Posted: 12/20/2004 8:02:31 AM EDT
|
I'm thinking about buying an XBox or a PS2 and need some input. If you could only have one of these systems, which one would it be, and why? I would love to just do it ARFCOM style and get both, but I can only afford one. Also, I'm NOT going to stuff it in its slot and post pics, so don't even ask. No dry-docking stink pickles either. Just answer the damn question already!! 
|
Will it cost less than $200? 
|
More times than I can count! The main benefit of X-Box is the hardware. It's simply more powerful than PS2. That said, there is still a school of thought which believes that PS2 has more games. Numerically it may, but at least for me, 90%+ of the titles I'd be interested in are available on X-Box, so software becomes a moot point. |
|
Don't you have to pay for online gaming w/ the XBOX (called "XBOX Live")??? Most PS2 online games are free (there are some exceptions like Everquest) as they use your existing broadband Internet connection just like a second computer connected through a switch or hub. I know some people who have highspeed Internet JUST FOR their PS2 as they don't have a computer. Was wondering about the XBOX online thing. |
Good luck trying to find either until mid-January at the earliest. Sony stopped production of the original PS2 to produce the new slim one, but there was a month lag in production and currently most places are sold out. The shortage of PS2's helped sell XBOX consoles, and there is currently a shortage of them as well. I spent a significant portion of time last week at every toy and video game store in my area looking for a game, and no one had either. Toy's R Us is out. Best Buy is out. Gamestop and gamestop.com is out. Amazon.com is out. etc. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas... |
No but it will rock. Just raid the ammo budget for a month and not go shooting. 
|
|
It seems to me that many of the benefits of the Xbox are largely irrelevant because game designers don't take advantage of them. The HDD is not really utilized very much, and I have heard that Microsoft of thinking of dropping the hard drive for the XBox 2. The graphics are definitely better - but many games really don't utilize them, and so it largely becomes a moot point. What I really like about the PS2 is that it is backwards compatible, so that I can play my favorite PS1 games on it if I feel like it. I'm also STILL skeptical about a game system that is largely based on ONE game. Without Hale (and now Halo 2) the X-Box would have been a dysmal failure. I guess if you really like 1st-person shooters, then you simply have to have an X-box, but as a general system, I really like the PS2 better. That said, I'll gladly play both. |
|
dude, put down the crack pipe, and walk away from it slowly. I don't know where you've gotten this silly notion MS is gonna give up on the Xbox, but it's not based in reality. |
MS does not make money selling their system. They make money on the games, but not on the system. They pretty much have the same games as PS, but PS has a much larger user base. MS is going to try and get their system out first (end of next year from what I have read) and Nintendo and PS are going to come out sometime in 2006. Sony will still be the leader and Microsoft will have put itself in the position of having the least powerful system (because they came out almost a year before everyone else). Plus putting the money into an x-box now is crazy. They are the most expensive and the new systems are coming soon. We are in the end times of our current systems. eta - x-box controllers are the worst. |
|
PS2 is the all-around choice. There's alot of good games that come out for PS2 that don't come out for any other systems. The PS2 also has alot of really good kid games. You can play DVD's without having to pay extra. Don't believe the hype over Halo, it's not that great of a game for the amount of hype it gets. I'd say the only thing Xbox does better is graphics. Graphics are not everything, my friends and I will still have drunken nintendo game nights if we're bored and I swear those are the best video game times. |
| I've been PC gaming for so long now....I dunno. I've played the game machines at friend's houses, and they're fun and all, but it always feels like two steps back in both graphics and depth of the game. It's difficult to imagine going all the way back to a GeForce 3 video card and trying to game with that again. Sure, the classic games are fun and all, but I like a good cutting edge display now and then. |
Get a Gamecube lots of kids games for that system, but if she really wants a PS2 then get her that. |
Bingo. My little ones love (trying to) play Super Mario....
|
There aren't better games on the PS2 per se...I've got both systems, and unless you have to have the Final Fantasy Series, Ratchet and Clank, or MSG3, you can get almost everything out on the PS2 worth having in the last 2 years for Xbox. PS2 has a lot of games, no quesion, but there's a high percentage of shit there too. Plus, there isn't a game on both systems that I've seen that doesn't look better on the Xbox, period. Case in point, MSG3 looks like ass compared to MSG2: Substance on Xbox. If the PS2 developers would get off their asses and include more 480p support for games, that gap would narrow some...but I suspect it's the PS2's hardware shortcomings that account for that. |
|
XBOX! Nothing else compares! Xbox Live, Hard Drive, 4 controller outputs, highspeed ethernet, The best graphics, you can get a optical output for you 5.1 surround, and you can use the nifty headset when playing online.  Oh yea, and the #1 Reason to get XBOX so you can join the ARFCOM Halo2 Clan. 
|
Yes...MS makes money on the games....$100 million or so on Halo 2 the first DAY....plus the $60 Million or so a year from Xbox Live. And $100 million plus on Project Gotham Racing, believe it or not. Now, obviously not all of that is profit...but those are still some pretty good numbers. The time between releases of the PS3 and Xenon will be no more than 6 months apart...the specs of each system will have been decided by MS and Sony LONG before the production phase, so the relative power of these systems will be completely independent of one another...just because the Xenon comes out first, doens't mean it will be more/less powerful than the PS3; if we follow your logic, the PS2 should have run rings around the Dreamcast, but it didn't...far from it. Once again, if we follow your logic, every other car maker in the US should just shut down because GM is the world's largest corporation. The fact remains that being number 2 in a several BILLION dollar a year market can be quite profitable. MS now has a solid use base...not Sony's numbers, granted...but they will sell a lot of Xenons. I'm quite sure that MS has figured out where they need to be in manufacturing costs this time around to make the system profitable...they've dropped the hard drive, and backwards compatibility *may* not be there either. I think the onus is squarely on SONY to come out with a system that can go toe to toe with Xenon in the hardware department. They've skated on the woefully underpowered PS2 for it's product life...but if they end up sucking hind tit again, they'll be looking at MS's dust. The only thing that could save them is backwards compatiblity, but I really don't know how big of an issue that is. And, even if you're using some sort of emulator technology like MS is thinking about, it adds $$ to the production costs of the system. I know a lot of people who've sold their PS2 to get an Xbox...I don't know anyone who's sold their Xbox to get a PS2. In any event, you still haven't given a cogent argument as to why you think MS won't be around, dude...and you're being a fellow Raiders fan will only get you so much slack
|
w00t! You don't need a n00b like me slowing you h4x0rz down, though. |