- Hey y'all, Scott here.
Apparently my input on wars throughout history is extremely important. So it finally makes sense why
after the French Revolution in most history textbooks it just says, "But what would Scott think?"
It's the middle of class in 2011 and all these kids
are discussing politics which is better than the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360, one of them asks, "Scott, which one do you prefer?" And you ruin your credibility. Nintendo. (punching sound) Platform wars will forever be a thing when you don't have anything better to do in your life.
Why not defend plastic? I mean, when you blow
up thousands of dollars on a new computer or a
phone, you don't wanna actively admit, "Yeah, yours
is better. I'm the idiot" You wanna make sure your
purchase is justified and have everybody agree with you that the way you spend $400 is
better than how I spend $400. This kind of debate is
especially prevalent between platforms that are largely similar but have various minor pros
and cons between each of them. And nowhere was that more of a thing than with the console wars of the 7th generation of video game consoles. Five enter the ring, one
was a runaway success, we don't count that. The other
two were portable systems, they had their own fish to fry. So we were left with two systems, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Video game fans have always been pit against each other based
on the consoles they used each and every generation but never before were two consoles so perfectly balanced between their strengths and weaknesses. One console did well in one
area while the other faltered but the other did well in an area the other couldn't even spell right. It's still up for debate
nowadays, which one is better. It's a very similar
situation to what happened with the Second Genesis and
Super Nintendo back in the 90s. The difference was the
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were more so civil tyrants.
The Genesis and Super Nintendo were only interested in what
each other's blood tasted like. Console wars have definitely settled down between the companies over the years. While once was a war, turned
into a competitive picnic. But the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were truly out to get each other. They didn't like each other one bit which meant I know what
I'm gonna do tonight. I'm gonna recall the
history of these consoles duking it out and
afterwards we'll put the two against each other in
a variety of categories to see which one I end
up personally preferring. I plan, the best parties.
The video game landscape and who was on top was and
still is consistently changing. Atari was king until they were stupid, but Nintendo overtook gaming for a while, until Sega came along with the Genesis and actually outsold Nintendo's
offerings for a bit there until they tried to succeed
so hard, they failed. Nintendo took over again but
then Sony came into the picture with the PlayStation and that blew up. If anything, this shows
that when a new generation of systems comes along, some
of them will take the crown It's never always Nintendo or always Sony, but it's never Sega. So if you had the resources to create
a video game console, go for it, (bleep) go for it. You have nothing to
lose, except everything. You have the potential to be
the best selling game console of all time. I'm telling my kids that. So when Sony was working
on their next console, the PlayStation 2, Microsoft
entered the ring by announcing the Xbox. It actually gave
Sony a run for their money. I'm sure Sony keeps this
photo on their nightstand. What happened here? And it
makes sense for Sony to win, but by this much? Lots of
things added to this happening, while I made the point that
just because a company did well one generation doesn't mean
that's success will transfer over to the next. That most
certainly happened here. The PlayStation was a huge
hit. Over 100 million console sold with the next one on the
horizon being definitively called the PlayStation 2, what
did you think would happen? It's like everybody loves bread. Bread 2 comes out, it's gonna sell well. The PS2 launched in the year 2000. Microsoft released the
Xbox one year later. So not only did Sony get a
years head start on Microsoft which meant by the time the Xbox released the PS2 already had a year's
worth of games in its library but they also had brand
recognition on their side. People knew what a PlayStation
was. The Xbox scared people. Plus DVDs are getting big at the time. The PlayStation 2 was a DVD
player, straight out the box. It had amazing exclusive
games, but pretty much all the third-party games
you could possibly ask for. Even though the Xbox had a lot
of these things going for it, they were only in spirit.
It could play DVDs as long as you bought
the DVD remote accessory, without this, you couldn't
play DVDs. That was stupid. It had exclusive games. It
had third-party stuff but most exclusives, well
not bad, it didn't really shake the world. And a lot of
the biggest third-party games while running and looking
far better on the Xbox, came out a while after
the PS2 versions did. This little guy put up a fair fight but it obviously wasn't going
to beat out the PlayStation 2. By the time it came out, Sony basically already won that
generation. But of course, Microsoft wasn't discouraged
by getting 2nd place. People love this thing.
Look at it, it's so buff. For a first timer, the
Xbox did quite well. It beat on Nintendo's
GameCube in terms of sales and it did have at least
one exclusive series that mattered. Halo.
Most of their party games you'd wanna play that generation did eventually come to the system. For a newcomer console,
the Xbox did about as well as it could have possibly done. And Microsoft had the deep
pockets to support it. I mean, this system rarely
turned a profit ever. They may have sold a decent amount of them but they were losing money on this thing. For most companies, if their first console didn't turn a profit, they normally say, "Let's get outta here!" But Microsoft can afford to do anything they want. They have an endless supply of money. They can let a game console go to space, go bankrupt, whatever they want. They have so much money and the Xbox as a plan it itself is a worthwhile brand. So Microsoft did the unthinkable. They never learned to count. The Xbox 360 was revealed on May 12th, 2005 on MTV because TBS was busy that day. Microsoft was serious
with making the system a massive deal, and something that Sony should have been legitimately scared of. Instead, they were pretty
competent with their next console, the PlayStation 3 success.
I mean, after your last two systems were the most
popular systems in history, it's easy to get a big head
and think anybody will buy something with the word Sony on it. Surely, after the Xbox 360's reveal, Sony revealed info on the PS3. How it was leaps and bounds,
more technologically advanced than Microsoft's offerings.
I mean this thing had it all, two USB ports, three more
USB ports, another USB port. The entire system was built
around something called the cell processor, which was
a highly advanced technology that nobody knew how to
use. It was pretty difficult for programmers to actually
utilize the cell processor and make games for it.
But Sony was so arrogant after the past two generations that resists mentality
that developers would learn to program for it because
we made the PlayStation 2. Everybody loves us. If the cell processor takes a lot of time to figure out, developers would spend all
their time making games for the PS3, because it's so difficult, they won't have time to
make games for the Xbox 360. Sony knew they had brand
recognition on their side so they decided to make the
ultimate video game box. Backwards compatible with all
generations of PlayStation, the most powerful architecture imaginable. A compact flash card
reader, because (beep) you, you need that. They weren't
constructing the world's most video game console, they were making a government supercomputer.
It could do anything and everything you'd want a thing to do. It could play the up and
coming high def Blu-ray discs. Sony was banking on that
being a huge selling point much like how the PS2 playing DVDs was. It had the best looking
games and the most USB port. Sony knew people would fly to the places you can get instead of
the Xbox and they decided to make the greatest device they could because they knew people would
buy regardless of the cost, regardless of the cost. The
Xbox 360 launched later in 2005 with the PlayStation 3
being slated for spring 2006 until being delayed to holiday 2006. Much like how the PS2 released a year ahead of the competition.
I feel that the Xbox 360 doing the same, did
numbers to its success. Microsoft had a year headstart on Sony which meant by the time
the PS3 would launch and they'd have a beefy library
of games at their disposal. Potentially better price
point of the console, a larger installed base of players which was a big deal in
the era of online gaming. Plus they were the first
console to show off what at the time, was next gen graphics. So by the time the PS3 would come out, it wouldn't have been as
revolutionary looking. But Sony couldn't care
less about Microsoft. They were confident that the people would drop everything in their life at the moment for the right
to buy a PlayStation 3. But then during their E3
2006 press conference, Sony said, "You know what? We
haven't (beep) up in a while. Let's do it." This conference
will always live in infamy. The moment that many
stop looking at the PS3 with excitement and
instead with embarrassment. The entire presentation
was awkward with how lines were delivered and the games
honestly looking pretty boring. A lot of these stuff didn't
look that much better than what Microsoft was
putting out which made it sting even more when it
ended with the mortgage. - The 20 gigabyte
PlayStation 3 will retail for for $499 US dollars and
$549 Canadian dollars. And the 60 gigabyte PlayStation 3 for $599 US dollars,
$659 dollars Canadian. - Back then, I didn't even
know that much money existed. To be fair, Sony was taking
a loss on PlayStation 3s at that price point.
These things were costing far more to produce than what
they were selling them for. However, it didn't matter.
It was still clear. Nobody wanted to spend $600
for the right to play this. This was when a lot of people
sprung on the Xbox 360, the price point was fairly
solid and you got pretty much all the games that were coming to PS3. So you can't blame anybody
for going this route. Holiday rolled around and the PS3 launched right before the Nintendo Wii
and people were going nuts. People were camping out waiting
to scoop up these consoles and immediately sell them
on eBay for a profit. I do this with Robitussin
during flu season, I get it. But people were taking
this incredibly seriously. The PS3 was expected to be a smash hit, or a failure. I'm open to that too. For the first few years of its life, the PS3 was the laughing
stock of the gaming industry. It was overpriced and didn't have a ton of compelling exclusive games. On the platform, titles
often ran worst on the system because one, the Xbox 360
was easier to develop for. So developers would
make games for it first and then hastily port it over to PS3, and B, the Xbox 360 was more popular so developers would
make games for it first and then hastily port it over to PS3. I mean that thing had a bigger library and more exclusive initially, with a lower starting price
compared to the PS3. It was obvious if you
wanted a new console, comparing it to the 360
just made more sense. And now the PS3 ads were (beep) weird. See, that just shows how
arrogant Sony was at the time. And they thought, "Oh,
we'll creep people out with our PlayStation 3 commercials. It's the PS3, people want it regardless" But the PS3's problems didn't mean the 360 was having the greatest of times. More and more hardware
malfunctioning were occurring. This model was notorious for failures, showing off the infamous red ring of death which meant your system
was pretty much done so. While it was doing better sales wise, Microsoft had to deal
with repairs spending, crazy amount on warranty and overall just had to live with the bad press that 360 got when it came to reliability. So one had no games and
the other didn't work. You really had to pick your poison. Within the first year,
Sony took drastic steps to improve the PlayStation
3. Cutting the price, removing features that
were sort of worthless to reduce costs. I will
never forget UCF card reader. More and more exclusives were coming out like Little Big Planet and Uncharted. But right when Sony was
starting to turn things around, Microsoft just had to release Halo 3. And this maybe at one
of the biggest moments in gaming history just
based on the energies running the launch alone. Everybody knew Halo 3 was launching, it was a big deal. But then after that,
Microsoft kind of gave up. The 360 no doubt had loads
of fantastic exclusive games, but most of the big ones
came in the first few years of that system's life. Gears
of War, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, it all led up to Halo
3. And then afterwards, I mean, most of these games came out but really Microsoft kind of got content with where they were at and
stopped fighting nearly as hard. Sony continued to fund exclusive games and reduce the PS3s price
until finally giving it a much needed redesign that
was quite a bit smaller and was featured in a new ad campaign that highlighted the
system's unique features. Microsoft kept at it with
redesigning the system's user interface, offering
avatars like Nintendo's Mii's and focusing on media
consumption with streaming apps. As time went on, it felt like
the roles were reversing. Sony was trying to win
over the hardcore gamer with excellent games while
Microsoft was trying to transform the Xbox 360 into this
all-in-one entertainment hub for everybody, which was the
initial mission statement of the PlayStation 3. Both
companies tried their hands at motion controllers to
combat the Nintendo Wii. Sony had the PlayStation Move
and Microsoft the Kinect, well both were equally (beep)
stupid in their own right. The Move felt more like a way
to turn your PS3 into a Wii, if you're into that sort of thing. The Kinect felt more like
something Microsoft wanted everybody to have and position
it as a replacement for the Wii. You can control
the games with your body. That's insane. I (beep)
hated my thumbs, anyways. The Kinect did insanely
well. Much better than the PlayStation Move,
but that came at a cost. While Sony was focusing
on making legitimately good video games to win back the trust of the gaming community,
Microsoft fully shifted the Xbox brand into casual
all-in-one entertainment after the Kinect success.
At least they released a redesigned system that
actually worked this time. The last couple years of
these systems active lives before their successors
released were fairly different but Sony just kept pumping
out exclusive after exclusive getting games to come to
PS3 with exclusive content. And while Microsoft kept
focusing on Halo, Gears of War, Forza, Kinect games with
Call of Duty thrown in there with all the DLC coming
to Xbox first. And the 360 was still ahead but was losing the support of the hardcore community
while Sony was doing wonders to regain the trust and
rebuilding the PS3's image. Sony still had tons of trouble
occur during this time. Most notably the PlayStation network hack and outage of 2011, they
stood strong and focused on making the PlayStation
3 the gamers console. Both systems receive one more
redesign later in their lives. These ones focused on
giving us console so cheap. I can try to break it over my
knee. (bleep) Keyword, tried. Sony had one more ace up their sleeve with "The Last Of Us" releasing
in summer of 2013. Right before the launch
of their next console, the PlayStation 4. One
of the most critically acclaimed games of all
time as an exclusive that got a lot of people
to pick up a PlayStation 3 mere months before the next
PlayStation was coming out. That's pretty impressive.
And throughout all of this, while the Xbox 360 was
winning the war for most of the generation, when
all was said and done, it was actually Sony who ended up winning. And this is still crazy to me. I still always look at
the Xbox 360 as the winner in terms of sales. And while that was true for the majority of its life,
the PlayStation 3 picked up so much steam later on, it
actually ended up winning. A classic underdog story. It
always warms my heart to see a multi-billion dollar corporation win at the end of the day, but who really won? Sony. But who do I think wins overall? So it's come down to
this. I'm gonna pit these two consoles against each
other in 9 categories and see which one ends up
winning based on my preferences. And my personal history
with these consoles was, I was always a Nintendo
guy. My state's government already knows that, but
in 2011 I had enough of being the only guy in school
who didn't have something that couldn't play Barrel Blast. So I had to decide. Did I want an Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 3?
Both had "Yoostar 2" so it really didn't matter.
I ended up going with the Xbox 360 but I always wondered if things would be
different, on the other side. I finally bit the bullet five years later and bought a used red PlayStation 3. I've barely used this thing.
This is the perfect opportunity to play this for the
first time and play this to bring back memories and see
which one comes out on top. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) Both of these systems have
had three different designs released throughout their lives. And the first iterations
are both absolutely iconic. This system looks like a fun box. This system looks like a space heater. I don't think the original
PS3 looks bad by any means but it looks like it's trying it's hardest to look futuristic and
expensive and just ended up looking like it really
wanted to be taken seriously and instead got called a (beep) grill. Both of these are pretty beefy consoles. I mean, I'd be worried if I swallowed one. I do think the original Xbox 360 had more of a personality though. You could swap out the faceplates. I think every company
tries this at least once and then never again, but
this was a neat little idea. At least the PS3's PlayStation
logo could be rotated based on its orientation.
Yeah we need new models. The slim variants of both systems. Now I will say both of these
were desperately needed. The PS3 needed a more
cost-effective and attractive model. And the 360 needed a model
that actually worked. Definitely, the 360 S was
the most necessary revision with the original being plagued
by the red ring of death. No wifi built in, no HDMI built in, yeah. Yeah. This is definitely needed. When the least expensive
model only had four gigabytes of storage. Oh, that's worthless. Now to be fair, around
2007, Microsoft released the Xbox 360 Elite with HDMI built-in. Still the original
design. I'm worried this is gonna catch on fire
and I don't even own one. The PS3 slim, while it wants
a bit of a stripped down version in comparison to the original, it was an excellent upgrade
in terms of aesthetics. This system looks so good
and it still retains a lot of the character of the original model. Of course, you can always go cheaper. So Sony released the PS3
Super Slim. Please go back. So this is kind a cute, look at this. It's like a bathroom stall.
The disc tray is a bit problematic on here. It's not terrible, but it's so much cheaper.
It's so much louder. Every time when I open and
pop a disc in and shut it, it doesn't shut all the
way and I have to nudge it slightly to get it to close properly. And this one started at 12
gigabytes of storage. Yes. Now, this was obviously
made to be a super cheap entry-level PS3. It's nowhere near as sturdy or substantial
feeling as the slimmer, the original. I can't say
this is a bad option to have. It's still a PS3. It's fine. I liked that they tried something different and stupid but it is undoubtedly
the cheapest feeling one. It just doesn't feel like it matters. Well, Microsoft decided to
complete two can play (bleep) third consoles and came up with this during sleep paralysis. The Xbox 360 E. This is one of my least
favorite looking console of all time. This released
the same year as the Xbox 1. They decided to redesign
the 360 to look more like the Xbox One, and who
doesn't wanna look more like the original Xbox One?
The 360 has had a great look. I liked how sleek it was,
how it was subtly X shaped. That was great. So why do this? It just looks confused and scared. Both console's had ups and
downs with their designs but if I had to choose
one, I'd say in the PS3 was the most consistently solid. I don't hate any of these designs. The Super Slim is totally cheap and the original is totally fat but I think they all look
at the very least fine. I really do like that original 360 design but it didn't have wifi, HDMI. It was on its death bed
as soon as you bought it, it had problems. And while the S was a great upgrade to reliability features and overall design, the
E just completely ruined the 360 chances here.
(Xbox and PlayStation sounds) The controller is what makes
video games a thumb man's game. The Xbox 360 is often cited
as having one of the best controllers of all time. It
just feels so substantial. The button placement, the sticks triggers, everything feels perfect.
Of course it does have some issues. The D-pad
is on a similar level to Vlad the Impaler. They updated it later on to be a transforming D-pad. Swing it around to be actively, okay. It uses double AA batteries for power, which was a bit outdated
even for the time. Microsoft would later release
play in charge kits, though which allowed you to simply
use a rechargeable battery. You had to pay extra for it but
at least you had the option. But overall, this is still easily one of the greatest controllers out there. Now on a completely unrelated note, the PlayStation 3 controllers. So it initially released as the Six Axis which had no rumble that got
updated to the Dual Shock 3, which was everything that the
Six Axis was but with rumble, I was waiting to be confused today, but all PS3 three controllers
basically looked the same which means they all look
the same as PS2 controllers which look the same as
PS1 controllers which were basically the same as a
Super Nintendo controller. Sony used the exact same controller design for three consoles at this point. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, but they kept cramming
these modern technologies into a decade old design
and because of that, it was easy to see some cracks forming. It's a bit small for my liking. I was never the biggest fan
of the thumb stick placements and they had an analog triggers but the way they're designed, make it easy for your fingers to slip off of them. And there's also not as much
weight to this controller as the 360s, which makes
this feel a lot flimsier and more fragile. Just
holding it, you can feel how easy it would be to snap this in two. With a 360 controller, I
don't feel that at all. Now the controller is
rechargeable out of the box, which is a nice feature. However, while the battery life
is pretty all right, the 360 controller with double A's lasted quite a bit longer. PS3
does have motion controls. You can tilt the controller
around but my Holy (bleep) God is it gimmicky. I find it funny how people considered the Wii gimmicky
back then and justifiably so. But the PS3 controller had
motion controls as well and every implementation I've seen of motion controls with
this controller where some of the most unnecessary
garbage of all time. At least the Wii had bowling going for it. Now the PS3 control
does look pretty classy, it looks more elegant. If 360
controller is on your couch, I immediately think you
cheated on your girlfriend and your fingernails look disgusting. This has more class, but it's still better in nearly every way to me.
Better layout, better feel, better battery life, not
one necessarily gimmicks, a few little issues but this
is pretty damn near close to perfect. The PS3 controller isn't bad but it's just not as rock
solid as the competition. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) The Xbox 360 had so many
accessories. A way to play HD movies, wifi adapter.
Did the PS3 have those? Oh. The PlayStation 3
was the ultimate package. You could play Blu-rays
right out of the box, use HDMI, connect to wifi,
play PS1 games, PS2 games, everything! As long as
you had the best models. So some of these features,
namely wifi connectivity and PS2 games support were
taken out of lower end PS3s originally to make them
as cheap as possible. And it does make buying these older models a bit more confusing. As most
people don't really know how to differentiate a PS2
compatible wifi enabled PS3 in the wild. That's why it's
easier to compare the features of the second revisions
of each console onwards and easily the PS3 still
has the most features. Of course, Blu-ray support out of the box. Now, the Xbox 360 had an
adaptor to play HD DVDs, you're welcome humanity,
but the fact you had to buy a separate disc drive for
a soon to be obsolete format at the time, it just
didn't stack up to the PS3. That was one of the biggest
draws for the system, the Blu-ray support. It was
the only system to have it at the time. And it was a great feature. Of course, you had the
Xbox live vision camera which was just the garbage
webcam, you can't forget that. PS3 had the PlayStation eye
but both of these evolved into the major accessories
for the console. The Kinect and PlayStation Move The Kinect was a camera that
could sense your whole body. You could control the
games with no controller the PlayStation move to
use the PlayStation eye to read wands and the Kinect automatically had more marketing potential
and definitely did better right out the gate. That
move was a fine accessory, but it more so felt like
a way to let the PS3 play, Wii type games, but Kinect
as terrible as it could be allowed for much more
possibilities with games not playable with standard controllers. But at least the PlayStation
Move didn't take its company and obliterate it for four years straight. Kinect forced Microsoft
into a casual entertainment perspective and made them lack ambition in the gaming landscape,
the PlayStation move. Well, it wasn't as exciting at the time it was used in less offensive ways. It was often just an
option and it worked well for the most part. It
was a side thing for Sony rather than their core focus
but Kinect had more games for it that I think justified a purchase. You can already buy a PlayStation
move to make people leave your house. There just wasn't a ton of compelling software for it. And now Kinect had a ton
more absolute garbage but at least justified
itself with some titles. Plus the idea was more
novel than PlayStation Move. With that said I think all
the features packed into the PlayStation 3 plus
it's motion controller being non-obtrusive and
fine. I think I'll give the features and accessories point to PS3. Kinect had more purpose, but it was bogged down with imprecise
controls, terrible games and overall tanking Microsoft's
image in the latter half of the 360's life.
Games like Kinect sports and Dance Central may
have been decent enough to warrant a purchase and were
more iconic than the entirety of games that required
PlayStation move, but they just aren't a big enough deal to
really make me vastly prefer the Kinect to the Move. I can go with one or the other most of the
time, but with the PS3's suite of features, I think it takes this round. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) Which of these systems
is the easiest to use while not compromising on options? Well, the 360's user interface
has changed three times throughout the years, each
one, having their own fans until landing on this one.
Honestly, I never had much of a problem with this interface. It's quick and snappy.
Everything is laid out in an understandable
fashion. It makes sense. I don't think about the lookup
where certain things are on Google or anything. A
few more advertisements than I prefer, but hey,
this works quite well. The PS3 has had the
cross-media bar since launch it's updated a bit, but it's
generally been the same five throughout the years. I do like this. I think it's well thought
out. It makes sense. You have all the general
things you can do on the left and right and then up
and down are the options within the option you've selected. Though I do think that this
interface is a bit bland compared to all of the
360s. And it does have a bit too many options.
If we go to settings, it's really difficult
to tell which setting is the specific setting you wanna use. It's great. If you really
wanna get down and dirty with your PS3 but if I
wanna adjust something, half the time I don't
know which option to pick. I'd definitely have to
Google how to adjust things every time. But Hey, at
least we have tons of things to mess around with. But
holy (beep) do I hate using this thing. The PS3 is
a temperamental child. There's always something going on with it. Of course, the infamous updates. Pretty much every time I boot a game up there's an update. There's
something I have to install. Of course, most of the
time I can't do anything in the background. I have to
sit and watch the thing load. And this thing freezes up
so much more than the 360 installing loading updates.
I'm always at the end of my seat when the PS3
is doing any of this because there's a solid chance
something's gonna go wrong. The Xbox 360 is simpler and
just works most of the time I pop in a game. If it has to update it downloads it pretty
fast. Barely any games have to install stuff. It's
user interface is simple, but gives me the options I want. The PS3 is in the top 40
worst PlayStation consoles but on a more positive note,
it's in the top 40 best. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) Online play was incredibly
important during this generation. I should know, I barely used
it but both of these systems did lean heavily into the
online multiplayer crowd. If you're buying one of these systems you gave a (beep). Xbox 360 was generally considered the king of online multiplayer, connection was great. The
interface for setting up parties and hopping into games with
simple and intuitive good stuff. The PS3 wasn't bad. But wasn't as elegant. And wasn't nearly as feature packed as the 360 was in its early years. It took a while but the PS3 eventually got everything together
and was pretty competent. but there was one big
point against Xbox live. You had to pay for it.
Oh no, that's not fair. I have a mouth to feed, Xbox
live gold was $60 a year Now per year, that's not too
bad. It's pretty reasonable. But if you wanted a
slightly spottier service for free a year, you
could buy a PS3 and spend that $60 you would have
spent on online multiplayer on a new video game. Instead, you could have paid for surgery. Now Sony did offer a paid online service PlayStation Plus. This service gave you
the ability to play betas for upcoming games, give you
exclusive sale prices for games and updates could be
downloaded to your console automatically. Instead of
having to sit through it every time. "You had to pay for that?" the biggest deal was that
you would get free games every month downloaded to your system for as long as you kept
your plus membership. Xbox with later offer monthly free game for Xbox live gold members in 2013, right before their next
console would come out. Great. PlayStation plus was kind
of cool but they liked some weird features
behind a premium paywall. We just don't want something
like Netflix on the Xbox 360 something you already
had to pay for monthly. You need a golden
subscription. That's dumb. But if I had to choose
between the two, the 360 did have the better online component. Both did some dumb things,
but we're also used to paying for only multiplayer now,
and that it's not that big of a deal.
(Xbox and PlayStation sounds) Generally speaking, which
console looked the best? Well most people would
probably know the PlayStation 3 was more powerful than the Xbox 360. Yes. Most people, ask Ed Asner, he'd know, but when you compare
the two, they are pretty on par with each other. Well, many PS3 exclusives looked phenomenal at the time. 360 games didn't look that much worse. In fact, because the 360
had a bigger install base for most of its life and
was easier to develop for most of their party games
ended up looking better on 360 because they were made
with that hardware in mind. Oh, this isn't a huge deal, by better, I really mean we're splitting hairs here, but 360 does look slightly
nicer. Playing something like "Bioshock Infinite"
on the PS3 I do notice a lot more dirty looking textures compared to the 360 version that
third-party games look and run a bit better on
360, most of the time. And while there are a handful of cases where the PS3 version of the game is drastically worse than the 360 one. Most of the time it's not that noticeable playing the PS3 version
isn't much different at all from the 360 one. But the developers working exclusively with the PS3 the developers who actually
took the time to figure out how to use the system to
the best of its abilities. My God, some of these
games looked just as good as PlayStation four titles,
just comparing two exclusives for each system that released
in 2011, "Gears of War 3" and "Uncharted three". "Uncharted"
does look better to me. But the 360 can do some
really impressive stuff. Like really impressive, just look at "Rise of the Tomb Raider"
on the system from 2015, this was an Xbox one
game but the 360 version looks incredible for the
console and it doesn't even require an install or multiple disks. The Xbox 360 can put
out some crazy graphics but the PlayStation three at its best will always look a
little bit better to me. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) God I hope my new video game
console can play my older games even though I'll never play them. Backwards compatibility
is such a luxury to have even if you barely use
it. And the PlayStation 3 initially was set to be
the ultimate PlayStation. They could play all generations. And then the PS2 support was taken out of the cheaper models to cut costs. And then they got rid of it entirely. But hey, Xbox 360 completely
original Xbox games. This is the ultimate pleasure. Could you imagine a worse note
to get on your windshield? So both consoles have trouble
with playing older games. All PS3s plays PS1 discs
but a specific version of the original model is the only one that can play PS2 games
some PS1, and PS2 games are available to download from
the PlayStation network store in various PS2 games were
re-release in high definition, via collection. So regardless you had some options on
PS3, the Xbox 360 can play a little less than half of
the original Xbox library. Microsoft would update
the 360 every now and then offering more and more original Xbox games that were supported
until they just gave up. Even though most of
the major Xbox releases you'd care to play are supported.
Many of them have issues. The Wikipedia list of
the Xbox games that were backwards compatible has a
specific column denoting issue. So that says it all right there.
Those games run fine enough many older titles were
re-released via downloads on Xbox live arcade and
PlayStation network. And while Xbox live arcade
was easily the more popular of the two, most legacy titles
appeared on both surfaces. These do both have their
problems with playing legacy content but the
PS3 had the most options and always supported PS1 discs. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) I already talked about how
third-party multi-platform games generally looked and
ran better on Xbox 360. And that's generally the case. Sometimes third party
games have to install trash on PS3, but they just
immediately boot on the 360. Like come on. Most of the time the graphical differences
are incredibly minor. It's the point, where I'd
say, "If you're playing a third-party game on
PS3, you don't have much to worry about. Its not a big deal." But to combat any graphical differences many third party PS3 games
offer exclusive content whether that's exclusive
characters in fighting games exclusive missions and modes,
PlayStation Move support. That's all pretty cool.
Xbox 360 versions really didn't have much to offer in comparison. I mean, "Call of Duty"
DLC came to Xbox first. Geez, I better get "Black Ops 2" in 2020, but most of the time
PS3 offered legitimate gameplay reasons to
want to own that version instead of the 360 one. Even
having PlayStation Move support in "Bioshock Infinite" that's way cooler than offering Kinect
support in "Mass Effect 3", Where it's literally just screeching at your Xbox to make choices on screen. There's some people who
like playing shooters with motion controls. It
was a cooler incentive than noise complaints. However, a lot of these exclusive features
didn't amount to a lot. They were cool incentives.
And to be honest, most third party games were
made for Xbox 360 and thus they just worked better on the platform. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) Most major third-party games came to each console, you
weren't missing out on much if you are a big THQ
nut and you want a 360. What this all boils down to is, "Which console had the
best exclusive games?" The Xbox 360 had "Halo", "Gears
of War", "Fable", "Forza", "Crackdown", the PlayStation
3 had "Uncharted", "Resistance", "Little Big
Planet", "Ratchet and Clank", "Sly Cooper", "Killzone",
"Infamous", "God of War", "Metal Gear Solid 4", "Gran Turismo", "Puppeteer", "The Last of Us". Okay. Okay. This may be a bit unfair.
To give Microsoft credit. They did quite a good
job in the first half of the 360s life with exclusives.
I mean "Halo 3" launching will always be one of the
biggest events in gaming history. Even looking at the best
PlayStation 3 exclusives they just don't hold a candle
to the amount of excitement around the world, for that one game. "Gears of War" was huge.
And "Forza" took over the racing sim crown from "Gran Turismo". Like my God, they had
"Forza" games releasing every single year and
the "Gran Turismo" team was just like, here's a
prequel to "Gran Turismo 5", because for some reason we're
taking 20 years to make it. And then for some reason,
they put out "Gran Turismo 6" after the PlayStation 4 launched. With digital bite-sized titles
Xbox live arcade was far better then you had so many
fun experiences on there. Uh, PSN, eh. They secured
games like "Bioshock" and "Mass Effect", "Mass Effect
2" was exclusive for a year. Now each of these games
came to PS3 eventually and timed exclusives aren't
my idea for a fun afternoon, but it at least showed
they meant business. They got "Grand Theft Auto"
to jump away from being a timed PlayStation exclusive franchise. They got final fantasy
to come to Xbox finally. They really cared and then they gave up. Once Kinect rolled around
they let their guard down and while Sony was already
starting to kill it, they really went crazy
funding exclusive content. Not only were they making
amazing exclusive games but sequels to those
games and not only were these games great, but
they had a huge variety of games exclusive to
PlayStation 3. There's a reason the only things people think
about when Xbox is brought up are "Halo", "Gears of war" and "Forza". And Kinect exclusives
could be sort of cute. But right when I said that
Sony put out "The last of us". Jesus. One of the most
critically acclaimed games of all time. That got so
many people to buy a PS3 and then you had some of
the more unknown games. "Puppeteer" is really charming
and not all PS3 exclusives were winners. Some of them
definitely missed the mark, but many PS3 exclusives
were truly experiences worth investing in a PS3 for.
The PS3 may have been rough around the edges and
difficult to use in many areas but I don't even have
to finish this sentence. (Xbox and PlayStation sounds) So the PS3 won which is
weird, considering that I used a 360 back in the day, to be fair, it could have gone either way
but based on my personal taste at the moment I think
the PS3 comes out on top. Even if it's an absolute bitch to use but turns out I'm not blinded by nostalgia or love for a specific company. I pick the PS3 when the 360
was the console I owned. So that's a plus to my reviewing skills. The only thing the PS3
could use is a version of "Mario Party 9", this
game is actually terrible but I love it because
it's made by Nintendo. (upbeat music)
Christ, that clip of him getting fucking decked is gonna get used out of context in all the funniest ways
The iterations of the PS3 be like:
Upgrade
Upgrade
FUCK GO BACK
Top Tier Video! Scott is great at editing, using visuals, picking music, and writing scripts, as always. This video was a bit different, but I like this kind of subject matter. 5 knee slaps out of 5.
Holy shit that was fast, he just tweeted about the upload
I pretty much agree with this video. The PS3 is a slow-ass monstrosity and insufferable to use sometimes, but it was a versatile box with a lot of great games, and the back half of its life definitely ended with it coming out on top.
If you've still got a PS3 kicking around, I'd honestly recommend softmodding it - the release of PS3HEN not too long ago means all models can do it, and Multiman opens up a lot of doors, including features like changing the region on the DVD/Blu-Ray drive. It's really amazing how useful the system can really still be, all these years later.
But, good god, those update times really made me want a 360 back in the day.
this man has gotten so funny
God damn it, I was beaten again
Why isnt the Wii in this