Xbox360 sucks

.Period.

Numbers are great and all, but is does not good if people can't buy the damn thing.

http://iwantanxbox360.blogspot.com/

Though doesn't that seem strange to you, The Xbox shows up late, Loses in sales to the PS2, Scraps it Early and releases the XBOX 360 (Specifically to beat PS3 to the market, theres no doubt about that)

But sacrifices its earlier advantage, Hardware. (And a big sacrifice too)

Now the one advantage the 360 Will have over the PS3 is Xbox Live. But with its microtransactio ns, and per month charge, who knows..

I'm a big fan of free, Hidden costs bug me. Prob the only reason I don't play MMORPG's...

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!

notice i said "real world performance", it is very true that ps3 can do twice the teraflops that the 360 can do but you have to understand that those numbers are just that, numbers. they mean very little when it comes to games. in fact 360 is more efficiant for gaming in the cpu area. the type of math used in video games is best done by general perpose cores, wich is what 360's are. six out of the seven cores in the ps3 are spu's wich are very inaficiant for gaming and the seventh is a general perpose core. also there are other factors like the gpu, the memory bandwidth, and the way these different things work together. in fact there have been claims that the 360 is actualy more capable than the ps3. you people that no nothing about hardware see 1 teraflop for the 360 and 2 for the ps3 and run around saying ps3 has twice the power of the 360 wich is exactly what sony wants. that is why they only release the numbers that favor them. the truth is they are so close that you wont realy see a difference in quality untill 2-3 years into the systems lifecycle, and with the 360 having a year on the ps3 in america 360 games will be coming closer to their potential and make the difference in quality even less.

continued...


From who? The ps3 is very well known to be very more capable than the 360 in various ways. So buddy, before you say all that ****, get your **** straight.

And also. Learn some more english.

Good bye.

Holy Crap its an anonymous war!

And "Fanboy" doesn't necessarily mean wrong, Just biased.

And of course the "numbers" don't mean anything, But do we have PS3 games to compare side by side with XBOX 360 ones? Of course not
So they help give an idea of how powerfull the consoles are, By giving us a performance number to be a baseline.

So untill whenever PS3 comes out, we can only go by what facts are released, and if you want by the gameplay videos.

Though for pure rendering power, you do have to admit the PS3 wins there, Killzone, MGS4, Armored Core all look fantastic. (And I think you can even compare the Armored Core videos, since its on both systems)

The PS3 can handle twice the floating point opperations as 360, but what that will mean in real world situations is unkown. The PS3 will almost certainly be superior to the X360 in every way (refering to technical capabilities, not software and infrastructure, such as XBox Live, as thats a whole nother issue) however, the systems have completely different designs, so direct comparisons arnt that useful, until we see some actual gameplay footage (yeahy for CES!)

In my opinion, the 360 isn't too great. Bill Gates has put too much excitement into his console saying it is the greatest thing that has hit the planet. Well, it isn't that great afterall. Have you seen the reviews for most of the launch games on the 360? Most are about mediocre or say 5-6/10. That is because the 360 stayed with the DVD, and the developers are looking into enhanching the graphics and design, no care to the gameplay because there is no space to put it. Stupid Microsoft. Go PS3. You have the technological advantage, and the Blu-ray for game space, developers up the ass, so in the end, rather from the start, or even from before, people have seen the PS3 a big sucess, 360 being a huge dissapointment. As for the Revolution, it will make a huge role in gameplay, neverminding the graphical part of videogames,and is a whole different topic. The revolution isn't trying to compete in next-gen console wars graphically, resulting in lower price, and more sales. But, by the end of 2007, it is said that the PS3 will lead the market, as usual.

How in the hell can you even begin to claim that the 360 even MIGHT bet the PS3 in terms or gaming performance? Have you been smoking crack? The PS3 will be launched almost a full year after the 360 and be (arguably) MUCH more expensive. This all equates to hugely more powerful system and better games. Also with the HD-DVD storage Vs that of Blu-ray the share volume of data outnumbers the 360 2:1. And before you start talking about which CPUs and GPUs will be much more efficient take in to consideration that both Microsoft and Sony are huge companies who invest billions into their gaming consoles. What does this mean? It means they know what will be more efficient, they know how to get the maximum output for hardware and most important, they know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.