So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Talk about just about anything else that is non-gaming here, but keep it clean

Which system is PROVEN more powerful

Xbox 360
6
18%
PS3
16
48%
Still unclear
9
27%
what is a PS3 and Xbox 360?
2
6%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
corn619
Next-Gen
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: Lincoln, Rhode Island

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by corn619 »

RemyC wrote:In regards to the Xbox 360 being inferior in terms of storage space. Has their even been a game that has taken up a full disc worth of space yet?
I think Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey filled a few discs.
Niode
Next-Gen
Posts: 7831
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: UK

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Niode »

4 to be exact.

It's all well and good saying that MGS4 was constrained by the size of the Blu-ray, but when the game has to be installed again after every chapter it makes you wonder why the hell they didn't just make it two discs... Since you are stopping every couple of hours or so to install the next chapter, why not throw in an extra disc and make us get up off the couch.

Hell, why didn't they just put it out on DVD, I'd much rather get up off my ass and swap a DVD after every chapter than sit and watch Snake smoke for 10 minutes... Yeah it would probably be but on 4/5 DVDs but swapping DVDs is faster than mandatory installs.

That's the one major gripe I have over my PS3, it has to install practically every game I put in it. Oh and the fact that every patch takes years to download. When I wanted to play motorstorm online I had to wait 4 fricken hours before I could. FOUR HOURS!! WTF is up with that!? I've downloaded entire steam games (of several GB) in less time than that patch took to download and install. It also seems to take forever to download system updates (even a couple of weeks after they have come out, I don't play my PS3 that much y'see). So that's yet more time spent not playing my PS3 whilst sitting in front of a none-background-downloadable/install progress screen. ARGH!
Marurun wrote:Don’t mind-shart your pants, guys
User avatar
Bootaaay
128-bit
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:31 am
Location: England

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Bootaaay »

I see so many people complaining about the time it takes to download updates on PSN, but i've never once encountered these problems and i've got a shitty connection - theres no way that a Motorstorm update should be taking you 4 hours, no way. Most updates are 20mb-400mb which usually leaves me waiting a couple of minutes at the least and about 15 minutes at the most, same goes for the firmware updates. All I can suggest is to make sure your PS3 is listing the connection type as 'NAT 2' under the network settings, and also make sure your PS3 is given access from your routers control pannel.

As for the installs, it's a shame so many games require them - I have no idea why MGS4 used this bizarre system of multiple-installs, but for other games it really seems like the install is the developers way of cutting corners. We know great games can be produced without forced-installs (Uncharted, Burnout, Resistance 2, Motorstorm 2 etc), so why do other games need them? Obviousley Oblivion & Fallout 3 require an install, but Bethesda cleverly hide these behind the opening cinematics so you never have to wait for the install to complete - if only others developers did the same.
Image
PSN; Bootaaay ---------------------------------------------------------------- XBL; B007444Y
Niode
Next-Gen
Posts: 7831
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: UK

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Niode »

Bootaaay wrote:I see so many people complaining about the time it takes to download updates on PSN, but i've never once encountered these problems and i've got a shitty connection - theres no way that a Motorstorm update should be taking you 4 hours, no way. Most updates are 20mb-400mb which usually leaves me waiting a couple of minutes at the least and about 15 minutes at the most, same goes for the firmware updates.
You have a shitty connection but can download 400MB in 15 minutes? Okay...
Bootaaay wrote:All I can suggest is to make sure your PS3 is listing the connection type as 'NAT 2' under the network settings, and also make sure your PS3 is given access from your routers control pannel.
I'm not stupid, the PS3 is set up correctly otherwise I wouldn't be able to connect at all. Demos download 'normally' If by half the speed of the 360 is normal. (this is when no other activity is occuring on the network) It's also slow when connected via ethernet too so it's nothing to do with router settings. It's the updates that take forever. The motorstorm update was a long time after the multiplayer update was released because I didn't get the game straight away so it couldn't been anything to do with server load. I just don't think Sony's infrastructure is anywhere near up to the standard it needs to be. If Sony think they're service is better than Live purely because it's free they need to think again.
Marurun wrote:Don’t mind-shart your pants, guys
User avatar
Cronson
64-bit
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:29 am
Location: Richmond, Va
Contact:

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Cronson »

Yeah I gotta back Niode on this one. The 360 is noticably faster than the PS3 with downloads and installation. I just think the PS3's way of doing things is sluggish.
User avatar
Bootaaay
128-bit
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:31 am
Location: England

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Bootaaay »

Oh, i'm not debating that the 360's method is faster - Microsoft obviousley has a better infastructure, their firmware updates are much smaller & they have a limit on patch sizes. I was just pointing out that peoples experiences of PSN's speed seem to be vastly subjective.
Niode wrote:You have a shitty connection but can download 400MB in 15 minutes? Okay...
15 minutes was maybe a slight exaggeration. My connections a shitty 5mb BT line, when I played Burnout Paradise the other day for the first time in ages the 400mb+ update took no more than 20-25 minutes to download and install, unless of course my perception of time is totally fucked. The last firmware update took no more than 10 minutes to download for me, yet on forums across the net people were complaining of it taking an hour plus.
Niode wrote:I'm not stupid, the PS3 is set up correctly otherwise I wouldn't be able to connect at all.
I wasn't suggesting you were stupid, but I could hardly infer your level of knowledge from your original post - also, I thought it was possible to connect if the PS3 displayed NAT 1, but much preferable for it to connect while under NAT 2.
Image
PSN; Bootaaay ---------------------------------------------------------------- XBL; B007444Y
Niode
Next-Gen
Posts: 7831
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: UK

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by Niode »

I have also been recommended to do this by others and there is no difference in speed at all between the two settings. Either the PS3 network interfaces suck or the infrastructure sucks. Like you said I'm not the only one with this problem. There are lots of other people having this problem.

It's one of the biggest flaws with the PS3

The other massive flaw is the slow BD drive causing developers to force installs on you so that games don't grind to a halt whilst loading.

Add these two together and you get the worst thing about the PS3. Waiting. You have to wait for everything. Wait when you get a new game for it to install. Wait for new updates. Wait for the inevitable day 0 patch. Wait for the inevitable online play patch. All while sat at non-backgroundable boring progress screens. Why can't I just do something else on my PS3? It has 7(6) cores available sat idle whilst it transfers some bits around on a hard drive!

In the end I just go play my 360 and end up forgetting my PS3 is doing something.

I just wish the PS3 was all it was hyped to be. That is my main let down with the PS3. Kaz promised (yet again) the be all and end all do everything media hub, but when you spend 70% of your user experience sat waiting for it to do something you're just left wondering, why? Of all the power this machine has, why does it take so long to do almost friggin everything!?

*sigh*
Marurun wrote:Don’t mind-shart your pants, guys
RyaNtheSlayA
Next-Gen
Posts: 9201
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Denver CO, USA

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by RyaNtheSlayA »

my ps3 downloads just as fast as my 360 did over ethernet
Older. Not wiser.
User avatar
corn619
Next-Gen
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: Lincoln, Rhode Island

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by corn619 »

RyaNtheSlayA wrote:my ps3 downloads just as fast as my 360 did over ethernet
Mine as well, and Niode I don't think anyones calling you stupid. People sometimes miss stupid things, I do it all the time. We are human after all.
JJJ
24-bit
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:58 pm

Re: So who won the "most PROVEN powerful" award PS3 vs. 360?

Post by JJJ »

There is a hugely noticable difference on patch times 360 vs PS3. I tried Pain at my brother's house. Small, PSN game right? Ok, well let me tell you it did 4 waves of updates for this thing! After each download bar finished, then a install bar started! Oh my... I'm not kidding, my brother was sick of waiting and was going to reboot the PS3. I'd say it was about 15 minutes on his 5mb connection.

Next, Warhawk. I would have expected a long patch time for this but it was actually faster than Pain! Still a good 5-10 minutes.

Next, at my friend's house he boots up Super Stardust HD. Another small PSN game. 250mb patch download??? He didn't even bother waiting, just canceled.

On my 360, I've literally never waited more than 30 seconds for a patch to download. Even on my old 1.5mbps connection. I'm not sure exactly why this is the case, but there is a definite difference - no doubt.
Post Reply