CNET Prize Fight: Xbox 360 Slim vs Sony PS3 Slim

http://cnettv.cnet.com/xbox-360-slim-vs-sony-ps3-slim/9742-1_53-50092148.html?tag=api

It was so close it's pretty much a tie.

Not bad but there loads of stuff to counter in that video.

Better than that crappy 9 month console war video.

Round 2 was way too general. They should've broken it down further. In any case, you can't go wrong with either console. At this point it comes down to preference.

@Ozsem: The TechnoBuffalo Console War was probably the best comparison I've ever seen. The go really in-depth, although I can see why one wouldn't like it, since they covered a lot of things the average consumer would not care about.

TRF wrote:

Round 2 was way too general. They should've broken it down further. In any case, you can't go wrong with either console. At this point it comes down to preference.

@Ozsem: The TechnoBuffalo Console War was probably the best comparison I've ever seen. The go really in-depth, although I can see why one wouldn't like it, since they covered a lot of things the average consumer would not care about.

Well it's really dated now since theres a 360 slim. I thought that they should have waited until the 360 redesign rather than compare the original 360 to the redesign PS3.

ghost23 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Round 2 was way too general. They should've broken it down further. In any case, you can't go wrong with either console. At this point it comes down to preference.

@Ozsem: The TechnoBuffalo Console War was probably the best comparison I've ever seen. The go really in-depth, although I can see why one wouldn't like it, since they covered a lot of things the average consumer would not care about.

Well it's really dated now since theres a 360 slim. I thought that they should have waited until the 360 redesign rather than compare the original 360 to the redesign PS3.

Yeah, the 360 Slim didn't come until the end. Maybe a re-do of the first eleven rounds is in order, although things like multiplats, exclusives, online, GPU, and CPU wouldn't change.

The TechnoBuffalo comparison is the best 1 I've seen so far, but they do need to update some stuff.

TRF wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Round 2 was way too general. They should've broken it down further. In any case, you can't go wrong with either console. At this point it comes down to preference.

@Ozsem: The TechnoBuffalo Console War was probably the best comparison I've ever seen. The go really in-depth, although I can see why one wouldn't like it, since they covered a lot of things the average consumer would not care about.

Well it's really dated now since theres a 360 slim. I thought that they should have waited until the 360 redesign rather than compare the original 360 to the redesign PS3.

Yeah, the 360 Slim didn't come until the end. Maybe a re-do of the first eleven rounds is in order, although things like multiplats, exclusives, online, GPU, and CPU wouldn't change.

Actually the CPU has changed for the 360 slim which is even better.

http://hothardware.com/News/New-Details-Emerge-On-Microsofts-XBox-360-Fusion-Processor/

Meh. I hate Cnet prizefight. I always find something to criticise in every single one, even the ones in which I agree with the outcome.

Round 6 was way too biased.

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Round 6 was way too biased.

How so? Both are gaming consoles, but personally I think the PS3 does a much better job in terms of being an all-around multimedia player. It's got one of the best Blu-Ray players built-in, and most Blu-Ray players are the same price or slightly less than the price of a PS3, which makes it a great bang for the buck, regardless of whether you care about the games or not.

TRF wrote:

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Round 6 was way too biased.

How so? Both are gaming consoles, but personally I think the PS3 does a much better job in terms of being an all-around multimedia player. It's got one of the best Blu-Ray players built-in, and most Blu-Ray players are the same price or slightly less than the price of a PS3, which makes it a great bang for the buck, regardless of whether you care about the games or not.

yep, i think the PS3 is better for multimedia purposes aswell. thing is I cant help but feel they should of made a more sterner effort in making it
a games machine first.

optimusprime wrote:

TRF wrote:

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Round 6 was way too biased.

How so? Both are gaming consoles, but personally I think the PS3 does a much better job in terms of being an all-around multimedia player. It's got one of the best Blu-Ray players built-in, and most Blu-Ray players are the same price or slightly less than the price of a PS3, which makes it a great bang for the buck, regardless of whether you care about the games or not.

yep, i think the PS3 is better for multimedia purposes aswell. thing is I cant help but feel they should of made a more sterner effort in making it
a games machine first.

QFT! Ever since Sony made the PS3 $600 (at first) in 2006 I have hated Sony since then. Then they decided to not focus on games until 2009 and 2010.

FullMetalKendo wrote:

optimusprime wrote:

TRF wrote:

FullMetalKendo wrote:

Round 6 was way too biased.

How so? Both are gaming consoles, but personally I think the PS3 does a much better job in terms of being an all-around multimedia player. It's got one of the best Blu-Ray players built-in, and most Blu-Ray players are the same price or slightly less than the price of a PS3, which makes it a great bang for the buck, regardless of whether you care about the games or not.

yep, i think the PS3 is better for multimedia purposes aswell. thing is I cant help but feel they should of made a more sterner effort in making it
a games machine first.

QFT! Ever since Sony made the PS3 $600 (at first) in 2006 I have hated Sony since then. Then they decided to not focus on games until 2009 and 2010.

They've had first-party support since the beginning, what are you talking about? They've always had games, maybe less than what they have now, but they did have games. Their first-party developers had been working on the games for a long time. You think Killzone 2 was a recent project? No, it was started a LONG time ago but wasn't finished until 2009.

Besides, an overpriced console isn't a reason to hate Sony. They've never done anything to you other than make a product out of your price range. How are they screwing you over in any way by doing that? If anything, you should be happy that they reduced the price despite initially losing money on their consoles.

TRF wrote:

Round 2 was way too general. They should've broken it down further. In any case, you can't go wrong with either console. At this point it comes down to preference.

@Ozsem: The TechnoBuffalo Console War was probably the best comparison I've ever seen. The go really in-depth, although I can see why one wouldn't like it, since they covered a lot of things the average consumer would not care about.

Well that and when they covered multiplatform and exclusive games they were being real subjective on the matter. The guy listed equal amounts of exclusives from both sides with high metascores yet he still declared the PS3 the winner in the one subject.. And I felt like he should have counted things like UI and media functions as 1/2 a point each. Basically the scoring wasn't weighed correctly.

Comparison videos are stupid anyways. They are too hard to make without some sort of bias. Especially CNET's...... one day they say Xbox is better, then another day they say PS3 is better.

Honestly though, the X360 and the PS3 are the only 2 competing consoles that have very few differences compared to the other generations. Ironically though there are more fanboys this generation than last.

TRF wrote:

Besides, an overpriced console isn't a reason to hate Sony. They've never done anything to you other than make a product out of your price range. How are they screwing you over in any way by doing that? If anything, you should be happy that they reduced the price despite initially losing money on their consoles.

More reasons i can add then just price.


No warranty over YLOD

PSN connection which people have problems with.

inferior third party games.

If Sony start charging second hand consumers for online play thats another one.

Delayed games.

Nintendo delays a game every 15 minutes. You can set your watch by it.

Ozsem wrote:

TRF wrote:

Besides, an overpriced console isn't a reason to hate Sony. They've never done anything to you other than make a product out of your price range. How are they screwing you over in any way by doing that? If anything, you should be happy that they reduced the price despite initially losing money on their consoles.

More reasons i can add then just price.


No warranty over YLOD
You've got me there. That's a legitimate complaint. There is a one-year warranty, but that's not enough.

PSN connection which people have problems with.
What do you expect from a free service? I don't think you can hate Sony for that.

inferior third party games.
If you're talking about multiplats, you can't fault Sony for that. That's the developer's fault, and the inferiority is incredibly minor.

If Sony start charging second hand consumers for online play thats another one.
Yeah, I agree, that would suck.

Delayed games.
You mean like Gran Turismo 5? I think that's the developer, not Sony. Do we fault Bethesda Softworks because id Software delayed RAGE? Do we fault Microsoft because Remedy delayed Alan Wake for years?

I don't like how Sony designed the PSP and removed PS2 backwards compatibility. Other than that, they've done nothing to screw me over. In comparison to most corporations, Sony treats their customers pretty well.

lol, it appears these guys like blueray, although there is one major flaw. They complained about XBL fees in round 6. Yet say nothing about how bluerays cost more than DVDs. Usually anywhere from 5-15 dollars on the same movie. It's essentially the same thing. You are paying for higher quality.

BlackStigma wrote:

lol, it appears these guys like blueray, although there is one major flaw. They complained about XBL fees in round 6. Yet say nothing about how bluerays cost more than DVDs. Usually anywhere from 5-15 dollars on the same movie. It's essentially the same thing. You are paying for higher quality.

Lol they are kinda contradicting themselves

moaning about paying a dollar a week, jesus christ and they are grown ups. i'd hate to be as tight as a frogs ass when it comes to money like some of them people

BlackStigma wrote:

lol, it appears these guys like blueray, although there is one major flaw. They complained about XBL fees in round 6. Yet say nothing about how bluerays cost more than DVDs. Usually anywhere from 5-15 dollars on the same movie. It's essentially the same thing. You are paying for higher quality.

There's a difference. What you said applies to general Blu-Ray player owners while paying for online only applies to Xbox LIVE users.

TRF wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

lol, it appears these guys like blueray, although there is one major flaw. They complained about XBL fees in round 6. Yet say nothing about how bluerays cost more than DVDs. Usually anywhere from 5-15 dollars on the same movie. It's essentially the same thing. You are paying for higher quality.

There's a difference. What you said applies to general Blu-Ray player owners while paying for online only applies to Xbox LIVE users.

Yes and XBL is not the only service that charges you to play online. If you play an MMO you usually get a month free trial, but then have to pay fees, just like XBL, only more expensive. That logic will apply to both.

BlackStigma wrote:

TRF wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

lol, it appears these guys like blueray, although there is one major flaw. They complained about XBL fees in round 6. Yet say nothing about how bluerays cost more than DVDs. Usually anywhere from 5-15 dollars on the same movie. It's essentially the same thing. You are paying for higher quality.

There's a difference. What you said applies to general Blu-Ray player owners while paying for online only applies to Xbox LIVE users.

Yes and XBL is not the only service that charges you to play online. If you play an MMO you usually get a month free trial, but then have to pay fees, just like XBL, only more expensive. That logic will apply to both.

Hm, that's true, I didn't take that into account. I suppose you're right, then.

TRF wrote:

PSN connection which people have problems with.
What do you expect from a free service? I don't think you can hate Sony for that.

inferior third party games.
If you're talking about multiplats, you can't fault Sony for that. That's the developer's fault, and the inferiority is incredibly minor.

Delayed games.
You mean like Gran Turismo 5? I think that's the developer, not Sony. Do we fault Bethesda Softworks because id Software delayed RAGE? Do we fault Microsoft because Remedy delayed Alan Wake for years?

So is Steam, but thats PC so im not sure you compare that, but alot of peeps tend to compare 360 to PC.


No not fully 100% blame sony, but if the hardware and software which sony have is hard to for the third party company to do, its not thier fault neither.


GT5 is developed by Polyphony Digital, which are an developing company of Sony Computer Entertainment so thats sony to blame fully. Also Socom 4 as another example which has been delayed. They are developed by Zipper Interactive which are owned by Sony Corporation so thats another one they are blamed for.