Wikipedia says very similar.
The difference is, 360 has been out alot longer compared to PS3, so the games are alot better. Give PS3 to get a heap of decent titles out and it'll crap all over 360.

I don't think the PS3 will crap all over the 360 but I do think within a few years the PS3 will have some good games.

David you misread my post. I said in terms of "raw" power. Yes technically right now 360 games tend to look better, but with time and exclusives, I believe it will ultimately pull away. Plus it has a stronger format than the 360 does with Blu-Ray.

Well I'll agree with you on the format thing, but I just think it'll take some time for companies to take full advantage of the Blu-Ray size. Once they do though, than the PS3 will have a lot of potential.

And thats what I ment about it crapping all over 360 .

History has shown that the better system isn't always the more successful system. Keep in mind that in the following examples, I say "better" as in the system and it's power, not "better" as in the games the systems had.


Nintendo VS Sega Master System
Master System had better graphics and more powerful but NES killed it.

Sega Genesis CD/32X VS Super Nintendo
While the Sega Genesis wasn't exactly more powerful than the Super Nintendo, Sega's attachments known as Sega 32X and Sega CD definitely were but Super Nintendo definitely outsold them (and Sega Genesis).

Game Gear VS Game Boy
Game Gear system was more powerful and better in every way but Game Boy beat it.

Playstation VS Sega Saturn
Saturn was more powerful but Playstation killed it.

Dreamcast VS itself?
Well no one knows why this died so early. Was way more powerful than it's competition at the time.

Playstation 2 VS XBox
Some will argue this one but XBox was more powerful but Playstation 2 was more successful.

Nintendo DS VS PSP
Nintendo DS is killing the PSP, not even a competition but yet the PSP is way more powerful.

Wii VS XBox360/Playstation
Wii is killing them both but isn't even half as powerful (literally).

The PS2 was easily the weakest system last gen. Anybody who says different doesn't know much about consoles. The PS2 got it's install base due to it being a cheap DVD player. The games that came out at the beginning were pretty bad, but with such a huge start the PS2 had over the Xbox and Cube there wasn't really any chance once the devs started making games for it.

Also I'm thinking PSX was more powerful than Saturn, but I could be wrong.

Another thing, the DC just got caught out in the middle of generations. It was more powerful than PS1, but quite as powerful as PS2.

And we aren't saying the PS3 is going to sell the most, but that it is the most powerful. With the Cell processor and Blu-Ray it's going to be difficult to beat graphically when companies really start using it.

DS got owned by PSP.
http://kotaku.com/5013738/power-pro-portable-propels-psp-to-phirst-place

I agree that the PS2 sucked when compared to the xbox .

That's just temporary. DS is killing PSP worldwide lifetime.

http://vgchartz.com

Might not be perfect, but it's a good ballpark figure.

Or look at this:
http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=DS®1=All&cons2=DS®2=All&cons3=PSP®3=All&weeks=187

Ah yes, dualy noted

Lol. Gotta say though I've been fairly impressed so far, even though Sony's online isn't up to par with 360, they are trying to get there. There's supposed to be a pretty good firmware update maybe even this next week.

In-game messaging is a good addition to have.

The Dreamcast was almost as powerful as teh Playstation 2. The DC was surprisingly powerful and it could have easily had games that looked almost as good as the XBox if they continued making games for it. Even though the games for the dreamcast did look really good, they could have looked even better if it were around longer and they spent more time with the games. And as with any system, the first banch of games usually aren't as good graphically as games that come out years after a systems release. XBox is an awsome example of this, Halo 1 graphics were ok but Halo 2 graphics were so much better than it made it seem as though Halo 1 and Halo 2 were on different systems, that's how big of a difference they had in graphics (in campaign mode anyway). And since the Dreamcast didn't have years to improve on the graphic quality of their games (due to it's plug being pulled early), or even have time for developers to get up to speed of what the Dreamcast was capable of, we never got to see Dreamcast's full potential.

Sorry man, but I don't think it would of come close to Xbox from what I remember about it's stats.

I really don't remember saying it was close to an xbox in power but I do remember saying that it could probably produce graphics almost as good as a Playstation 2.

Spec comparison chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28sixth_generation%29

According to this comparison chart
http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/
Sega Saturn was a bit more powerful than the Playstation and the Dreamcast wasn't to far behind the Playstation 2.


And here's an in depth comparison of PS3 vs Xbox 360 on their GPU specs
http://www.pcvsconsole.com/comparisons/xbox-360-vs-ps3-gpu/

I realize the difference they had in graphics, but toward the end of PS2's lifetime games were looking amazing. Not sure the DC could pull it off.

I wasn't sure about the Saturn and PS1.

But playstation was like a billion times more popular, so it had the larger (and much more) development houses behind it.

Oh I know, but I just don't know it could be able to do it. Also the difference in format would of hurt DC.

deal or not, I'm still not buying a PS3;
at least not until the price is in a reasonable amount.

(And yes, I do want to buy Metal Gear Solid 4.)

With the gift card you are essentially paying the price of the "core" 360 (the one without the hard drive if I remember correctly) and getting a better piece of equipment. Blu-Ray players are coming down in price, but the PS3 is a pretty good one from what I understand.