Maximus_Alex2003 wrote:

Aww, when did this happen.
Does that mean WinXP, 98, 95 support is also removed from newer consoles?

They were never installable.

No, I see what he is saying there. You need to look at the entire process. You first have to have the internet. Because since there is a large chance if you have the internet you have high speed internet (even my grandma does), why are you burning it to a disk?

Secondly if you are going to burn it to a disk, you are going to have to find where to download it, download it, then burn it to a disk. The process could take a little bit longer then a few moments.

Sony forcefully has firmware upgrades built into their UMDs for the PSP, it is beyond me why they don't do the same with their PS3 games.

Burning a 700MB CD takes roughly 5-15minutes. Downloading it will take forever.

You have to download it regardless of whether it's being downloaded to your PS3, or your computer, so that really doesn't matter. Also, those 5-15 minutes are relatively negligible.

...exactly. If you have to download it anyway, why not do it on the PS3?

You're straying away from the actual argument. Ham Doctor said that what would happen if someone had dial up and couldn't download it to their PS3. I said they could download it at night on their PC, or have a friend do it, and then they could burn it to a disc.

People still use dial up?

I've got 256 kbps ADSL, which may as well be dialup.

Ham Doctor wrote:

So wait, let me get this right, the Playstation 3 can use the Windows Media Center extender and applications then? Because if it could, I wasn't aware of this.

BlueRay being 10X greater is actually a matter of opinion. Yes, it can hold a lot of data and it is high definition. But it is also much more expensive then standard media.

In some cases aged movies don't look any better then a old VHS copy when put on BlueRay. You can remaster the hell out of a 20 year old movie, but the age is going to become apparent.

BlueRay isn't a better media, it is a enchanced media I don't want anything to do with. It's like comparing VHS tapes to Beta tapes, it's silly and repetitive. I'll wait for Holographic Disks to hit the market.

Meanwhile, the Xbox 360 is not only managing to pull off not using BlueRay disks and still coming off with near close to the same quality of games when compared to the Playstation 3, in some cases, it runs some games better then it's competitor.

Trying to say BlueRay is 10X better, thus the PS3 is 10X better then the Xbox 360 is not only ignorant, but fanboy-ish in nature.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/142584/ hd_dvd_vs_bluray_disc_a_history.html
BlueRay has the lead over HD DVD.
Point made.

Stop going all FanBoy and look at the facts as Black and White:
Cost.
Maintenance.
Performance.
Features.
Dates.
Community.
Stability vs. Errors.
And etc.

Take all of those facts and add them together, you will indeed find Playstation 3 to currently be ahead of X Box 360 in the competition.

I'm no 'FanBoy', I see things how they are in realism and actual fact. Not some stupid idea that boasting a certain console means it's better.

Would I buy both if I had the chance?
Yes.

Would I prefer one over the other?
No. I'd rather buy a newer Computer since it has a wider range of overall greatness compared to the consoles.

Does more storage count as a better quality?
Yes. With the multimedia society today, bigger is better in this topic.
BlueRay > HD DVD > DVD > CD.
Those are FACTS.
If BlueRay wasn't greater, then BlueRay wouldn't exist and still be in development ever since the early 2,000's.

Does the fact that Sony is smarter about releasing their products compared to Microsoft matter?
Yes. Time is money and value.
If they were released at the same time, given that development is rumored to be greater for the Playstation 3 than the X Box 360, the game base would be fairly equal.
Which leads to Errors and Stability.
Microsoft's MAJOR flaw within the X Box 360 is that they released it too fast to just rake in cash compared to the PS3.
It's obvious that vigorous bug hunting wasn't taken. Either that or they ignored the errors.
Microsoft was scared that Sony was coming out with the PS3.
XBox (Original) > PS2.
Microsoft knew that and so did Sony.
So, Sony now had some competition which creates motivation.
That's why the PS3 has far more features and abilities over the X Box 360 which also explains why the PS3 wasn't released earlier (they postponed several release dates for adding more features).
Sony has the upper hand in this David(Sony) vs Goliath(Microsoft) battle.

Overall, if you go back to square one...
The X Box 360 was Pure Game with Moderate Music and Movies.
The Playstation 3 was all about fitting everything into a console, without making it a PC styled system.

Game, Music, Movies vs. A Console Built like a hyped up PC.

Also, the major major major turnoff for me and the X Box 360 is how fast you break your bank with XBoxLive, Points, and etc.
Although PS3 may have a far less selection of add-ons, most of the add-ons (last time I checked) were little to nothing cost while the X Box 360 has you go and spend $50+ for a single map in a FPS or a Skin Pack for an RPG.
Overall, in the end... The X Box 360 will cost more(if you include Online).
Money is tough these days in America and honestly, I'd rather buy a game I know my system wont scratch or have problems with rather than having those issues and having to constantly spend money on things that make a game keep appeal.