Xbox Slim vs PS3 Slim
- Thread starter BlkUpUp
- Start date
Jinko
Well-known member
Well I've never owned and Xbox 360. The Xbox Slim does interest me a little bit. Seeing as it's the same price, it might be worthy. I don't think there are new features though, aside from built-in wifi, which should have been there since the first gen launch.
But then of course, the Elite is reducing in price so I might get that instead.
I haven't used a PS3 Slim yet but I'm still loving my Larger, Shiny Black Box.
But then of course, the Elite is reducing in price so I might get that instead.
I haven't used a PS3 Slim yet but I'm still loving my Larger, Shiny Black Box.
Umon Daisuke
New member
A resounding "no" is expected. Despite the 360 gaining one major feature with built-in wireless (long overdue), they're still the same nearly 4 and 5 year old systems with their own pros and cons.
Tim Static
New member
I have both, and I game for the most part, exclusively on the 360. Main reason........Xbox Live.
Tim Static
New member
Build in Wi-Fi is retarded in the first place. Sure i guess it might sell systems but if you game seriously, and play online, you shouldnt be doing it with a wireless connection. period.
whtillnvrb
New member
Stick with the fat PS3 as long as you can. I went slim after I had to fix my old PS3. The slim gets the job done and is more reliable but the old fat ones are better. Slim don't have all the card slots (sd memory stick what have you) and only have two usb ports. Plus it don't support my 500gb external hard drive like my old one did but they don't get as hot and use a lot less power. As far as PS3 vs. Xbox 360 I use my PS3 for everything and the 360 just for games that are only on 360. The 360 dies more often but was easier to get fixed than the PS3 but I am capable of fixing either my self now and as long as you don't mind voiding warranties the 360 is easier to fix but the PS3 is a more reliable fix. Next time the 360 dies I'm getting a slim because they say they don't die as much and seem to have all the bells and whistles that the old ones do (unlike the PS3) and have add somethings but still think I will be using the PS3 more.
Umon Daisuke
New member
@ Tim
That's true, but it's still a very desirable feature if you use the system's media streaming features. N to boot vs the current G on the PS3.
However, I think that a lot more would've appreciated MS ditching proprietary HDD's instead of WiFi. 250GB is nice, but it's nicer to upgrade to any size of your choice in the future without paying ridiculous prices.
That's true, but it's still a very desirable feature if you use the system's media streaming features. N to boot vs the current G on the PS3.
However, I think that a lot more would've appreciated MS ditching proprietary HDD's instead of WiFi. 250GB is nice, but it's nicer to upgrade to any size of your choice in the future without paying ridiculous prices.
Last edited:
Nasty_Freak
Well-known member
PS3 slim. I just totally go with the Playstation series.
Umon Daisuke
New member
The 40/80GB and even 20GB fat systems didn't have the SD card slots either actually, and only 2 USB ports too. The launch 60GB and the latter introduced MGS4/other game bundle 80GB ones did. The slim gained the full spec HDMI 1.3, but it's only useful for BD playback (bistreaming losseless audio codecs). Like BD itself, it's a trivial feature if you only care about games.
Are you speaking of external HDD media playback or backup? Backup works, but I've never tried the latter on either type (fat and slim). Incidentally, I switched to a slim in Jan after a difficult decision to forgo my 20GB launch model.
Last edited:
whtillnvrb
New member
The playback. It didn't work perfectly but you could get it to read the whole hard drive and play any media off of it. If you try the same thing on the slims the just kicks the external. I'm guessing it was a security thing kind of like getting rid of the other OS option. It's not really a big deal. I just run everything through my media server now but it was nice to have if I was doing some thing with the computer that took up a lot of resources like rendering video or something. I could just plug in the external and still watch movies with out lagging on the PS3. The 360 will play media off my external but it is a lot pickier on what it will play and is too much of a hassle to convert everything to a format Microsoft likes.
Glamador
New member
Man I've told you this before...that kind of comment is ridiculous. I don't play games online. A lot of people don't play games online. I use online to download updates, DLC, send messages, chat...some of us don't particularly like people. Especially the whiny PoS's that populate XBL.
It's elitist to make such a claim and it's ignorant to think that's the only thing you need it for. Even when I do game online (though not "seriously" so maybe I'm not who you're talking about? Still ignorant) Wi-Fi has never been a problem. What's more, I don't have nearly enough ethernet ports to supply my 360, PS3, and PC in the same room.
Wi-Fi is a desirable feature that the competition has had since release and anyone that wanted it had to pay over $100 for it. It's long overdue that the 360 gets it built in. It's just convenient dammit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there are other things to consider. Power consumption is considerably less on both the PS3 and 360 "slims" than their previous SKUs. PS3 still has free online and more exclusive games, that's not changing. It now has coming IMHO the best motion control option (cheaper than 360 too). And what's more you can charge its controller without needing to buy a charging kit.
At a comparable price, I'd choose the PS3 over 360 any day. Of course, I have both anyway.
Tim Static
New member
Did i say anything about actually playing online?
The content, the upgrades, the patches.....all SUPER FAST on XBL. DEMOS for EVERY XBLA game, not just some....
its not comparable.
And the new Playstation Plus is a joke. Its doesnt change anything about how you use PSN other than getting things cheaper. XBL is a service you pay as Playstation Plus is more like a special members club. The fact you can play for free is a joke and will always put PSN way behind XBL. Way too many people having 10-20 different accounts on their PS3s hiding behind names, its retarded.
360 is a system for gamers, PS3 is a system for people who dont want to just game.....with features I have a PC for (aside from Blu-Rays).....and PS2 fanboys who still think their beloved Sony is doing something right......and maybe they finally are....after 3 years. But its mainly just all the 360 owners who are buying PS3's now.
The content, the upgrades, the patches.....all SUPER FAST on XBL. DEMOS for EVERY XBLA game, not just some....
its not comparable.
And the new Playstation Plus is a joke. Its doesnt change anything about how you use PSN other than getting things cheaper. XBL is a service you pay as Playstation Plus is more like a special members club. The fact you can play for free is a joke and will always put PSN way behind XBL. Way too many people having 10-20 different accounts on their PS3s hiding behind names, its retarded.
360 is a system for gamers, PS3 is a system for people who dont want to just game.....with features I have a PC for (aside from Blu-Rays).....and PS2 fanboys who still think their beloved Sony is doing something right......and maybe they finally are....after 3 years. But its mainly just all the 360 owners who are buying PS3's now.
Kurtis Stryker
New member
The PlayStation Move looks like a sex toy.
Glamador
New member
Tim I wasn't referring to XBL, that's a whole other kettle of fish. I was talking about your comments regarding Wi-Fi. Speed may be faster on XBL, I wouldn't know, and it may be faster with a wired connection (it certainly won't cut out as often). But I personally find Wi-Fi incredibly useful, especially when I got a PS3 already owning a 360 and finding myself without another ethernet port to plug it into.
I got a Wii first, then a 360, then a PS3. So obviously at some point I decided that the 360 was the better system with the better games. Then I changed my mind when I got a PS3. Calling the 360 a "system for gamers" as if the PS3 isn't is just outright wrong. Both of them support streaming video and all sorts of other media. The 360 has those Mii rip-offs. XBL has just as many casual titles as PSN. PS3 is a gamer's system through and through. Your complaints are baseless and it is you who sounds like an Xbox fanboy.
I hate the PS controller setup, always have, still do. It's the reason I never owned a PS1 nor a PS2 in their eras. I later purchased a PS2 to play God of War. I am by no means a Sony fanboy. But at least it has a FUNCTIONING D-PAD. My loyalty is always to the games. Second to that, it's price, features, and durability.
Starting with games, I believe the PS3 has far more excellent exclusive titles than the 360. I can't stand Halo and Crackdown isn't so hot either. Almost anything else I can get for another system. 360 has Dead Rising going for it, but the PS3 has Little Big Planet, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, inFamous, Heavy Rain, MGS4, GOD OF WAR, and the list goes on.
Next is price. With both companies producing a smaller, newer SKU the prices are comparable.
After that is features. Both consoles now have streaming video, built in Wi-Fi, online (for which XBL is better, but costly), demos, DLC, downloadable games, and wireless controllers (however the PS3 can charge out of the box via USB). However, the PS3 also has Blu-Ray. For me this is a serious bonus since it is my primary Blu-Ray player, plus there are games for Blu-Ray. The demos for Arcade games is nice, but not a dealbreaker IMHO since I research my titles thoroughly anyway, and will usually decide to buy or not based on other considerations. I've never noticed a serious difference in download speed, though this may be partially because I have never downloaded the exact same item on both consoles. And even so, a few minutes of extra downloading once every few weeks is barely cause to dislike a system that offers so much more.
Then there's durability. Without question that goes to PS3.
It seems to me that both consoles are basically equal with the PS3 leading in features, games, and durability. Though I suppose you can argue XBL as a feature, I don't because it's a separate decision to purchase and has it's own benefits and drawbacks. Objectively, based mostly on the games, I'm of the opinion that the PS3 edges out the 360, slim or not.
I got a Wii first, then a 360, then a PS3. So obviously at some point I decided that the 360 was the better system with the better games. Then I changed my mind when I got a PS3. Calling the 360 a "system for gamers" as if the PS3 isn't is just outright wrong. Both of them support streaming video and all sorts of other media. The 360 has those Mii rip-offs. XBL has just as many casual titles as PSN. PS3 is a gamer's system through and through. Your complaints are baseless and it is you who sounds like an Xbox fanboy.
I hate the PS controller setup, always have, still do. It's the reason I never owned a PS1 nor a PS2 in their eras. I later purchased a PS2 to play God of War. I am by no means a Sony fanboy. But at least it has a FUNCTIONING D-PAD. My loyalty is always to the games. Second to that, it's price, features, and durability.
Starting with games, I believe the PS3 has far more excellent exclusive titles than the 360. I can't stand Halo and Crackdown isn't so hot either. Almost anything else I can get for another system. 360 has Dead Rising going for it, but the PS3 has Little Big Planet, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, inFamous, Heavy Rain, MGS4, GOD OF WAR, and the list goes on.
Next is price. With both companies producing a smaller, newer SKU the prices are comparable.
After that is features. Both consoles now have streaming video, built in Wi-Fi, online (for which XBL is better, but costly), demos, DLC, downloadable games, and wireless controllers (however the PS3 can charge out of the box via USB). However, the PS3 also has Blu-Ray. For me this is a serious bonus since it is my primary Blu-Ray player, plus there are games for Blu-Ray. The demos for Arcade games is nice, but not a dealbreaker IMHO since I research my titles thoroughly anyway, and will usually decide to buy or not based on other considerations. I've never noticed a serious difference in download speed, though this may be partially because I have never downloaded the exact same item on both consoles. And even so, a few minutes of extra downloading once every few weeks is barely cause to dislike a system that offers so much more.
Then there's durability. Without question that goes to PS3.
It seems to me that both consoles are basically equal with the PS3 leading in features, games, and durability. Though I suppose you can argue XBL as a feature, I don't because it's a separate decision to purchase and has it's own benefits and drawbacks. Objectively, based mostly on the games, I'm of the opinion that the PS3 edges out the 360, slim or not.
Kurtis Stryker
New member
... and people think I'm bad?
Umon Daisuke
New member
Yikes. So different strokes for different folks sound okay?
XBL vs PSN is a no brainer. The former wins and you do get what you pay for, but a free service is not a joke either even if it's not as good.
Yes, I'm guilty of having 2 accounts and have purchased content from the JPN PSN (PS1 games). I always get a chuckle when Sony boasts PSN user numbers
....they're both gaming machines first and foremost with extra non-gaming services. Despite the abundance of shovelware and some questionable content, the Wii is as pure a game console gets, and even the GC before it.
Of course, Sony would love it if 360 users comprised the majority of their new customers, since it'll close the huge gap in the US that makes up MS's 5 million unit global lead. That's not true though. And of course, the numbers aren't that far apart at all at 40 mill and 35 mill (compared to previous gen or the Wii). And well, most games are multiplatform.
Looking at previous console generations, the PS3 and 360 are without a doubt the most similar consoles ever content and service-wise. There are far fewer exclusives this gen, and for two good reasons. The user bases aren't far apart and there is the issue of development costs which sit at an average of $28 million.
Had the Wii been of higher specs, Nintendo would've been able to command exclusives like Sony did last gen for sure since both the PS2 and Wii have untouchable leads for their respective generations. The Wii's current numbers are merely 3 million units short of the other two system's totals. Crazy.
XBL vs PSN is a no brainer. The former wins and you do get what you pay for, but a free service is not a joke either even if it's not as good.
Yes, I'm guilty of having 2 accounts and have purchased content from the JPN PSN (PS1 games). I always get a chuckle when Sony boasts PSN user numbers
....they're both gaming machines first and foremost with extra non-gaming services. Despite the abundance of shovelware and some questionable content, the Wii is as pure a game console gets, and even the GC before it. Of course, Sony would love it if 360 users comprised the majority of their new customers, since it'll close the huge gap in the US that makes up MS's 5 million unit global lead. That's not true though. And of course, the numbers aren't that far apart at all at 40 mill and 35 mill (compared to previous gen or the Wii). And well, most games are multiplatform.
Looking at previous console generations, the PS3 and 360 are without a doubt the most similar consoles ever content and service-wise. There are far fewer exclusives this gen, and for two good reasons. The user bases aren't far apart and there is the issue of development costs which sit at an average of $28 million.
Had the Wii been of higher specs, Nintendo would've been able to command exclusives like Sony did last gen for sure since both the PS2 and Wii have untouchable leads for their respective generations. The Wii's current numbers are merely 3 million units short of the other two system's totals. Crazy.
Last edited: