What do you think about the Xbox 360?

I've noticed a lot of people here "hate" the Xbox 360, some think it does shit that were never even mentioned. So what are some of the things you think about the Xbox 360 and if I see any misunderstandings, I'll correct this problem for ya

It's a great gaming system.
I like my PS3 better, but it's a great system.
Nice exclusives, excellent online service, etc.
However, I can't see myself paying 60$ to play Black Ops online, when I can do that for free on my PS3.

If this turns into a flame thread, I will blame you for the death of my dog Txtman.

It's a pretty good gaming console. though the flaws it has keep it from becoming a great console.

$60 a year to play online

Crappy hardware.

early models lack built-in Wi-Fi

Annoying kids on XBL(while other platforms do have them, It happens alot more often on XBL)


that doesn't mean the 360 is bad, It has some pros as well

Great online

Good Exclusives.

Great controller(except for the D-Pad)

XBLA

Integration with other MS services(Zune, WP7, Windows Live, etc.



I prefer the PS3 over the 360 because:

I like the DS3 over the 360 controller

Free Online

It has better exclusives IMO

It's the main media center for my Home(Netfilx, Hulu, Blu-ray, DVD.)

Exclusive content for some Multi-plats(Batman Arkham asylum, Mafia II, MOH, Dead space 2, and Mortal Kombat.)

I think Xbox 360 is a decent console. I just don't like the limitations, technical problems, and the lack of first-party support it has.

I like the console, I just think it's unreliable. I'm always worrying whether or not it will boot up whereas with my old Wii and my PS3 I never had/have that problem.

The exclusives are pretty good, but I think Xbox LIVE needs a lot of work to justify the $60/yr. fee.

It is a nice system and it will last for a long time if you don't abuse it like others. I'm not really keen paying online gameplay and for services knowing the fact that I get the same services else where and free.

chobo500 wrote:It's a pretty good gaming console. though the flaws it has keep it from becoming a great console.

$60 a year to play online

Crappy hardware.

early models lack built-in Wi-Fi

Annoying kids on XBL(while other platforms do have them, It happens alot more often on XBL)


that doesn't mean the 360 is bad, It has some pros as well

Great online

Good Exclusives.

Great controller(except for the D-Pad)

XBLA

Integration with other MS services(Zune, WP7, Windows Live, etc.



I prefer the PS3 over the 360 because:

I like the DS3 over the 360 controller

Free Online

It has better exclusives IMO

It's the main media center for my Home(Netfilx, Hulu, Blu-ray, DVD.)

Exclusive content for some Multi-plats(Batman Arkham asylum, Mafia II, MOH, Dead space 2, and Mortal Kombat.)

I agree for the online part, however I still pay for my Xbox due to the fact I have A LOT of friends on Xbox Live. Annoying kids are a problem especially in Halo, thats what ruined the game for me. And about the early models, if you have an Xbox 360, do what I did, buy the $199.99 4GB version and order a custom 120GB harddrive for the Slim Xbox 360 for only $29.99 (not from Microsoft). Online again I have to mention is better on the Xbox 360, but like you said is not justified for only 2 features over PSN. Multi-plats end up slightly better on 360 (graphics wise), but new games are coming with bonus content on PS3 like you said. XBLA has more games than PSN however (excluding PSone Classics) so yea, the Xbox 360 is my second favorite console and again, if you have an older model just trade it in and get the 4GB and order a custom HDD

txtman8094 wrote:

chobo500 wrote:It's a pretty good gaming console. though the flaws it has keep it from becoming a great console.

$60 a year to play online

Crappy hardware.

early models lack built-in Wi-Fi

Annoying kids on XBL(while other platforms do have them, It happens alot more often on XBL)


that doesn't mean the 360 is bad, It has some pros as well

Great online

Good Exclusives.

Great controller(except for the D-Pad)

XBLA

Integration with other MS services(Zune, WP7, Windows Live, etc.



I prefer the PS3 over the 360 because:

I like the DS3 over the 360 controller

Free Online

It has better exclusives IMO

It's the main media center for my Home(Netfilx, Hulu, Blu-ray, DVD.)

Exclusive content for some Multi-plats(Batman Arkham asylum, Mafia II, MOH, Dead space 2, and Mortal Kombat.)

I agree for the online part, however I still pay for my Xbox due to the fact I have A LOT of friends on Xbox Live. Annoying kids are a problem especially in Halo, thats what ruined the game for me. And about the early models, if you have an Xbox 360, do what I did, buy the $199.99 4GB version and order a custom 120GB harddrive for the Slim Xbox 360 for only $29.99 (not from Microsoft). Online again I have to mention is better on the Xbox 360, but like you said is not justified for only 2 features over PSN. Multi-plats end up slightly better on 360 (graphics wise), but new games are coming with bonus content on PS3 like you said. XBLA has more games than PSN however (excluding PSone Classics) so yea, the Xbox 360 is my second favorite console and again, if you have an older model just trade it in and get the 4GB and order a custom HDD

I would, but I don't use my 360 that often. so it would seem like a waste of money for me sense I already have a working Xbox.

txtman8094 wrote:
I agree for the online part, however I still pay for my Xbox due to the fact I have A LOT of friends on Xbox Live. Annoying kids are a problem especially in Halo, thats what ruined the game for me. And about the early models, if you have an Xbox 360, do what I did, buy the $199.99 4GB version and order a custom 120GB harddrive for the Slim Xbox 360 for only $29.99 (not from Microsoft). Online again I have to mention is better on the Xbox 360, but like you said is not justified for only 2 features over PSN. Multi-plats end up slightly better on 360 (graphics wise), but new games are coming with bonus content on PS3 like you said. XBLA has more games than PSN however (excluding PSone Classics) so yea, the Xbox 360 is my second favorite console and again, if you have an older model just trade it in and get the 4GB and order a custom HDD

Just to comment:

- I really don't want to do all that for a HDD. I'm an extremely lazy guy. I want a gaming system, plug it in, play it.

- What else really makes XBL that much better than PSN? Nobody ever gave me an answer. >_>

Zillah wrote:

txtman8094 wrote:
I agree for the online part, however I still pay for my Xbox due to the fact I have A LOT of friends on Xbox Live. Annoying kids are a problem especially in Halo, thats what ruined the game for me. And about the early models, if you have an Xbox 360, do what I did, buy the $199.99 4GB version and order a custom 120GB harddrive for the Slim Xbox 360 for only $29.99 (not from Microsoft). Online again I have to mention is better on the Xbox 360, but like you said is not justified for only 2 features over PSN. Multi-plats end up slightly better on 360 (graphics wise), but new games are coming with bonus content on PS3 like you said. XBLA has more games than PSN however (excluding PSone Classics) so yea, the Xbox 360 is my second favorite console and again, if you have an older model just trade it in and get the 4GB and order a custom HDD

Just to comment:

- I really don't want to do all that for a HDD. I'm an extremely lazy guy. I want a gaming system, plug it in, play it.

- What else really makes XBL that much better than PSN? Nobody ever gave me an answer. >_>

Join Session in Progress is nice.....

Zillah wrote:

txtman8094 wrote:
I agree for the online part, however I still pay for my Xbox due to the fact I have A LOT of friends on Xbox Live. Annoying kids are a problem especially in Halo, thats what ruined the game for me. And about the early models, if you have an Xbox 360, do what I did, buy the $199.99 4GB version and order a custom 120GB harddrive for the Slim Xbox 360 for only $29.99 (not from Microsoft). Online again I have to mention is better on the Xbox 360, but like you said is not justified for only 2 features over PSN. Multi-plats end up slightly better on 360 (graphics wise), but new games are coming with bonus content on PS3 like you said. XBLA has more games than PSN however (excluding PSone Classics) so yea, the Xbox 360 is my second favorite console and again, if you have an older model just trade it in and get the 4GB and order a custom HDD

Just to comment:

- I really don't want to do all that for a HDD. I'm an extremely lazy guy. I want a gaming system, plug it in, play it.

- What else really makes XBL that much better than PSN? Nobody ever gave me an answer. >_>

I did. A long time ago.

Basically better UI functionality and Party System/XGC.

@ OP To me it's the best system because of it's online functionality and UI, and the exclusives generally interest me more. Oh and I rarely ever have to worry about multiplats running badly on the 360. My only complaint is that Microsoft depends too much on 3rd party exclusives which means that alot of it's exclusives have a huge chance of showing up on other platforms some day.

"Bad hardware, no wifi" isn't a justifible reason to knock the 360 off. That was a problem with the older 360 SKUs. The 20 GB PS3 had no wifi either, and it had serious YLOD issues.

@CC, the only limitation I could possibly think of for the 360 is it's DVD format. But that is more of an obstacle rather than a limitation since developers can and will use 2 discs is necessary. Forza Motorsport 3 handles the issue nicely by letting you install Disc 2 without having to worry about swapping back and forth.

I'm getting a PS3 this weekend. My opinion may change over time but it doesn't seem likely.

@MEGAlan

Blu-ray > DVD

CyberpunkCentral wrote:@MEGAlan

Blu-ray > DVD

Here we go . . .

Alan, please for the love of all that is good in this world, don't respond.

TRF wrote:

CyberpunkCentral wrote:@MEGAlan

Blu-ray > DVD

Here we go . . .

Alan, please for the love of all that is good in this world, don't respond.

Asking Alan that is like telling a irishman to stop drinking.

I don't hate the 360... but I do hate the fact that it's a cheap unreliable POS that continues to break on EVERYONE even after FIVE YEARS of being on the market.

I only had my brand new SLIM model for a couple of months and it's already giving me signs of crapping out on me. I'm getting E82 errors up the ass and I often get fucked up pictures with giant white pixels running down the screen.

The online is great but there is no way in hell I'm paying $60 for it. Not worth it. Once my subscription is up, I'm done with Live. Live has been around for YEARS before the PSN yet I feel that the PSN is getting much better a lot quicker while still not costing a dime.

If my 360 didn't fail to turn on then I'd probably still be playing it now. But this E82 error just won't go away.

I prefer to game on my PS3. I buy pretty much all of my multiplats on it. The whole 360 will always have superior multiplats argument is bullshit. I've played games that were deemed superior on the 360 on both systems but still didn't get what was so superior about them (stuff like GTA4, RDR, hell, even MW2). The only games that really made me go "WTF did they do?" were stuff made by Treyarch (which is why I bought Black Ops on the 360 but still went WTF?! lol), and Bayonetta (good thing Platinum realized that it's a much better idea to lead on the PS3). Maybe they all have better online on the 360 but if we have to pay $60 a year then it BETTER have a greater experience on Live. However, like I said, the PSN is growing very quickly. Many games are supporting custom soundtracks and far better invite/join friends features (MW2's online features had everything I wanted over WaW's). Many are even implementing that little nifty feature that tells us what our friends are doing in their game (ex: Need for Speed Hot Pursuit: Playing a Hot Pursuit game as a racer).

Anyway, tl:dr, I like the 360. I think it's a great system, but there are just far too many flaws for me to call it the best console for this generation. I don't like the direction Microsoft is taking with Kinect.

CyberpunkCentral wrote:

TRF wrote:

CyberpunkCentral wrote:@MEGAlan

Blu-ray > DVD

Here we go . . .

Alan, please for the love of all that is good in this world, don't respond.

Asking Alan that is like telling a irishman to stop drinking.

Stereotyping and being a fanboy. Two birds one stone? Zillah you made the right choice with this guy!

I never was discussing Blu-ray. Bringing it up is silly and makes you look like a childish fanboy. Either respond maturely or don't respond at all.

MEGAlan wrote:Stereotyping and being a fanboy. Two birds one stone? Zillah you made the right choice with this guy!

I never was discussing Blu-ray. Bringing it up is silly and makes you look like a childish fanboy. Either respond maturely or don't respond at all.

I never was discussing DVD either. But if you want to go there, DVD is limited. Compare to Blu-ray anyways.

Did you read my post? The only possible thing you could be talking about is DVD, which I simply correct you by saying it's more so that DVD is an obstacle rather than a limitation. Since most developers can and will work around the issue. I wasn't really discussing Blu-ray VS DVD, I'm focusing on just DVD.

MEGAlan wrote:Did you read my post? The only possible thing you could be talking about is DVD, which I simply correct you by saying it's more so that DVD is an obstacle rather than a limitation. Since most developers can and will work around the issue. I wasn't really discussing Blu-ray VS DVD, I'm focusing on just DVD.

No. It's limited because developers have to cut down the game and basically sell the rest of the finish game as DLCs (which you also have to pay for). Developers are not willing to use a second DVD disc, because it cost them money. Which is why I brought up Blu-ray because developers don't have this problem. Which is also why I don't like PS3 as much as the Xbox 360.

CyberpunkCentral wrote:

MEGAlan wrote:Did you read my post? The only possible thing you could be talking about is DVD, which I simply correct you by saying it's more so that DVD is an obstacle rather than a limitation. Since most developers can and will work around the issue. I wasn't really discussing Blu-ray VS DVD, I'm focusing on just DVD.

No. It's limited because developers have to cut down the game and basically sell the rest of the finish game as DLCs (which you also have to pay for). Developers are not willing to use a second DVD disc, because it cost them money. Which is why I brought up Blu-ray because developers don't have this problem. Which is also why I don't like PS3 as much as the Xbox 360.

No, they don't. The only one I can remember "saying" they did that was Rockstar with GTA4, and yet on the 360 version there was still half a GB of space left on the disc. Microsoft doesn't charge extra for using 2 DVDs, but they do if you use 3. Yes, developers are willing to use 2 discs if necessary. Turn 10 could have easily cut off the content on disc 2 and sold it as DLC but you didn't see them do that...and Forza is a first party Microsoft game. The WORST case scenario is that developers will degrade the quality of a game's textures by compressing it on DVD format, and that's usually if they are limited to one disc.

This is not a limitation if it can be worked around, that was my point. It will present an obstacle for them to work around, but it will by no mean ruin the quality of a game. There are alot of high profile AAA titles that are on 2 discs. Hell, one released today for the Xbox 360. It's called Dead Space 2.

Having a boundary and an obstacle are 2 different things.

EDIT:

If you edit my post one more time I'm reporting it. There was a big chunk of my last post missing and I have a big feeling you did something....

No one's listening to me, huh?

MEGAlan wrote:No, they don't. The only one I can remember "saying" they did that was Rockstar with GTA4, and yet on the 360 version there was still half a GB of space left on the disc. Microsoft doesn't charge extra for using 2 DVDs, but they do if you use 3. Yes, developers are willing to use 2 discs if necessary. Turn 10 could have easily cut off the content on disc 2 and sold it as DLC but you didn't see them do that...and Forza is a first party Microsoft game. The WORST case scenario is that developers will degrade the quality of a game's textures by compressing it on DVD format, and that's usually if they are limited to one disc.

This is not a limitation if it can be worked around, that was my point. It will present an obstacle for them to work around, but it will by no mean ruin the quality of a game. There are alot of high profile AAA titles that are on 2 discs. Hell, one released today for the Xbox 360. It's called Dead Space 2.

Having a boundary and an obstacle are 2 different things.

I seem to recall "Lost Planet 2" also having problems with DVD that the developers had to cut the game and sell the rest as DLCs. There's has to be other games doing the same aswell. Also "Final Fantasy XIII" uses 3 dics on Xbox 360, and it's superior on PS3.

Edit: Sorry about that. I'm very fucking sick today that I deleted by mistake.

CyberpunkCentral wrote:

MEGAlan wrote:No, they don't. The only one I can remember "saying" they did that was Rockstar with GTA4, and yet on the 360 version there was still half a GB of space left on the disc. Microsoft doesn't charge extra for using 2 DVDs, but they do if you use 3. Yes, developers are willing to use 2 discs if necessary. Turn 10 could have easily cut off the content on disc 2 and sold it as DLC but you didn't see them do that...and Forza is a first party Microsoft game. The WORST case scenario is that developers will degrade the quality of a game's textures by compressing it on DVD format, and that's usually if they are limited to one disc.

This is not a limitation if it can be worked around, that was my point. It will present an obstacle for them to work around, but it will by no mean ruin the quality of a game. There are alot of high profile AAA titles that are on 2 discs. Hell, one released today for the Xbox 360. It's called Dead Space 2.

Having a boundary and an obstacle are 2 different things.

I seem to recall "Lost Planet 2" also having problems with DVD that the developers had to cut the game and sell the rest as DLCs. There's has to be other games doing the same aswell. Also "Final Fantasy XIII" uses 3 dics on Xbox 360, and it's superior on PS3.

Edit: Sorry about that. I'm very fucking sick today that I deleted by mistake.

There was still around 200 MBs of free content left on the disc for Lost Planet 2. It's still a very silly reason to cut content off. If they didn't want to use 2 discs they could have compressed the game more. Even if the game's visuals took a hit the content would have been intact. Again, developers will say things to justify paid DLC that comes extermely close to the game's release date.

FFXIII uses all that space because it has alot of CG cutscenes. Digital Foundry reported that there was only 6.8 GBs of game content on the uncompressed PS3 version of FFXIII. Ironically, just about that much game content would have fit on one disc for the 360. Meaning that the CGI cutscenes are the only reason the game required 3 discs on the 360, it runs less smooth on the 360 because Square Enix started development of the 360 version months before the game was released. They stated that they wanted to finish up the PS3 version (which was in development for years) before they started work on the 360 version.

You didn't delete my post. Some of it is intact. I really don't see how you could have subconsciously deleted a select part of my post. BUT I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I hope you get better soon. Just please don't do it again.

MEGAlan wrote:There was still around 200 MBs of free content left on the disc for Lost Planet 2. It's still a very silly reason to cut content off. If they didn't want to use 2 discs they could have compressed the game more. Even if the game's visuals took a hit the content would have been intact. Again, developers will say things to justify paid DLC that comes extermely close to the game's release date.

FFXIII uses all that space because it has alot of CG cutscenes. Digital Foundry reported that there was only 6.8 GBs of game content on the uncompressed PS3 version of FFXIII. Ironically, just about that much game content would have fit on one disc for the 360. Meaning that the CGI cutscenes are the only reason the game required 3 discs on the 360, it runs less smooth on the 360 because Square Enix started development of the 360 version months before the game was released. They stated that they wanted to finish up the PS3 version (which was in development for years) before they started work on the 360 version.

You didn't delete my post. Some of it is intact. I really don't see how you could have subconsciously deleted a select part of my post. BUT I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I hope you get better soon. Just please don't do it again.

Thanks. I shouldn't even be debating to be honest. I'm just going to say... you owned me and ended here.

Buzz off TRF.

Everything to you is a flame war post except the posts that are actually intended to cause a flame war.