BBC show tackles 'clapped-out old banger' Xbox 360
by Alexander Sliwinski 
on Feb 14th 2007 4:00AM
63
The BBC's show Watchdog premiered an episode last night focusing on the "clapped-out old banger" known as the Xbox 360. The main subject of the piece was Alex Ainsow. After the warranty ran out on his Xbox 360 he says it wouldn't stop crashing. He paid £85 ($166 USD) to have it repaired and then his refurbished Xbox 360 lasted three days.
The show concludes with Microsoft offering Ainsow a new system and some games to shut up. According to the BBC, Microsoft says most people with an Xbox 360 have an outstanding experience, and there's no system issue. The show says that they've received 248 complaints about the Xbox 360 and are receiving more as the system goes out of warranty.
After the break we have the last part in the epic YouTube saga of Rob, who was contacted by Watchdog, and his one two defective Xbox 360s.
The following video is what happens when you type in "Watchdog" and "Xbox 360" into YouTube. We thought there might be a chance the Watchdog segment was uploaded. This video was made on Dec. 1, 2006. It's apparently the last chapter in the epic tale of Rob and his defective Xbox 360. This segment takes place after he was contacted by the BBC show Watchdog. Perhaps one of our readers across the pond can confirm whether he was on the show this evening.
See also:
[Update 1: We added the Watchdog segment]
[Thanks Sean]
Reader Comments (63)
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 4:01PM (Unverified) said
I think I should point out that the BBC are legally obliged to be neutral when reporting. That does include Watchdog (and other current event programmes), even though it's mostly aimed at news programming.
And they definitely are neutral - they don't want to lose the licence fee after all.
And they definitely are neutral - they don't want to lose the licence fee after all.
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 2:41PM (Unverified) said
I love how people who have no interest in the 360, or even own one, can provide us with "insight" about it.
If you don't own a 360, and have no intention of owning one, how can you tell people it is less reliable than nintendo and sony's systems?
Because you read the internets, and came to some conslusions?
Did everyone forget the DDE problems with the ps2? How about the problems with the ps1? In order to get the ps1 to work correctly, you had to turn the thing upside down.
I am not saying MS makes perfect hardware (they don't), but saying sony makes more reliable hardware is simply laughable.
I had one ps1 die on me, and two ps2's die on me. My father went through 3 Sony CRT HDTV's in a 2 month period before he finally got one that worked properly. My uncle went through 2 Sony ES receivers, before he finally just returned it and bought an ONKYO. The sony cd player in my sister's car decided to stop ejecting cd's 8 months after she bought it. Sony makes laptop batteries that explode.
I could go on.
What about the ps3 controllers that randomly disconnect? How about sony music installing rootkits on your computer?
Like I said, I never claimed MS makes perfect hardware, because they don't.
Don't sit here and tell us that Sony makes more reliable hardware, because if you look at sony's track record over the past 15 years, you'll see you are quite mistaken..
If you don't own a 360, and have no intention of owning one, how can you tell people it is less reliable than nintendo and sony's systems?
Because you read the internets, and came to some conslusions?
Did everyone forget the DDE problems with the ps2? How about the problems with the ps1? In order to get the ps1 to work correctly, you had to turn the thing upside down.
I am not saying MS makes perfect hardware (they don't), but saying sony makes more reliable hardware is simply laughable.
I had one ps1 die on me, and two ps2's die on me. My father went through 3 Sony CRT HDTV's in a 2 month period before he finally got one that worked properly. My uncle went through 2 Sony ES receivers, before he finally just returned it and bought an ONKYO. The sony cd player in my sister's car decided to stop ejecting cd's 8 months after she bought it. Sony makes laptop batteries that explode.
I could go on.
What about the ps3 controllers that randomly disconnect? How about sony music installing rootkits on your computer?
Like I said, I never claimed MS makes perfect hardware, because they don't.
Don't sit here and tell us that Sony makes more reliable hardware, because if you look at sony's track record over the past 15 years, you'll see you are quite mistaken..
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 4:06PM sand0789 said
Nogino,
You stated that MS has only 4-5 games worth playing. Come on now. That is retarded. Let's just go with games with metascore of 80 or more as "worth playing". By your logic, the PS3 has zero games worth playing, as the 360 has 8 games considered by most to be better than Resistance. From Metacritic:
PS3
1 Resistance: Fall of Man 2006 87
2 MotorStorm 2007 84
3 Fight Night Round 3 2006 84
4 NBA 2K7 2006 81
5 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2006 81
6 Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 2006 81
7 NHL 2K7 2006 80
8 Call of Duty 3 2006 80
360
1 Gears of War 2006 94
2 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94
3 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90
4 Call of Duty 2 2005 90
5 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2006 89
6 Burnout Revenge 2006 89
7 Blue Dragon 2007 89
8 Project Gotham Racing 3 2005 88
9 Fight Night Round 3 2006 86
10 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2005 86
11 Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine, The 2006 86
12 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent 2006 85
13 Dead or Alive 4 2005 85
14 Dead Rising 2006 85
15 F.E.A.R. 2006 85
16 Viva Pinata 2006 85
17 NBA 2K7 2006 84
18 Crackdown 2007 83
19 Need for Speed Most Wanted 2005 83
20 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2006 82
21 Test Drive Unlimited 2006 82
22 Hexic HD 2005 82
23 Call of Duty 3 2006 82
24 Hitman: Blood Money 2006 82
25 Football Manager 2007 2006 82
26 Tony Hawk's Project 8 2006 82
27 Football Manager 2006 2006 81
28 Condemned: Criminal Origins 2005 81
29 Saints Row 2006 81
30 College Hoops 2K7 2006 81
31 LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy 2006 81
32 Uno 2006 81
33 Table Tennis 2006 81
34 Cloning Clyde 2006 81
35 Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 2006 81
36 NBA 2K6 2005 81
37 Perfect Dark Zero 2005 81
38 WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2007 2006 80
39 Madden NFL 07 2006 80
40 Peter Jackson's King Kong 2005 80
41 Tomb Raider: Legend 2006 80
42 Moto GP 06 2006 80
43 Heavy Weapon: Atomic Tank 2007 80
44 Winning Eleven: Pro Evolution Soccer 2007 2007 80
You stated that MS has only 4-5 games worth playing. Come on now. That is retarded. Let's just go with games with metascore of 80 or more as "worth playing". By your logic, the PS3 has zero games worth playing, as the 360 has 8 games considered by most to be better than Resistance. From Metacritic:
PS3
1 Resistance: Fall of Man 2006 87
2 MotorStorm 2007 84
3 Fight Night Round 3 2006 84
4 NBA 2K7 2006 81
5 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2006 81
6 Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 2006 81
7 NHL 2K7 2006 80
8 Call of Duty 3 2006 80
360
1 Gears of War 2006 94
2 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94
3 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90
4 Call of Duty 2 2005 90
5 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2006 89
6 Burnout Revenge 2006 89
7 Blue Dragon 2007 89
8 Project Gotham Racing 3 2005 88
9 Fight Night Round 3 2006 86
10 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2005 86
11 Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine, The 2006 86
12 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent 2006 85
13 Dead or Alive 4 2005 85
14 Dead Rising 2006 85
15 F.E.A.R. 2006 85
16 Viva Pinata 2006 85
17 NBA 2K7 2006 84
18 Crackdown 2007 83
19 Need for Speed Most Wanted 2005 83
20 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2006 82
21 Test Drive Unlimited 2006 82
22 Hexic HD 2005 82
23 Call of Duty 3 2006 82
24 Hitman: Blood Money 2006 82
25 Football Manager 2007 2006 82
26 Tony Hawk's Project 8 2006 82
27 Football Manager 2006 2006 81
28 Condemned: Criminal Origins 2005 81
29 Saints Row 2006 81
30 College Hoops 2K7 2006 81
31 LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy 2006 81
32 Uno 2006 81
33 Table Tennis 2006 81
34 Cloning Clyde 2006 81
35 Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 2006 81
36 NBA 2K6 2005 81
37 Perfect Dark Zero 2005 81
38 WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2007 2006 80
39 Madden NFL 07 2006 80
40 Peter Jackson's King Kong 2005 80
41 Tomb Raider: Legend 2006 80
42 Moto GP 06 2006 80
43 Heavy Weapon: Atomic Tank 2007 80
44 Winning Eleven: Pro Evolution Soccer 2007 2007 80
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 6:31PM Ozzpot said
As a gamer of some 20 years experience, I think it's important to properly research a console purchase. Especially when they cost as much as PS3. Now, I used to work in a games shop, selling every console of previous couple of generations. As you might imagine, I also bought each console myself. I've owned every console since 1991, give or take the odd obscure one.
For this generation though, I put research into it. Should I wait for a PS3? Will I still find the Wii's unique control fun in a year's time? Or should I just buy a 360? I discounted the Wii until I could get my hands on one properly, to see if the gimmick would last or fade. It has since proved to fade for me. I played with a Wii relentlessly for a couple of weeks, and the novelty just wore off. PS3 versus 360 then:
At first, the PS3 looked to be the best machine. Sony claimed it was more powerful. They claimed it had great online services. They claimed it did a higher res HD than the 360. They claimed it did backwards compatibility better than the 360... the controller would be more advanced... the blu-ray media was far better... and so on. It looked great, even given the high price. But when you delve deeper, you find that it was mostly gloss, exaggerations, inaccuracies, and buzzwords - all aimed at convincing a new generation of gamers that their console was best. But I knew that in recent years, Sony have started to rest on their laurels, to take advantage of their brand presence and loyal fan base, and to start to churn out more quantity than quality.
Sure enough, as the PS3 edged closer to release, more and more of it's advantages over the 360 began to get stripped away.
It seemed that in fact, it wasn't much more powerful than the 360 at all. Games released on both consoles were not exactly identical. PS3 versions had slightly stripped down graphics, leaving out polygons and textures where possible to save on processing power and keep the framerate up. See Ridge Racer as an example. Other games more advanced lighting effects in the 360 version. The only plus in the PS3s column was slightly better loading times.
It also came to light that the "new" controller was a modified Dual Shock, with Wireless capability (that apparently disconnects itself all the time and has to be paired again), and a basic tilt system. Not a patch on the award-winning reliable and solidly built 360 controller, a triumph of evolution in game controllers. Solid Wireless capability, all the buttons you'd expect, in exactly the right places, including (what should be standard by now) proper analogue triggers.
It also became apparent that the online service was a pale copy of Xbox live (which has also won awards). Without some of the key features that have made Xbox Live so popular, it doesn't compete with Microsofts offering, available as both a FREE (silver) and pay (Gold) service.
The next thing was 1080p. Sony waxed lyrical about this, claiming points over the 360 on "True HD" capability. In actual fact, few PS3 games support it. And Microsoft delivered a knockout punch on the matter by announcing the 360 did it too - promptly releasing the software update to enable it! Funnily enough, Sony hasn't said a word about it since...
The media issue for me is a tricky one. The PS3 has a built-in Blu-ray player, making it a cheap player for HD movies. But then the war isn't over. Sony fanboys will have you believe Blu-ray is winning (but then they would say that wouldn't they?) Microsoft didn't want to take the risk, putting in the tried and true, well established DVD format, making the cost of the machine lower for those who aren't yet interested in upgrading to HD movies. The DVD format is plenty big enough for the vast majority of todays games, and the add-on nature of the HD-DVD drive means that whatever happens in the format war, 360 owners won't be left high and dry with an obsolete drive in their machine.
Just about every tick I had in the PS3 column has either been rubbed out or matched by the 360. Given the price difference too, and the wealth of great exclusives in the Microsoft stable, there was no competition for me. Sony no longer has the advantage in any game genre either. Gran Turismo for example will always be tough competition for any driving game. PGR3 is great, but falls a little short of what Sony will come up with I'm sure. Forza 2 however is a different story. Pair that with Microsoft's awesome and solid force feedback wheel, and you have a truly amazing driving sim. There used to be games on Sony;s machines that kept me buying them, but no more. Each of their "exclusives" have since lost that status, moved over entirely to Xbox, or been beaten into 2nd place by the Xbox's own efforts.
So, given all that research, I went for the 360, and I am absolutely delighted with it. All of my 360 owning friends did similar research. We have all worked in the industry (some of us retail games, some are games testers, one is even a producer at Atari). We all read dozens of informed websites such as this one, we all read Edge, we all know out stuff. And WE all chose the 360 over the PS3.
Other friends I have, are waiting for the PS3. But if you ask them why, they can't tell you. They know nothing about it. Can't even tell you what games it has. All they know is "Playstation". They blindly buy it based on this. I am not saying that all PS3 owners are as uninformed as this, some are buying it because it has the franchises they love, or that they want it for it's ability to play blu-ray discs on the cheap. Whatever, But even Sony will admit that their installed user base is heavily reliant on "Casual gamers", those that know little about the facts and figures, wouldn't know Mario from Masterchief, but do have this word "Playstation" imprinted on the brain associated with a dominance established in a bygone generation, and since diminished.
As far as the 360 goes, yes, I am one of the unlucky ones that have had hardware problems with a first-batch machine, but so what? It broke, Microsoft said sorry and fixed it. I couldn't ask for more.
Aston Martins are unreliable, break down frequently and need to be repaired, but they're still beautiful, impressive, and desirable machines.
My £2000 Sony TV broke on me, at a far younger age than would seem reasonable. Sony said nothing doing, so I had to take the hit. So what? I don't hold it against them. They have a generally good history with hardware right? Microsoft too. They have made peripherals and such for the computer market for years and years, and most will agree it is expensive, but high quality. 360 teething problems aside, I trust them.
The problem I have with Watchdog, is that they took a simple case of some people getting a faulty product, and having it repaired, (which happens all the time in every industry), and making it seems sinister or scandalous in some way. You could do it with any company, and any product. The program just seems a little one sided and unfair -like fanboys often are. This is what some people here are saying, and I can't disagree.
I am not a fanboy, just a well researched and vastly experienced gamer who has decided one way or the other this time around based on the facts, and a little games franchise preference. I don't like console war any more than the next man (as it tends to attract uninformed and abusive fools), but I do feel that Watchdog has this time been unfair.
If anyone's still reading this drivel, sorry to prattle on, and thanks for reading!
For this generation though, I put research into it. Should I wait for a PS3? Will I still find the Wii's unique control fun in a year's time? Or should I just buy a 360? I discounted the Wii until I could get my hands on one properly, to see if the gimmick would last or fade. It has since proved to fade for me. I played with a Wii relentlessly for a couple of weeks, and the novelty just wore off. PS3 versus 360 then:
At first, the PS3 looked to be the best machine. Sony claimed it was more powerful. They claimed it had great online services. They claimed it did a higher res HD than the 360. They claimed it did backwards compatibility better than the 360... the controller would be more advanced... the blu-ray media was far better... and so on. It looked great, even given the high price. But when you delve deeper, you find that it was mostly gloss, exaggerations, inaccuracies, and buzzwords - all aimed at convincing a new generation of gamers that their console was best. But I knew that in recent years, Sony have started to rest on their laurels, to take advantage of their brand presence and loyal fan base, and to start to churn out more quantity than quality.
Sure enough, as the PS3 edged closer to release, more and more of it's advantages over the 360 began to get stripped away.
It seemed that in fact, it wasn't much more powerful than the 360 at all. Games released on both consoles were not exactly identical. PS3 versions had slightly stripped down graphics, leaving out polygons and textures where possible to save on processing power and keep the framerate up. See Ridge Racer as an example. Other games more advanced lighting effects in the 360 version. The only plus in the PS3s column was slightly better loading times.
It also came to light that the "new" controller was a modified Dual Shock, with Wireless capability (that apparently disconnects itself all the time and has to be paired again), and a basic tilt system. Not a patch on the award-winning reliable and solidly built 360 controller, a triumph of evolution in game controllers. Solid Wireless capability, all the buttons you'd expect, in exactly the right places, including (what should be standard by now) proper analogue triggers.
It also became apparent that the online service was a pale copy of Xbox live (which has also won awards). Without some of the key features that have made Xbox Live so popular, it doesn't compete with Microsofts offering, available as both a FREE (silver) and pay (Gold) service.
The next thing was 1080p. Sony waxed lyrical about this, claiming points over the 360 on "True HD" capability. In actual fact, few PS3 games support it. And Microsoft delivered a knockout punch on the matter by announcing the 360 did it too - promptly releasing the software update to enable it! Funnily enough, Sony hasn't said a word about it since...
The media issue for me is a tricky one. The PS3 has a built-in Blu-ray player, making it a cheap player for HD movies. But then the war isn't over. Sony fanboys will have you believe Blu-ray is winning (but then they would say that wouldn't they?) Microsoft didn't want to take the risk, putting in the tried and true, well established DVD format, making the cost of the machine lower for those who aren't yet interested in upgrading to HD movies. The DVD format is plenty big enough for the vast majority of todays games, and the add-on nature of the HD-DVD drive means that whatever happens in the format war, 360 owners won't be left high and dry with an obsolete drive in their machine.
Just about every tick I had in the PS3 column has either been rubbed out or matched by the 360. Given the price difference too, and the wealth of great exclusives in the Microsoft stable, there was no competition for me. Sony no longer has the advantage in any game genre either. Gran Turismo for example will always be tough competition for any driving game. PGR3 is great, but falls a little short of what Sony will come up with I'm sure. Forza 2 however is a different story. Pair that with Microsoft's awesome and solid force feedback wheel, and you have a truly amazing driving sim. There used to be games on Sony;s machines that kept me buying them, but no more. Each of their "exclusives" have since lost that status, moved over entirely to Xbox, or been beaten into 2nd place by the Xbox's own efforts.
So, given all that research, I went for the 360, and I am absolutely delighted with it. All of my 360 owning friends did similar research. We have all worked in the industry (some of us retail games, some are games testers, one is even a producer at Atari). We all read dozens of informed websites such as this one, we all read Edge, we all know out stuff. And WE all chose the 360 over the PS3.
Other friends I have, are waiting for the PS3. But if you ask them why, they can't tell you. They know nothing about it. Can't even tell you what games it has. All they know is "Playstation". They blindly buy it based on this. I am not saying that all PS3 owners are as uninformed as this, some are buying it because it has the franchises they love, or that they want it for it's ability to play blu-ray discs on the cheap. Whatever, But even Sony will admit that their installed user base is heavily reliant on "Casual gamers", those that know little about the facts and figures, wouldn't know Mario from Masterchief, but do have this word "Playstation" imprinted on the brain associated with a dominance established in a bygone generation, and since diminished.
As far as the 360 goes, yes, I am one of the unlucky ones that have had hardware problems with a first-batch machine, but so what? It broke, Microsoft said sorry and fixed it. I couldn't ask for more.
Aston Martins are unreliable, break down frequently and need to be repaired, but they're still beautiful, impressive, and desirable machines.
My £2000 Sony TV broke on me, at a far younger age than would seem reasonable. Sony said nothing doing, so I had to take the hit. So what? I don't hold it against them. They have a generally good history with hardware right? Microsoft too. They have made peripherals and such for the computer market for years and years, and most will agree it is expensive, but high quality. 360 teething problems aside, I trust them.
The problem I have with Watchdog, is that they took a simple case of some people getting a faulty product, and having it repaired, (which happens all the time in every industry), and making it seems sinister or scandalous in some way. You could do it with any company, and any product. The program just seems a little one sided and unfair -like fanboys often are. This is what some people here are saying, and I can't disagree.
I am not a fanboy, just a well researched and vastly experienced gamer who has decided one way or the other this time around based on the facts, and a little games franchise preference. I don't like console war any more than the next man (as it tends to attract uninformed and abusive fools), but I do feel that Watchdog has this time been unfair.
If anyone's still reading this drivel, sorry to prattle on, and thanks for reading!
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 5:51PM (Unverified) said
The Xbox 360 has the worst build quality of any console in recent memory. At this point, over a year later, still showing the problems, this thing has surpassed the original PS2 in failure rates. The PS2 would fail, but not consistently 3,4, or 5 in a row like the 360. I don't care how blind your fanboyism is: Microsoft needs to be taken to task for this crap.
Worst. Console. Quality. Ever.
Worst. Console. Quality. Ever.
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 7:01PM (Unverified) said
The BBC is a government commissioned TV networks. If what you are saying is true robby2009, then there is some extremely corrupt going wrong. These guys are doing research and have to be correct in it as TV watch dogs (which are completely apart from the BBC) will come hard on there ass.
Yes, it may of been poorly done by their normal standards. But as witnessed by this comment reel it's self, your numbers don't match up. 98% is a bit abirtary when a signifcantly high percentage of on here alone have had problems with there.
Only two cases out of 10mil owners leads to 98% of others happy that they never had problems? Hmm, there was at least 5 on here that said they also had problems. I'm not bashing MS in any way, I'm just stating that these things happen and what you are saying robby2009 is being plucked from somewhere we rather not see.
Yes, it may of been poorly done by their normal standards. But as witnessed by this comment reel it's self, your numbers don't match up. 98% is a bit abirtary when a signifcantly high percentage of on here alone have had problems with there.
Only two cases out of 10mil owners leads to 98% of others happy that they never had problems? Hmm, there was at least 5 on here that said they also had problems. I'm not bashing MS in any way, I'm just stating that these things happen and what you are saying robby2009 is being plucked from somewhere we rather not see.
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 9:13PM (Unverified) said
You know I agree that there have been too many problems with the initial 360 hardware. But I really dont feel MS has just been horrible about how they handled it. They went over a year on extending/repairing launch systems that had problems. And also refunded those that paid for repairs on these launch systems. And for us in the US extended all the warrenties to 1 yr as 90 days is the norm on almost all game consoles here.
To turn the table a little I wonder if the people with 1st run PS2's that had disk read errors got as much help from Sony, as I would hope so. Or what about all those dead pixels on PSP, my 1st one had a dead pixel right in the middle and was luckly able to swap at the store. My friend replace his PS1 3 times I still have my original.
Really if either should take a lessen from someone Nintendo would be it. They seem to make there systems as toys and such are very durible. The only faults I can think of they have had off hand is the front loading Nes contact issues(mainly a minor annoyance that is now ingrained into gaming culture) and a few cracked DS cases. A friend had a problem with his DS screen and they fixed it quick and no hassle.
To turn the table a little I wonder if the people with 1st run PS2's that had disk read errors got as much help from Sony, as I would hope so. Or what about all those dead pixels on PSP, my 1st one had a dead pixel right in the middle and was luckly able to swap at the store. My friend replace his PS1 3 times I still have my original.
Really if either should take a lessen from someone Nintendo would be it. They seem to make there systems as toys and such are very durible. The only faults I can think of they have had off hand is the front loading Nes contact issues(mainly a minor annoyance that is now ingrained into gaming culture) and a few cracked DS cases. A friend had a problem with his DS screen and they fixed it quick and no hassle.
Posted: Feb 14th 2007 9:43PM (Unverified) said
360 = Ass.
Posted: Feb 15th 2007 10:43AM (Unverified) said
wow.. he was wearing lipstick
Posted: Feb 15th 2007 9:43AM (Unverified) said
God I used to hate watchdog.. it could be a decent consumer programme.. but its just such cheap, tacky, sensationalist tv. I can't beleive the BBC is willing to have it's name associated with it.
Usually, by the time they have finished bashig some company, I end up with more sympathy for the "bad guys" than I had at the start.
Is it still presented by Nicky Campbell? Boy was HE annoying..
Usually, by the time they have finished bashig some company, I end up with more sympathy for the "bad guys" than I had at the start.
Is it still presented by Nicky Campbell? Boy was HE annoying..
Posted: Feb 15th 2007 9:56AM baby sea tuna said
Boy, that certainly was informative! So what did we learn from all of this, kids?
1. Both MS and Sony have stealth reps out in force intent making these comment threads their bitch.
2. Scare tactic news segments aren't any better researched/produced over there than they are on this side of the pond.
3. Brits are fucking UGLY!
1. Both MS and Sony have stealth reps out in force intent making these comment threads their bitch.
2. Scare tactic news segments aren't any better researched/produced over there than they are on this side of the pond.
3. Brits are fucking UGLY!
Posted: Feb 15th 2007 4:08PM (Unverified) said
Ozzpot you work for Microsoft right ?? 3 messages.. and what a big third one !??
It's not a question of PS3 or PS2 or Wii it's the Red ring of Death and the 360.. And that's a real problem.. face it O_o dont be blind or fanboys
#53
Without PS2/PS3/PC games after 15 months:
1 Gears of War 2006 94
7 Blue Dragon 2007 89
8 Project Gotham Racing 3 2005 88
10 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2005 86
13 Dead or Alive 4 2005 85
14 Dead Rising 2006 85
16 Viva Pinata 2006 85
18 Crackdown 2007 83
22 Hexic HD 2005 82
32 Uno 2006 81
33 Table Tennis 2006 81
34 Cloning Clyde 2006 81
37 Perfect Dark Zero 2005 81
43 Heavy Weapon: Atomic Tank 2007 80
44 Lost Planet
That's why you buy a 360 and no PS2/PS3/PC because they are exclusiv.
It's not a question of PS3 or PS2 or Wii it's the Red ring of Death and the 360.. And that's a real problem.. face it O_o dont be blind or fanboys
#53
Without PS2/PS3/PC games after 15 months:
1 Gears of War 2006 94
7 Blue Dragon 2007 89
8 Project Gotham Racing 3 2005 88
10 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2005 86
13 Dead or Alive 4 2005 85
14 Dead Rising 2006 85
16 Viva Pinata 2006 85
18 Crackdown 2007 83
22 Hexic HD 2005 82
32 Uno 2006 81
33 Table Tennis 2006 81
34 Cloning Clyde 2006 81
37 Perfect Dark Zero 2005 81
43 Heavy Weapon: Atomic Tank 2007 80
44 Lost Planet
That's why you buy a 360 and no PS2/PS3/PC because they are exclusiv.
Posted: Feb 22nd 2007 9:28PM (Unverified) said
I have no opinion as to PS3 vs. 360...but I'm interested in knowing the credentials of the individuals commenting on the technology. For example, I read the same rehashed comments such as:
"just as powerful as the PS3 overall. Better GPU, more flexible architecture, more system bandwidth and a CPU better suited for gaming calculations."
I don't know if this is true or not, but reading VG blog comments and repeating them does not a fact make. How about some sources on this? The only information ever provided is anecdotal, offered by people with their own agenda.
I have seen the optical drive throughput numbers and I believe them when they say the 360 > PS3. But, because the Cell moves information around differently, I respectfully suggest authoritative citations demonstrating both systems performing as intended for each.
Or show me your employee badge demonstrating you work in R&D at IBM, and aren't a 13 year old with cheetos on the front of your shirt.
"just as powerful as the PS3 overall. Better GPU, more flexible architecture, more system bandwidth and a CPU better suited for gaming calculations."
I don't know if this is true or not, but reading VG blog comments and repeating them does not a fact make. How about some sources on this? The only information ever provided is anecdotal, offered by people with their own agenda.
I have seen the optical drive throughput numbers and I believe them when they say the 360 > PS3. But, because the Cell moves information around differently, I respectfully suggest authoritative citations demonstrating both systems performing as intended for each.
Or show me your employee badge demonstrating you work in R&D at IBM, and aren't a 13 year old with cheetos on the front of your shirt.
Featured Stories
The politics of making games: Disconnect between 38 Studios and Rhode Island in quotes
Posted on May 24th 2012 6:45PM