Research shows PS3 the least used Console

[akodoreign]

MAXCONSOLE - Playstation 3 - Research shows the PS3 is the least used console

And that about sums it up right there.

PS2 = Great system
PS3 = Horrible system

enough said.

 

[gadgtfreek]

If you goofs would quit looking at charts and enjoy some movies you'd be better off.

 

[akodoreign]

If you goofs would quit looking at charts and enjoy some movies you'd be better off.

Well the work policies say I cannot watch movies. And that I must scour all resources to keep up on technology when I have down time.

This leads me to finding charts and posting them. Since it is within my job description to do.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Well take the ps3 to work, use it to surf the web while people are watching, then swap over to a good BD when they are not. Just keep the sound low

 

[gadgtfreek]

BTW, its better to have the Clydesdale's and not need them.

 

[akodoreign]

Well take the ps3 to work, use it to surf the web while people are watching, then swap over to a good BD when they are not. Just keep the sound low

Did take the 360 to work on thanks giving week, (got permission first)

Watched Transformers on the training rooms projector. Was pretty cool

 

[ONUOsFan]

Is it just me or do those numbers come pretty close to matching the total number (in millions) of each system sold? For example, if there are 2.5M or so PS3's in homes and 11M+ 360's, it would stand to reason that 360 would get 11% of the time and PS3 would get 2.5%. What am I missing here?

 

[gadgtfreek]

I didnt even look, all these ps3 vs 360 and BD vs HDDVD charts are so much BS nowadays I dont even waste the space in my brain(its very limited )

 

[ONUOsFan]

PS2 = Great system
PS3 = Horrible system

enough said.

Forgot to ask: do you own a PS3? Because I have both and the PS3 is light years better than the PS2, so I'm not exactly sure where you came up with this little nugget.

 

[Ronnie-]

Forgot to ask: do you own a PS3? Because I have both and the PS3 is light years better than the PS2, so I'm not exactly sure where you came up with this little nugget.

I agree. Anyone that says it is a flat out HORRIBLE system has never played one, or is completely and utterly biased against sony for whatever reason.
I wouldnt classify any of the new systems as horrible.

Xbox 360-the best games so far, no doubt.
PS3-the powerhouse, given time, will be the best all around system out there
Wii- By far at this point the most fun, if thats what you are lookign for.

 

[Ronnie-]

PS2 = Great system
PS3 = Horrible system

enough said.

Another reason this argument is silly.
My, and all 60 gig PS3s have the emotion engine of the PS2 included, so it can and will do anything the PS2 did(and in HD). How does that make one GREAT and one with basically the other inside it horrible????

 

[akodoreign]

I agree. Anyone that says it is a flat out HORRIBLE system has never played one, or is completely and utterly biased against sony for whatever reason.
I wouldnt classify any of the new systems as horrible.

Xbox 360-the best games so far, no doubt.
PS3-the powerhouse, given time, will be the best all around system out there
Wii- By far at this point the most fun, if thats what you are lookign for.

Tell me you know the differences between the RSX core and the R500 that are in the 360?

Because if you do, then you know that the PS3 will never exceed what the 360 can do.

 

[akodoreign]

Another reason this argument is silly.
My, and all 60 gig PS3s have the emotion engine of the PS2 included, so it can and will do anything the PS2 did(and in HD). How does that make one GREAT and one with basically the other inside it horrible????

Yours does, but all of the new ones do not. All software emulation that Sony said they would never do in the beginning. The route MS went and now Sony has to catch up to.

 

[Ronnie-]

Tell me you know the differences between the RSX core and the R500 that are in the 360?

Because if you do, then you know that the PS3 will never exceed what the 360 can do.

Time will tell. By many accounts the 360 is approaching the limits of what is possible with the hardware, whereas the PS3 is a good ways off. I like them both, thats just what ive read in certian places. Granted many of those message boards are no more reliable in info than what is posted here

 

[Ronnie-]

Yours does, but all of the new ones do not. All software emulation that Sony said they would never do in the beginning. The route MS went and now Sony has to catch up to.

Well, its not something I or many many owners have to worry about since ours will. Perhaps you should narrow your opinionated statement down a bit?

 

[ONUOsFan]

Tell me you know the differences between the RSX core and the R500 that are in the 360?

Because if you do, then you know that the PS3 will never exceed what the 360 can do.

It depends on how you look at it. You're talking about the graphics processors. I have seen articles talking about the difference, and it may be true that the PS3 cannot push the same amount of pure graphical power that the 360 can. However, it does have more processing power that can be used to make up for some of what it lacks with the RSX, and perhaps more importantly, to make games much more immersive, realistic and ultimately, more fun, because it can handle many different functions related to how the game works (not just how it looks) at the same time. I realize this is mostly just theory at this point, but it is theoretically true, and since the statement was that it "will be" the best all around system out there, I don't think you can dismiss it that easily. There are also many standard on-board features that the PS3 has over the 360 (BD, WiFi, etc). Comparing the two strictly based on graphical prowess is a little shortsighted, IMO.

You also never said whether you own or have even played with a PS3, and since your comparison was PS3 vs. PS2 (you never mentioned 360 until now), I'm still curious to know what that answer is.

 

[akodoreign]

It depends on how you look at it. You're talking about the graphics processors. I have seen articles talking about the difference, and it may be true that the PS3 cannot push the same amount of pure graphical power that the 360 can. However, it does have more processing power that can be used to make up for some of what it lacks with the RSX, and perhaps more importantly, to make games much more immersive, realistic and ultimately, more fun, because it can handle many different functions related to how the game works (not just how it looks) at the same time. I realize this is mostly just theory at this point, but it is theoretically true, and since the statement was that it "will be" the best all around system out there, I don't think you can dismiss it that easily. There are also many standard on-board features that the PS3 has over the 360 (BD, WiFi, etc). Comparing the two strictly based on graphical prowess is a little shortsighted, IMO.

You also never said whether you own or have even played with a PS3, and since your comparison was PS3 vs. PS2 (you never mentioned 360 until now), I'm still curious to know what that answer is.

Owned a PS1 a PS2, Have played a PS3, When NBA 2007 took 4 minutes to load I was already aggravated. Playing through with 30fps compared to the 360's 60fps sealed it for now for me at least.

Currently I have in my house 2x 360's (sold my 3rd one to a friend) a Nintendo Wii, 2 DS's, 3 GBA

And I have owned many of the consoles released.

I will own a PS3 when FFXIII comes out, but will probably resell it once I finish the game. Or keep it if their are actually games worth playing at that point.

compared to any of the released consoles I have ever owned the PS3 is horrid. And I am even comparing that to the Atari Jaguar.

All the PS3 was designed to do was be a crutch for a Sony format so they would not lose again (as they thought).

Their CEO said when they came out that, "they were charging to little for it because people would buy it for any cost because it had the Play Station brand on it." Sony president: PS3 "probably too cheap"

And it seems some people still do.

 

[Ronnie-]

It depends on how you look at it. You're talking about the graphics processors. I have seen articles talking about the difference, and it may be true that the PS3 cannot push the same amount of pure graphical power that the 360 can. However, it does have more processing power that can be used to make up for some of what it lacks with the RSX, and perhaps more importantly, to make games much more immersive, realistic and ultimately, more fun, because it can handle many different functions related to how the game works (not just how it looks) at the same time. I realize this is mostly just theory at this point, but it is theoretically true, and since the statement was that it "will be" the best all around system out there, I don't think you can dismiss it that easily. There are also many standard on-board features that the PS3 has over the 360 (BD, WiFi, etc). Comparing the two strictly based on graphical prowess is a little shortsighted, IMO.

You also never said whether you own or have even played with a PS3, and since your comparison was PS3 vs. PS2 (you never mentioned 360 until now), I'm still curious to know what that answer is.

Thats true, I never said from a stictly graphical standard, i said "best all around"

 

[Ronnie-]

Owned a PS1 a PS2, Have played a PS3, When NBA 2007 took 4 minutes to load I was already aggravated.

Wow, i have never had anything take that long to load. Were you drinking again????

 

[akodoreign]

Thats true, I never said from a stictly graphical standard, i said "best all around"

Not really, You can have a Core duo Quad with 8 gigs of ram, and the deciding factor for Crysis is if you have SLI video cards. Not the CPU.