Which mulitplatform 360/PS3 games are significantly better on one platform?

[shopkins]

Now that I'm collecting both PS3 and 360 I've been thinking that I now have to choose between platforms when I buy a multi-platform game, and sometimes reviews only seem to give vague information about what is the best version. I thought this might be a useful thread, to try and catalog in a detailed way which of the two versions are superior in terms of extras and available downloadable content and things like graphics, framerate, sound and glitchiness. I think controller preference shouldn't be a factor for the purposes of this thread because that's mostly subjective, just the performance and the content of the game itself. I searched and couldn't find another thread like this, but if it's redundant please feel free to close or move it.

So, what games seem to be much better on one platform than they are on another? I know that Fallout 3 seems to have more serious glitches on the PS3, although it has a lot of glitches on both platforms anyway.

[roushimsx]

Fallout 3 on PS3 seems to have issues with whenever friends log on/log off of PSN or some other insane action. So 360 one there.

Orange Box is better on 360 in terms of load times (especially if you install it to the hard drive. holy fuck!), but the PS3 version looks a little bit better. Honestly, I'd probably take the 360 version simply because of the loading frequency and length, especially in a game like Portal.

Splinter Cell: Double Agent blows on both platforms compared to the original Xbox release (in part because it's a completely different game and in part because the Xbox version has much better mission designs).

Rock Band could be considered better on 360 because it works with the Guitar Hero 4 drums while on the PS3 it does not. Beyond that, most of those rhythm games are the same for me on either platform.

Lost Planet is better on 360 because of the "Colonies" budget rerelease. Reworked camera and far more multiplayer content (including cross platform play between PC and 360).

Grand Theft Auto 4 on 360 has the option to snap up that Lost and Damned expansion, which pretty much outweighs anything the PS3 version offers for the game (until it gets the expansion, but even then the 360 version will probably be less expensive by that time anyway). Pixel counters like to go either way with the game and people will whip out subjective opinions over which one is "clearly" better, but fuck 'em. If it weren't for the pixel counters, no one would be able to tell the difference between the two games.

Lost and Damned, though? Major selling point.

So I guess it goes without saying that I tend to buy more cross platform games for the 360 (or I'll pick up the 360 version before I go for the PS3 one) unless the differences are negligible (achievements and live support aren't exactly major selling points when I can get the PS3 version of a game cheaper and everything else is equal).

Some of the stuff where I didn't see enough reason to shell out extra for the 360 version: Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway
Burnout Paradise (Heard the PS3 version was apparently better anyway? Any truth?)
Civilization Revolution
The Club
Conan
Condemned 2
Dark Sector
The Darkness
Devil May Cry 4
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam
Sega Rally Revo
Sonic Unleashed
Timeshift

[Leo_A]

They're so equal, its largely opinion based. For example, this is the first time I've been told the PS3 version of the Orange Box was superior, its always gone the other way with the PS3 version having major frame rate issues and inferior graphics at every other review or forum I've seen that game compared at.

So it all depends on who you ask. With few exceptions, unless there's exclusive DLC, they're usually mostly equal. I usually go with the 360 because I prefer the control and like XBL and achievements. Only cross platform title I own on the PS3 so far is Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection (Bought it for both consoles).

[ubersaurus]

As I hear it, the online play for SF2 HD Remix is much better and less lag/drop prone on 360 compared to PS3. No clue on SF4, though.

[Bojay1997]

They're so equal, its largely opinion based. For example, this is the first time I've been told the PS3 version of the Orange Box was superior, its always gone the other way with the PS3 version having major frame rate issues and inferior graphics at every other review or forum I've seen that game compared at.

So it all depends on who you ask. With few exceptions, unless there's exclusive DLC, they're usually mostly equal. I usually go with the 360 because I prefer the control and like XBL and achievements. Only cross platform title I own on the PS3 so far is Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection (Bought it for both consoles).

Strongly disagree. There are a number of 360 versions that are significantly better than their PS3 counterparts. There are also some PS3 versions that have more content than their 360 counterparts or some bugs removed or the entire game significantly improved (Alone in the Dark is one). I would suggest you spend some time on Eurogamer which does a very regular side by side comparison of 360 and PS3 games which goes well beyond just resolution and frame rate issues.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Some of the stuff where I didn't see enough reason to shell out extra for the 360 version:
Burnout Paradise (Heard the PS3 version was apparently better anyway? Any truth?)


Burnout Paradise was developed on PS3 and support for Xbox 360 was added later, so I hope it would perform better on PS3. I believe streaming works better on PS3, but I have seen it since it was released.

[kupomogli]

Orange Box on the 360 being better is most likely due to EA porting the game instead of Valve. Supposedly Valve decided they would do all their own ports from now on rather than allowing other companies after this issue.

Unreal Tournament 3 is better on the PS3 version by far because of the Titan pack was released for PS3 and PC only. It included all the content added to the 360 version along with two extra game modes and more maps. It also included the ability to download mods that were uploaded by UT3mod.com.

Eternal Sonata is better on the PS3 version with new playable characters and new dungeons.

Tales of Vesperia, which isn't out on the PS3 yet, was announced to have extra playable characters, fully voiced with new cutscenes, more sidequests, dungeons, bosses, etc, etc, etc. From how it sounds. If you don't already own Tales of Vesperia, wait for the PS3 version.

Aside from what roushimsx mentioned about the GTA4 DLC, the 360 version also loads quicker than the PS3 version when you turn the game on. The PS3 version has about another five seconds to load the initial startup of the game. After that I don't see a difference one way or another. I would say the triggers for the 360 make driving on GTA4 much more enjoyable with the new system, but I always play GTA4 on the classic style, so really doesn't affect me.

With Street Fighter 4, I've played both versions and I don't see a difference in either one. It took me much longer to get a random match against anyone on SF4 on the 360 version every time I've played the game, wouldn't allow me to join multiple games but those people also weren't in a match(and didn't say they were either.) As long as you play the game under a wired connection instead of wireless, you won't notice any lag when you actually join a game on either system, though rarely lag when playing under wireless regardless.

Armored Core 4, AC for Answer, and Devil May Cry 4 have no differences as far as I can tell.

Overall, I'd say if the game has a timed release for the XBOX 360, then it's more than likely going to be better on the PS3 in terms of content. If they're released at the same time, usually nothing that you'd be able to find unless you went out of your way to look notice it. If it's ported from a company other than the one who originally developed it, then I'd go with the original version.

[backguard]

I'm a trophy whore (see my sig) - so I say PS3 across the board. :P

[heybtbm]

With multiplayer titles there's a golden rule...the 360 version always has more players several months after a games release. The PS3 version's multiplayer community ALWAYS dies sooner than the 360 version. I suppose there are several factors at work...install base, controller preference, superior XBL network quality (real or imagined)...who knows. The fact is the PS3 version has empty lobbies while the 360 version still thrives months after a games launch.

[roushimsx]

Orange Box on the 360 being better is most likely due to EA porting the game instead of Valve. Supposedly Valve decided they would do all their own ports from now on rather than allowing other companies after this issue.

Unreal Tournament 3 is better on the PS3 version by far because of the Titan pack was released for PS3 and PC only. It included all the content added to the 360 version along with two extra game modes and more maps. It also included the ability to download mods that were uploaded by UT3mod.com.
Too bad Gabe hates the PS3 more than Lucasarts hates free money or else we might have a PS3 port of Left 4 Dead. :( The biggest problems with Orange Box PS3 were fixed by a patch, but the 360's load times for the game (especially after installing it) completely blow it away. Hell, I think it loads faster than my PC.

UT3 on PS3 also supports mouse and keyboard! Big up on Epic for that.

[Mr Mort]

-Street Fighter 4: Load times on the PS3 version are atrocious if you don't do a HDD install. With the install tho, load times are pretty comparable between both consoles.

-Virtua Fighter 5: 360 version ftw. Newest revision, online play, and the ability to actually take your created characters and use them against a friend's created character on another console.

-Unreal Tournament 3: As already stated, the PS3 version wins with all the additional content and ability to access the user mods.

[spaceFarmer]

As I hear it, the online play for SF2 HD Remix is much better and less lag/drop prone on 360 compared to PS3. No clue on SF4, though.

PSN has alot of lag on SF4 too.

[The 1 2 P]

The PS3's version of titles had the most problems(framerate, graphical glitches, etc.) during the first year due to the fact that developers were still getting use to the hardware. In the last year(2008-2009) developers have finally gotten to the point where they can make both versions nearly identical. The deciding factors usually weigh on controller preference, rather you prefer single player or multiplayer games more(the best competition is usually on the 360, hence why most pro gaming leagues use 360 hardware along with pcs), and achievements, which are still much better utilzed than trophies because trophies were just an afterthought tacked on to try to garner some of the 360's appeal.

[CDiablo]

I prefer XBOX games cause you can install the entire game to the HDD for every game, PS3 games have mandatory/optional installs on certain games. Load times on XBOX are usually better with install and there is less pop in.

PS3 has superior versions of Oblivion:GOTY(runs better, better graphics), Tales of Vespersa(extra content not in the XB version).....ummm and a few others that were timed releases from XBOX>PS3.

[j_factor]

Alone in the Dark is much, much better on PS3.

[meancode]

Alone in the Dark is much, much better on PS3.

Sadly, that is not saying much :P

I honestly cannot think of one multiplatform game I would buy on the PS3 before the 360.

Some interesting side notes:

Dead Space was lead developed on the PS3, it looks a little better.

BioShock has the DLC/fixes on disc; has challenge rooms DLC on PS3 only

Burnout Paradise seems to run and look better on PS3. I wish I had the digital download of it on my PS3, but then I was one of those people who went out and bout a 320 GB drive.

I have not come across the same game on both PS3 and 360 and seen it cheaper on PS3. I don't understand that one.

[CelticJobber]

Soul Calibur IV on PS3 is better than the XBox 360 version, if only because I can't stand playing it on the 360's controller.

And to be fair (because I sense a little XBox 360 fanboy-ism from some of you), IMO the stability of PS3 compared to the RROD-plagued XBox 360 balances the lack of superior ports on the system.

And as a general rule, I hate multi-player and only go online for DLC in games like Rock Band or an occasional demo, so online play is irrelevant to me.

[Bojay1997]

The PS3's version of titles had the most problems(framerate, graphical glitches, etc.) during the first year due to the fact that developers were still getting use to the hardware. In the last year(2008-2009) developers have finally gotten to the point where they can make both versions nearly identical. The deciding factors usually weigh on controller preference, rather you prefer single player or multiplayer games more(the best competition is usually on the 360, hence why most pro gaming leagues use 360 hardware along with pcs), and achievements, which are still much better utilzed than trophies because trophies were just an afterthought tacked on to try to garner some of the 360's appeal.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect about developers finally getting to the point where they can make both versions nearly identical. It widely varies by developer and game. There are some games (SFIV for example) where the resolution dips on the PS3 are pretty minor and not noticeable for most players. There are others like Overlord where the frame rate glitches and resolution issues are severe. I recommended it once, but I will recommend that anyone who owns both systems read the Eurogamer comparisons that they do on a regular basis which outline all of the major differences between the two game versions. Even several years into PS3 development, there are still some developers who can't get it right. It's sad but true.

[Lothars]

I would suggest you spend some time on Eurogamer which does a very regular side by side comparison of 360 and PS3 games which goes well beyond just resolution and frame rate issues.

I would stay far away from Eurogamer who I think has a complete 360 bias for the side by side comparisons because there are a fair number of games they automatically say that the 360 version is better when it's not at all.

but I don't trust Eurogamer for the extreme bias they have seem to developed the last couple years.

I do think though it does depend the game though, Most games now are fairly equal but you almost have to take each game on a case by case basis.

[meancode]

Soul Calibur IV on PS3 is better than the XBox 360 version, if only because I can't stand playing it on the 360's controller.

And to be fair (because I sense a little XBox 360 fanboy-ism from some of you), IMO the stability of PS3 compared to the RROD-plagued XBox 360 balances the lack of superior ports on the system.

And as a general rule, I hate multi-player and only go online for DLC in games like Rock Band or an occasional demo, so online play is irrelevant to me.

While I do have many more games on my 360 than my PS3, and I am on my 5th 360 and my 1st PS3, I will take gaming on the 360 over the PS3. Call my a 360 fanboy if you like, but Xbox Live and XBLA trumps the PS3. I do enjoy playing online, so that is different from you.

Microsoft is paying a lot for DLC to be exclusive or timed exclusive for 360, GTA and Fallout 3 as well.

Without this getting into a flame war, I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten Game XYZ and jumped online on my PS3 and it is a broken mess because the servers, or something, could not take the load.

[alexkidd2000]

Almost Every EA game I have played from NHL to Need for Speed to Skate is a little to alot better on 360. Even NHL 09 which seems pretty close at first starts to show itself as better on 360 in little areas like collision detection.

I still like to buy games for the PS3 if they are equal but you are mostly safer sticking with 360.

[Bojay1997]

I would stay far away from Eurogamer who I think has a complete 360 bias for the side by side comparisons because there are a fair number of games they automatically say that the 360 version is better when it's not at all.

but I don't trust Eurogamer for the extreme bias they have seem to developed the last couple years.

I do think though it does depend the game though, Most games now are fairly equal but you almost have to take each game on a case by case basis.

I disagree that Eurogamer has a 360 bias. In fact, I would say that they are pretty equal handed and accurate in their analysis. There are times when I have purchased the PS3 version over the 360 version based on their review (Burnout Paradise for example and GTA IV) and other times when I have purchased the 360 version based on their review. They go into a good amount of detail in their analysis, so it's up to you to draw your own conclusion based on what they lay out. I agree that more and more games are becoming equal on both platforms, but there are still standouts on both platforms which make one version or the other a better pick.

[YoshiM]

I have to disagree a bit with the load time comparisons with GTA4. Sure the initial start takes a bit but the times are significantly reduced when you go from the street and into buildings.

Beyond that, I haven't had my PS3 long enough to make the comparisons.

[kupomogli]

I don't get the XBL is better than PSN argument that people like to make. When I owned a 360 I paid for XBL once, that's it. I didn't feel it was worth it paying for it again, which was around the time I sold the system.

On every multiconsole title that has had online support, it's been pretty much equal(for what I've played.) I think people are also taking first party games into it as well, but there's the fact that playing a game first party and it happens to have amazing online support means nothing as that game isn't going to be on the other system and it's just obviously well developed(Halo 3.)

I just don't see the reason to pay $50 a year to play online on one system when another system does it just as well for free. The only reason XBL is better as of right now, more people have a 360 than a PS3, giving more users for each console and obviously more people to play against. You're not necessarily going to find as many gamers on either on a title like Armored Core 4 or Stranglehold regardless what system, atleast in comparison to games like like Halo 3 or Killzone 2 which are guaranteed going to be played for on both systems for a long time.

[Bojay1997]

I don't get the XBL is better than PSN argument that people like to make. When I owned a 360 I paid for XBL once, that's it. I didn't feel it was worth it paying for it again, which was around the time I sold the system.

On every multiconsole title that has had online support, it's been pretty much equal(for what I've played.) I think people are also taking first party games into it as well, but there's the fact that playing a game first party and it happens to have amazing online support means nothing as that game isn't going to be on the other system and it's just obviously well developed(Halo 3.)

I just don't see the reason to pay $50 a year to play online on one system when another system does it just as well for free. The only reason XBL is better as of right now, more people have a 360 than a PS3, giving more users for each console and obviously more people to play against. You're not necessarily going to find as many gamers on either on a title like Armored Core 4 or Stranglehold regardless what system, atleast in comparison to games like like Halo 3 or Killzone 2 which are guaranteed going to be played for on both systems for a long time.

I don't think many people pay $50 a year for XBL. Most of us buy a discounted subscription card once a year for about $30 which is what most retailers and on-line merchants have consistently put them on sale for at least once a year for the past few years. That works out to $2.50 a month which is not a big deal. I think XBL is just more user friendly and stable and as you point out, frankly just has a lot more users. It also helps that most of my friends are on Xbox Live already and I have a good group of people I know and feel comfortable playing with.

[BHvrd]

Resident Evil 5 has more content for ps3, namely you can unlock items to decorate your house in Home and there is also a virtual gamespace where you can earn more items.

Sacred 2 supposedly has less bugs and better framerate than 360, though I haven't tested, but 360 will get first patch. Still atm it's the better version i've heard, still buggy, but damn what a great game!

Unreal Tournament 3 FOR SURE. There are some really good mods and it really adds to the playability, this game is MUCH better on the ps3 imo cause of this.

Burnout Paradise and Call of Duty 4 have better online stability, Morrowind has better visuals.

Yeah I mainly focused on ps3, sue me. :p

[meancode]

Resident Evil 5 has more content for ps3, namely you can unlock items to decorate your house in Home and there is also a virtual gamespace where you can earn more items.

Sacred 2 supposedly has less bugs and better framerate than 360, though I haven't tested, but 360 will get first patch. Still atm it's the better version i've heard, still buggy, but damn what a great game!

Unreal Tournament 3 FOR SURE. There are some really good mods and it really adds to the playability, this game is MUCH better on the ps3 imo cause of this.

Burnout Paradise and Call of Duty 4 have better online stability, Morrowind has better visuals.

Yeah I mainly focused on ps3, sue me. :p

Morrowind!?!?

But I forgot about Unreal Tournament 3, that is a FOR SURE on the PS3. You can thank Microsoft for their lack of vision for no user mods.

[Leo_A]

He meant Oblivion.

And while it generally looks better on the PS3 (The 360 version still has a few advantages here and there in comparisons I've seen), the PS3 version lacks most of the DLC. It only has Shivering Isles and Knights of The Nine, with no way to get the other nice expansions like the Orrery, Mehrunes Razor, Fighter's Stronghold, Thieves Den, Vile Lair, and the Wizard's Tower.

All of that content added up as a whole gives a good bit of extra content that far surpasses the slight visual advantages the PS3 version recieved. Even better, they've hinted in recent interviews that due to the ongoing success of Oblivion at retail, they're investigating further DLC for it on the 360.

[meancode]

Oblivion on 360 got the same graphical update in a patch. I did play the PS3 version briefly, but not the amount of hours I have on the 360. I did not notice any difference in draw distance or pop in.

Wow, wonder why they did not release the rest of the DLC. Thieves Den was fun, as were the others.

I could certainly go for more Oblivion DLC. I had not heard of that.

[The 1 2 P]

I don't think many people pay $50 a year for XBL. Most of us buy a discounted subscription card once a year for about $30 which is what most retailers and on-line merchants have consistently put them on sale for at least once a year for the past few years. That works out to $2.50 a month which is not a big deal.

This is true. Alot of the Sony fanboys like throwing around the "but it's an extra $50 a year" arguement. But the only time I payed that much was for my first year. Ever since then it's been $8-30. I use to merchandise at Walmart a few years back when they were clearancing out all their original Xbox live boxes for $8(3 months) and $12(one year). Needless to say I never pay $50 a year for XBL and I've been using it since 2005.

As for the other comparison to PSN, Xbox live will always be the best online structure for console gaming. Theres still a bunch of stuff PS3 owners can't do that 360 owners can do online(like the integrated party system). But again, you get what you pay for.

[Leo_A]

Any chance you could direct me to somewhere for a years worth of XBL at those price points? Mine expires next month and I'd love to get it cheaper.

[exit]

Alone in the Dark is much, much better on PS3.

If the PS3 version was an improvement, then I'd hate to see what the original release was like. I'm usually the one that has fun playing horrible games, even if the game bores me to tears (see: The Ring for Dreamcast), this game just fucking blows.

[roushimsx]

If the PS3 version was an improvement, then I'd hate to see what the original release was like. I'm usually the one that has fun playing horrible games, even if the game bores me to tears (see: The Ring for Dreamcast), this game just fucking blows.
Oh man, you have to play one of the other versions. They did a mammoth amount of work trying to fix the game up from being the unplayable mess in its previous incarnation. The PS2 and Wii versions are especially "special".

It's a shame they didn't patch the PC version to bring it in line with the PS3 release.

[Therealqtip]

probably ps3 since the xbox likes to glow 3 red lights all the damn time.

[meancode]

probably ps3 since the xbox likes to glow 3 red lights all the damn time.

Don't forget DVD drive failures, as I have personally seen just as many of those as RRoD.

[Bojay1997]

Don't forget DVD drive failures, as I have personally seen just as many of those as RRoD.

But that has nothing to do with this discussion. The PS3 has had its share of defective systems just like every optical disc system has had since the mid-90s. Yes, the 360 failure rate is higher, but if you get a good one like a lot of us have, you'll never have a problem with normal play. In fact, I've owned every system since the Odyssey and never had a single system fail on me ever.

[alxbly]

...and Call of Duty 4 have better online stability...

Hmmm. Anyone else experienced CoD4 being better on PS3? When my friend was playing CoD4 on the PS3 it wasn't nearly as good as the 360. He had trouble getting matches setup, problems with connection, etc, etc. All the while I was getting a stable and pretty much hassle-free service when playing CoD4 on the 360. When my friend seen this he sold his PS3, despite having achieved Prestige rank on his PS3 account. Call of Duty 4's online stability on the 360 was the main reason he bought a 360.

[The 1 2 P]

Any chance you could direct me to somewhere for a years worth of XBL at those price points? Mine expires next month and I'd love to get it cheaper.

For $12 a year? They are long gone and because I bought about eight at that time I sold my extras(minus the ones I use) on ebay. As for $30 for a year, Target and Radio Shack should be the next retail places to have those price points. In the meantime you should check Amazon weekly because that price should come up again on there as well.

[Emuaust]

This is true. Alot of the Sony fanboys like throwing around the "but it's an extra $50 a year" arguement. But the only time I payed that much was for my first year. Ever since then it's been $8-30. I use to merchandise at Walmart a few years back when they were clearancing out all their original Xbox live boxes for $8(3 months) and $12(one year). Needless to say I never pay $50 a year for XBL and I've been using it since 2005.
.

but your one person who got a good deal, that does not mean the cost of $50 a year doesnt exist, do you only come on here to show us how big you penis is?

[The 1 2 P]

but your one person who got a good deal, that does not mean the cost of $50 a year doesnt exist, do you only come on here to show us how big you penis is?

The point made by both Bojay and myself is that, despite the $50 a year standard price of XBL, most people don't spend that much for a single year(read my last post about paying $30 a year). Moving on, how did my penis get brought up in this conversation:?

[roushimsx]

Chiming in to join the "I got a bitchin' deal" club. You know those old Xbox Live Starter Kits that came with headsets and Crimson Skies High Road to Revenge? $5 a pop. Got myself covered until next November and I gave subscriptions away to friends and family for Christmas presents.

It's pretty easy to get away with only paying half the cost of an annual subscription each year, you just have to be willing to keep an eye out when you're hitting sites like Amazon or you'll have to remember to check CAG every now and then (and who here doesn't read CAG?).

[Leo_A]

Seems easy to get one for $40, but not under that price point.

No where around here has the old Xbox starter kits in stock these days.

[Bojay1997]

Seems easy to get one for $40, but not under that price point.

No where around here has the old Xbox starter kits in stock these days.

Well, you have to be a little aware of the discount prices when they come up. Having said that, two months ago, every store from Kmart to Costco, Amazon and Toys R Us were selling 12 month cards for $30. A lot of us bought a few of them since you can stack them and use the time for years to come. I would keep checking Amazon since they typically run the $30 special every few months.

[Leo_A]

I know about that, I wasn't doubting it, just saying such deals aren't available at the present.

I'm kicking myself that I didn't plan ahead. Rumors a few months ago were a $20 price drop was imminent for XBL subscriptions, which was why retailers started dropping prices. I believed it and held off since I knew I had several months left on my subscription and didn't see the harm.

Ended up not being true and I don't want to risk not renewing before I'm up, this account is a original Xbox account that was migrated to the 360. I'm not sure it would just revert to Silver and/or still be active on the Xbox 1 when I decided to return to Gold status. I suspect it doesn't matter, but I don't want to risk it so waiting isn't a option when it expires in June.

[kupomogli]

Well, regardless of the fact that there are those of us who missed out on a majority of good deals, $30 is still $30. Add that to the fact that you had to pay for an accessory or the price of batteries to have wireless, not to mention for each controller, and wireless play for multiplayer isn't an option unless, you guessed it, bought another accessory.

The best thing about the 360 is that it came with component cables, something that has to be purchased for the PS3, but then again, I've found that component and HDMI are dirt cheap online.

So once my very infrequently used live gold subscription wore out, I sold the system and the games I owned.

I'm not really bashing the system because it's a great system, it's just that since the majority of the good games are multi console, why bother keeping both systems as I had a PS3 as well. I like the PS3 controller better and that was another issue is that I never was comfortable playing a game I wasn't used to with the 360 controller. I sold the system before the new dashboard came out as well, but after seeing the new dashboard, that's another mark towards the system I dislike(no option to change it back to the original.)

Nowdays almost every title is multiplatform also. It's like. An exclusive title? What's that? There's then the rare chance you hope a game you really want comes to your system, which other than the original Dead Rising and Dead or Alive, all of them have so far. Though if I didn't have a PS3, I'd definitely buy one because of Demon's Souls. Other than that, people still don't mention Ad-hoc party. I thought people here imported, and since Ad-Hoc party is only in Japan as of right now you can still download it and play imported games against other people no matter where they are as long as they have the same game and a PS3 with Ad-Hoc party(basically a way that pretty much every imported game that is multiplayer is "infrastructure" even though actual Ad-Hoc.) Being a huge PSP fan that is another major selling point if I happened not to own the system.

[Nesmaster]

The "better" one in my opinion is the one that hurts the wallet less. This usually ends up being the 360 version of any given game because I generally find it much cheaper than the PS3 counterpart. Plus the difference in 95% of titles is so small it's not worth worrying about to me. Keep in mind I buy most of my stuff used/cheap, so this would be moot when buying a brand spanking new release.

[Bojay1997]

Well, regardless of the fact that there are those of us who missed out on a majority of good deals, $30 is still $30. Add that to the fact that you had to pay for an accessory or the price of batteries to have wireless, not to mention for each controller, and wireless play for multiplayer isn't an option unless, you guessed it, bought another accessory.

The best thing about the 360 is that it came with component cables, something that has to be purchased for the PS3, but then again, I've found that component and HDMI are dirt cheap online.

So once my very infrequently used live gold subscription wore out, I sold the system and the games I owned.

I'm not really bashing the system because it's a great system, it's just that since the majority of the good games are multi console, why bother keeping both systems as I had a PS3 as well. I like the PS3 controller better and that was another issue is that I never was comfortable playing a game I wasn't used to with the 360 controller. I sold the system before the new dashboard came out as well, but after seeing the new dashboard, that's another mark towards the system I dislike(no option to change it back to the original.)

Nowdays almost every title is multiplatform also. It's like. An exclusive title? What's that? There's then the rare chance you hope a game you really want comes to your system, which other than the original Dead Rising and Dead or Alive, all of them have so far. Though if I didn't have a PS3, I'd definitely buy one because of Demon's Souls. Other than that, people still don't mention Ad-hoc party. I thought people here imported, and since Ad-Hoc party is only in Japan as of right now you can still download it and play imported games against other people no matter where they are as long as they have the same game and a PS3 with Ad-Hoc party(basically a way that pretty much every imported game that is multiplayer is "infrastructure" even though actual Ad-Hoc.) Being a huge PSP fan that is another major selling point if I happened not to own the system.

Totally disagree with this. While there are some great multi-platform games, many of the best titles for the PS3 and 360 are exclusives. I can't imagine having to choose between Little Big Planet and Killzone 2 or Fable II and Halo 3. I know that not everyone has unlimited resources, but for me it's worth owning all three consoles for their exclusives.

[Emuaust]

The point made by both Bojay and myself is that, despite the $50 a year standard price of XBL, most people don't spend that much for a single year(read my last post about paying $30 a year). Moving on, how did my penis get brought up in this conversation:?

I would like to know what information you have obtained to say MOST people dont pay $50, have you done some research on this? you have given 2 examples of it therefore I will return with the fact I have 2 360's with gold on each of them that I paid full retail for, that now gives us 2 vs 2 on the paying retail front eroding your statement of most down to very little.

[Bojay1997]

I would like to know what information you have obtained to say MOST people dont pay $50, have you done some research on this? you have given 2 examples of it therefore I will return with the fact I have 2 360's with gold on each of them that I paid full retail for, that now gives us 2 vs 2 on the paying retail front eroding your statement of most down to very little.

Actually, I have done research on this, as has Microsoft. I believe for FY 2008, the average amount paid for a 12 month subscription to Xbox Live Gold was around $36 or about $3 per month. So, yes, most people paid slightly more than $30, but a lot paid far less than $50. Since you seem to be a pretty hardcore gamer, I would suggest you join Cheapassgamer.com and pay attention to the regular Live sales threads because you can actually buy these many years in advance and just stockpile them.

[Emuaust]

FYI xbl codes i dont hink are region free, as an aussie gamer im stuck with limited options, I would like to see some links though, Im not trying to be an asshat about this but simply stating facts without reference just urked me, lets see some of your research!.

[Bojay1997]

FYI xbl codes i dont hink are region free, as an aussie gamer im stuck with limited options, I would like to see some links though, Im not trying to be an asshat about this but simply stating facts without reference just urked me, lets see some of your research!.

You've got me there. I don't have data for Australia. I only have the data for FY2008 for US subscribers. So, if you're telling me that Xbox Live Codes never go on sale in Australia, I'll just have to take your word for it.

[meancode]

FYI xbl codes i dont hink are region free, as an aussie gamer im stuck with limited options, I would like to see some links though, Im not trying to be an asshat about this but simply stating facts without reference just urked me, lets see some of your research!.

Yes the codes are region locked :(

[Captain Wrong]

Other than Eurogamer, can someone tell me if there's a site that regularly compares 360 to PS3 versions? I'm not really concerned with graphics. I'm more interested in which plays better, has better extras, etc. I know things are usually close, but when they're not, it makes a difference.

[j_factor]

I just found this (http://www.lensoftruth.com/?cat=47). They don't do a huge number of games, but they're pretty in-depth.

[kupomogli]

FF13, MGS, Oblivion GotY, etc.

Only one disc on the PS3.

[The 1 2 P]

FF13, MGS, Oblivion GotY, etc.

Only one disc on the PS3.

Why does that make them better on the PS3?

[kupomogli]

Because it's only one disc?

You can't really tell the difference of Oblivion GotY and it's two discs on the 360. Final Fantasy 13 was made for the PS3 though the 360 version could be exactly alike. FF13 will be atleast 30GB so that's four discs on the 360, and since all world map data will be on each disc means that there could and will most likely be more than four. If the next MGS is the size of MGS4 then there's atleast six discs right there.

If all the data isn't included on each disc for FF13 and MGS, that means that if you go back to a previous area you could end up having to switch back to a previous disc. Changing discs isn't much of a reason, but the less discs I have to change, the better. It also means there's no disc changing if someone else is playing my system. It's extremely rare a disc of mine gets scratched but the rest of my day is ruined when it happens.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Wait Oblivion is 2-discs on the 360? Is Fallout 3 2-discs as well?

[Leo_A]

Oblivion is 1 disc, however he's talking about the GOTY edition which included some DLC such as Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine.

Sounds like the second disc contains the DLC. Sounds annoying and I'm unsure its true.

With Shivering Isles, you can't get items from Shivering Isles and keep them with you when you return to the mainland if you uninstall Shivering Isles after returning (So this obviousily can't work when you can only have 1 disc in the drive at once), plus besides Shivering Isles, the other stuff takes place in the original landmass (Again, you can't have two disc in at the same time so this just wouldn't work).

I'm guessing he's wrong and Oblivion's game of the year edition remains on one disc.

Edit - He's right, the back of the GOTY edition box also says that a hard drive is required for the contents of the expansion disc, so it must install it to the hard drive. But how do they prevent you from sharing the disc with others who don't have the DLC? The installed content only works with the GOTY edition (Who obviousily will have the disc already) so you can't share with owners that just have the base Oblivion disc?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Edit - He's right, the back of the GOTY edition box also says that a hard drive is required for the contents of the expansion disc, so it must install it to the hard drive.

Well that's annoying.

[Leo_A]

Yeah, but at least its a way to physically own it unlike myself and everyone else that leased it through Xbox Live Marketplace to install to our harddrives.

So you can either choose to own it, or buy it as DLC with the possible pitfalls associated with that. Either way its going to have to reside on your harddrive.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While the following games are all practically identical in side by side comparisons, I personally prefer the d-pad on the Dual Shock 3 on the following multiplatform releases:

Bionic Commando Re-Armed
Mega Man 9
Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD
Street Fighter 4

Love the 360 controller, but the d-pad (at least the standard US model) is less than stellar.

I'm also more prone to purchase DLC-only multiplatform games on the PS3 as Sony allows about 90% of releases (excluding some of the high-ticket games like Warhawk and Gran Turismo 5) to be downloaded on up to FIVE consoles where your PSN username is "activated" (you can de-activate them at any time) which is nice if you have family and friends that you'd like to legitimately, legally, share your purchases with. And hard drives full of content can be "backed up" on non-proprietary, non-Sony-branded media (HDDs, USB Drives, SD Cards, etc.) ... while that doesn't make the games "better" in some cases, it cures a lot of headaches by way of not having overly-rigid DRM if your console needs to be repaired or replaced.

i.e. - I've been waiting close to a YEAR to play my copies of Braid and Vigilante 8 on my 360 due to not being able to transfer my existing license to my current new console ... I'm left with absolutely NO options to play games that I've paid money for on a console that I've paid money for, I don't even have an option to RE-PURCHASE them under my XBLA account if I wanted to (which I WOULD if there was some way, which there is not) ... (And yes, I'm aware that those games are not on the PSN, it's just an example of the DRM issues) it may not be the exact type of answer to the question asked, but it's some serious food for thought when deciding which version is "worth spending money on".

One where you get license for five copies for five consoles that can be "backed up" and restored, or one that's stringently, restrictively tied to one username & console ID.

[Leo_A]

Doesn't Bionic Commando Re-Armed have additional content in its PSN release that the XBLA version didn't include due to space limitations?

[PapaStu]

Doesn't Bionic Commando Re-Armed have additional content in its PSN release that the XBLA version didn't include due to space limitations?


I've got no clue about the extra content, however XBLA games don't seem to have size limits anymore. When they will release both the Watchmen and NCAA Basketball Final Four 09 for download and they are both over 1GB I think that restrictions have gone out the window.

[camarotuner]

Though it started a rather interesting discussion at the time we had Madden 09 running on both the 360 demo unit and the ps3 demo unit. Both were at the same resolution but most of us thought the PS3 version looked more "real" than the 360 version. Some people preferred the 360 one anyways becaue the colors kinda popped more and looked shinnier. If that makes any sense. Personally, I preferred the realism of the PS3 graphics over the polished 360 but it's really just a matter of preferance.

[shopkins]

Now that I have a PS3, there's something I've noticed that might be affecting people's perceptions of how the games look. On the same video settings on my TV my PS3 looks brighter than other content like 360 if I set it to RGB and use the limited range, and darker but more saturated and, well, more like my Xbox if I use RGB full-range. I wonder if people might not sometimes be noticing that difference, I looked at a Prince of Persia comparison vid today where that seemed like it might explain the difference. This issue would be less noticeable if the people doing the comparison had different television calibration settings for the different consoles, but maybe they don't.

[kupomogli]

Most games on the 360 offer upscaling to 1080p. Then the same games usually offer upscaling to 720p on the PS3. It's not too much of a difference, but it's still a difference. Just about every first party title from Sony is 1080p though. I wonder why they have 1080p support on one system but not the other?

[unwinddesign]

Most games on the 360 offer upscaling to 1080p. Then the same games usually offer upscaling to 720p on the PS3. It's not too much of a difference, but it's still a difference. Just about every first party title from Sony is 1080p though. I wonder why they have 1080p support on one system but not the other?

Something to do with how the PS3 handles upscaling. It does it in software, whereas the 360 has a built in hardware scalar.

End result is that it is much easier to scale something to 1080p on the 360 than the PS3.

[j_factor]

PS3 doesn't just upscale, it can natively run in 1080p. Xbox 360 can only natively display 720p; Microsoft gave it the ability to upscale its games to 1080p. So usually, when they make a game for both consoles, they just make it in 720p, rather than make a 720p version for 360 and a 1080p version for PS3. I guess the PS3 doesn't give you the option of upscaling PS3 games that don't natively support 1080p? It does upscale Playstation and PS2 games, as well as DVDs. I don't have a 1080p set to test, but I would think that if you set the system resolution to 1080p and the upscaling option on, it would upscale 720p PS3 games as well.

[Bojay1997]

Most games on the 360 offer upscaling to 1080p. Then the same games usually offer upscaling to 720p on the PS3. It's not too much of a difference, but it's still a difference. Just about every first party title from Sony is 1080p though. I wonder why they have 1080p support on one system but not the other?

My understanding is that there really isn't any technical reason, it's just a matter of programmers at various third party developers still not really having a good handle on the PS3 architecture even well into several generations of software. I believe that's also why many 360 games still have the edge over their PS3 counterparts despite the fact that the PS3 should technically be a better system given its processing power.

[Sonicwolf]

You know what? I kind of miss the gaming past in which every system had a major difference in technology. It always seems like XBOX and PS3 releases are almost identical which makes it kind of boring to figure out which system could be considered better.

[kupomogli]

Rage is going to be two discs and is supposedly going to have worse graphics on the 360 version due to them being unable to put it on three discs for how it's made(according to developers.)

Doom 4 is three discs on the 360 version and according to developers should be no difference in versions.

Batman Arkham Asylum is getting exclusive DLC for the PS3 with the Joker being playable.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

PS3 doesn't just upscale, it can natively run in 1080p. Xbox 360 can only natively display 720p; Microsoft gave it the ability to upscale its games to 1080p. So usually, when they make a game for both consoles, they just make it in 720p, rather than make a 720p version for 360 and a 1080p version for PS3. I guess the PS3 doesn't give you the option of upscaling PS3 games that don't natively support 1080p? It does upscale Playstation and PS2 games, as well as DVDs. I don't have a 1080p set to test, but I would think that if you set the system resolution to 1080p and the upscaling option on, it would upscale 720p PS3 games as well.

We have ours hooked up to a 1080p Sony set. The Sony lets us know what resolution is being sent from the PS3 to the TV if it changes. When we watch a Blu-Ray the TV tells us "1080p" vs. most PS3 games which the TV usually tells us "720p." What I can remember this second is if it tells us 480p for DVDs or a higher resolution. If I'm not mistaken the TV tells us "480p" when a standard DVD is put in. If anyone really cares I'll check it tomorrow with a DVD and with a PS1 game and report what the TV tells me. I also can't remember if you can force the PS3 to display only in 1080p, like you can with the lower resolutions.

I'd go do it right now, but the downstairs TV is currently in use.

[kupomogli]

With PS2 games and DVDs it upscales to 1080p. With PS3 games it doesn't.

I honestly don't know about PSX games. I rip them, change them to eboots, and play them on my PSP.

*edit*

I'm also using the majority of settings default with an HDMI cable. The only settings I changed is to turn Super White on and one more from that area of the menu, can't remember though.

[j_factor]

We have ours hooked up to a 1080p Sony set. The Sony lets us know what resolution is being sent from the PS3 to the TV if it changes. When we watch a Blu-Ray the TV tells us "1080p" vs. most PS3 games which the TV usually tells us "720p." What I can remember this second is if it tells us 480p for DVDs or a higher resolution. If I'm not mistaken the TV tells us "480p" when a standard DVD is put in. If anyone really cares I'll check it tomorrow with a DVD and with a PS1 game and report what the TV tells me. I also can't remember if you can force the PS3 to display only in 1080p, like you can with the lower resolutions.

I'd go do it right now, but the downstairs TV is currently in use.

The default for a DVD is 480p, but you can set it to upscale to 720p or 1080p (and maybe 1080i) in the system settings. Same for PSX and PS2 games. Apparently it doesn't work with PS3 games.