surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Aaronf, unfortuantely your argument holds absolutely no water because you are completely mising point of all of the PS3 bashing articles that have been written lately. By this point most of the "core" gamers have already purchased a PS3 or an XBOX360. These are the gamers who want the large hard drives and the internet connectivity.
The people who have not bought an XBOX360 or PS3 yet are either casual gamers, or they do not make enough money to purchase an expensive game system. These are the people who both Microsoft and Sony need to be going after now, and so far Microsoft is doing a much better job then Sony is. These people just want to play games, that is all, and to do that a barebones $200 XBOX360 arcade system is perfect for them. They do not want a $400 PS3 that has a bunch of features they don't care about. They do not care about the Blu-ray player, because most of these people don't even own a HDTV. Over 80% of Americans don't own a HDTV, so why would any of them care about a Blu-ray player.
Right now we are officially in a recesion, and people are living day to day wth the threat that they might not have their job the next day. Obviously this has caused people to no spend much money, and to try to get the most out of their dollar. If you have $400 and what you want is a next gen video game system whih you can start playing out of the box, you can either buy just a PS3, with no games, or you can spend $200 and get an XBOX360, which comes with two games. Then you'll have $200 left to spend on other games, or controllers, or a memory card. Or you can save that $200 and spend it on something else.
I applaud your effort to try defend the PS3, and I agree that as a "total package" the PS3 is cheaper. If you want a hard drive and internet connectivity, and HD support, the PS3 is a cheaper solution. However that's NOT what people are looking for. That's NOT what inverstors care about, and most of all that's not what the economy is allowing for right now.
It's time for Sony to wake up and realize the retail worl they are living in. It's time to make a change and drop the PS3's price.
The people who have not bought an XBOX360 or PS3 yet are either casual gamers, or they do not make enough money to purchase an expensive game system. These are the people who both Microsoft and Sony need to be going after now, and so far Microsoft is doing a much better job then Sony is. These people just want to play games, that is all, and to do that a barebones $200 XBOX360 arcade system is perfect for them. They do not want a $400 PS3 that has a bunch of features they don't care about. They do not care about the Blu-ray player, because most of these people don't even own a HDTV. Over 80% of Americans don't own a HDTV, so why would any of them care about a Blu-ray player.
Right now we are officially in a recesion, and people are living day to day wth the threat that they might not have their job the next day. Obviously this has caused people to no spend much money, and to try to get the most out of their dollar. If you have $400 and what you want is a next gen video game system whih you can start playing out of the box, you can either buy just a PS3, with no games, or you can spend $200 and get an XBOX360, which comes with two games. Then you'll have $200 left to spend on other games, or controllers, or a memory card. Or you can save that $200 and spend it on something else.
I applaud your effort to try defend the PS3, and I agree that as a "total package" the PS3 is cheaper. If you want a hard drive and internet connectivity, and HD support, the PS3 is a cheaper solution. However that's NOT what people are looking for. That's NOT what inverstors care about, and most of all that's not what the economy is allowing for right now.
It's time for Sony to wake up and realize the retail worl they are living in. It's time to make a change and drop the PS3's price.
Yeah, but the guy that wrote the Wall Street Journal article has a Japanese name, so he has to be right about video games.
If you're going to draw comparisons to a stalemate, you have to argue secondary features like quality of services for each.
Also, you're precluding that Dtoid readers aren't bargain hunters on each side. Anyone who WANTS to pay full retail for their shit up and down the line is a fool.
Xbox Live Gold memberships can be had for as low as $28 per year if you shop around. Used 360 drives and controllers are on ebay and in retail for less than $20. I know I'm not the only one who takes advantage of those deals either, so again, you can't draw a fair comparison of those attributes either by flat out pricing it like we're average consumers.
Also, not everyone wants or has wireless for either console. I've got a 20 GB PS3. I sacrificed my need for wireless so I can have backwards compatibility, and frankly, I see no real loss on my part. The backwards compatibility is something that should, quite frankly be strongly considered. Some of us paid a much higher price for purchase to get a PS3 that does backwards compatibility.
And if you're not going to get into brass tacks over features/evaluation of services for each console, one has to levy their need/use of the console vs actual use.
Will this be used as a Media Center PC (either one is fine), Will you be watching movies in HD (PS3 has physical 1080p media/so-so 24 hour 720p rentals, 360 has so-so 24 hour rental downloads), do you want a backwards compatible system, do you own a PSP, what style of play do you seek online?
They both offer unique experiences.
A comparison driven solely by cost is an unfortunate comparison in a time where money matters more than ever and you need the best bang for your buck. To draw comparisons solely based on cost of ownership belies the true value of each system.
Also, you're precluding that Dtoid readers aren't bargain hunters on each side. Anyone who WANTS to pay full retail for their shit up and down the line is a fool.
Xbox Live Gold memberships can be had for as low as $28 per year if you shop around. Used 360 drives and controllers are on ebay and in retail for less than $20. I know I'm not the only one who takes advantage of those deals either, so again, you can't draw a fair comparison of those attributes either by flat out pricing it like we're average consumers.
Also, not everyone wants or has wireless for either console. I've got a 20 GB PS3. I sacrificed my need for wireless so I can have backwards compatibility, and frankly, I see no real loss on my part. The backwards compatibility is something that should, quite frankly be strongly considered. Some of us paid a much higher price for purchase to get a PS3 that does backwards compatibility.
And if you're not going to get into brass tacks over features/evaluation of services for each console, one has to levy their need/use of the console vs actual use.
Will this be used as a Media Center PC (either one is fine), Will you be watching movies in HD (PS3 has physical 1080p media/so-so 24 hour 720p rentals, 360 has so-so 24 hour rental downloads), do you want a backwards compatible system, do you own a PSP, what style of play do you seek online?
They both offer unique experiences.
A comparison driven solely by cost is an unfortunate comparison in a time where money matters more than ever and you need the best bang for your buck. To draw comparisons solely based on cost of ownership belies the true value of each system.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the "functionally equivalent" comparison ignores the fact that the consumer, in many cases, doesn't give a fuck about what you get on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I own both consoles and I happen to think that the PS3 is a better value for the money overall. Still, I don't care about wireless for my 360, nor do I require the absurdly overpriced 120 GB hard drive (the refurbed 20 GB is just fine). I think a lot of Sony's problem is a lack of modularity. That is to say, they don't allow consumers to pick what features they demand (be it through a gazillion SKUs or optional, add-on components). In the midst of a recession, people don't like being force-fed an expensive console bundle, especially if they feel some of its features are expendable.
@dragon
Where do you get your stats from about 80% of Americans not owning an HDTV?
It's at 23% nationally per American (men and women, child through elderly), but it's an inaccurate measure of proper ownership. Hell, the television in all forms only has a 97% sell through rate, so it's not proper measurement to
Do you buy children HDTVs? What about Amish HD owners? Does every citizen require their own personal set? It's better served by measuring household penetration. HDTV's were at 28% back in 2006 with forecast projections at 7% increase for 2007. What do you want to bet that it'll be close to 40% for 2008? No household can justify replacing EVERY single set they own immediately for an HDTV, so why would it bear out that every US citizen needs an HDTV if they aren't going to pick up an equal measure of equipment for each television to support the HD content they'll want on it?
Is the recession why I saw all the empty 42"+ sized HDTV boxes out by my apartment's dumpster on Sunday night? People are still buying stuff, just less stuff. They're making bigger purchases for the whole family. Whether or not that game console purchase is a 360, a PS3, or god help them, a Wii, people are still spending to get what they inevitably want.
Flame troll accusations get old fast, you two (Dragon and TC).
Where do you get your stats from about 80% of Americans not owning an HDTV?
It's at 23% nationally per American (men and women, child through elderly), but it's an inaccurate measure of proper ownership. Hell, the television in all forms only has a 97% sell through rate, so it's not proper measurement to
Do you buy children HDTVs? What about Amish HD owners? Does every citizen require their own personal set? It's better served by measuring household penetration. HDTV's were at 28% back in 2006 with forecast projections at 7% increase for 2007. What do you want to bet that it'll be close to 40% for 2008? No household can justify replacing EVERY single set they own immediately for an HDTV, so why would it bear out that every US citizen needs an HDTV if they aren't going to pick up an equal measure of equipment for each television to support the HD content they'll want on it?
Is the recession why I saw all the empty 42"+ sized HDTV boxes out by my apartment's dumpster on Sunday night? People are still buying stuff, just less stuff. They're making bigger purchases for the whole family. Whether or not that game console purchase is a 360, a PS3, or god help them, a Wii, people are still spending to get what they inevitably want.
Flame troll accusations get old fast, you two (Dragon and TC).
You forgot to bring up the point that the person who buys a PS3 will also save much more money in the long run because the PS3 has no games.
AMIRITE?
AMIRITE?
@DVDDESIGN: Retards <cough> I mean, people, love the Wii. They could bundle it with a fucking tumor and they'd pay $300 for it.
man I've read way too many of these blogs in the past year... and they all conveniently "forget" that you have to get a seperate headset for your PS3, which costs you an arm and a leg...
I love my PS3 but claiming its cheaper then a 360 is just crap...
I love my PS3 but claiming its cheaper then a 360 is just crap...
@DVDDesign:
My 80% HDTV ownership stat might be a bit old, seeing that I read it in a TIME magazine article back in 2007. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider children in that stat, especially since in most households that have more then 1 TV have them in childrens rooms. You will be hard pressed to find a household that has more then one HDTV, especially in a child's or teenager's room. This is especially important when you consider that a family who purchases an XBOX360 or PS3 will probably be putting it in the child's room, not the main living room. So back to the point, my 20% penetration stat might be a bit off, but it's not that far off and is still a valid point.
I also do not appreciate you accusing me of flame trolling. Every point I made was a valid point and has been used to argue why the PS3 is getting bashed so hard right now by the market centric media. I never said that the recesion is not causing people to not spend money, but as I did say, it is causing people to spend less and look for more bang for their buck. WHy do you think HDTVs are so cheap right now? It's because the demand for them is down, so the law of supply and demand pushes the price down to get sales, especially for the money hungry holiday season. Familys are looking for good deals, and the XBOX360 for $200 with 2 games is a much better deal then a $400 PS3 with no games.
The simple truth is that both Microsoft and Nintendo are donig a much better job right now at understanding their market and the desires of their consumer then Sony is. Until Sony turns things around they will continue to have a mad image in the press.
My 80% HDTV ownership stat might be a bit old, seeing that I read it in a TIME magazine article back in 2007. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider children in that stat, especially since in most households that have more then 1 TV have them in childrens rooms. You will be hard pressed to find a household that has more then one HDTV, especially in a child's or teenager's room. This is especially important when you consider that a family who purchases an XBOX360 or PS3 will probably be putting it in the child's room, not the main living room. So back to the point, my 20% penetration stat might be a bit off, but it's not that far off and is still a valid point.
I also do not appreciate you accusing me of flame trolling. Every point I made was a valid point and has been used to argue why the PS3 is getting bashed so hard right now by the market centric media. I never said that the recesion is not causing people to not spend money, but as I did say, it is causing people to spend less and look for more bang for their buck. WHy do you think HDTVs are so cheap right now? It's because the demand for them is down, so the law of supply and demand pushes the price down to get sales, especially for the money hungry holiday season. Familys are looking for good deals, and the XBOX360 for $200 with 2 games is a much better deal then a $400 PS3 with no games.
The simple truth is that both Microsoft and Nintendo are donig a much better job right now at understanding their market and the desires of their consumer then Sony is. Until Sony turns things around they will continue to have a mad image in the press.
Cost of production is down on hdtvs as well. People were buying 42" sets last year for under $1000.
Secondly, do some research on the average age of a gamer. It's older than one might think. It's an easy misnomer to assume that the kids are taking these consoles into their rooms when statistical odds wiegh that there's a good chance that mom and dad play games.
There's also the angle of a responsible parent. The bedroom may have a tv, but there's still a lot of parents who forbid consoles in the bedroom. I could not keep one in my own room growing up until my senior year of high school.
It's easy to throw personal experience out as fact though, so I digress.
Fact still remains though above all else, there are people who want a ps3, and those who want a 360, and no amount of arguing is going to top the point of if someone can't afford it today, they'll save for it tomorrow. The ps3 is two years old now and there are people who might still be saving up for one, or a 360.
Secondly, do some research on the average age of a gamer. It's older than one might think. It's an easy misnomer to assume that the kids are taking these consoles into their rooms when statistical odds wiegh that there's a good chance that mom and dad play games.
There's also the angle of a responsible parent. The bedroom may have a tv, but there's still a lot of parents who forbid consoles in the bedroom. I could not keep one in my own room growing up until my senior year of high school.
It's easy to throw personal experience out as fact though, so I digress.
Fact still remains though above all else, there are people who want a ps3, and those who want a 360, and no amount of arguing is going to top the point of if someone can't afford it today, they'll save for it tomorrow. The ps3 is two years old now and there are people who might still be saving up for one, or a 360.
@DVDDESIGN:
No matter how much we argue, all I really want is for the PS3 to do well. I hate the bad press the system is getting and what I would really like is for Sony to see their faults and to fix them. When I first purchased my PS3 2 years ago I thought that by now it would have overtaken the XBOX360 in sales, but that hasn't happened.
I guess you could argue the old saying that "there is no such thing as bad press", and that the extra attention the PS3 is getting will actually help it sell systems, but I don't think that is the case. Certainly the sales numbers from the last 2 months don't support that theory.
No matter how much we argue, all I really want is for the PS3 to do well. I hate the bad press the system is getting and what I would really like is for Sony to see their faults and to fix them. When I first purchased my PS3 2 years ago I thought that by now it would have overtaken the XBOX360 in sales, but that hasn't happened.
I guess you could argue the old saying that "there is no such thing as bad press", and that the extra attention the PS3 is getting will actually help it sell systems, but I don't think that is the case. Certainly the sales numbers from the last 2 months don't support that theory.
@AGENTMOO: It's not a dead horse if people keep perpetuating incorrect assumption that the Xbox is the cheaper console. I intend to correct that misconception.
@SILVERDRAGON1979: I understand your point about the casual gamer who only wants the basic system and doesn't need online play, HiDef, or any of that. I get it. That's why my post was directed at the gamers who *want* all the extras. Besides, the average Joe who just wants to play Kung Fu Panda with his kids is not the one making the argument every day. It's those same gamers who have the fully loaded Xbox 360s that keep saying the PS3 is more expensive.
@MISTIC: You can get a bluetooth headset for $20 bucks these days, so I don't know what you are whining about.
@DVDDESIGN: I'm not arguing that the Xbox cannot be the cheaper alternative. I'm arguing that a gamer who wants the most functionality they can get out of their console will in fact pay less money overall by going with the PS3. The problem is the media (and most gamers) consistently repeat the mantra that the PS3 is more expensive. It leads people who don't know otherwise to believe that this is *always* the case. The fact is, that assumption is dead wrong. A fully loaded Xbox vs a PS3 is more expensive, period. Now whether or not Sony should offer a slimmed down PS3 so people can save money by omitting options they don't need is another issue altogether.
@SILVERDRAGON1979: I understand your point about the casual gamer who only wants the basic system and doesn't need online play, HiDef, or any of that. I get it. That's why my post was directed at the gamers who *want* all the extras. Besides, the average Joe who just wants to play Kung Fu Panda with his kids is not the one making the argument every day. It's those same gamers who have the fully loaded Xbox 360s that keep saying the PS3 is more expensive.
@MISTIC: You can get a bluetooth headset for $20 bucks these days, so I don't know what you are whining about.
@DVDDESIGN: I'm not arguing that the Xbox cannot be the cheaper alternative. I'm arguing that a gamer who wants the most functionality they can get out of their console will in fact pay less money overall by going with the PS3. The problem is the media (and most gamers) consistently repeat the mantra that the PS3 is more expensive. It leads people who don't know otherwise to believe that this is *always* the case. The fact is, that assumption is dead wrong. A fully loaded Xbox vs a PS3 is more expensive, period. Now whether or not Sony should offer a slimmed down PS3 so people can save money by omitting options they don't need is another issue altogether.
Am I the only person for whom the "must have" exclusives for each console boil down to downloadable games? Everything else is either multiplatform or forthcoming.
I still don't agree on your terms of this discussion.
You spout dtoider, and gamer, but you're willing to allow a gamer the courtesy of buying the really fucking expensive wireless adapter for the 360, or paying full price for XBL per year. Few do, and those who do, don't really pay full price for them.
In the articles you cite, based solely the cost of purchase of the hardware alone, from just the console itself, the PS3 IS the more expensive of the two.
The more features you tack into the purchase of the 360 as "side along" options to make it the same tit for tat equivalent as the PS3 reaches back and contradicts your point to base your article just on core features of each console.
So, taking on the costs vs features, the Core PS3 has more features than the 360. And it costs more as a result. The Core 360 has no internal storage drive, silver level XBL status, etc. The two core experiences, the 360 is the cheaper point of entry. How so?
Trim the wireless adapter off your projected 360 cost. Very few users have a real need for it. You can conversely use a wireless gaming bridge or powerline adapter for much cheaper than the 360's adapter if you absolutely must be wireless.
Also strip out the XBL subscription cost on your build up. There's a presumption that a gamer is going to play online, and with the core services offered for both consoles, online play is not a component of the online offerings of both services, unless you really want to toss in point for point comparisons of what you're paying for with each service. The 360 has online skill based matchmaking, cross game chat, player muting, player rating, etc etc. Whereas the free PSN service is decided on a game-by-game basis by the publisher as to what features are added and what you're allowed to do.
Tally that up and the 360 drops back down in price again to $2-300, surprise, surprise...
You spout dtoider, and gamer, but you're willing to allow a gamer the courtesy of buying the really fucking expensive wireless adapter for the 360, or paying full price for XBL per year. Few do, and those who do, don't really pay full price for them.
In the articles you cite, based solely the cost of purchase of the hardware alone, from just the console itself, the PS3 IS the more expensive of the two.
The more features you tack into the purchase of the 360 as "side along" options to make it the same tit for tat equivalent as the PS3 reaches back and contradicts your point to base your article just on core features of each console.
So, taking on the costs vs features, the Core PS3 has more features than the 360. And it costs more as a result. The Core 360 has no internal storage drive, silver level XBL status, etc. The two core experiences, the 360 is the cheaper point of entry. How so?
Trim the wireless adapter off your projected 360 cost. Very few users have a real need for it. You can conversely use a wireless gaming bridge or powerline adapter for much cheaper than the 360's adapter if you absolutely must be wireless.
Also strip out the XBL subscription cost on your build up. There's a presumption that a gamer is going to play online, and with the core services offered for both consoles, online play is not a component of the online offerings of both services, unless you really want to toss in point for point comparisons of what you're paying for with each service. The 360 has online skill based matchmaking, cross game chat, player muting, player rating, etc etc. Whereas the free PSN service is decided on a game-by-game basis by the publisher as to what features are added and what you're allowed to do.
Tally that up and the 360 drops back down in price again to $2-300, surprise, surprise...
@AARONF
I bought a second 360 for my living room to stream netflix, and it cost me $200 plus a $30 bucks for a memory card, how is
that not cheaper?
This discussion is moot, everyone generally agrees that they are the around same cost if configured the same, but the entry fee is less for the 360.
I bought a second 360 for my living room to stream netflix, and it cost me $200 plus a $30 bucks for a memory card, how is
that not cheaper?
This discussion is moot, everyone generally agrees that they are the around same cost if configured the same, but the entry fee is less for the 360.
@thefil
Mostly. Had I blindly bought Fallout for the PS3 as I'd originally planned, I would've been pissed at missing out on the DLC coming for it. The exclusives for each console do justify the cost of ownership for both consoles for those who are more into it for the games more than the bragging rights of each console.
Frankly, I don't much care for console fanboyism that doesn't have much, if anything, to stand on.
It's about the experience and the games you play.
I'd take all the consoles either way.
Except the PSP. I've owned it twice and still had nothing to do when I beat Lumines for the 100th time.
Mostly. Had I blindly bought Fallout for the PS3 as I'd originally planned, I would've been pissed at missing out on the DLC coming for it. The exclusives for each console do justify the cost of ownership for both consoles for those who are more into it for the games more than the bragging rights of each console.
Frankly, I don't much care for console fanboyism that doesn't have much, if anything, to stand on.
It's about the experience and the games you play.
I'd take all the consoles either way.
Except the PSP. I've owned it twice and still had nothing to do when I beat Lumines for the 100th time.
@moo
Return the 360 and buy a Roku box if you're only using it for Netflix. There's no real benefit in the 360's streaming if you're not using the 360 for games as well.
Return the 360 and buy a Roku box if you're only using it for Netflix. There's no real benefit in the 360's streaming if you're not using the 360 for games as well.
@DVDDESIGN
Actually, that's just part of it - it's how I justified buying a Jasper :-D
That, and doing system link testing for AMMO.
Actually, that's just part of it - it's how I justified buying a Jasper :-D
That, and doing system link testing for AMMO.
@DVDDESIGN:
"You spout dtoider, and gamer, but you're willing to allow a gamer the courtesy of buying the really fucking expensive wireless adapter for the 360, or paying full price for XBL per year. Few do, and those who do, don't really pay full price for them."
If you read my post, I also did a comparison without the wireless. Secondly, you can also find used deals on PS3 consoles and equipment on Ebay as well. So you don't get any extra points for this category. Secondly, I'd like to see some actual data to support your assertion that "few" people pay full price for LIVE memberships.
"In the articles you cite, based solely the cost of purchase of the hardware alone, from just the console itself, the PS3 IS the more expensive of the two."
No, I said explicitly I was comparing the cost of *equivalent* setups, not *just* core features.
"The more features you tack into the purchase of the 360 as "side along" options to make it the same tit for tat equivalent as the PS3 reaches back and contradicts your point to base your article just on core features of each console."
Again, your making the assumption that I was comparing *just* core features. And I clearly said that I was not. I was comparing *equivalent* setups.
"So, taking on the costs vs features, the Core PS3 has more features than the 360. And it costs more as a result. The Core 360 has no internal storage drive, silver level XBL status, etc. The two core experiences, the 360 is the cheaper point of entry. How so?"
See my above to rebuttals.
"Trim the wireless adapter off your projected 360 cost. Very few users have a real need for it. You can conversely use a wireless gaming bridge or powerline adapter for much cheaper than the 360's adapter if you absolutely must be wireless."
I did give alternate price points sans wireless adaptor.
"Also strip out the XBL subscription cost on your build up. There's a presumption that a gamer is going to play online, and with the core services offered for both consoles, online play is not a component of the online offerings of both services, unless you really want to toss in point for point comparisons of what you're paying for with each service. The 360 has online skill based matchmaking, cross game chat, player muting, player rating, etc etc. Whereas the free PSN service is decided on a game-by-game basis by the publisher as to what features are added and what you're allowed to do."
Here you are making a subjective argument as to which online service is better. It's moot. And secondly, doesn't omitting XBL Gold from your feature list going against your "core features" argument? You'd be hard pressed to find a Xbox owner that would argue that XBL is not a core feature of the console.
"Tally that up and the 360 drops back down in price again to $2-300, surprise, surprise..."
Let's recap: In my post, I stated that I was aware that all gamers would not want the fully loaded Xbox. I am not talking to them. I am simply making a matter of fact statement, that the PS3 is in fact cheaper than the equivalent Xbox. We can go around all day long about which features some people don't want, how you can save money on eBay, and all of that. But none of that rebuts my central argument.
"You spout dtoider, and gamer, but you're willing to allow a gamer the courtesy of buying the really fucking expensive wireless adapter for the 360, or paying full price for XBL per year. Few do, and those who do, don't really pay full price for them."
If you read my post, I also did a comparison without the wireless. Secondly, you can also find used deals on PS3 consoles and equipment on Ebay as well. So you don't get any extra points for this category. Secondly, I'd like to see some actual data to support your assertion that "few" people pay full price for LIVE memberships.
"In the articles you cite, based solely the cost of purchase of the hardware alone, from just the console itself, the PS3 IS the more expensive of the two."
No, I said explicitly I was comparing the cost of *equivalent* setups, not *just* core features.
"The more features you tack into the purchase of the 360 as "side along" options to make it the same tit for tat equivalent as the PS3 reaches back and contradicts your point to base your article just on core features of each console."
Again, your making the assumption that I was comparing *just* core features. And I clearly said that I was not. I was comparing *equivalent* setups.
"So, taking on the costs vs features, the Core PS3 has more features than the 360. And it costs more as a result. The Core 360 has no internal storage drive, silver level XBL status, etc. The two core experiences, the 360 is the cheaper point of entry. How so?"
See my above to rebuttals.
"Trim the wireless adapter off your projected 360 cost. Very few users have a real need for it. You can conversely use a wireless gaming bridge or powerline adapter for much cheaper than the 360's adapter if you absolutely must be wireless."
I did give alternate price points sans wireless adaptor.
"Also strip out the XBL subscription cost on your build up. There's a presumption that a gamer is going to play online, and with the core services offered for both consoles, online play is not a component of the online offerings of both services, unless you really want to toss in point for point comparisons of what you're paying for with each service. The 360 has online skill based matchmaking, cross game chat, player muting, player rating, etc etc. Whereas the free PSN service is decided on a game-by-game basis by the publisher as to what features are added and what you're allowed to do."
Here you are making a subjective argument as to which online service is better. It's moot. And secondly, doesn't omitting XBL Gold from your feature list going against your "core features" argument? You'd be hard pressed to find a Xbox owner that would argue that XBL is not a core feature of the console.
"Tally that up and the 360 drops back down in price again to $2-300, surprise, surprise..."
Let's recap: In my post, I stated that I was aware that all gamers would not want the fully loaded Xbox. I am not talking to them. I am simply making a matter of fact statement, that the PS3 is in fact cheaper than the equivalent Xbox. We can go around all day long about which features some people don't want, how you can save money on eBay, and all of that. But none of that rebuts my central argument.
I have to Agree with Aaron.
Ive been working as a sales assistant in gamestation over xmas and that hidden cost is defiantly there.
take Nintendo wii for example. looks cheap at £180 doesn't it? but do you want to play tennis alone of xmas day? no you don't, so that will be another £45 please for a wiimote and nunchuck. Want another game? basic games start at £20, the good ones up to £40.
Like the xbox 360 do you? Brilliant, £189.99 gets you the 60gb with gears of war 1&2 with farcry 2. Oh, you want to play online? well that will be £5 a month for xbl gold. Don't have a phone line in your room? thats £50 for a wireless adapter please. Your son/brother/wife/girlfriend/friend wants to play? wireless pads start at £32.99
Your son really wanted CoD5 with his PS3? well im afraid we don't have any packages for with that game. so it will be £300 for the ps3, LBP, Resistance 2 with darknight and remote plus another £40 for CoD5.
got lots of kids running around? feeling clumsy? scared of that red ring of death? No problem insurance starts at £12.99 for DS up to £27.99 for PS3
There is a hidden cost to gaming. I see it in work every day. People think they are coming in and getting a great deal something really cheap, but they are not. People think they are getting my cheapest Wii deal at £189.99 but they are leaving with something of £300+ because they dont just want wii sports and they don't want to play alone. Yes some people well be just fine with an arcade system. I will give them that, but the majority will not be. They will buy it and after xmas I will see them back in my store buying ethernet cable, hardrive and XBL gold.
worst part is, I honestly feel like people are being conned because of this hidden cost.
Ive been working as a sales assistant in gamestation over xmas and that hidden cost is defiantly there.
take Nintendo wii for example. looks cheap at £180 doesn't it? but do you want to play tennis alone of xmas day? no you don't, so that will be another £45 please for a wiimote and nunchuck. Want another game? basic games start at £20, the good ones up to £40.
Like the xbox 360 do you? Brilliant, £189.99 gets you the 60gb with gears of war 1&2 with farcry 2. Oh, you want to play online? well that will be £5 a month for xbl gold. Don't have a phone line in your room? thats £50 for a wireless adapter please. Your son/brother/wife/girlfriend/friend wants to play? wireless pads start at £32.99
Your son really wanted CoD5 with his PS3? well im afraid we don't have any packages for with that game. so it will be £300 for the ps3, LBP, Resistance 2 with darknight and remote plus another £40 for CoD5.
got lots of kids running around? feeling clumsy? scared of that red ring of death? No problem insurance starts at £12.99 for DS up to £27.99 for PS3
There is a hidden cost to gaming. I see it in work every day. People think they are coming in and getting a great deal something really cheap, but they are not. People think they are getting my cheapest Wii deal at £189.99 but they are leaving with something of £300+ because they dont just want wii sports and they don't want to play alone. Yes some people well be just fine with an arcade system. I will give them that, but the majority will not be. They will buy it and after xmas I will see them back in my store buying ethernet cable, hardrive and XBL gold.
worst part is, I honestly feel like people are being conned because of this hidden cost.
http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Live-Month-Gold-Bonus/dp/B000B9RI00/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1230677535&sr=8-1
That's $5 off at normal price from a normal retailer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103030
That's $11 cheaper than full retail.
http://www.buy.com/prod/xbox-360-live-12-month-gold-subscription-card-free-1-month-bonus/q/loc/108/201975268.html
$10 off full retail.
I never said few people. I said few do. Few of us. D'toiders. The people you originally addressed in your article. By and large, we're going to be more likely to try and save money.
It takes minutes of research to shave the price of purchase of these accessories off your purchase price, and I'd wager that I'm not the only person on this site to take advantage of shopping online for things that cost more in a store.
Make sure you're staying on point by keeping your mindset on who this article is for if you're going to go on about how right you are. Vaguely referring to people, gamers, dtoiders, etc all willy nilly is a disorganized stab at pushing yourself away from your article so you can think you can't be wrong.
Here you are making a subjective argument as to which online service is better. It's moot. And secondly, doesn't omitting XBL Gold from your feature list going against your "core features" argument? You'd be hard pressed to find a Xbox owner that would argue that XBL is not a core feature of the console.
Yep, I did. Because it's a valid reason to weigh the cost of paying for Xbox Live Gold. Taken on core features of what both services offer for free, they're identical.
Both have game demos/trailers, both have games and TV/movies to buy, both have basic text messaging.
Beyond that, where a real comparison can be made, you have to pay for the 360's Gold services, or you take the remaining PSN services for free at the cost of Gold's benefits. So, yeah, feature for feature, the core online offerings are identical for free, just that the remaining PS3 offerings offer some caveats that Gold members gladly pay for.
I fail to see your point in trying to build up a system of "identical" features in two systems while failing to address the differences in cost of the feature sets. It makes your article pointless to refuse to debate these points in the consideration of which one is a better value in the long run.
The 360 may "cost more", but there's benefits you won't refer to in presenting your case as to why it does.
If it suits your needs for your point, fine, the 360 costs more on your points, but you're a sham blogger for asking your readers to ignore differences in the services when considering cost.
It's like asking a car buyer to consider opting for a car with no air conditioning because it has really nice power windows to compensate.
That's $5 off at normal price from a normal retailer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103030
That's $11 cheaper than full retail.
http://www.buy.com/prod/xbox-360-live-12-month-gold-subscription-card-free-1-month-bonus/q/loc/108/201975268.html
$10 off full retail.
I never said few people. I said few do. Few of us. D'toiders. The people you originally addressed in your article. By and large, we're going to be more likely to try and save money.
It takes minutes of research to shave the price of purchase of these accessories off your purchase price, and I'd wager that I'm not the only person on this site to take advantage of shopping online for things that cost more in a store.
Make sure you're staying on point by keeping your mindset on who this article is for if you're going to go on about how right you are. Vaguely referring to people, gamers, dtoiders, etc all willy nilly is a disorganized stab at pushing yourself away from your article so you can think you can't be wrong.
Here you are making a subjective argument as to which online service is better. It's moot. And secondly, doesn't omitting XBL Gold from your feature list going against your "core features" argument? You'd be hard pressed to find a Xbox owner that would argue that XBL is not a core feature of the console.
Yep, I did. Because it's a valid reason to weigh the cost of paying for Xbox Live Gold. Taken on core features of what both services offer for free, they're identical.
Both have game demos/trailers, both have games and TV/movies to buy, both have basic text messaging.
Beyond that, where a real comparison can be made, you have to pay for the 360's Gold services, or you take the remaining PSN services for free at the cost of Gold's benefits. So, yeah, feature for feature, the core online offerings are identical for free, just that the remaining PS3 offerings offer some caveats that Gold members gladly pay for.
I fail to see your point in trying to build up a system of "identical" features in two systems while failing to address the differences in cost of the feature sets. It makes your article pointless to refuse to debate these points in the consideration of which one is a better value in the long run.
The 360 may "cost more", but there's benefits you won't refer to in presenting your case as to why it does.
If it suits your needs for your point, fine, the 360 costs more on your points, but you're a sham blogger for asking your readers to ignore differences in the services when considering cost.
It's like asking a car buyer to consider opting for a car with no air conditioning because it has really nice power windows to compensate.
mind you i will add that the clients ive been serving over xmas have been parents or people who dont trust internet shopping, not people like us who know how to use the internet to find a bargain.
can we please just stop talking about irrelevant topics like this and focus on how awesome the tit app on the iPhone was?
@DVDDESIGN:
"I never said few people. I said few do. Few of us. D'toiders. The people you originally addressed in your article. By and large, we're going to be more likely to try and save money."
Sure, you can save 10 or 15 bucks on LIVE Gold online. But you are conveniently omitting that you have to renew it every year. So over the course of console ownership, you are easily adding a few hundred dollars onto your TCO.
"It takes minutes of research to shave the price of purchase of these accessories off your purchase price, and I'd wager that I'm not the only person on this site to take advantage of shopping online for things that cost more in a store."
I'm not going to go over this one again. The same can be said for the PS3. You don't have any advantage here at all, so I don't know why you keep trying to make an invalid point.
"Make sure you're staying on point by keeping your mindset on who this article is for if you're going to go on about how right you are. Vaguely referring to people, gamers, dtoiders, etc all willy nilly is a disorganized stab at pushing yourself away from your article so you can think you can't be wrong."
Generalizations have to be made for ANY product comparisons. People have wildly different needs and expectations. No one is denying that. There is no one size fits all, and I never claimed that to be the case. I made a price comparison between a PS3 and an *equivalent* Xbox, and showed the the PS3 to be a better deal. You can't change my argument into something that it's not, and then claim you win.
-SNIP-
"Beyond that, where a real comparison can be made, you have to pay for the 360's Gold services, or you take the remaining PSN services for free at the cost of Gold's benefits. So, yeah, feature for feature, the core online offerings are identical for free, just that the remaining PS3 offerings offer some caveats that Gold members gladly pay for."
Live had the advantage until recently, but currently XBL and PSN are %90 functionally identical. There are minor differences that an individual would need to take into account in deciding on whether the yearly fee is worth it or not. Minor differences aside, XBL and PSN are essentially identical services when it comes to core features such as multiplayer gaming, achievements/trophies, game/movie downloads, etc. For the purpose of product comparison, we have to take the *core* features of the online services into account and let individuals make up their own minds about the minor differences. When comparing a $50/year service to a nearly identical FREE service, one is clearly more expensive than the other.
"I fail to see your point in trying to build up a system of "identical" features in two systems while failing to address the differences in cost of the feature sets. It makes your article pointless to refuse to debate these points in the consideration of which one is a better value in the long run.
The 360 may "cost more", but there's benefits you won't refer to in presenting your case as to why it does."
We can dissect the cost/value differences six ways to Sunday, but in the end it's up to the individual to decide what's best for them. The whole point I was trying to make is that the PS3 is not *always* the more expensive console choice. It's consistently represented that way, and it's simply not true.
"If it suits your needs for your point, fine, the 360 costs more on your points, but you're a sham blogger for asking your readers to ignore differences in the services when considering cost."
I didn't ask anyone to ignore anything. I was very explicit in what I was comparing and made it very clear what my intentions were from the get go.
"It's like asking a car buyer to consider opting for a car with no air conditioning because it has really nice power windows to compensate."
Actually, it's more like if I was making a comparison between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, while you come along and say that the Maserati is cheaper.
"I never said few people. I said few do. Few of us. D'toiders. The people you originally addressed in your article. By and large, we're going to be more likely to try and save money."
Sure, you can save 10 or 15 bucks on LIVE Gold online. But you are conveniently omitting that you have to renew it every year. So over the course of console ownership, you are easily adding a few hundred dollars onto your TCO.
"It takes minutes of research to shave the price of purchase of these accessories off your purchase price, and I'd wager that I'm not the only person on this site to take advantage of shopping online for things that cost more in a store."
I'm not going to go over this one again. The same can be said for the PS3. You don't have any advantage here at all, so I don't know why you keep trying to make an invalid point.
"Make sure you're staying on point by keeping your mindset on who this article is for if you're going to go on about how right you are. Vaguely referring to people, gamers, dtoiders, etc all willy nilly is a disorganized stab at pushing yourself away from your article so you can think you can't be wrong."
Generalizations have to be made for ANY product comparisons. People have wildly different needs and expectations. No one is denying that. There is no one size fits all, and I never claimed that to be the case. I made a price comparison between a PS3 and an *equivalent* Xbox, and showed the the PS3 to be a better deal. You can't change my argument into something that it's not, and then claim you win.
-SNIP-
"Beyond that, where a real comparison can be made, you have to pay for the 360's Gold services, or you take the remaining PSN services for free at the cost of Gold's benefits. So, yeah, feature for feature, the core online offerings are identical for free, just that the remaining PS3 offerings offer some caveats that Gold members gladly pay for."
Live had the advantage until recently, but currently XBL and PSN are %90 functionally identical. There are minor differences that an individual would need to take into account in deciding on whether the yearly fee is worth it or not. Minor differences aside, XBL and PSN are essentially identical services when it comes to core features such as multiplayer gaming, achievements/trophies, game/movie downloads, etc. For the purpose of product comparison, we have to take the *core* features of the online services into account and let individuals make up their own minds about the minor differences. When comparing a $50/year service to a nearly identical FREE service, one is clearly more expensive than the other.
"I fail to see your point in trying to build up a system of "identical" features in two systems while failing to address the differences in cost of the feature sets. It makes your article pointless to refuse to debate these points in the consideration of which one is a better value in the long run.
The 360 may "cost more", but there's benefits you won't refer to in presenting your case as to why it does."
We can dissect the cost/value differences six ways to Sunday, but in the end it's up to the individual to decide what's best for them. The whole point I was trying to make is that the PS3 is not *always* the more expensive console choice. It's consistently represented that way, and it's simply not true.
"If it suits your needs for your point, fine, the 360 costs more on your points, but you're a sham blogger for asking your readers to ignore differences in the services when considering cost."
I didn't ask anyone to ignore anything. I was very explicit in what I was comparing and made it very clear what my intentions were from the get go.
"It's like asking a car buyer to consider opting for a car with no air conditioning because it has really nice power windows to compensate."
Actually, it's more like if I was making a comparison between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, while you come along and say that the Maserati is cheaper.
I have a really horrible feeling this comment section will, (if it not already has), explode.
I hope not. :(
I hope not. :(
Its ok Aaronf i get ya. Too many people just read the first few lines and then comment. This was an EQUIVALENT setup price comparison, just as he said over and over. The people saying oh well you dont need this blah blah obviously are missing the point. Infact i think you were being generous not sticking the cost of an HDDVD add on to the comparison. Me personally i want the best most full experience i can get so when i was on the 360 as my primary console of choice i know i spent a shit load more money getting it the way i wanted than i did just buying my stand alone PS3. Also this argument of "oh well the 360 gives you choice, they need to strip down the ps3", well obviously you dont realise that the major reason there is a price difference is because of the blu-ray tech inside the ps3 WHICH CAN NOT BE SOLD SEPERATELY because all games are blu-ray formatted as well. Sony have already made as much effort as possible to get the manufacturing cost down (which it has acheived btw), stripping things such as card slots, PS2s emotion engine, usb ports etc. But if you expect them to make blu-ray seperate then your retarded. I dont get how people can whine how expensive the PS3 is but at the same time easily spend more than the difference on things that should of come with the console. I personally would pay the difference just so i can game without the jet engine noise in the background, well actually it sort of sounds good when your watching top gun.
Live had the advantage until recently, but currently XBL and PSN are %90 functionally identical. There are minor differences that an individual would need to take into account in deciding on whether the yearly fee is worth it or not. Minor differences aside, XBL and PSN are essentially identical services when it comes to core features such as multiplayer gaming, achievements/trophies, game/movie downloads, etc. For the purpose of product comparison, we have to take the *core* features of the online services into account and let individuals make up their own minds about the minor differences. When comparing a $50/year service to a nearly identical FREE service, one is clearly more expensive than the other.
Would you care to detail how they're 90% similar?
Have you used Xbox Live?
-Streaming Netflix
-Group chat support for up to 8 persons across all games
-Tailored matchmaking on all games suited to your skill level
-Consistently monitored and administrated online play where cheaters are dealt with a far reaching console ID ban for bad behavior online, not just one game
-Player rankings and comment abilities.
-Unified standards across all games for in-game chat, in-game music, achievements
-.NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms
-Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site.
-Full account management from the web and console.
Which of these are on PSN? Over half of them are "free" features too.
There's differences in both, but the premiums that come with Xbox Live, both paid and free are hard to ignore. Sony has to patch, patch, patch, patch, the damn thing to play this endless game of catch up.
I blame it more on the fact that Sony's gaming division just is too widespread across the two continents to know what one area is doing compared to the other. Heck, all you have to do is look at how different Sony is in the different regions for the PS3 to see that there's no efforts made EVER at unification like MS has or even a close approximationn like Nintendo has where things just come later on down the road for US and EU from Japan.
We can dissect the cost/value differences six ways to Sunday, but in the end it's up to the individual to decide what's best for them. The whole point I was trying to make is that the PS3 is not *always* the more expensive console choice. It's consistently represented that way, and it's simply not true.
You're right, and it's not always true. But you set this whole blog up with a set of rules and invisible walls that had to be adhered to for your argument to be 100% bulletproof for yourself so you can't ever be wrong. And in doing so you engender ill will amongst other bloggers by railing on your point that you're going to be right no matter what.
I didn't ask anyone to ignore anything. I was very explicit in what I was comparing and made it very clear what my intentions were from the get go.
[b]QUOTE: I'm comparing the consoles based SOLELY
on cost, and not subjective issues such as which system has the better online
service or better exclusives.[/b]
Okay, just on cost then. ONLY on cost, not features, not games, just buying the fucking console.
PS3 - $399
Xbox 360 - $199/$299/$399
Problem solved.
If you want to dig deeper than that, you need to discuss the benefits of paying vs not paying for the two services to make any further analysis of TCO figures valid and worth someone's time.
Doing so unfairly draws comparisons between the two services that if I didn't know about blindly going in, would be most upset to discover on BOTH consoles.
Oh, but you want last word, so by all means.
Would you care to detail how they're 90% similar?
Have you used Xbox Live?
-Streaming Netflix
-Group chat support for up to 8 persons across all games
-Tailored matchmaking on all games suited to your skill level
-Consistently monitored and administrated online play where cheaters are dealt with a far reaching console ID ban for bad behavior online, not just one game
-Player rankings and comment abilities.
-Unified standards across all games for in-game chat, in-game music, achievements
-.NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms
-Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site.
-Full account management from the web and console.
Which of these are on PSN? Over half of them are "free" features too.
There's differences in both, but the premiums that come with Xbox Live, both paid and free are hard to ignore. Sony has to patch, patch, patch, patch, the damn thing to play this endless game of catch up.
I blame it more on the fact that Sony's gaming division just is too widespread across the two continents to know what one area is doing compared to the other. Heck, all you have to do is look at how different Sony is in the different regions for the PS3 to see that there's no efforts made EVER at unification like MS has or even a close approximationn like Nintendo has where things just come later on down the road for US and EU from Japan.
We can dissect the cost/value differences six ways to Sunday, but in the end it's up to the individual to decide what's best for them. The whole point I was trying to make is that the PS3 is not *always* the more expensive console choice. It's consistently represented that way, and it's simply not true.
You're right, and it's not always true. But you set this whole blog up with a set of rules and invisible walls that had to be adhered to for your argument to be 100% bulletproof for yourself so you can't ever be wrong. And in doing so you engender ill will amongst other bloggers by railing on your point that you're going to be right no matter what.
I didn't ask anyone to ignore anything. I was very explicit in what I was comparing and made it very clear what my intentions were from the get go.
[b]QUOTE: I'm comparing the consoles based SOLELY
on cost, and not subjective issues such as which system has the better online
service or better exclusives.[/b]
Okay, just on cost then. ONLY on cost, not features, not games, just buying the fucking console.
PS3 - $399
Xbox 360 - $199/$299/$399
Problem solved.
If you want to dig deeper than that, you need to discuss the benefits of paying vs not paying for the two services to make any further analysis of TCO figures valid and worth someone's time.
Doing so unfairly draws comparisons between the two services that if I didn't know about blindly going in, would be most upset to discover on BOTH consoles.
Oh, but you want last word, so by all means.
You said yourpost was aimed at the people that want a full package and are here on Destructoid. Most people here already know that a fit 360 and a fit PS3 don't differ that much in pricing, so I think your blog is completely useless.
And if you wanna say it's aimed at the parent that doesn't know what to get for his/her family, then you're in the wrong place.
Basically, you're preaching to the choir.
And if you wanna say it's aimed at the parent that doesn't know what to get for his/her family, then you're in the wrong place.
Basically, you're preaching to the choir.
@dvddesign
"Streaming Netflix" - Umm ya know the PS3 has a web browser with full flash support. You can watch streaming video from any site you want. HULU.COM says hi. Also Netflix streaming requires netflix membership and therefore is not a feature of live gold.
"Group chat support for up to 8 persons across all games"
Probably the only valid point on this list, but as we have seen from sonys updates im sure thats coming.
"Tailored matchmaking on all games suited to your skill level"
All games? really?. Halo3 is not all games my friend.
"Consistently monitored and administrated online play where cheaters are dealt with a far reaching console ID ban for bad behavior online, not just one game."
And how do you know that the PSN is not monitored?, again not a fact just your own assumption.People have been banned from PSN i guess someone out there is monitoring.
"Player rankings and comment abilities"
Rankings as in what? in individual games? cos you know pretty much every online game on PS3 has Rankings. You can even achieve levels with trophies.
"Unified standards across all games for in-game chat, in-game music, achievements"
Again this is already underway. Most online games on PSN support in-game chat, more and more titles are including in-game music give it time and from January onwards trophies are mandatory.
"NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms"
Yeah i really want that feature... Im not even going to comment if PSN has that or not because i dont know and i dont talk about my assumptions in an argument. But really that is such a weak reason either way.
"Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site"
Check
"Full account management from the web and console"
Check again.
It really does seem like you have never actually used PSN in your life. Of all the reasons you give the only one thing that is valid is the 8- way cross game chat. so is that worth the price of gold membership for the life of the console? I don't really see the value for money in that. You really have to remember that Xbox has been running live for like 7 years and trust me in its 2nd year of service it couldn't of even held a candle to PSN. You know and i know that the PSN will get the cross chat features eventually and then whats your justification for paying for live?
"Streaming Netflix" - Umm ya know the PS3 has a web browser with full flash support. You can watch streaming video from any site you want. HULU.COM says hi. Also Netflix streaming requires netflix membership and therefore is not a feature of live gold.
"Group chat support for up to 8 persons across all games"
Probably the only valid point on this list, but as we have seen from sonys updates im sure thats coming.
"Tailored matchmaking on all games suited to your skill level"
All games? really?. Halo3 is not all games my friend.
"Consistently monitored and administrated online play where cheaters are dealt with a far reaching console ID ban for bad behavior online, not just one game."
And how do you know that the PSN is not monitored?, again not a fact just your own assumption.People have been banned from PSN i guess someone out there is monitoring.
"Player rankings and comment abilities"
Rankings as in what? in individual games? cos you know pretty much every online game on PS3 has Rankings. You can even achieve levels with trophies.
"Unified standards across all games for in-game chat, in-game music, achievements"
Again this is already underway. Most online games on PSN support in-game chat, more and more titles are including in-game music give it time and from January onwards trophies are mandatory.
"NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms"
Yeah i really want that feature... Im not even going to comment if PSN has that or not because i dont know and i dont talk about my assumptions in an argument. But really that is such a weak reason either way.
"Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site"
Check
"Full account management from the web and console"
Check again.
It really does seem like you have never actually used PSN in your life. Of all the reasons you give the only one thing that is valid is the 8- way cross game chat. so is that worth the price of gold membership for the life of the console? I don't really see the value for money in that. You really have to remember that Xbox has been running live for like 7 years and trust me in its 2nd year of service it couldn't of even held a candle to PSN. You know and i know that the PSN will get the cross chat features eventually and then whats your justification for paying for live?
I'm just here to tease pheonix blood:
"mind you i will add that the clients ive been serving over xmas have..."
"the clients ive been serving"
"serving"
"mind you i will add that the clients ive been serving over xmas have..."
"the clients ive been serving"
"serving"
@DVDDESIGN:
The Black Smoke did a good job of dismantling your XBL vs PSN comparisons, so I won't repeat most of that. Although I will expand on a few points:
"NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms"
PSN allows the game developers to run their own servers and maintain their own scoreboard systems, whereas XBL has all servers centrally controlled by M$. Each developer has access to their game statistics because *they* manage their servers. So, moot point.
Also, as another side note, PS3 does have a unified in game music architecture now.
Basically, the only benefit you've really been able to walk away with is 8 way chat.
In any case, I made a price comparison based on a specific set of requirements and circumstances. I arrived a number which is factually correct. Then you come along and tell me I'm wrong because I didn't take specific things into account, when I admitted I did not take all those things into account in the first place!
So.. for the last time: An Xbox 360 that is feature-for-feature comparable to the PS3 is more expensive. Period. If you want a bare bones 360 with no LIVE, no hard drive, and no wireless, knock yourself out. You will save money. I never stated anything to the contrary. I feel confident in my comparison because for the most part PSN and XBL are essentially identical services, and 95% of available games are cross platform. Each person will need to make their decision based on their own needs and which exclusives they find more appealing. But if you want the fully loaded Xbox experience, it will cost more than the PS3.
I will not repeat myself again.
The Black Smoke did a good job of dismantling your XBL vs PSN comparisons, so I won't repeat most of that. Although I will expand on a few points:
"NET designed back end "scoring system" that takes statistics from gameplay and allows 3rd parties to analyze data in different forms"
PSN allows the game developers to run their own servers and maintain their own scoreboard systems, whereas XBL has all servers centrally controlled by M$. Each developer has access to their game statistics because *they* manage their servers. So, moot point.
Also, as another side note, PS3 does have a unified in game music architecture now.
Basically, the only benefit you've really been able to walk away with is 8 way chat.
In any case, I made a price comparison based on a specific set of requirements and circumstances. I arrived a number which is factually correct. Then you come along and tell me I'm wrong because I didn't take specific things into account, when I admitted I did not take all those things into account in the first place!
So.. for the last time: An Xbox 360 that is feature-for-feature comparable to the PS3 is more expensive. Period. If you want a bare bones 360 with no LIVE, no hard drive, and no wireless, knock yourself out. You will save money. I never stated anything to the contrary. I feel confident in my comparison because for the most part PSN and XBL are essentially identical services, and 95% of available games are cross platform. Each person will need to make their decision based on their own needs and which exclusives they find more appealing. But if you want the fully loaded Xbox experience, it will cost more than the PS3.
I will not repeat myself again.
@black smoke
Do you even know who I am on this site? I don't do console partisanship and I'm hard on all three consoles for their faults.
Fuck, what I wouldn't give for a console that never RROD, had a Blu Ray drive, and had Xbox Live's full list of services, AND WASN'T A PC. But there isn't so each console, each service, each company has it's issues, it's pros, it's cons.
The PS3's web browser chokes on Hulu on a regular basis. Maybe it has to do with the 256MB RAM buffer on the motherboard, or maybe it has to do with the fact that you're watching video in a zoomed in web browser window as opposed to actual full screen streams.
Streaming Netflix is part of Gold. The Netflix service itself is separate, but you don't get streaming via Xbox without it.
Well, you're pretty much validating what I've been trying to relay to the TC. It's all in the updates. Sony has been playing this lazy game of catch up with the PS3 since launch and they're still massively behind on updates to match point for point features.
Trophies are standard for all projects from January forward, which means that standardization will take a good 4-5 months MINIMUM to start seeing it on all games. Also, there's nothing there that says that any other existing project can't be grandfathered in without Trophy support. So, for all we know, there could be a Twisted Metal/Ratchet and Clank title looming in production that hasn't been publicly announced that gets to skirt the requirement.
All games? really?. Halo3 is not all games my friend.
Bzzt. Wrong. Every game that has online, has matchmaking, and has standards adhered to with the 360's profile ranking system. Gamercards have those star rankings for a reason. Preferred and avoided players are also taken into consideration when matchmaking on the 360. NONE of this exists as a unified standard on the PS3 because all the developers operate independently.
There's also the hoary beast of this issue. In the developers hands, it's up to them when your game no longer plays online. Try firing up a game of Asheron's Call 2, or in a few months try out some Tabula Rasa. Developers that run their own servers control when you can and cannot play the game. It's up to their discretion when the game stops working online for general VS play.
Unified services like Xbox Live are up for the duration of Xbox Live. Meaning I can get in a game of Prey multiplayer back in 2006 and probably still in 2011.
And how do you know that the PSN is not monitored?, again not a fact just your own assumption.People have been banned from PSN i guess someone out there is monitoring.
PSN accounts are free and a dime a dozen. Console ID bans waste the console. I'd say that's pretty far reaching on helping keep out potential cheaters.
"Player rankings and comment abilities"
Rankings as in what? in individual games? cos you know pretty much every online game on PS3 has Rankings. You can even achieve levels with trophies.
Yeah, that's the star system on your gamercard. Not achievements and leaderboards, like you mistook it for. PSN has no way to throttle crap online experiences. If I'm playing a public match of Warhawk and switch over to Wipeout HD, I don't have any uniformly supported way to rate shitty players, racist bigot children, or cheaters.
Again this is already underway. Most online games on PSN support in-game chat, more and more titles are including in-game music give it time and from January onwards trophies are mandatory.
yeah, yeah, yeah... And Home was supposed to revolutionize how we play games. So far, in Home, my avatar can do the Cabbage Patch, wait in line to play gimped Echochrome, and buy a bubble machine. And everything you're describing is on a game-by-game basis. It's not unified. Unification, across all titles, is a BIG key factor of why I prefer the 360's online service over PSN.
I can have an online chat with a friend while he's playing SFII and I'm in Gears of War, then we can change games and the whole time, keep talking, to play together on an entirely different game. And we get to keep playing our custom music the whole time as well.
I don't even know if PSN's roadmap has any unification coming to it or not. Lord knows if it wants to compete and BE that viable service, it needs it. I would NOT complain about Sony's service if they implemented cross game support for ALL the features that I get with the 360. I do want this. I really do. I pay for it on the 360 because it has all these features.
Yeah i really want that feature... Im not even going to comment if PSN has that or not because i dont know and i dont talk about my assumptions in an argument. But really that is such a weak reason either way.
It doesn't. There's no inherent point value in Trophies like there is with a gamerscore. It's no fault of the design of Sony has, it's just something that isn't there. Again, a lot of this falls in the hands of developers on the PS3. I know that GTAIV has a pretty robust tracking system available for all it's players to track kills and weapon usage, but that's almost expected for a company that's been telling us how many times we've stolen a car in their offline games.
Stats matter. Maybe not to you, but they do matter. Try pulling that shit during a football game and see how many friends you make.
"Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site"
Nope. I gotta login twice on Sony's site to access my account settings. They only merged the PSU member database with your PSN account so you can login once to see your PSN card while posting on Sony's forums.
"Full account management from the web and console"
Nope, can't add/remove friends, can't access messaging services, can't buy games, can't compare trophies.
I can see my friends list. But it's a difference of looking at them from behind a glass wall, and actually being there.
Do you even know who I am on this site? I don't do console partisanship and I'm hard on all three consoles for their faults.
Fuck, what I wouldn't give for a console that never RROD, had a Blu Ray drive, and had Xbox Live's full list of services, AND WASN'T A PC. But there isn't so each console, each service, each company has it's issues, it's pros, it's cons.
The PS3's web browser chokes on Hulu on a regular basis. Maybe it has to do with the 256MB RAM buffer on the motherboard, or maybe it has to do with the fact that you're watching video in a zoomed in web browser window as opposed to actual full screen streams.
Streaming Netflix is part of Gold. The Netflix service itself is separate, but you don't get streaming via Xbox without it.
Well, you're pretty much validating what I've been trying to relay to the TC. It's all in the updates. Sony has been playing this lazy game of catch up with the PS3 since launch and they're still massively behind on updates to match point for point features.
Trophies are standard for all projects from January forward, which means that standardization will take a good 4-5 months MINIMUM to start seeing it on all games. Also, there's nothing there that says that any other existing project can't be grandfathered in without Trophy support. So, for all we know, there could be a Twisted Metal/Ratchet and Clank title looming in production that hasn't been publicly announced that gets to skirt the requirement.
All games? really?. Halo3 is not all games my friend.
Bzzt. Wrong. Every game that has online, has matchmaking, and has standards adhered to with the 360's profile ranking system. Gamercards have those star rankings for a reason. Preferred and avoided players are also taken into consideration when matchmaking on the 360. NONE of this exists as a unified standard on the PS3 because all the developers operate independently.
There's also the hoary beast of this issue. In the developers hands, it's up to them when your game no longer plays online. Try firing up a game of Asheron's Call 2, or in a few months try out some Tabula Rasa. Developers that run their own servers control when you can and cannot play the game. It's up to their discretion when the game stops working online for general VS play.
Unified services like Xbox Live are up for the duration of Xbox Live. Meaning I can get in a game of Prey multiplayer back in 2006 and probably still in 2011.
And how do you know that the PSN is not monitored?, again not a fact just your own assumption.People have been banned from PSN i guess someone out there is monitoring.
PSN accounts are free and a dime a dozen. Console ID bans waste the console. I'd say that's pretty far reaching on helping keep out potential cheaters.
"Player rankings and comment abilities"
Rankings as in what? in individual games? cos you know pretty much every online game on PS3 has Rankings. You can even achieve levels with trophies.
Yeah, that's the star system on your gamercard. Not achievements and leaderboards, like you mistook it for. PSN has no way to throttle crap online experiences. If I'm playing a public match of Warhawk and switch over to Wipeout HD, I don't have any uniformly supported way to rate shitty players, racist bigot children, or cheaters.
Again this is already underway. Most online games on PSN support in-game chat, more and more titles are including in-game music give it time and from January onwards trophies are mandatory.
yeah, yeah, yeah... And Home was supposed to revolutionize how we play games. So far, in Home, my avatar can do the Cabbage Patch, wait in line to play gimped Echochrome, and buy a bubble machine. And everything you're describing is on a game-by-game basis. It's not unified. Unification, across all titles, is a BIG key factor of why I prefer the 360's online service over PSN.
I can have an online chat with a friend while he's playing SFII and I'm in Gears of War, then we can change games and the whole time, keep talking, to play together on an entirely different game. And we get to keep playing our custom music the whole time as well.
I don't even know if PSN's roadmap has any unification coming to it or not. Lord knows if it wants to compete and BE that viable service, it needs it. I would NOT complain about Sony's service if they implemented cross game support for ALL the features that I get with the 360. I do want this. I really do. I pay for it on the 360 because it has all these features.
Yeah i really want that feature... Im not even going to comment if PSN has that or not because i dont know and i dont talk about my assumptions in an argument. But really that is such a weak reason either way.
It doesn't. There's no inherent point value in Trophies like there is with a gamerscore. It's no fault of the design of Sony has, it's just something that isn't there. Again, a lot of this falls in the hands of developers on the PS3. I know that GTAIV has a pretty robust tracking system available for all it's players to track kills and weapon usage, but that's almost expected for a company that's been telling us how many times we've stolen a car in their offline games.
Stats matter. Maybe not to you, but they do matter. Try pulling that shit during a football game and see how many friends you make.
"Accounts are wholly tied to a single account on the entire site"
Nope. I gotta login twice on Sony's site to access my account settings. They only merged the PSU member database with your PSN account so you can login once to see your PSN card while posting on Sony's forums.
"Full account management from the web and console"
Nope, can't add/remove friends, can't access messaging services, can't buy games, can't compare trophies.
I can see my friends list. But it's a difference of looking at them from behind a glass wall, and actually being there.
