Comparing The Consoles

Now that I've had a few weeks of interaction with my new (used) XBox 360, it seems like an appropriate time to post some thoughts on how it stacks up against the PS/3. My opinions may change over time, but here's how things look to me right now.

Starting with the obvious - the console's physical appearance - I much prefer the sleek look of the PS/3. Both boxes are around the same size, and each is designed so that you can orientate it upright or lying flat. In our house, each of the consoles is in the latter position, because they're both on top of our big screen TV, and I don't them tipping over and crashing to the floor! Also, the disc tray comes out parallel to the floor when they're set up that way, which I prefer as it's just more natural than trying to hold a disc in place vertically while you wait for the tray to close. I'm sure each console probably comes in a variety of colours and skins, but I have a standard black PS/3 and vanilla white 360, and the former just looks a lot sharper. Not that it makes any difference beyond esthetics, but there it is.

As far as the controllers are concerned, I'm also giving the nod to the PS/3, at least so far. I prefer the rechargeable approach that Sony uses over the removable batteries of the Microsoft hardware, especially because the console itself provides an easy way of charging up the PS/3 wireless device. I like that both have gone wireless but am less than impressed that each also decided not to support their predecessor's wired controller attachments. Where Sony might lose my vote in this category would be if either of my PS/3 controllers stop holding their charge for very long in the future, forcing me to spend another $70 to replace one (shades of my 1st iPod!)... But so far, so good.

When you power on the boxes and start exploring the main menus, Microsoft definitely wins the User Interface battle. The XBox 360 Dashboard is professional looking and ultra-modern, whereas what you get on the PS/3 looks like demoware from the 90s, more often than not. I have to admit that I did find the 360 a bit tough to navigate at first, as there are non-obvious options - like pressing the X-button one way to get one screen to come up and another way to get access to a different one - but once you get used to it you can go anywhere and find anything really quickly. On the flip side, the PS/3 menu is extremely easy to learn and is logically laid out, making navigation a breeze. I was initially impressed that the PS/3 came with an Internet browser built in, and got a thrill out of seeing this very blog displayed on our big screen, but once the novelty wore off, I stopped using it pretty much entirely. However, if I didn't have my laptop readily at-hand in the living room at all times as I do now, I might just consider that browser a much more important feature that's entirely missing from the XBox 360.

I much prefer the all-in-one approach that Sony took with the PS/3, where the units cost more but come with everything included. I'm not sure that that's been the wisest course in general, as I think Sony originally priced themselves out of too many markets, but it worked well for me. I hate that the 360 doesn't have a wireless network adapter built in (although I hear that they do offer some higher end models with that) and how can you compare the value of being able to play Blu-Ray DVDs on any PS/3 versus having to buy an additional HD-DVD drive for the 360? Those two 'deficiencies' of the Microsoft product are huge differentiators for me, and make the PS/3 the clear winner in that category.

Another major advantage of the PS/3, in my opinion, is the fact that online play is not an additional attack on your wallet. After all, you've paid several hundred dollars for the console, another nearly-$100 for each game that you buy for it, so why in the world should you have to spend more money in order to play those same games on that same machine over the internet (which you also pay to get access to, every month!)? Sony believes that you shouldn't have to pay more; Microsoft clearly thinks that you should! Now, the $60/year XBox Live Gold Membership that I purchased is not an exorbitant expense - it's only $5 per month, after all! - but why does it exist at all? Being someone who often makes decisions purely on principle, the mere existence of the XBox Live fee was partially responsible for keeping me out of the 360 world for as long as I was (until a sweet deal finally came along that I just couldn't pass up).

I'm not sure what all of the options are around headsets, but I will say that I'm happier with the wired-to-the-controller version that came with my XBox 360 than I have been with the wireless clip-over-an-ear Motorola piece of crap that I bought for the PS/3. For one thing, the smaller one takes a battery and it ran out of juice at an inopportune time; but more importantly, it has to be re-mated to the console every time I use it! Contrast that with the "it just works, everytime" experience that I've had with the 360 headset, and there's no contest. But for all I know, maybe I could've bought something similar for the PS/3.

As far as the games themselves are concerned, both console manufacturers get credit for hosting good repositories of demos. I was never big on trying out demos in the past, but lately I've been downloading lots of them, on each console, and test-driving way more games than I would ever have imagined. The ease of the downloads, in both cases, makes it very painless to try stuff out, and I'm starting to think that I should never buy another console game without first trying out the demo for it (yes, I'm looking at you, Warhawk on the PS/3!) I give the smallest of victories to Microsoft in this area, because they've combined the download and installation into one seamless step, whereas Sony forces you to do both, separately. It's not a big deal, but it does make me wonder why the testers of the PS/3 never complained about it!

Since I only spend a dozen or so hours gaming most weeks, and thanks to my 360 coming with a bunch of games included, I have more choices of what to load up these days than I have time to play them! Even before the 360 arrived, I wasn't really hurting for games on the PS/3, although that may be thanks to Resistance: Fall of Man providing so many months of entertainment right from the day, nearly a year ago now, that the console came into my hands. However, it's fairly obvious that the 360 has a much richer selection of games to choose from, in part due to it being around longer, and in part thanks to some poor decisions within Sony. For the sorts of games I like - First Person Shooters and platform games for Vicki - both consoles provide more than enough variety to keep me from getting bored. So, from my perspective, this one's a saw-off.

Overall, I'm still more attached to my PS/3, but I'm definitely developing some affection for the 360. If I could find a used wireless network adapter for the 360, for considerably less than the $129.99 (plus tax) that Microsoft's asking for it, I might like it even more. As it is, I'd give the PS/3 about an 8 out of 10, and the XBox 360 somewhere around a 7 out of 10. In case anyone cares!!