Wii VS. PS3

[tommy]

No matter how you cut it Zelda is a great game as it always was, the difference now it that it is abit more player involved and IS more fun on the Wii.

While i can agree Nintendo could have done alot more with it's hardware, the fact remains they chose to go in a new direction then the old "just hold the controler in your hand" game play.

I can say that after playing games on the Wii i cannot ever see myself just holding a controler in the traditional way and having a good time playing a console game from this point on. So the graphics are last gen visuals, the controls more than make up for the lack of graphical power.

If game makers would be more involved and make games along side Nintendo they would not be producing crappy half-assed games.

It's in both parties best interest to combine forces. As of now any game not made by Nintendo is probably not worth spending hard earned cash on for the Wii.

[AlanS17]

I can say that after playing games on the Wii i cannot ever see myself just holding a controler in the traditional way and having a good time playing a console game from this point on. So the graphics are last gen visuals, the controls more than make up for the lack of graphical power.

I agree with you, but only up to a point. The control method is light years ahead anything else out there, but the lack of HD and surround sound really keep the Wii from being a hands-down winner for me. If those things didn't matter, so much emphasis wouldn't be put on them. I feel a little cheated when I have this truly awesome playability and truly crappy graphics (by today's standards).

It almost hurts my eyes to play Zelda, and that's the most impressive game out right now. Where a regular controller might feel inferior after holding a Wii controller, playing the Wii just feels downright blurry after just switching from one of the other next-gen consoles.

So the Wii controls don't "more than make up the lack of graphical power" for me. They merely compensate. I'm not even saying they had to ever match the PS3 or 360 in terms of horsepower. Even a half-hearted attempt would have been appreciated. In some ways, it really does feel like a budget alternative.

... and this is coming from a guy who has an XBox 360, a PS3, and a Wii all hooked up in his game room. So it's fair to say I have an educated opinion (even if it is still just an opinion).

When the next generation comes around again in 5 years or so, they will find a way to combine the best of the disparate systems that were just released. Those consoles will be something to behold. Who knows... Maybe by then they'll have built-in DVR's and other features people haven't even thought of yet.

[tommy]

I'm really not worried about Nintendo's lack of graphics this time around. After they get the new controler idea sorted out with the game devs... i have alot of confidence that the next gen Nintendo will be mind blowing.

[RTSDaddy2]

I dunno - I guess graphics have never been at my high end of expectations then. 

I understand all the tech differences to a point...but apparently it's just never been a huge issue for me.  I want a game I can play easily and have fun with (like Zelda, Rayman, etc) withouth worrying whether or not I see individual strands of hair blowing, etc.  I've spent more time with Twilight Princess trying to get through it that with any Zelda game before it (even Ocarina of Time) because I find the graphics amazing and, moreover, the storytelling totally immersing.  Again, though, as Alan put it, that's just my opinion.

To do a quick aside, have to tell you all - we finally had our Wii party over Christmas.  My whole family, excluding my Dad, was here.  My sister and brother and law had not seen the Wii yet, and so we pulled out Wii sports and popped it in - and within minutes they were hooked, throwing bowling balls and baseballs in no time!  My wife received a dance pad and Gamecube Karaoke game from "Santa" and we hooked that up - great on backwards compatability....we had a blast!

Ok, sorry - back to the thread as it was....

[AlanS17]

I guess if I didn't have a PS3 or a 360, I might think differently about the Wi''s graphics. The comparison is just too easy when they're both hooked up to a HDTV.

My brother is playing through Final Fantasy XII for the PS2 and it looks at least as good as Zelda. I never knew something as simple of a blurry word or jagged line would bother me so much in a video game. Those things never seemed to bother me before.

I guess the same way tommy can't go back a regular controller, I have a hard time going back to last-gen graphics.

I'm dissapointed that there aren't any games for the PS3 yet that look any better than 360 games. I expect there will be some coming out towards the end of next year, but they'll have to be exclusives. Cross-platform games never seem to do a great job of capturing a console's true power.

[tommy]

I just think of it this way, anyone can just improve the games looks for the better, but to change the way we play games as a whole is truly next gen in my book.

[AlanS17]

I just think of it this way, anyone can just improve the games looks for the better, but to change the way we play games as a whole is truly next gen in my book.

That's not unreasonable. But I think the PS3's cell processor and blu-ray certainly qualify as next-gen, too. The XBox 360 is just a fancier Xbox by comparison. (And it's really hard to compare either of those to a Wii.)

[AtomSmasher]

Since Zelda's graphics were originally designed for the Gamecube, they don't come close to the capabilities of the Wii.  I have a feeling that we won't see a game that really takes advantage of the graphical hardware until the new Mario comes out.

Also, after a few days of playing on the Wii, every last urge in me to buy a 360 or PS3 is now completely gone.  I probably eventually still get one, but it will probably be a couple years from now.

[ChadTower]

 
The Playstation (1 and 2) has always specialized in games that look really nice and play like crap.  I fully expect that to continue.

[shmokes]

Common Chad, that's retarded.  We've been over this.  The list of great games for those systems is far bigger than the list of great games for any of Sony's competitors.  Additionally, the PS2 was graphically inferior to both of its competitors just as the PS1 was graphically inferior to the N64.  It's nonsense.  You ought to lose it.

[ChadTower]

You simply cannot reasonably tell a person their opinion is wrong.  No matter how much you disagree with it.

That is nonsense.

The PS1's technologically parallel competitor was not the N64.  It was the Saturn.

[shmokes]

Okay Chad, well I think the world is flat.  Apparently you simply cannot reasonably tell me that I'm wrong.

I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong -- as in, you don't believe what you're saying.  I know you do (though I don't know how you manage to hold on to these ridiculous notions when presented with a list of stellar PS games, but I digress . . . ).  I'm saying you are wrong. 

[RTSDaddy2]

I'll go back a bit in the thread and side with Tommy...though originally a Gamecube game, Zelda just simply rocks.  I have played approximately 1/3 to 1/2 the way into it (approx. 20 hours), and every turn brings a new surprise it seems.  Fully immersed in it with the Wii controllers, I cannot escape the incredible play, nor how cut scenes are seamlessly blended in to the actual game play.  It's definitely one of those "wow" games!  And if this is tip of the iceberg, I can hardly wait to see Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3!!

[shmokes]

That's how I feel.  I just finished the first dungeon and cleared the darkness from the second area.  Lots of fun -- wonderful game so far.  I can only imagine what they will have in store for us with the first Zelda game that's built from the ground up around the Wii's more powerful hardware and brilliant controls, rather than a game that's merely retooled to take partial advantage of the controller.

And,

[somunny]

Hey Shmokes, did you see this?

Notice the nametag?  You can still realize your dream! 

[tommy]

I'm also wondering how great the Wii's Resident Evil will be next christmas, i can't wait. 

[Howard_Casto]

I guess if I didn't have a PS3 or a 360, I might think differently about the Wi''s graphics. The comparison is just too easy when they're both hooked up to a HDTV.

My brother is playing through Final Fantasy XII for the PS2 and it looks at least as good as Zelda. I never knew something as simple of a blurry word or jagged line would bother me so much in a video game. Those things never seemed to bother me before.

I guess the same way tommy can't go back a regular controller, I have a hard time going back to last-gen graphics.

I'm dissapointed that there aren't any games for the PS3 yet that look any better than 360 games. I expect there will be some coming out towards the end of next year, but they'll have to be exclusives. Cross-platform games never seem to do a great job of capturing a console's true power.

No.. the cell processor is a gimmick it doesn't make something next-gen, it makes something expensive.  Remember no matter how fancy it is, it still pales in comparsion to a super high-end pc so the only thing new about it is the amount of power now available on a console.  With that being said, it is apparently so difficult to program for that only in house sony games are going to take advantage of it, with most games looking identical to 360 games.  Since sony isn't exaclty known for making ground breaking games you are paying for powr that won't get used until around year 7-9.  The difference this go around is while the 360 is only slightly inferior graphically it is a LOT cheaper. 

So by conclusion of sheer logic there is absolutely positively no reason to buy a ps3 until it's price drops to a competative level and by that time it'll be too late since the xbox is already established as the main-stream box at this point and everyone has wii fever.  The ps3 is finally becoming available and yet nobody is buying it.  There is a reason, it's this years 3do or neogeo.  Only collectors or a very special type of gamer will purchase it.  The "frenzy" of the initial launch had more to do with people making a profit on ebay than people actually wanting a system. 

The 360 is defendable.  It is a decent system with decent games, and those os so prescious "next gen graphics" you seem to want so badly. 


The wii on the other hand is the only system of the three that I would consider next gen.  It does something truely new, the other two don't it is as simple as that.  I would put it this way... you don't hear a lot of buzz about next gen pc games, or even the term "next gen" used with pc games right?  That is because we are still in the same generation of pc games we have been for years.  Fancier graphics don't change the fact that on the pc you have fps, mmorpgs and sim games which all play the same now as they did 7 yers ago. 

People confuse the upgrading of graphics with the upgrading of gameplay because for a time they were related.  The snes was next-gen compared to the nes because the graphics were finally good enough to represent the charcters that used to be mere icons.  This improved gameplay though because levels could have more in them and do more without developers worrying about making the gameplay obvious so we won't confuse "blob a" with "blob b".  Also mode 7 gave us our first taste of 3d gameplay.  The n64 gave us mario 64, which pretty much defined the way we still play all 3d adventure games today.  It just happened to look better than the snes's 3d attempts though. 

After the n64, any improvements in graphics didn't make a system next-gen it just made it prettier.  We are still using the crappy "c stick"  camera navigation on the wii xbox 360 and ps3 that we did back then, for example. 

So no, the cell processor is not next gen at all because they haven't used it to improve the gameplay experience.  When they do, let us know. 

I would also like to point out that the wii is still a good deal more powerful than the original xbox, so other than true hd textures (which are overrated, even when using a hdtv) competative graphics with the 360 and ps3 are more than possible.  The low-end graphics on the launch titles, were, for the most part, intentional.  Grandma isn't going to pick up wii sports if it looks beyond her.  Stick men are safe and approachable to even non gamers.  A flaming crab demon with 30,000 polys that you can do "massive damage" to is not. 


All I have to say is resident evil + wii = more next gen than anything I can think of. 

[AtomSmasher]

No.. the cell processor is a gimmick it doesn't make something next-gen, it makes something expensive.  Remember no matter how fancy it is, it still pales in comparsion to a super high-end pc so the only thing new about it is the amount of power now available on a console.  With that being said, it is apparently so difficult to program for that only in house sony games are going to take advantage of it, with most games looking identical to 360 games.  Since sony isn't exaclty known for making ground breaking games you are paying for powr that won't get used until around year 7-9.  The difference this go around is while the 360 is only slightly inferior graphically it is a LOT cheaper. 

So by conclusion of sheer logic there is absolutely positively no reason to buy a ps3 until it's price drops to a competative level and by that time it'll be too late since the xbox is already established as the main-stream box at this point and everyone has wii fever.  The ps3 is finally becoming available and yet nobody is buying it.  There is a reason, it's this years 3do or neogeo.  Only collectors or a very special type of gamer will purchase it.  The "frenzy" of the initial launch had more to do with people making a profit on ebay than people actually wanting a system. 

The 360 is defendable.  It is a decent system with decent games, and those os so prescious "next gen graphics" you seem to want so badly. 


The wii on the other hand is the only system of the three that I would consider next gen.  It does something truely new, the other two don't it is as simple as that.  I would put it this way... you don't hear a lot of buzz about next gen pc games, or even the term "next gen" used with pc games right?  That is because we are still in the same generation of pc games we have been for years.  Fancier graphics don't change the fact that on the pc you have fps, mmorpgs and sim games which all play the same now as they did 7 yers ago. 

People confuse the upgrading of graphics with the upgrading of gameplay because for a time they were related.  The snes was next-gen compared to the nes because the graphics were finally good enough to represent the charcters that used to be mere icons.  This improved gameplay though because levels could have more in them and do more without developers worrying about making the gameplay obvious so we won't confuse "blob a" with "blob b".  Also mode 7 gave us our first taste of 3d gameplay.  The n64 gave us mario 64, which pretty much defined the way we still play all 3d adventure games today.  It just happened to look better than the snes's 3d attempts though. 

After the n64, any improvements in graphics didn't make a system next-gen it just made it prettier.  We are still using the crappy "c stick"  camera navigation on the wii xbox 360 and ps3 that we did back then, for example. 

So no, the cell processor is not next gen at all because they haven't used it to improve the gameplay experience.  When they do, let us know. 

I would also like to point out that the wii is still a good deal more powerful than the original xbox, so other than true hd textures (which are overrated, even when using a hdtv) competative graphics with the 360 and ps3 are more than possible.  The low-end graphics on the launch titles, were, for the most part, intentional.  Grandma isn't going to pick up wii sports if it looks beyond her.  Stick men are safe and approachable to even non gamers.  A flaming crab demon with 30,000 polys that you can do "massive damage" to is not. 


All I have to say is resident evil + wii = more next gen than anything I can think of. 

  Thanks, I needed a good laugh

[AlanS17]

Ok obviously we approached the same topic from different angles...

You're talking about next-gen game play and I'm talking about next-gen hardware. We're arguing over different things (whether it was intentional or not on your part).

All I said is that Sony has brought something to the table that's never been seen before. I think that qualifies as next-gen. Maybe it's not as powerful as a PC, but so what. We're not talking about PC's. We're talking about game consoles. It's the next generation of consoles.

Even by definition, these are next-gen consoles, anyways. They are the first new games systems in years, and new ones beyond these won't come out for many more years to come. So by definition it's a new generation... the "next generation".

Some people just can't pass up the opportunity to argue.

[Howard_Casto]

Ok obviously we approached the same topic from different angles...

You're talking about next-gen game play and I'm talking about next-gen hardware. We're arguing over different things (whether it was intentional or not on your part).

All I said is that Sony has brought something to the table that's never been seen before. I think that qualifies as next-gen. Maybe it's not as powerful as a PC, but so what. We're not talking about PC's. We're talking about game consoles. It's the next generation of consoles.

Even by definition, these are next-gen consoles, anyways. They are the first new games systems in years, and new ones beyond these won't come out for many more years to come. So by definition it's a new generation... the "next generation".

Some people just can't pass up the opportunity to argue.

Well apparently more people are agreeing with my point of view than yours because the wiis are still impossible to get and right now there are a good number of stores with 20+ ps3's that nobody will touch. 

The problem with your argument is the ps3 does NOT bring us something we've never seen before.  The launch titles are identical, and let me repeat that, identical to the ps2 launch titles both in appearance and gameplay.  The only difference is maybe a longer render draw, some flare blooms and shinier graphics.  It very well may eventually use that fancy cell procesor, but not anytime soon.  Right now it is a $600 resistance fall of man player, which is sad considering that game is rather average save it's shiny graphics. 

Your point of view falls apart because there is no such thing as next gen hardware unless there is software to play on it.  At the moment and for the forseeable future, there isn't any.

Oh and the lame symbol is uncalled for.  There are plenty of other people disagreeing with you in this thread, the only reason you used it is because I might actually have a point.   If I wanted  to argue with you you'd be rocking in the corner crying yourself to sleep by now.

[AlanS17]

Of course you can have next-gen hardware without software to support it. Why not? We're not talking about next-gen games. We're talking about a platform for next-gen games. Are you trying to say that the PS3 is not next-gen now, but somehow in a year it will be? Without changing at all? That certainly doesn't make any sense.

Here you go talking about the games again, and here I go talking about the hardware. Yes, the PS3 does bring something new - the cell processors and a Blu-Ray drive. How are those not new? They never existed before (with the exception of the Blu-Ray drive that's existed for a few months on stand-alone players).

How about 1080p, an upgradeable hard drive, an optoinal Linux OS, Bluetooth support, media capabilities, flash memory slots, wifi, a motion-sensitive controller and a web browser? It all seems pretty next-gen to me. Can you find some of that stuff on other new game consoles? Sure. But if it's a defining feature of making another game console "next-gen", then wouldn't it also apply to the PS3?

A next-gen console is one that enhances the experience (or at least has the capability to do so). Do improved graphics improve the experience? That's a matter of opinion, but the overwhelming majority would likely say yes. Would real-time physics enhance the experience? It's hard to say since most people haven't even seen much of it before, but probably so. How about the ability to hold a truly massive game on a high-capacity Blu-Ray disc to provide for a richer game experience? You bet. And those all have a direct impact on the gaming experience. Just because it's not a Wii doesn't mean it's not next-gen.

How many of these valid points are you going to ignore?

And Wiis are flying off the shelves because they're cheaper. If they were charging $500, people would be thinking twice about them too. In fact, that $500/$600 price tag is really the only negative comment I've heard on the PS3.

And keep in mind that I have a PS3, an XBox 360, and a Wii... And I play the Wii the most (primarily because of Zelda). So if nothing else, at least I have an educated opinion.

[geomartin]

Well, I've been following alot of the opinions since I first posted this question on 12/10.  Since then, my brother has obtained a Wii over Christmas for his kids.  I tried it out last weekend, and I have to say I am definitely going to purchase one when they become readilly available.  He had a few games, but after 3 hrs. I still had no desire to take out the Wii Sports disk.  Completely amazing gameplay.  On the other hand, I have no intention on buying a PS3, now or after a price drop.  I am completely content with my 360 at this point.

[RTSDaddy2]

Just got back from a quick run to Best Buy...not a Wii in site, but I bet there were 15 of the PS3 60 GBs if there was one...all sitting there, collecting dust.

In all seriousness, will Sony ever bite the bullet and lower the price on that thing? Very few are going to pay $600 for it when even the 360 offers compatible graphics at half the cost, to say nothing of the Wii's fun games and inexpense.  Why would I want to when I can buy a pretty decent PC for that price?

Forget the war...Sony can't even win the battle.

[shmokes]

Here are the things Sony has going for them, IMO.  After the last two generations, Sony was the company to bet on.  Playstation is such a huge brand name.  So, resources were devoted to the system early on, long before developers/publishers had any inkling of the missteps Sony was set to take with the PS3 launch.  For that reason, Sony had a very large number of titles available at launch and they have a huge number in development.  If devs and publishers knew then what they know now they might have allocated resources differently, but as it stands there are currently an enormous number of games slated to hit the console by next Christmas.  If they can get their price in line with 360, maybe just stay $30 more expensive or so, things could still turn around for them.

[farmecologist]

C'mon guys..why do we need to argue about 'which system is best' when EACH system has obvious pros/cons. 

I really never try to think in terms of what the 'best' system is but what system fits MY gaming style the best.  Others will obviously disagree so what's the point of arguing about it.

Of course, this thread was fun to read...

[Kane]

I NEVER believed the people saying that the PS3 could be found all over the place.......untill I was at EB Games today. I traded in a bunch of stuff and bought Guitar Hero 2. While the guy was scanning my stuff we got to talking about the Wii (I have one) when I noticed a PS3 box behind the counter. I mentioned this thread and how I've seen alot of posts about how the PS3 is just not selling now. To my astonishment he confirmed it by stating they had 12 PS3s in the back, and 3 people that day had traded in PS3s for other stuff. I also noticed that BJs had 5 bundles in the store. I still can't find an extra Wii remote.

[somunny]

C'mon guys..why do we need to argue about 'which system is best' when EACH system has obvious pros/cons. 

I really never try to think in terms of what the 'best' system is but what system fits MY gaming style the best.  Others will obviously disagree so what's the point of arguing about it.

Of course, this thread was fun to read...

I want 'em all!

[Howard_Casto]

I NEVER believed the people saying that the PS3 could be found all over the place.......untill I was at EB Games today. I traded in a bunch of stuff and bought Guitar Hero 2. While the guy was scanning my stuff we got to talking about the Wii (I have one) when I noticed a PS3 box behind the counter. I mentioned this thread and how I've seen alot of posts about how the PS3 is just not selling now. To my astonishment he confirmed it by stating they had 12 PS3s in the back, and 3 people that day had traded in PS3s for other stuff. I also noticed that BJs had 5 bundles in the store. I still can't find an extra Wii remote.

Ditto... I don't comment on something as insaine as a a next gen console lying stagnent on the shelves unelss I've seen it first hand.  Last ebgames I found had 10.  I asked if anyone had been buying them and the guy chuckled and outright said:  "Are you kidding man, they suck... everybody wants a wii."  This is sony's home away from home here... all the sony fanboys work are eb so that is pretty bad.

[AtomSmasher]

Gabe Newell, the boss at Valve best known for Half-life, had some funny comments about the ps3 and wii.

http://www.mcvuk.com/Valve-boss-blows-a-gasket-over-PS3

“The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It’s really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted,” said Newell. “I’d say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a ‘do over’. Just say, ‘This was a horrible disaster and we’re sorry and we’re going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.’”

“The happy story is the Wii,” he added. “I’m betting that by Christmas of next year, the Wii has a larger installed base than the 360. Other people think I’m crazy. I really like everything that Nintendo is doing."

[Howard_Casto]

Less "funny" and more honest than anything else.  Janruary's EGM had a list of all the upcoming games for all three systems this year.  In the ps3 front, the games were severely lacking, save games that'll also be on the much cheaper 360.  They also commented that the two big exclusives for the ps3 (FF and MGS) might be pushed back as far as 2008, not because the games need time, but because konami and square are stalling to see if the ps3 even makes it off the ground, or else they'll have to look into making the games for other consoles. 


It's that $600 price point guys.  I can hate sony all I want but if it was priced about the same as the 360 I would have to admit that even with sluggish sales it'll do fine. In the entire history of video games, whenever a system has been too far beyond the average price point, even if it's by a uber famous and popular game company (see the jaguar) it has tanked miserably.  The ps3 is doing no worse game-wise than the 360's less than impressive launch lineup, the only difference is that the 360 has been out for a year, now actually has a good lineup and is 200 bucks cheaper than the new console on the block that doesn't. 


And while these two are dukeing it out with more of the same, you look over at the wii lineup and it's in a class all to itself.  The quantity of games isn't as great, but the quality sure is, with nearly every title in development (save pokemon, bah!) a must have.  Something noteable is the inclusion of voice acting in the next metroid game.  This is a big step for nintendo as stupid text boxes have been the only thing holding "the big three" nintendo franchises back.  My guess is it's a experiment on nintendo's part, seeing as it's the most mature of the three and if it works well it'll be applied to the other two eventually, giving the "hardcore" nothing more to complain about.  And of course nobody (except me) expected the wii to do as well as it did and this is only the first fo the year, so many developers are bound to jump on board soon. 

So in short the statement is fairly accurate.  The wii wasn't a novelty it is hear to stay and it'll be keeping the spotlight for some time.  The 360 isn't going to win any innovation awards, but it's sales are consistent if not a little slow compared to the wii.  And sony... well sorry guys. 

So yeah, when the ground settles it'll probably be Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony in the order of sales.

Oh did mention that it was announced at ces that the porn industry is officially backing hd-dvd and not blueray because sony doesn't want "immoral content" on the format?  This means that the war is officially over, hddvd won, so the blueray player is no longer going to be a plus on the ps3's specs.

[shmokes]

I saw an interview with a Vivid exec that made it clear that, as of yet, that story is being blown out of proportion.  He said that Vivid is currently producing for both formats.

[somunny]

I saw an interview with a Vivid exec that made it clear that, as of yet, that story is being blown out of proportion.  He said that Vivid is currently producing for both formats.

Did you find that on one of Vivid's productions under "extras"?   

[Howard_Casto]

Remember the executives are the money grubbing lawyer types who don't care about the games but want to have good p.r. and sell out to everyone.  Developers on the other hand are the guys actually making the games.  Which one's opinion do you value more?

[somunny]

People are comparing the current HD/BR format war to the VHS/Beta war and, IMO, it's really an apples and oranges comparison.  Why?  One reason; the internet.  I wouldn't think that your average porn-watcher is going to spring for a high def player to see the latest releases when they can get them for nothing (or cheaper) on the internet.

[Howard_Casto]

People are comparing the current HD/BR format war to the VHS/Beta war and, IMO, it's really an apples and oranges comparison.  Why?  One reason; the internet.  I wouldn't think that your average porn-watcher is going to spring for a high def player to see the latest releases when they can get them for nothing (or cheaper) on the internet.

I agree to a point, but people are willing to pay money to see their porn on the tv screen rather than their puny 19 inch computer monitor.  And if we are going that route m$ seems to be willing to sell movies through the 360 (mind you at an insaine price) and the ps3 not so much. 



Btw I went to walmart yesterday (where I hadn't been in a while) to look at the last batch of wii releases.  Still no wii's.  I looked over at the ps3 case though and 3 ps3's were in stock.  Apparently they had been there a few days to as there was a fine layer of dust on them. 

I almost feel sorry of sony at this point. 

[AlanS17]

HC, I see where you're going about downloading movies on the Xbox 360 when the PS3 can't, but I doubt either system would ever carry porn. Everything else makes sense. Carry on.

[Howard_Casto]

I don't know what m$'s policy is about adult titles, but I wouldn't rule them out.  The 360 has parental controls which could, in theory, block the content and thus allow them to sell it without getting sued. 

One if the things I don't like about about m$ is their willingness to do anything to make a buck.  So rest assured, if they can find a way to do it without getting the stink-eye from parents, they will.

[shmokes]

Hah . . . I don't think you really believe there is even a slight chance that MS would even touch porn with a thousand-foot-pole on the Xbox 360.  No ---smurfing--- way.  Not a chance in hell.  Parental controls or no, there is no way they would do it.  MS does not sell or distribute porn on the PC, and what possible medium could be easier than that?  And they'd be damned stupid to anyway.  You think a company like that would be willing to accept that kind of ding to their public image?  And no less with a device that they actively market to kids?  LMAO