Video Games & Consoles forum

General discussion

I'm a fanboy...

by freakwithahat / February 27, 2007 2:40 PM PST

of gaming. I'm sick and tired of all the arguing about what console is the best. They're all different and good in their own ways. The Wii's cheap, unique, and fun, but it's graphics are last gen! The 360 is great for games, graphics are decent, but full HD capability isn't here yet (no high definition movie format supported out of the box) and the PS3 is the beast of them all, but the most expensive. In the HD console wars (Wii not part of) it's actually pretty even if you try to even everything out.

Right now, the 360 is ahead due to games and the PS3's power hasn't been exploited. For the gamer and gamer alone, the 360 is good enough, that is until GTA IV comes out :P. But if you're a multimedia freak, the PS3 should be your choice. It has integrated Wi-Fi and a built-in Blu-Ray player. Hard drive storage won't be looked at as both support external hard drives.

Here's the situation we're looking at:

Pro Edition-HD movie experience-Wireless connectivity-HD cables
400 200 100 0

Premium Edition-HD movie experience-Wireless connectivity-HD cables
600 0 0 25

Total: 360 PS3
$700 $625

So if you're big on multimedia, go with the PS3, in the end it's cheaper, and has HDMI, built in card reader, and a larger hard drive.
If you couldn't care less about multimedia, go 360. Plus, it has GoW!
If you're on a budget, go with the Wii.

As for me... I'm going PS3, but I love the multimedia hub functionality, even though it's right next to my computer. Besides, I just love the Metal Gear Solid series!

Take your pick as to which console is for you, just don't start flame wars about it! Dang... I might've just started one...

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: I'm a fanboy...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: I'm a fanboy...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I agree with you but
by bkchurch / February 27, 2007 8:47 PM PST
In reply to: I'm a fanboy...

I agree that all the consoles are great but you should buy a console based on the games you want that are available on that platform, multimedia functionality should be a secondary thought. Btw what do you mean the 360 has decent graphics? It's only slightly less powerful than the PS3 and it's far easier to develop for which puts its graphics on the same level.

Collapse -
agree...sort of
by bevillan / February 27, 2007 11:32 PM PST
In reply to: I'm a fanboy...

I agree that people arguing price difference as the main reason for a console over another are a bit off (in Japan and America at least since PS3 is over $800 USD in Europe, which is insane).

You do ignore the fact that 360 gives consumers a choice to invest in a hi-def player or not though. To me, it is still too early to invest in either format because standalone players are way too expensive and no one that is serious about movies watches disks on a console anyway.

On straight gaming, the 360 is the best between the PS3 and itself. The catalog of games is miles beyond what PS3 offers (you can only play Resistance so many times) and Xbox Live blows the free Sony service out of the water.

PS3 has better features, but in terms of performance the two systems time and time again have shown to be equal.

Collapse -
by freakwithahat / February 28, 2007 7:50 AM PST
In reply to: agree...sort of

I must admit you are right in not forcing someone to invest in a HD movie format, but Blu-ray will be around for a while, whether or not it "wins" the war, because of the PS3, so I don't really see that as a disadvantage.

I also agree the Xbox Live is much better than the PS3's online interface, but I still prefer the PS3's because it is free.

As to which is superior games and such, I personally think that the PS3's launch, despite the system shortages, pricing, faults, etc. was more successful than that of the 360s. After all, what must-have shooter (by far the most popular genre) was out at the 360's launch... Perfect Dark Zero? So I think the PS3 is going to have a better first year, games-wise, than the 360. I think Sony has another winner due to the must-haves in Final Fantasy and GTA, but Halo 3 might just save the world all over again, so we'll see. It's impossible to say whose library is better seeing as one has been out for 3 months, the other 15.

Collapse -
Well bear in mind
by bkchurch / February 28, 2007 8:10 AM PST
In reply to: agree...sort of

The PS3 has only been out for 3 months, give it time to build it's library, Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword, and Lair are all coming right up and that's just the tip of the iceberg of course the 360 has a slew of good games coming this year to so it should be an interesting console battle. Also bear in mind though not everyone may want the PS3's added multimedia functionality but for those who do it's a better value. The PS3 is $600, with a built in Blu-Ray player, wireless internet, and free online service that given some time should be able to compete with XBL (though I doubt it will beat XBL's quality anytime soon). The 360 is $400 (and it's hard drive is 40gb's smaller), the wifi adapter costs $100 (which is highway robbery for a feature that should be built into the system), the HD-DVD player is $200, and assuming the 360 has four more years of life XBL will run you another $200 over that time period. So that makes the 360 $300 more expensive to give it all the features of the PS3 only with 40gb less hard drive space, 2 annoying peripherals plugged into the 360 taking up more space, and a high def player that doesn't have an HDMI port and is more than likely to soon be obsolete (face it people with the number of PS3's that are going to be in people's homes Blu-Ray will have already won before the average consumer even decides they want a high-def player). Don't get me wrong I love em both I need a wireless internet adapter in my consoles anyway (like most people, that's why Sony and Nintendo so intelligently built the feature into their consoles) and if I'm getting a Blu-Ray player out of it then great, I like most people don't need it now but once I have my HDTV it'll be pretty nice having a machine that plays those beautiful high-def discs. O and even assuming you don't want the HD-DVD player the 360 still costs $600-$700 if you plan to play online and if you need the wireless adapter.

Collapse -
wireless adapter
by bevillan / March 1, 2007 1:34 AM PST
In reply to: Well bear in mind

I agree that $100 for the wireless adapter is insane...but most people (like me) use their 360s in their home theaters which 9 times out of 10 have the cable modem closely located to allow for it to be wired to the router.

And the extra space on the PS3 HDD is nice too, but bear in mind that the PS3 uses a huge chunk of that space while playing a game as a sort of cache (in the 4 GB realm). I haven't even come close to running out of space on my 20 GB 360 HDD but then again I do not download demos or movies. MS most likely will release a larger HDD (circa 100 GB) next Xmas and probably charge a crapload for it, but I'll pass.

It really comes down to what games you like best...if you like RPGs, get a PS3. If you like FPS and shooters, get a 360. GTA is no longer a reason to get a PS3 because it is cross platform.

Most likely I will end up buying a Blu-ray player, but I'd rather wait for a standalone to be about $300 since anyone serious about home theater would not use a video game console as their main movie disk player.

Collapse -
Just curious
by bkchurch / March 1, 2007 10:11 AM PST
In reply to: wireless adapter

Why wouldn't you use a console as a player if you're "serious" about home theater? DVD's look just as good on a PS2 or X-Box as they do on any other good player and the PS3 has shown to be very good quality Blu-Ray player. To me it makes more since to use the console just so you have one less box in your entertainment area.

Collapse -
convenience... in a weird way
by freakwithahat / March 1, 2007 11:46 AM PST
In reply to: Just curious

Game consoles don't exactly have a very "polished" look. I mean the PS3 looks like something Darth Vader would routinely use! And past consoles have been no different. Also, at least in the PS3's case, some consoles aren't stackable, which is often a must for home theater owners with a lot of components.

Collapse -
by bevillan / March 1, 2007 11:16 PM PST
In reply to: Just curious

Sure game consoles can play DVDs just fine but they usually are very loud when compared to standalone DVD players and lack a ton of features that let you tweak your picture and sound settings. That is why no one who is serious about home theater uses videogame consoles to watch movies.

Collapse -
Ok but
by bkchurch / March 2, 2007 7:58 AM PST
In reply to: features

That's not really the average consumer is it? First of all how loud a piece of equipment is has never phased me when I started watching a movie or playing a game because either I don't even notice the background noise or the sound from the movie/game is drowning it out. Second of all other than home theater buffs or total videophiles how many people really take the time to "tweak" their picture settings on a DVD player? No one I know other than myself could probably even tell you the difference between something basic like 720p and 1080p or 4:3 and 16:9 so I think it's safe to say the average guy is just dropping in the disc and letting it play, myself included since as long I can set the resolution output and aspect ratio (which the PS3 does) I'm fine and dandy.

Collapse -
Hey Fanboy...
by analyzerbunny / March 8, 2007 5:52 AM PST
In reply to: Ok but

You know youre a PS3 Fanboy when you're sitting on your couch admiring your "serious home theater set up", with your best girl at your side, drinks poured, lights dimmed, popcorn popped, slide the BluRay disc in and then you have to pick up the GAME CONTROLLER to start the movie.

Thats why PS3 has a ways to go to be considered a serious movie playing unit. I still want one, but I'd be much happier if I could program the controls to run off my somewhat expensive universal remote.


Collapse -
Lol yea i'm obviously a huge fanboy
by bkchurch / March 8, 2007 6:48 AM PST
In reply to: Hey Fanboy...

That's why I own an N64, PS1, PS2, GC, X-Box, DS Lite, PSP, and plan to buy a 360, Wii, and PS3. Yea sounds like the definition of a fanboy to me [/sarcasm]. Anyway yea I don't really have a problem picking up the game controller to hit the play button on a movie when the alternative is dishing out hundreds of dollars on another player that does the exact same thing and is one more device to clutter up my already crowded home entertainment area, but if you want to waste your money buying a stand-alone player just because your fancy remote makes you feel safe and secure then go ahead, I'd rather spend it on stuff that I don't already have.

Collapse -
standalone vs console
by bevillan / March 9, 2007 12:21 AM PST

To you and others like you may not care about having a console for a DVD/BR/HD-DVD player but to many others running a DVD/BR/HD-DVD from a console is a last resort. Remotes are the way to go, not controllers, and most of the time the remotes that they release as accessories for the consoles are crap.

Remote issue aside, standalones have many more features than consoles for movie playback. Like you said you don't care about features but many of us do like to tweak our players.

Collapse -
Fair enough
by bkchurch / March 9, 2007 9:39 AM PST
In reply to: standalone vs console

I'm still pretty sure your average consumer doesn't tend to care about tweaking his/her settings or what the remote is like though, but regardless I do see your point.

Collapse -
congratulations fanboy!!
by nucleardog / March 16, 2007 10:53 PM PDT
In reply to: Fair enough

now get back in the closet...

Collapse -
by bkchurch / March 17, 2007 1:02 AM PDT

Your ignorance amuses me.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

The Samsung RF23M8090SG

One of the best French door fridges we've tested

A good-looking fridge with useful features like an auto-filling water pitcher and a temperature-adjustable "FlexZone" drawer. It was a near-flawless performer in our cooling tests.