General discussion

Wii vs. Xbox360 vs. PS3

Which one would you buy and why? I'll tell you right now, the only company that will be getting my money is Nintendo. Why would I want to pay 400 bucks for an Xbox with better graphics? Why would I want to pay 600 bucks for a PS2 with better graphics, and half-baked Wii-like controls? Granted the Blu-Ray could be important to those who want it but I personally dont care much about Blu-Ray so Why should I spend THREE TIMES AS MUCH on the PS3?! Plus, what good games does Xbox have besides Halo - and I mean FUN to play GOOD games - not many. PS3 has a bunch of pretty good ones but 600 bucks is too expensive for most consumers to justify spending in my opinion. Plus, the games for PS3 will very likely be more expensive considering they are Blu-Ray. . . I want something completely different and fun to play - Imagine the control you could have over first person shooters with the Wii! And sweet nintendo-only titles such as Zelda: Twilight Princess (or should I say Twiiliight) and Super Mario Galaxy - how can you resist! And I completely forgot about being able to play all the nintendo classics from back on the original NES and SNES. . . Hopefully they will be cheap.

Ha, I kinda sound like a Nintendo spokesperson but it just seems like it has a lot of potential - I was massively dissappointed with the gamecube (But then again I done own any of the really great games so I'll have to pick some) but I am putting my money on Nintendo this round: Who agrees with me? If you dont, which would you be most likely to buy and why?

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Wii vs. Xbox360 vs. PS3
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Wii vs. Xbox360 vs. PS3
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.
Comments
- Collapse -
Nintendo

They are on the Forbes "Top 2000 Companies Around the World" list. I assume you have to be financiall decent to be on that list or at least financially able, unlike some people say that they are bankrupt or going to be. Liars.

- Collapse -
President?

Well, after losing 2 gens in a row, youd think nintendos home console deficit would put them in a pretty bad financial state. The only thing nintendo is currently making money from is the DS.

Well, i can watch news, get weather and serf the web on my computer too. Those are feature that dont have anything to do with games. Press conferences actually provide a lot of info on upcomming games,events, etc.

If you play so many games on yur computer, then dont buy a wii. The computer forums are on another page.

Well duh. Internet companies make money of of providing the internet. Otherwise they wouldnt provide it. I would hope the ds connect is fast. I dont want loding screens. Id get a psp if i wanted those.

- Collapse -
HA

"Well, after losing 2 gens in a row, youd think nintendos home console deficit would put them in a pretty bad financial state. The only thing nintendo is currently making money from is the DS."

exactly my point, you only think they are in debt. Somewhere in this forum is link to their actuall earning find it it doesn't look like they are in bad shape to me.

When did a play so many games on my computer. I am going to buy the Wii.

They would provide it for free but if you haven't noticed ones with power tend to want more power. but i don't want to get into that.

- Collapse -
Wii Connect 24 is free

Wii Connect 24 is free.

See, Xbox has to charge basicly because they give the hardware away, they are in the hole from day one and they need to sell software and services in order to make money on the up front hardware loss. I had read that the Xbox 360 is loosing more than $150 per premium bundle up front.

Nintendo has constantly stated, they do not sell hardware at a loss, sure the software is still the most profitable side of the buisness, but still, they do not have to scramble to re coup heavy losses on the hardware end like Microsoft does.

Online servers are not as expensive as they used to be, especialy for the limited bandwidth something like the Wii is going to require. Look around online, you can rent a advanced dedicated server for the latest online games at super low pings for under a twenty spot, so its realy not that expensive.

Nintnedo will give away online gameplay, knowing that the more time you spend on Wii connect, the more virtual console titles you will buy to subsidise the service, Nintendo wont need to charge $50 a year like Microsoft.

- Collapse -
I heard differently

If someone is giving their hardware away, its nintendo. The ds is actually supposed to cost as much as a psp core does today. But they sell it at a loss knowing that chances are, people will buy their first party games. Same with the wii (i dont know if they could justify selling it at a higher price though).

I heard theat the 360 is sold at a break even price. No profit, no loss.

- Collapse -
Xbox360 definately taking a loss/Wii not out of box..
- Collapse -
Not True

Microsoft does lose a bit of money building the 360. About a $100 per unit, not counting controllers and power supply.

I'de still buy the Wii if it was $399.99

- Collapse -
DS

nintendo makes profit on it's handheld gaming systems too.

it's the PSP that sells at a loss.

- Collapse -
also

nintendo makes profit on it's handheld gaming systems too.

it's the PSP that sells at a loss.

- Collapse -
kinda right...

I totally agree that the PS3 will have large volumes of hardware failures as did the 360 when it came out. It is using 2 brand new pieces of technology and history says that there will be issues. Forcing Blu-ray on everyone was a bad choice too...they will be getting a cheap BR player with slow load times that is put next to a processor that runs hotter than hell. Good luck trying to protect the vid card and BR drive from heat damage...MS even screwed their heat protection film up at first.

PS3 has only a couple games that interest me. The problem with the PS3 is that developing a game for them that will truly take advantage of the technology will cost alot more than developing for the 360 or Wii. Filling up a BR disk with content would run some developers bankrupt, so what you are going to get is developers opting to just develop games with the 360 and Wii in mind and then porting them over to the PS3 so they can keep developing costs down.

Resistance: FOM looks pretty good, but most of the "amazing" graphics are gonna be cut scenes. NO developer would spend the money to make 1080p in-game graphics, they will just stick to cutscenes for that.

Oh and don't even start with Gran Turismo...they are going to sell you a shell of a game and then make you pay per car that you want and per track. If you bought every car and every track the game would be $600, yeah great way to screw your customers.

Once the bugs are worked out I think the PS3 will be a great machine, and developers will get used to programming for the cell processor over time, but if that isn't for 3 or 4 years they are screwed bc by that time we will be hearing talk about the next Xbox coming out.

MS is in control of when the next generation after this one occurs and you can bet that they will want to time it perfectly so that once the PS3 hits its stride, MS will have a bigger and badder console ready to go.

- Collapse -
Who's played it?

There is alot of Sony and Nintendo bashing here(especially Sony) and so I wonder which one of you has played it? Give me first hand account of these massive harware failures and overheating. Was it a nightmare to get it fixed? How much did they charge you? SHIPPING? OMG. Tell me about their horrible software lineup before they even come out. Tell me how neither has any "must have" titles though you don't have the slightest clue what games are in development. Lets talk about how 1080p is overblown though by your own calculations 90% of people down own and therefore haven't seen 1080p in action. Many said the same about HD. Anybody? How about you sir? Nothing? If you guys love 360 so much that's great, please enjoy your system. Let us others rot with ours.

BTW everyone seems to focus negatively on the 1080p. Well FYI PS3 supports 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. So those who have it can enjoy, and others can enjoy 1080i or 720p or even 480.

- Collapse -
Futher comments on 1080P

Just to clear the air on the whole 1080P debate.

I do not think of 1080P as a negative thing. It looks amazing, but my point is that 720P and 1080I look amazing too. I have seen some 1080P big screen demo's first hand both with native and upscaled content, and unless the display was huge, like 65" huge and standing realy close to inspect, I did not see any real added benifit. I know this is going to upset some of the early adopters, but I find it to be mostly electronics marketing hype.

And, like other posters have stated, I dont think PS3 developers are going to go out of their way to spec in 1080P native, when 720P meets a acceptable spec on resolution and then they can optimise for some more on screen geometry. Its almost like the first gen Xbox, HD was possible, but not speced in fully, so maybe 5% of all Xbox games ended up in a true HD resolution, and many just opted for 480P being the norm for that system. Now Xbox360 seems locked in at 720P native, upscalling to 1080I on sets that require it, and it all frankly looks amazing. So why stress over 1080P? Is it realy the innovation that is going to take HI Def gaming to the next level? I doubt it to be honest, its just hype, Sony is selling a number, and some people will buy it, thats not innovation.

For folks that know computers, remember the AMD first started making headway in the market with the early slot A Athlon CPU's over the Pentium III? At the end of the day the Pentium III clocked higher but did not perform as well in most benchmarks, but to compete, AMD had to change to a numbering strategy to compaire themselves with Intel's higher core clock speed, because at the end of the day, people will buy a higher number, weather it benifits them or not. The AMD clocked 200 megahertz slower actualy outperformed a pentium at the higher speed, but in the game of marketing, the higher number would nearly allways win, I mean, the number is higher, it must be faster right?, Wrong!! Its just marketing, and Im affraid thats what 1080P is, a marketing numbers game to convince you to spend more cash on new high end HD sets, and HDMI cables that you realy dont need to get a great Hi Def experince. 720P and 1080I over component look amazing, dont stress that its not 1080P over HDMI, its not worth the headache.

- Collapse -
swah

dude, if you cannot tell the difference between 1080p and the other resolution signals maybe you should get your eyes checked.

And I can speculate to what will happen given past history and also educated guesses. I know that there are no problems yet, but look at what happened to more than half of the PS3 consoles at TGS...they overheated and crashed, yeah thats a good sign.

If you think that using 2 brand new pieces of hardware in one high powered machine is not at high risk for hardware failure then you are nuts.

- Collapse -
Bearvp, I see just fine, better than you most likely....

Bearvp

I gotta tell ya, I have had better than 20/20 all my life, I go to the batting cage every few months and still swat line drives in the fast cage without any seeing aid or any kind, and Im tellin ya, unless the screen is huge, and your standing realy close, 1080I and 1080P look pretty much the same. Now, on a 65"+ screen, or a huge front projection display, you might be able to make a slim arguement, but on a average siged HD set, say between 32" and 51" which most people own and buy, you are not going to see it sitting more than six feet away which most folks do. The only practical application I see for 1080P is for huge front projection set ups, and even then the advantage is slim, and yes, I have looked extensively at demo's with both native and upscalled content.

Where have you dont your seeing eye tests? What displays, where, how big of a difference would you say it made over 1080I? Becasue, Im still saying its electronics company marketing hype until someone convinces me otherwise.

Would you aregue that someone should spend about 50% more on a comporable 1080P set over a 720P design, because from what I have seen thats what it costs right now, aprox 50% over the top, and frankly, I dont see any real benifit, definately not one Id be willing to part with hundreds of dollars for.

- Collapse -
1080p/60frps

1. There has been serveral pictures and articles ie proof that suppports this in Japan already. PS3 has a hand full of titles 1080p/60frps amazing just amazing.

2. Not even the newest TVs such as the sony xbr3, the sharp D62 can produce 1080p with component cables. I still have yet to see a TV that can.

3. Anyone who pays $200 bucks to up convert their 360 to 1080p would be making a mistake and just wasting money. I mean even if I could just afford to take $200 dollars and wipe my butt with it and flush it down the toilet doesn't mean I would do it. lt's probally the worst thing you could do with $200 bucks. You cannot get a true 1080p/60frps with component cables. I don't even think it's technically possible, to get a 1080p/20/30rate with component cables and if there is a TV that can do it, hats off- that's one expenisive/amazing TV.

- Collapse -
ha

Yeah the PS3 can do 1080p/60fps but more than half of the consoles running those specs over heated and crapped out...did you see the pictures of Sony people having to hold huge fans up for the consoles to stay cool?

Also, IGN recently reported that the 360 IS capable of outputing a digital signal, so that would mean an HDMI cabel will most likely be avaiable in the near future. The only thing holding it up before was that everyone thought the 360 only output was in analog (component). Once the HDMI cabel is out, the HD-DVD add-on is a better buy.

- Collapse -
Im sorry to break it to you

1# One of the reasons why PS3 over heated was becuase they were incased in plastic cases, so they wouldnt get stolen. No ventalation=overheating. IGN UK just got one of the first demo/not fully finished ps3 they had no issue with over heating when testing out the device.
*****nuffsaid

#2 360 currently does not have HDMI and even if they do get HDMI it will be upconvereted and will never ever ever ever be true 1080p, yeah they are doing a great job trying but ms knows the sad truth, its a scam. They know dayum well you cannot get a 1080p without HDMI. Right now 360 does not or even plan on having HDMI. Not even an update could fix this issue. Paying 200 bucks to get HD-DVD on your Xbox is a joke.

- Collapse -
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure

My SOP for when each of the Big Three (Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft) bring out a new round of hardware, I do the same thing:

1. Buy whatever Nintendo puts out first. Primarily because they are usually the low buck best bet. Secondarily because they put out good gaming systems, period.

2. Buy the Sony product whenever it goes second generation (i.e. PS One, the trimline PS2) because they have the vast catelogue.

But my position may have changed. I'm still looking at Nintendo's Wii, primarily because of the new Zelda and the fun-sounding control system. But I may never buy the PS3. And here's why:

1. Despite the extreme specs, I'm not interested in Blu-ray. I hope the PS3 doesn't legitimize this high definition format. I'm not in love with HD-DVD either, but it is more consumer friendly than Blu-ray.

2. Sony's business practices (concerning DRM and root-kits) make me angry.

3. Sony's general downward slide in quality in virtually all categories. (Wega being the only thing they've held onto so far.) Sony used to mean something. It used to mean quality. But this is no longer the case.

So, what am I gonna do next to add to my Wii and DS and Dreamcast and PS2 and Nintendo 64? I'm honestly thinking about the Xbox 360.

Why?

Sure, the 360 is expensive. And yes, the focus seems to be First Person Shooters (FPS) which is not my thing, but in a year or two, when the price drops, and the Xbox has more catelogue and I've gotten all the Wii I can handle, it will be my replacement for the PS2.

Unless and until Sony does something about quality, and DRM, then I will be avoiding the PS3, no matter how many versions they come out with.

- Collapse -
Agree 100% on points #2 and #3

2. Sony's business practices (concerning DRM and root-kits) make me angry.

3. Sony's general downward slide in quality in virtually all categories. (Wega being the only thing they've held onto so far.) Sony used to mean something. It used to mean quality. But this is no longer the case.

I have to agree 100% on these two points. DRM in general has been a consumer nightmare, but anyone that owns a Sony Net MD, or Net Walkman knows what a nightmare there DRM software is for the user, its awful.

Also correct about the quality position, its just not what it used to be. So many consumer electronics offerings are so much more appealing these days, its a shame realy, because 15 years ago, Sony was a quality mark, but now, they are like any big box brand, if not a little worse.

- Collapse -
My opinion on the next gen war of consoles.

--Just before i start ranting on, anyone else get kicks out of reading like the first 2 pages of noobs shouting all the features that arent in the ps3 anymore? "dualshock!!11!" heh..

[Wii]:
ups: Cheap, simple, nice kid looking games etc (some parents dont want to spend $400 on a console ontop of violent games, new ideas for gaming(kinda)
downs: Worse graphics than the other 2 next gen consoles, motion controller (in my opinion) is a gimmic (not really a down, just putting it here), no dvd playing capabilities.

So, I just listed down what I think are the ups and downs of the wii are, you can argue about them between yourselves, but really its just what i think of the console.
-I Think that the wii, isnt really next gen.. It is their next console, but its just not hitting the next gen thing for me. If you look at it, you will see simple graphical games, like the sport games and such, you could argue that these are meant to be like this on purpose, but it looks stupid. Then again, there are games like zelda which are brilliant, but they have been worked on by nintendo with a huge budget, they want this game perfect. (If you saw the pics of the farcry wii game you will know what to expect of some games making a half *** effort on the wii)
-If you are playing the wii for a long period of time, your arm will be dead, like the game is forcing you to play interactively with the remote, but it will be hard after a while of having to point at the screen (like in a shooter) rather than resting the controller on your lap while playing or something.
-No dvd playback on the wii? This is annoying, because everyone has dvd's and both the other consoles have dvd playback, so why not this console? Its not a multimedia console, its focused mainly on games.

[360]:
Ups:
-Huge headstart, its been out for over a year, more games, bugs in the hardware are getting fixed, and there are more games to choose from as of now.
-Great online community (sure, having 12 year olds screaming at you on live isnt great, but being able to play most of the games with your friends is good)
-Hd games (looks better than the wii, not sure about the ps3) makes it look good.

Downs:
-expensive (in the middle expensive gaming, cheaper than the ps3, but still expensive.)
-Hardware faults (loads of people are facing hardware faults and are either having them replaced under warranty, or paid to get repaired, this could be annoying.
-overheating issues (in relation to the hardware faults, the powerblock mostly)
-doesnt play hd-dvd's (you need an extra external hd dvd player for it)

Although the ps3 does look nice, this is more affordable, and it has more games out right now, so you could choose your games you want to get etc before wasting money on a console and end up with a console you dont have any games for..
It is better than the wii, but more expensive, and it is cheaper than the ps3 but less powerfull. Its in the middle, so its good for me.

[Ps3]:
ups:
-blue ray drive built in (plays blue ray, dvd's, cds etc) many people will buy this just for a cheap blue ray player, as other blue ray drives are more expensive than the ps3.
-powerful (it has a lot of potential as a games console, if they make games that use the whole power of the console and not just a slice of what it can do, then it would ba amazing, as currently, the games made right now have kinda been rushed for launch, but in the future you can only expect games to get better.
-tilting controller (has a tilting controller, although this is a cool thing, it would be annoying, as it would be shoved in your face to flick the controller one way or another to move where others would just want to use the analoge sticks.

downs:
-no dual shock (this is in the 360 and the wii, it is great, you can tell if you are shot, crash a car etc. They dont really have a good escuse not to include the dual shock in their controllers..
-no online gaming system/support (they have not made an official online support, like community unlike the 360, they have left it up to the developers. They are failing to recodnise how much online playing of games means to people, and by leaving it up to the developers, you are going to have the same kind of online play as the ps2.. crap hard to use, and weirdo's on it)
- damn expensive (just damn! Im waiting a good 2 years before even thinking about buying this console, it is so expensive, europeans get it worse, we get it delayed and vat put on top of it (17.5%))
- Weak launch line up (the wii and the ps3 are alike, they both dont have appealing games to me, and to many others, unlike the 360 which has a huge library of games you can choose from.)

Overall, you cant say who is going to win the console war.
The wii will be for the younger age group, as the parents will buy the cheaper and more child freindly console.
The 360 is what most people are going to get right now, and they have a huge advantage against the 2 other consoles, so the other 2 have to get their act together and catch up. At the rate the 360 is going, they could be developing their next console before sony or nintendo do.
The ps3 will have a weak launch, but it will pull itself onto its feet, and by like 2008 or 2009, it will easily be in the lead if it gets its act together and makes decent and origional games. As it has the potential to do so.
Im going to get the 360, wait 2 or 3 years then get the ps3 Silly

- Collapse -
Wii Control

OrkEater, alot of good info in your post.

Just curious about one thing,

I do find that alot of people refer to the Wii controler as a "gimmick". I think its innovation personaly. I mean when the 2nd stick on the dual shock controler was basicly added for Medal of Honor on the origional Playstation many folks considered that a gimmick at first, but now its essential to console design. The analog stick on the first N64 by many was considered a bit of a gimmick, but imagine Mario 64 and Zelda Occarina of Time without it, that was a truely innovative controler design for its time, and the DS, many people feel the touch screen and microphone are "gimmicks", but I think they are also innovative ways to play new types of games.

By calling the Wii mote a gimmick, do you feel it lacks innovation? I dont know about you, but the idea that Im going to be able to shove a guy off of me with the shield then slash him in the new Zelda game, thats a huge advnace in control to me.

I agree on most points about the 360 though, some amazing looking stuff is on that console, and with Gears of War coming out before the Wii's Launch, it might steel a little of Nintendo's Thunder. We just have to see how the Wii mote works in practice when it finaly comes out, but I dont think its being fair to dismiss it as a gimmick outright.

Thanks.

- Collapse -
Tired arm

The wii controller won't tire you out. The energetic movements shown in the adds are just exaggerations, the large sweeping arm movements could probably be easily simulated with a flick of your wrist, and the ones that probably can't like the tennis, the games likely won't last much longer than a few minutes so you would have to be incredibly unfit so be tired out by that. Shooters won't be tiring at all, although you will not be able to rest the controller on your lap, pointing the controller at the screen won't fatigue you so much that the game is unplayable, I usually hold my controller when playing shooters on my xbox and I can still play for several hours without getting a tired arm. However from what I've seen the wii doesn't have any interesting shooters so it shouldn't be a problem anyway.

- Collapse -
Xbox360 ftw

Well I'm surprised that nobody has noticed this but if you compare the sales of the consoles (pre-orders don't count) both the wii and the PS3 have absolutely 0 sales whereas the Xbox360 has many. If the consoles follow this trend then by the end of this generation of consoles Xbox360 will have soled several billion consoles and PS3 and nintendo wii will have zero sales.

- Collapse -
Maybe

Probably because PS3 and Wii aren't out yet. Just a thought.

- Collapse -
heh

He was just messing with you all, trying to get you to flame him, he likes that kind of thing...
I know him, dont pay attention to his flamey stupidity.. lol

But he has a point, 360 has a huge head start..

- Collapse -
What is so great about Nintendo?

I am always surprised when someone outside of Japan says that they prefer a home console from Nintendo over something that Microsoft or Sony have to offer.
I have never bought a console from Nintendo and then not regreted it. I cant think of a single Nintendo game that I completed besides Ocarina of Time as I would simply get bored and walk away.
I had an Xbox and loved it and I will certainly be getting a 360 in the New Year. I know the PS3 is more powerful and I dont give a damn about XBox Live but the only game that looks mildly interesting for the PS3 is Lair and that doesnt stand up to Microsoft's library of excellant upcoming software.
I have to admit though that I am rooting for Sony in the upcoming console war simply because I believe they are the underdog and will eventually lose out to Micrsoft. It doesnt really matter to Microsoft if the 360 does not make much money.
For those who want Sony to fail I think you should consider Microsofts intentions when they entered the console market. Sure they want to sell consoles to make a profit but they also want to kill the only real competition when it comes to a home network hub. They probably wouldnt even have bothered with the Xbox if Sony had not been so obvious in their intentions with the PS3. Sony made it clear instead of a PC with Microsofts expensive media software loaded onto it you could get a PS3 - even now Ken keeps going on about how its essentially a computer.

- Collapse -
This discussion

has served it's purpose, I feel.

4 months old, and over 360 posts, it's time to put it to bed.

I have locked it down.

Mark

CNET Forums

Forum Info