Xbox 360 graphics better than PS3!

[mattgame]

Those are the early sentiments of our folks at IGN. Check out what they have to say about games like NFS Carbon, Marvel UA, and Tiger Woods.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746161p2.html

Somebody explain. I thought the PS3 was gonna kick the 360's arse in this department.

[killerscott]

I played it tonight at Best Buy, where I may add there were 8 tents up when I went in for work, and yeah, the graphics are nothing the 360 can't handle... I even ran into framerate and slowdown problems when a lot was going on on-screen. The controller was kinda fun, though it seemed that the motion sensor had a delay to it. Also I didn't like the non-rumble feature. The menue sucks too. Just like the PSP menue.

But hey, It plays blurays:rolleyes:

[En7gMa]

wii60 ftw

[l Maximus l]

It's going to be a while before PS3 comes out with anything that resembles the graphical delight of Gears of War for the 360...quite a while, I believe. To the PS3's credit, first generation games for a console usually aren't much better than last generation games on the previous console (PS2).

Over 95% of PS3 games are simply going to be ported 360 games anyway. There's really no reason to purchase a PS3 yet, IMO. Unless PS3 comes out with a mind blowing game that is at the level of Halo 1 for the Original XBox, I won't even care to buy one.

[thatdude222]

its just too man damn money. and 200,000 consoles at launch doesnt help either. the ps3 is not going to do well for the first 6 months,

[mattgame]

It's going to be a while before PS3 comes out with anything that resembles the graphical delight of Gears of War for the 360...quite a while, I believe. To the PS3's credit, first generation games for a console usually aren't much better than last generation games on the previous console (PS2).

Over 95% of PS3 games are simply going to be ported 360 games anyway. There's really no reason to purchase a PS3 yet, IMO. Unless PS3 comes out with a mind blowing game that is at the level of Halo 1 for the Original XBox, I won't even care to buy one.

They have Resistance Fall of Man and I haven't heard anything great about that game either. I hear reports of framerate issues and slowdown. GoW is showing off the 360 already, what about 2 years from now? Gears may look dated.:cheers:

[predatorprime]

They have Resistance Fall of Man and I haven't heard anything great about that game either. I hear reports of framerate issues and slowdown. GoW is showing off the 360 already, what about 2 years from now? Gears may look dated.:cheers:

Cliffy from Epic has already said that they just scratched the surface. I think ultimately both systems are going to have some pretty games. I'm a rejuvenated wii60 supported now that the Wii games havent turned out to be the crap that I expected, which is good cause i'm an old school nintendo fanboy. All that really matters to me is that sony fails, goes bankrupt and shuts down, but that is simply a dream

[thunderkiss2k1]

It's going to be a while before PS3 comes out with anything that resembles the graphical delight of Gears of War for the 360...quite a while, I believe. To the PS3's credit, first generation games for a console usually aren't much better than last generation games on the previous console (PS2).

Over 95% of PS3 games are simply going to be ported 360 games anyway. There's really no reason to purchase a PS3 yet, IMO. Unless PS3 comes out with a mind blowing game that is at the level of Halo 1 for the Original XBox, I won't even care to buy one.


Hey Maxie, up for a game of GOW tonight? :D

[lllSmokelll]

its just too man damn money. and 200,000 consoles at launch doesnt help either. the ps3 is not going to do well for the first 6 months,

ur completely wrong, the demand for ps3 is so damn high how long do u think till u can walk into a store and buy a ps3 no problem? also price isnt that much, ps2 was 300 at launch and had no problem selling, but would u pay 300 dollars today for a ps2? if ps2 was 300 at its launch, then how is 500 alot for much more advanced techology

[CrazyCougar]

You dont want the $500 version. Thats like buying a core system for the 360, pretty much useless. You should buy the $600 version, and its WAAAAy to much money. $400 was too much money for the Xbox 360, but I sucked it up and got one when my pre-order came in.

The PS3 games are still very early in development as the 360 games were back then. Now, the 360 had Call of Duty 2 to show off, but that was about it for next gen. PS3 doesnt look to have any real eye candy as of yet which makes me not even desire the system let alone the price.

[l Maximus l]

Hey Maxie, up for a game of GOW tonight? :D

It would be sweet; however, I promised the wife that I would take her out tonight. I think we're going to check out the new Bond 007 movie. Maybe tomorrow? I'll have to see - sounds cool, dude.

[thatdude222]

ur completely wrong, the demand for ps3 is so damn high how long do u think till u can walk into a store and buy a ps3 no problem? also price isnt that much, ps2 was 300 at launch and had no problem selling, but would u pay 300 dollars today for a ps2? if ps2 was 300 at its launch, then how is 500 alot for much more advanced techology im not saying demand is high, im saying supply is low. 500 for a ps3 is too much money for me. add that to the impossibility of finding one (at that price), and you get a system that doesnt sell well.

[mattgame]

You dont want the $500 version. Thats like buying a core system for the 360, pretty much useless. You should buy the $600 version, and its WAAAAy to much money. $400 was too much money for the Xbox 360, but I sucked it up and got one when my pre-order came in.

The PS3 games are still very early in development as the 360 games were back then. Now, the 360 had Call of Duty 2 to show off, but that was about it for next gen. PS3 doesnt look to have any real eye candy as of yet which makes me not even desire the system let alone the price.

GRAW, Fight Night, and Condemned looked damn good to me. PDZ looked good also. And they played well.

[vman]

You dont want the $500 version. Thats like buying a core system for the 360, pretty much useless. You should buy the $600 version, and its WAAAAy to much money. $400 was too much money for the Xbox 360, but I sucked it up and got one when my pre-order came in.
whats wrong with the $500 version? Its the same thing with a smaller HDD, no wifi, and no memory card ports... thats something I could live with. I could always just get a USB wireless adapter if I want wireless internet and who uses memory cards anymore? They will probably come out with a USB storage device anyway. Also there is no way I could ever see myself filling up 20gb let alone 60gb. You could always just delete the trailers and demos you don't want if you need more room.

I say the Premium is the useless one... unless you're rich. I say that people that buy the Core won't miss out on much.

[CrazyCougar]

PDZ I didnt care for much at all, well actually hated it..LOL! And Condemed wasnt bad, but wast next gen to me. I only saw COD as the next step in gaming when looking at the 360.

Fight Night was next gen, but that wasnt a launch title.

As for the $500 and $600 price tags on the PS3...Honestly, both prices are TOOOOO MUCH. $400 was ridiculous for the 360. Big whooping deal that its next gen. Xbox was next gen at its time and cost $300. No reason for these consoles to being going higher and higher in price. They know there is demand, and will put whatever price they want on these things because us morons will buy it regardless. This is where sony failed...I will NOT pay 500 or 600 for a console.

[mattgame]

PDZ I didnt care for much at all, well actually hated it..LOL! And Condemed wasnt bad, but wast next gen to me. I only saw COD as the next step in gaming when looking at the 360.

Fight Night was next gen, but that wasnt a launch title.

As for the $500 and $600 price tags on the PS3...Honestly, both prices are TOOOOO MUCH. $400 was ridiculous for the 360. Big whooping deal that its next gen. Xbox was next gen at its time and cost $300. No reason for these consoles to being going higher and higher in price. They know there is demand, and will put whatever price they want on these things because us morons will buy it regardless. This is where sony failed...I will NOT pay 500 or 600 for a console.

You forgot GRAW.:D

[FuNkY mOnK]

Cliffy from Epic has already said that they just scratched the surface. I think ultimately both systems are going to have some pretty games. I'm a rejuvenated wii60 supported now that the Wii games havent turned out to be the crap that I expected, which is good cause i'm an old school nintendo fanboy. All that really matters to me is that sony fails, goes bankrupt and shuts down, but that is simply a dream

You don't want Sony to fail as this would put no burden on developers to create top notch games like Gears, your problem is not about Sony it's the fans you don't like. Hell i would even love to see Steve jobs throw in a game console to spice things up.

[Rochey69r]

Cliffy from Epic has already said that they just scratched the surface. I think ultimately both systems are going to have some pretty games. I'm a rejuvenated wii60 supported now that the Wii games havent turned out to be the crap that I expected, which is good cause i'm an old school nintendo fanboy. All that really matters to me is that sony fails, goes bankrupt and shuts down, but that is simply a dream



you do realise if sony did go bankrupt then microsoft could basically charge whatever they want for games/hardware?

competitors = decent prices.

[odpr]

yes well I have to admit that the first generation of games to the PS3 look better then the first gen of the Xbox 360,
but gears of war, really look amazing, and I didn't see a ps3 game that can match it.. yet..


I think that both machines are capable of amazing GFX,
but looking at sony spec in 3 years from now,
the Xbox 360 can not match it.


and the demend is high, and I don't think it will be possible to get one until april,
which I don't mind ,
because no good games can be found on either console..
excpet gears of war for the Xbox..

[FuNkY mOnK]

One thing to keep in mind when buying the ps3 is that it does not up scale to 1080i, so if you have an HDTV that does not support 720p you're sh it out of luck because the ps3 will default to 480p making the games look a little better then ps2. Sonys way of arm twisting to support blu-ray.

[odpr]

why on earth a person will buy a tv that can produce a 480 and 1080 but can not produce a 780?

and why on earth a company will manufacture sometihng like that?!

[FuNkY mOnK]

yes well I have to admit that the first generation of games to the PS3 look better then the first gen of the Xbox 360,
but gears of war, really look amazing, and I didn't see a ps3 game that can match it.. yet..


I think that both machines are capable of amazing GFX,
but looking at sony spec in 3 years from now,
the Xbox 360 can not match it.


and the demend is high, and I don't think it will be possible to get one until april,
which I don't mind ,
because no good games can be found on either console..
excpet gears of war for the Xbox..

Purely my opinion but i think the xbox 360 launch titles blew away anything PS3 has graphically and game wise. and about gears, your right nothing will match it now or ever, Sony has nothing in the arsenal to combat Gears or Halo. MS has tons of block busting titles that will literally crush the ps3 to smithereens in the months to come. Sony has a huge obstacle to overcome which are MS, Blu-ray, $300.00 lost per unit to say the least. Sure ps3 has a great unit but Xbox 360 is no slouch. I'd worry about what you're investing in now not 3 years down the road.

[odpr]

well,
I don't think that microsoft can match :

devli may cry, tekken or virtua fighter in the near future also..

[FuNkY mOnK]

well,
I don't think that microsoft can match :

devli may cry, tekken or virtua fighter in the near future also..

Good games but they need to be put to sleep already along with FF. Metal gear looks promising because they went the FPS route in multi play. Like i said Sony has a huge obstacle to overcome. New rules New tools. Sony is no longer the one and only.

[mattgame]

Good games but they need to be put to sleep already along with FF. Metal gear looks promising because they went the FPS route in multi play. Like i said Sony has a huge obstacle to overcome. New rules New tools. Sony is no longer the one and only.

And that's the fact Jack. Sony does not have the market share anymore. Sonys launch titles are trash also. They are not outperforming the 360 in anyway as they are mostly ports. Resistance doesn't even look that great.

[FuNkY mOnK]

And that's the fact Jack. Sony does not have the market share anymore. Sonys launch titles are trash also. They are not outperforming the 360 in anyway as they are mostly ports. Resistance doesn't even look that great.
Resistance is no more then COD3 with aliens and on top of that if your TV does not support the HD signal 720p it will default to 480p which would explain allot of negative results on ps3 games looking like sh it on the review videos from sources like youtube.

[gamerzgalore]

I am sorry, but I just had to respond to some of these comments. Before I post, let me state that I am a gamer and not a fanboy. I have all three systems, and all three of them are great. But long term, Sony has it by a long shot. Why? simple, they have the largest fan base. Those of you who think Sony doesn't have a fanbase, I advise you to look up some stats. They sold 112 Million PS3 units............

Don't get me wrong, I love my xbox 360. But Gears of war is going to be ABOUT the best graphics we will see on the system. Epic used all 512MB of ram on the system, which could barely fit. They said the 360 has a lot more resources, which is very true. But please remember that they are talking about physics and other factors, and not graphics. The Unreal graphics engine is one of the best graphics engines out there. The graphics engine is also used for a lot of games, such as Splinter Cell, and Unreal tournament 2007 ( hint the name). Honestly, I think microsoft rushed the 360. But you can't blame them, as it is the only chance Microsoft has to catch up with Sony.

Now as far as the PS3 goes, they have along way to go. Most of launch titles didn't sell, and I would be surprised if some of them sold 100 copies nation wide. Sony has a long way to go, but once they get everything underway it will pay off for them. I agree that the next couple of months are going to be very bumpy for them, but please remember that the PS3 will release A LOT more games then the 360. I also feel that the ps3 was a "rushed" release, but it was also an overdue release. The cell processor has a lot of potential, and none of us except for Sony knows exactly what it can do. They are losing $300 per system yes, but remember we are talking about SONY here.




Overall, I think the 360 is going to do it's thing over the next year or so. But like I said, once devs get use to the PS3, microsoft will be in big trouble. It has been "said" that they are planning a new system for 2010, but who wants to keep on buying a new system every four years? It wouldn't demolish sony like some are saying, as it would't be that much of an upgrade. Wait until some revolutionary technology is invented, and then come out with a system :);) .


Xbox 360 = The United States
Playstation 3 = The Whole World

[FuNkY mOnK]

Hey gamerzgalor,you sound like a Sony rep, blah blah blah and blah blah blah. All Sony does is talk the talk as far as game systems go. The ps2 was to be the mother of all gaming machines and the psp was to take us out of the gaming ghetto, remember that, the ps2s all mighty secret weapon the emotion engine, "when tapped" it will out do anything any man/women has ever seen(I'm still waiting), not to mention before it's launch it was to have toy story graphics, you see the trend here where it's going. Sony makes bigongo promises and never delivers and if they do it's a little to late,Point in case, MS will release something better, but still to early to tell PS3 might be a total flop.

This is MS we're talking about, a company that doesn't dabble in projects but would rather go for the throat instead. This is why Sony had to make the PS3 the dream they have in their head.

As far i can see MS has more 2nd party developers that will bring more exclusive block buster hits to the 360 and stay exclusive, Gears and Halo to start and lets not forget Bio shock,mass effect, lost planet, blue dragon just to name a few plus who ever goes for the Almighty dollar in turn for loyalty to MS (Rare), not to shabby for a system with limited resources and not to shabby for a game console only in it's 6th year!! If MS got MGS4 and FF infinity to come aboard I'd say Sony would be fcuked.

Listen i could go on and on about games, developers,XBOX LIVE. But the bottom line is, Sony has MS to deal with this time around, so, talk the talk becomes walk the walk and good enough is no longer good.

The real winner will be who has the best in house developers, my money is on MS.

[HaZarD SFD]

Gunna post my 2cents. PS3 is not going to have a good game for a long time because of
all the work developers will need to do to get it to work with their 7 processors. All of their
launch titles (new games exclusive to PS3) got a 2 out of 5. Microsoft had awesome launch titles. Most people have bought the console and gotta wait for a good game. Yes PS3 has
a fan base but they still arent that far off from the 360 performance. They still dont have a
good multiplayer system because of the fact that developers have to make their live experience unlike the 360, where we have servers we get to play on. Awesome you get to use up to 7 Controllers on one PS3, Wow does anyone even have a big enough TV to satisfy all 7 players. 4 is enough and plays well on a 30"+ Tv's. IMHO its not that much better than the 360. Yes I would buy one but only to play MGS4 and thats about it.

[odpr]

u are going to pay 600$ just to play MGS ?!

I guess money , is not an issue for u..

[HaZarD SFD]

Oh for sure money is an issue with me, Im jewish lol No offense people! I would probably borrow the console from a friend and not buy it..

[odpr]

Oh for sure money is an issue with me, Im jewish lol No offense people! I would probably borrow the console from a friend and not buy it..

well u have to explain to me the jewish joke..

since I am from ISrael....

[HaZarD SFD]

We can be stingy with money. you have never heard the phrase "man I got jewed!"
means I got ripped off and sold it way less than it should of gone for!

I know I will try and get whatever i can for the lowest price be it a tag price or bargain!

[FuNkY mOnK]

Sony overkilled the ps3 nuf said.

[Batman_wanna_be]

I smell fanboy and it stinks.


Those of you who think Sony doesn't have a fanbase, I advise you to look up some stats. They sold 112 Million PS3 units............

When did this happen I thought Sony only launch 200,000 systems I didn't know that every kid in america bought a PS3. So it looks like you need to look up some stats.



but please remember that the PS3 will release A LOT more games then the 360.

Since when does it matter about the amount of games you have? I didn't know about other people about I prefer quailty over quantity.



The cell processor has a lot of potential, and none of us except for Sony knows exactly what it can do.

Yes cell processors do have alot of potential, but I have also heard that they are hard to work with and alot of 3rd party poeple don't like.



They are losing $300 per system yes, but remember we are talking about SONY here.

Your right Sony is losing of money and the can afford to lose that much per console, but they are a business and they want to make money. The only way for Sony to compensat that much of a loss is with software sells and that is not happening, you know why? It is because people are buying the PS3 just for the Blu-Ray player and that is it, cause a $600 PS3 is cheaper than a $1,000 Blu-Ray player.



It has been "said" that they are planning a new system for 2010, but who wants to keep on buying a new system every four years? It wouldn't demolish sony like some are saying, as it would't be that much of an upgrade. Wait until some revolutionary technology is invented, and then come out with a system :);) .


Xbox 360 = The United States
Playstation 3 = The Whole World

And Sony is not plan their next system? Come on dude the 360 was in the "thinking" stage as soon as the Xbox was launched and you know what the PS3 was being planned when the PS2 as shortly launch to. It would be stupid not the be planning your next system.

[AlphaRaptor]

Apperently IGN said in the review that COD3 played much smoother on the 360 than the PS3.

The Cell CPU has a lot going for it, but its not the holy grail of video games. It does some things very, very, very well, and some things just "well." Its a big misconception that CPUs are the most important factor in gaming power. And that was true back in 1998, but now, the biggest factor when it comes to graphics is all about the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) The GPUs in both units are very close power wise but the Xbox 360 GPU does some things more smartly and efficiently. I think I know exactly why the PS3 is suffering from "skips." The 360 has an unbelievable amount of memory bandwidth, essentially letting it play games at high resolutions at almost no cost. (Its great, I have never seen a game play slower at 720p than 480i) Essentially, the 10megs of super fast RDRAM take care of rendering all the pixels so that the video cards main memory is fully dedicated to textures and calculations. The PS3's RSX however is built more like a traditional PC video card. Its 256megs of memory must be divided, if you have to many textures loaded into the VRAM the game will most likelly "skip", if the scene has a high poly count, and the VRAM is unable to produce enough pixels at 1080p the FPS will drop dramatically.

So I don't know, I was thinking the Cell was going to offload a lot of work off the RSX, maybe it can, it'll just take time for the devs to figure out how to seamlessly sync all the Cell's cores and the RSX. So, we have yet to see what the PS3 is really capable of, hopefully we see that before 2010. :confused:

Microsoft really did the right thing making the the Xbox 360 so powerful and easy to program.

[mattgame]

Apperently IGN said in the review that COD3 played much smoother on the 360 than the PS3.

The Cell CPU has a lot going for it, but its not the holy grail of video games. It does some things very, very, very well, and some things just "well." Its a big misconception that CPUs are the most important factor in gaming power. And that was true back in 1998, but now, the biggest factor when it comes to graphics is all about the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) The GPUs in both units are very close power wise but the Xbox 360 GPU does some things more smartly and efficiently. I think I know exactly why the PS3 is suffering from "skips." The 360 has an unbelievable amount of memory bandwidth, essentially letting it play games at high resolutions at almost no cost. (Its great, I have never seen a game play slower at 720p than 480i) Essentially, the 10megs of super fast RDRAM take care of rendering all the pixels so that the video cards main memory is fully dedicated to textures and calculations. The PS3's RSX however is built more like a traditional PC video card. Its 256megs of memory must be divided, if you have to many textures loaded into the VRAM the game will most likelly "skip", if the scene has a high poly count, and the VRAM is unable to produce enough pixels at 1080p the FPS will drop dramatically.

So I don't know, I was thinking the Cell was going to offload a lot of work off the RSX, maybe it can, it'll just take time for the devs to figure out how to seamlessly sync all the Cell's cores and the RSX. So, we have yet to see what the PS3 is really capable of, hopefully we see that before 2010. :confused:

Microsoft really did the right thing making the the Xbox 360 so powerful and easy to program.

And you said a mouthful right there. Thats what MS was talking about when they said developers would turn more towards working with the 360 because of it's ease and cost efficiency. I don't know about you but if I can save money and make a great game to get more bang for my buck well I'm in!

If Sony gets off to a slow start you will see developers backing away from them altogether. Hell, Rainbow Six Vegas has been pushed back, I have not seen one review where the PS3 outperformed the 360. Sony is in trouble and they know it.

[FuNkY mOnK]

Sony is the master of hype,Quote Sony could sell 80,000 bricks just putting thier name on it.

[mattgame]

Sony is the master of hype,Quote Sony could sell 80,000 bricks just putting thier name on it.

:rofl: :rofl:

































































I bought one.:eek:

[NiNeBReaKeR]

i believe it was 800,000 and people wpuld buy it just because sony made it. i hate paople.

[FuNkY mOnK]

i believe it was 800,000 and people wpuld buy it just because sony made it. i hate paople.

Yea something like this. Thanks for clearing it up.:)

[cybrdude]

You don't want Sony to fail as this would put no burden on developers to create top notch games like Gears, your problem is not about Sony it's the fans you don't like. Hell i would even love to see Steve jobs throw in a game console to spice things up.

Apple with a console would be the worst thing ever.. IPOD and iTUNES are the worst two products in the world due to their propreitary structure. Would be bad for everyone...

Later...

[J4320]

Apple with a console would be the worst thing ever.. IPOD and iTUNES are the worst two products in the world due to their propreitary structure. Would be bad for everyone...

Later...

Are you kidding me? If they're so bad, I'm wondering why they are the best sellers in that category. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I love iTunes and iPods just for their ease of use and simplicity. I also use the Nike+iPod thing all of the time.

I don't even want a Zune at all.

Oh and just for the record, I'm not a big Mac fan either.

[cybrdude]

Are you kidding me? If they're so bad, I'm wondering why they are the best sellers in that category. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I love iTunes and iPods just for their ease of use and simplicity. I also use the Nike+iPod thing all of the time.

I don't even want a Zune at all.

Oh and just for the record, I'm not a big Mac fan either.


I guess I am kidding you cause You hit the nail right on the head. IPOD success says one thing: Ignorant (I am not being offensive I use this word to describe peoples lack of knowledge or awareness) users who are ok with being dictated to. Most people I know who have purchased an IPod are disappointed because of it's lack of ease of use. Sure if you actually like iTunes (which is restrictive and does not have a great selection of material) then it is easy. Try using something else and you are screwed. No other music service supports IPOD because Apple wants it that way. For instance Microsoft and MTV's Urge service is also as it has a great selection of new and old material plus they have minsites for all bands, excellent news, and a variety of playlists for ALL music taste. Itunes does not even come close to this and other music offerings. When you purchase an IPOD you are buying marketing and not a product. Sony and Apple are the worst marketing driven companies on the planet. Sony sold 100 million PS2 when XBOX was clearly the best product on the market. Once you educate someone, they suddenly see the light and realize they purchased a product based on deception. I converted anyone I know to XBOX from PS2 and I am converting everyone I know from Ipod to Creative (or anyone elses product).

Apple does not even own the interface patent for their own product as Creative and MS each own a bit of it (and recently had to pay Creative 100M). Apple clearly stole the idea from Creative after they debuted the Nomad at Comdex 1999 (I was there). I own a Vision M (courtesy of my buddies at Creative) which is superior to the IPOD video in every way. Larger Screen, Buy music from where I want, Good Video Codec Support out of the box (Divx, MPEG2/3/4, WMV, XVID) and a better looking product than IPOD. And the fact that 58% of IPOD users would consider a ZUNE tells you one thing. No loyality as they purchased a product because everyone else had one, not because it was actually a good product.

Later..

[J4320]

I guess I am kidding you cause You hit the nail right on the head. IPOD success says one thing: Ignorant (I am not being offensive I use this word to describe peoples lack of knowledge or awareness) users who are ok with being dictated to. Most people I know who have purchased an IPod are disappointed because of it's lack of ease of use. Sure if you actually like iTunes (which is restrictive and does not have a great selection of material) then it is easy. Try using something else and you are screwed. No other music service supports IPOD because Apple wants it that way. For instance Microsoft and MTV's Urge service is also as it has a great selection of new and old material plus they have minsites for all bands, excellent news, and a variety of playlists for ALL music taste. Itunes does not even come close to this and other music offerings. When you purchase an IPOD you are buying marketing and not a product. Sony and Apple are the worst marketing driven companies on the planet. Sony sold 100 million PS2 when XBOX was clearly the best product on the market. Once you educate someone, they suddenly see the light and realize they purchased a product based on deception. I converted anyone I know to XBOX from PS2 and I am converting everyone I know from Ipod to Creative (or anyone elses product).

Apple does not even own the interface patent for their own product as Creative and MS each own a bit of it (and recently had to pay Creative 100M). Apple clearly stole the idea from Creative after they debuted the Nomad at Comdex 1999 (I was there). I own a Vision M (courtesy of my buddies at Creative) which is superior to the IPOD video in every way. Larger Screen, Buy music from where I want, Good Video Codec Support out of the box (Divx, MPEG2/3/4, WMV, XVID) and a better looking product than IPOD. And the fact that 58% of IPOD users would consider a ZUNE tells you one thing. No loyality as they purchased a product because everyone else had one, not because it was actually a good product.

Later..

Okay well let me just tell you this.

It suites the general public's needs. The majority of people are not techies who have to have the most integrated software that will do this and that; most people want an ease of use system like that of iPod or iTunes. You can't tell me that the iPod and iTunes interface is hard to use. Now I'm sure that the Zune interface and software is pretty easy to use too, but I haven't really looked into it and nor do I want to because I'm happy with my iPod Nano.

And you are right, Apple does play off of people's ignorance. As for me ---

1. I didn't pay for my iPod.
2. I like the ease of use.
3. I'm fine with the fact that I don't need the most technologically advanced software and interface. It really isn't that big of a deal to me. As long as it's simple and it still retains the sound quality and also has cool features, I'm fine with it.
4. I don't get my music from iTunes.

Apple is not bad at marketing. They have made the iPod part of pop-culture and look where it has gotten them. These iPods are even status symbols nowadays. People think they're "cool" and "hip" to own.

And speaking of the Zune store ---


Even worse, to buy even a single 99-cent song from the Zune store, you have to purchase blocks of "points" from Microsoft, in increments of at least $5. You can't just click and have the 99 cents deducted from a credit card, as you can with iTunes. You must first add points to your account, then buy songs with these points. So, even if you are buying only one song, you have to allow Microsoft, one of the world's richest companies, to hold on to at least $4.01 of your money until you buy another. And the point system is deceptive. Songs are priced at 79 points, which some people might think means 79 cents. But 79 points actually cost 99 cents.

I really can't see the Zune picking up and passing Apple. There's nothing that really revolutionary about it that makes the average person want to ditch their iPod and go for the Zune.

[cybrdude]

Okay well let me just tell you this.

It suites the general public's needs. The majority of people are not techies who have to have the most integrated software that will do this and that; most people want an ease of use system like that of iPod or iTunes. You can't tell me that the iPod and iTunes interface is hard to use. Now I'm sure that the Zune interface and software is pretty easy to use too, but I haven't really looked into it and nor do I want to because I'm happy with my iPod Nano.

And you are right, Apple does play off of people's ignorance. As for me ---

1. I didn't pay for my iPod.
2. I like the ease of use.
3. I'm fine with the fact that I don't need the most technologically advanced software and interface. It really isn't that big of a deal to me. As long as it's simple and it still retains the sound quality and also has cool features, I'm fine with it.
4. I don't get my music from iTunes.

Apple is not bad at marketing. They have made the iPod part of pop-culture and look where it has gotten them. These iPods are even status symbols nowadays. People think they're "cool" and "hip" to own.

And speaking of the Zune store ---



I really can't see the Zune picking up and passing Apple. There's nothing that really revolutionary about it that makes the average person want to ditch their iPod and go for the Zune.

Dude, I never said anything about the ZUNE store.. Read again.. I talked URGE, NOT ZUNE.. My only referernce to Zune was about loyality and the recent survey. And I used Zune as an example. This could also be Creative, Samsung or others. My point is IPODS users are users because of the "status thing" (thanks for proving another point - PEOPLE ALWAYS FOLLOW instead of LEADING or making their own choices). Also I never said the interface was hard to use, I said it was not user friendly to those NOT using ITUNES, meaning they are stunned at the fact that they cannot use Yahoo Music, Napster, URGE, Rhapsody, etc.

I never said Apple was bad at Marketing I said they are a Marketing company, meaning they sell by Marketing alone. They show you ad after ad on TV and on billboards without giving ANY real reason to buy the product. Just the words IPOD and some chick or dude dancing (tells you nothing about the functionality of the product).

Later..

[J4320]

Okay man, don't freak out on me here. I was just talking about how ridiculous the Zune store can be.

I agree with a lot of what you say; I however just prefer the iPod and I'm not that picky when it comes to these sort of things.

[killerscott]

There are goods and bads of each. Each one is good for some people, and bad for others. That still will not change the fact that "graphics better than ps3!"

[mattgame]

Way to bring him back Killer!

[Razor70]

I think what most everyone is forgetting though is, the PS3 just came out, the Xbox 360 has been out for over a year now. You can't compare the two at all at this point, another year from now then you can. The one thing I see that will hurt Sony in the long run is the fact that most third party companies are already complaining about how hard it is to make games for the PS3. And with the screw up on their part to release only the amount they have of systems...a year from now we will see how everything stacks up. But til then, it's unfair to try to compare the two systems in my opinion.