinion), and the hardware award to the best console (in their opinion). The latter however does not focus on hardware itself, rather than the best platform in 2006. Maybe they should've named it like that to make their point.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

The better definition of this award would be Best Console of 2006.

In which case I'd only give the 360 the edge over the other consoles because of it's connectivity. Everything else, IMO, is not anything to gawk at.

 

[Zrow]

Even John Carmack said that the 360 was a lot easier to develop on, because of it's triple-core CPU. It's got a better GPU, too. The PS3 is *technically* better, but we haven't seen it yet, and I'm a bit skeptical about just how much better it really is.

 

[harrytuttle]

You're missing the point. The question is: which one was the best console between the 1. of January and 31. of December 2006?

If that's how the comparison was made, then it's a clumsily labeled title (as others have already stated). I suppose I could understand, but theoretically that makes even the original NES up for contention since clones are still being made (illegally, I think).

Whatever. It's a title that I'm sure means as much to gamers as if it came from Consumer Reports.

 

[Jedi2016]

The XBOX360 is nice, but it's two years old.

There's more to comparing time than just the numbers. Yes, the X360 was released in 2005 and it's now 2007. But it was released at the very end of 2005 and it's now the very beginning of 2007.

Thirteen and a half months (or whatever it's been) is NOT the same as "two years". The console has been out for barely a year. I've had mine for only a few months.

On the flip side, perhaps I should complain that, because the PS3 launched in 2006, and it's now 2007, that the console has been out for a whole year and there's still squat for games?

 

[BlackZ28]

Great thread. I agree with gametrailers, no argument.

 

[LaBounti]

"most versatile " I think not... ..yet..

Carmak also said the 360 is difficult to use the three cores, he just prefers the tools MS offers. And still no proof of a better GPU.. Then again what has Mr. Carmak done for the gaming industry? Why does his opinion even matter? Same with the Valve president who bashed the 360 and PS3 dispite Valve not contributing a lot to gaming industry. And neither Valve or ID has contributed much to the console world,

 

[the Interceptor]

You're missing the point. The question is: which one was the best console between the 1. of January and 31. of December 2006?

If that's how the comparison was made, then it's a clumsily labeled title (as others have already stated).

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

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Even John Carmack said that the 360 was a lot easier to develop on, because of it's triple-core CPU. It's got a better GPU, too. The PS3 is *technically* better, but we haven't seen it yet, and I'm a bit skeptical about just how much better it really is.

Go play Resistance or MotorStorm and tell me you could have played those games early in the 360's lifespan without frame rate issues.

Fact is, the GPU does the pretty stuff, while the Cell does tons of particle effects and physics. Honestly, I don't think the 360 could handle all the action / smoke / sounds that are going on at any given moment in Resistance without a hitch in the frame rate. Sure, Resistance may not look at "pretty" as some current 360 games, but not one 360 game out on the market that I can remember has quite as much going on as Resistance. I think that's an amazing testament to the consoles power, since it's been out for two months, and not a year.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Okay, so I watched the video (I couldn't since my previous post was on the PS3), and they should've renamed "Hardware" to "Software". Or "Console". The PS3 beats the 360 hardware-wise in almost every single category you can think of. You name it, it beats it. The things the 360 excels at fall into the software category (games, XBL, etc).

It's a misleading title. And because of that I still think they're on crack.

Exactly my feeling as well.

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

Best Hardware is just that... Hardware. INDEPENDENTLY judged for it's physical design, construction, performance, and reliability - not by how much software or online support there is currently available.

You name it, it beats it.

Price?

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.

PS3 also holds the advantage in operating system software and Java support, which has recently been open sourced by Sun.


So in terms of hardware, system operating software, reliability, and value, the PS3 was the big winner of 2006, and likely again in 2007, and until MS releases a new version of the XB360, or an entirely new console.

 

[LaBounti]

I would think "best Hardware" is something you can show off to a friend and have him say "hey thats cool (insert random electronic device) cant do that"

If you can have it in a room without an internet connection or any add on's (XBL,HDD,HDDVD,Wireless controller and play n charge Kit or batteries). Great hardware doesnt need add ons. It could have won "Best Accesorized Hardware" A Core system comes with none of those things. XBL is an option that requires a HDD and a subscription for everyday onlineplay.

 

[the Interceptor]

Best Hardware is just that... Hardware. INDEPENDENTLY judged for it's physical design, construction, performance, and reliability - not by how much software or online support there is currently available.

Do we have to discuss the term "hardware" here? It is totally obvious and absolutely natural (only for me it seems) that the term "hardware" does not have to focus entirely on the actual hardware in this context. It may well be that you would have called the award:"the 2006 award for the best gaming console including all available games, how long it has been on the market and other things", you're welcome to do so. They didn't. So what?

I can't believe we're actually having this discussion in a forum that (usually) is as mature as this one. This is hairsplitting on the highest level. Do you take every single word you read and hear every single day literally? You can't be serious.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Do we have to discuss the term "hardware" here?

a) It's what is used in the thread title and in this so-called "award".

b) You even asked what Best Hardware means to us.

totally obvious and absolutely natural (only for me it seems) that the term "hardware" does not have to focus entirely on the actual hardware in this context.

Hardware is hardware... and to use that term is to make a clear distinction between it and software. You can twist it any direction you wish, it still says hardware which has nothing to do with the quality or quanitity of software... which is what the award is clearly based on as it should also be "totally obvious" that the XB360 in terms of hardware is not at the same level as the PS3, with perhaps the exception of the GPU.

I can't believe we're actually having this discussion in a forum that (usually) is as mature as this one. This is hairsplitting on the highest level. Do you take every single word you read and hear every single day literally? You can't be serious.

Then next time I suggest that you not ask questions like:

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

 

[the Interceptor]

Do we have to discuss the term "hardware" here?

a) It's what is used in the thread title and in this so-called "award".

Correct, but as stated before, obviously not the same "hardware" you're referring to.

b) You even asked what Best Hardware means to us.

No, I didn't.

Hardware is hardware... and to use that term is to make a clear distinction between it and software. You can twist it any direction you wish, it still says hardware which has nothing to do with the quality or quanitity of software... which is what the award is clearly based on as it should also be "totally obvious" that the XB360 in terms of hardware is not at the same level as the PS3, with perhaps the exception of the GPU.

I totally agree that the PS3 is better than the XBOX 360 in terms of internal hardware. However, it should be clear by now how they meant it. You think there are better terms to describe what they actually meant, but it's their choice how to name and define their award. Additionally, it is my opinion that the name and the definition are fine, even if it is technically incorrect if you look up the names on Wikipedia.

Then next time I suggest that you not ask questions like:

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

If you noted the emphasis on "of 2006", you would have noticed that this question is about the definition of the year 2006 and differs from the question:"What else does "the best hardware" mean to you?".

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

This isn't really going any where so here is my last comment on this topic:

I totally agree that the PS3 is better than the XBOX 360 in terms of internal hardware. However, it should be clear by now how they meant it. You think there are better terms to describe what they actually meant, but it's their choice how to name and define their award.

And it's the choice of others to point out how misleading it is (no matter what GameTrailers meant) to use the word "Hardware", because as you point out, the XB360 doesn't have the best hardware... thus making the headline "The Best Hardware of 2006" completely misleading. If they meant software, they should have said "software".

I suppose the question you may want to ask yourself is why are you so bent on defending their use of the word "hardware" when what they clearly mean is that the XB360 had the best "software" for 2006 - for which I don't think anyone is going to disagree with.

 

[the Interceptor]

And it's the choice of others to point out how misleading it is ( no matter what they meant) to use the word "Hardware", because as you point out, the XB360 doesn't have the best hardware... thus making the headline "The Best Hardware of 2006" completely misleading.

Everyone should know that only reading the headline of an article or the title of a thread does not neccessarily tell you everything about the content.

I suppose the question you may want to ask yourself is why are you so bent on defending their use of the word "hardware" when what they clearly mean is that the XB360 had the best "software" for 2006 - for which I don't think anyone is going to disagree with.

I'm so bent on defending them because I am a journalist. And if every reader of my magazine would contact me on every issue, stating that a headline does not entirely reflect the content of the article, I'd have stopped working a long time ago.
I read this thread because the title made me curious, and I watched the video in the first post. After that, it was absolutely clear to me how they define the terms "software" and "hardware". I do understand that technically, they are not correct. What I don't understand is how someone can not see this as artistic freedom, meaning that they named their awards to sound nice, and not to describe the content entirely correct.

 

[KieranMurphy]

$__600 PS3
$ 1,370 XB 360

[*]$250 5 Years XB Live

I don't play any games online therefore I won't be paying anything for a Gold account.

[*]$200 HD DVD Drive

I've no current interest in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray so I'm not going to be buying on of these add-ons. I'm going to wait till the consumer HD-DVD or BluRay players are as cheap as I can get a DVD player for today and when there's a decent selection of titles available for purchase and rental in the local video stores.

[*]$200 2x20GB Hard Drive

I'm not going to be upgrading the hard drive on my Xbox. My PS2 lasted for 5 years without any sort of hard drive.

[*]$100 Wireless Network Adapter

It's setup in the same room as my router. Why would I want to pay for a wireless adapter I'm not going to use?

[*]$ 50 Wireless Controller

My bundle came with an extra free wireless contoller which is just taking up space.

[*]$ 20 Play & Charge Kit

Definitely gonna get one of these. Changing batteries every week or two sucks ass.

[*]$150 Original Xbox (Unlike PS3, XB360 isn't backward compatible)

I don't own any original Xbox games or have any intention of buying any, so this is another non-issue.

lack of support for HD DVD games, HDMI, HDCP, Dolby True HD, DTS-HD, and 3rd party HDD's.

Like a lot (most?) of people who buy consoles, I just bought it so I could plug it into my TV and have some fun playing games. All that stuff about HDMI, TruHD, extra hard drives, Linux etc. means diddly squat to me (even with a PS3 I'd have to pay out cash to buy the necessary hardware to take advantage of them) and I'm sure to a hell of lot of people. If I was interested in those things then I'd wait until the PS3 was released over here. But I'm not, so I picked up a cheaper console that I wouldn't have to wait another 4 months for that does exactly what I want it to do.

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

To be honest, I'd love to have opted for a Wii, because it looks like a lot of fun and it's cheap, but I doubt it'll have much of a games library that'd interest me. It won't have the next GTA anyway, which would be a major issue for me.

PS3 also holds the advantage in operating system software and Java support, which has recently been open sourced by Sun.

Again, that's nothing that interests me remotely and I'm sure that it's a pretty small percentage of gamers who are interested in installing and using Linux on their games console.

I wonder how many of the fantastic hardware advantages the PS3 will actually be used or appreciated by a significant amount of people who buy it.

ETA: My comment was simply an offhand remark meant to reflect the reality that the Xbox360 is cheaper than the PS3 (it was for me anyway because a PS3 would simply cost me 200 euro more). It wasn't meant to be some sort of serious comment on the other pros and cons of either system.


KM.

 

[Pako]

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.