PS3 vs. 360 The Official discussion [Archive]

Miokhistan

02-03-2009, 12:47 PM

Microsoft Xbox 360

other good points i see posted will be updated into this post

PROS
-Experience, the 360 has been around for longer and it shows
-Games, I believe the PS3 is finally coming around with good original games but think 360 still wins this category atm, probably not by the end of the year
-Netflix, if you have membership you can add any movie from the instant movies to a list to watch from your 360 anywhere aslong as its conected to the internet
-Xbox live, costs money but opens up alot of content as far as mod/map downloads, older games, full movies in HD, etc. at the expense of Microsoft Points
-comes with HD-capable A/V cables standard
CONS
-emo kids on live
-Since release there have been countless complaints about 360 reliability and constant overheating problems (RROD)
-No built-in HD, you can buy a Add-On HD player but HiDef dvds are already been fading out, making it a useless addon
-Xbox live costs money, only about 8 bucks a month but still
-When your 360 breaks you can send it back to Microsoft for repair but it takes about 6 months to get it back

Miokhistan

02-03-2009, 12:48 PM

Sony Playstation 3

good points posted will be updated to this post
PROS
-Blu-Ray, Hi-Def thought they had it but Blu-Ray is the obvious contender
-Playstation Network, Sony's "Xbox Live", free of charge allows pretty much the same things as Xbox Live with better avatars and "spaces" to customize and invite your friends and play as the cutstom-made avatar
-Games, I gave this to the 360, but with games like Socom 3, MGS4, Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, and others the PS3 is about to be a games powerhouse
-Graphics, Blu-Ray nuff said
Support for proper audio streams (lossless 7.1 ftw)
Proper 1080p output over hdmi.
CONS
-DuoShock 3 the latest controller available is about 60 bucks
-No HiDef cables out of the box, thats another 15 bucks atleast

Kinetic

02-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Feel free to help me out here Ada...

lol @ 360:

Looks like it was made by Fisher Price.
Controllers that take AA batteries.
No Bluetooth.
No Blu-ray.
Older models don't even have an hdmi port.
Red Ring of Death.
Tray loaded discs.
Sounds like a small dustbuster when running.
Unbelievable amount of 12 year old emo kids on XBL who can't wait to teabag you in Halo.
XBL charges a subscription fee if you want to actually do anything.
The power brick is possibly bigger than an actual brick.
Did I mention Red Ring of Death?
Top brass in charge of everything Xbox put their support behind HD-DVD which failed miserably.
Wonky "Microsoft Points" system, just charge me real money assholes.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

Hooray PS3:

Blu-ray, all versions.
Support for proper audio streams (lossless 7.1 ftw)
Proper 1080p output over hdmi.
Playstation Network is free to use, and purchases are done in real money.
Gran Turismo.
Final Fantasy.
Pixeljunk Monsters.
Actually matches your other home theater components.
Rechargeable controllers without being nickel and dimed to buy the recharge kit.
Bluetooth support, yes you can use your bluetooth keyboard and mouse.
I'm on there, add me to your friends list (Kinetic)

legslat

02-03-2009, 01:21 PM

When your 360 breaks you can send it back to Microsoft for repair but it takes about 6 months to get it back

what calendar are you using? rofl

It takes a week, maximum

i bought a ps3 yesterday so i tell you cons when i get it =/ but i can tell you i'll still play my 360 thats for sure.

And small dustbuster? Thats only if you have the add on fans or plugged into a surge protector.

Constantine

02-03-2009, 02:45 PM

I'm on there, add me to your friends list (Kinetic)

For this reason I won't buy anything sony!

Microsoft FTW!

Ashylarry

02-03-2009, 03:00 PM

If you can wait til the PS3 price drops in March-April, or at least thats when experts think it will. Also, check dell.com, they had the 80gb version like 60 bucks off and the 160gb with Uncharted like 120 off at one point.

govtcheeze

02-03-2009, 03:30 PM

Feel free to help me out here Ada...

Hooray PS3:
Final Fantasy.

The next FF will be on both...now I have no idea which to get :(

Ashylarry

02-03-2009, 04:35 PM

Only 1 FF will be on both, Versus will be a PS3 exclusive still.

What it comes down to for me is if you like shooters, sports games, and the idiot filled crowd of 12-18 year olds, get a 360, otherwise get a PS3.

Miokhistan

02-03-2009, 04:42 PM

Miokhistan

02-03-2009, 04:44 PM

has anyone ever had any issues with their PS3 at all?

Ashylarry

02-03-2009, 05:18 PM

has anyone ever had any issues with their PS3 at all?

Nope, 60gb launch version and probably the best of them all. Thank god for being able to play PS2 and PS1 games!

Trivilus

02-04-2009, 02:49 AM

the only thing that needs to be said on this thread is Gran Turismo 5 which will be PS3 only.

That alone is worth strictly buying a PS3. No other game will compare to this:)

Of course the down side is that this will not come out til next year or maybe the next, but it will be well worth it when it does arrive. I not only bought the PS3 for this game but a 42" plasma tv:)

Yes im an old dork and im cool with that. I also like the conrollers better on the PS3 myself.

Baddums

02-04-2009, 11:49 AM

I'll post this for SheetiS....

The PS3 can be loaded with linux and made into a computer with Blu-ray.

But anyway, based on what the original post's pros and cons were, I'd fork over an extra $75 for controllers and monster cables to get a better, higher quality product. ;)

Bvapbdap

02-04-2009, 06:44 PM

well FFXIII is also coming out for 360 so thats no longer exclusive but Mgs4 is definatley a pro, had a ps3 for over a year no problems at all, very nice system blu-ray is awsome loads fast compared to other stand alones. dont have to pay to go online. had over 4 xboxes in 2 years that alone should be convincing enough to buy a ps3

i have the 80 gig version

marcothy

02-05-2009, 08:50 AM

It depends really on what your desire is with how you play your console.

PS3 is the next generation console that is still waiting on the next generation to arrive. The complexity for developing games for the console has left many developers frustrated to either where they don't develop games, or they've had some buggy releases. That scenario is improving, but its also the scenario for why people have debated how viable the PS3 still is in the market.

XBOX 360 is a solid platform right now that has the best market share. Lots of games, stable -everything you "need."

PS3 - everyone I know that has one that HAS ALSO had a XBOX 360, in the end is extremely disappointed in the games that are produced and available for it. There is not a huge variety when compared to the 360.

Exclusives each brand has their own titles that are great games.

Blu-Ray...its just not a huge asset still right now to base a decision on.

PS3 has way more of a wow factor on its blockbuster titles, but the gap between the blockbusters and other types of games is significant.

If you play a ton of different games, or are into online gaming w/a console, get a 360. (Online gaming means market share. It isnt a great online game if no players are playing the game online -an issue with some PS3 titles).

If you are more about the single game experience. Playing a Fall Out 3 for example with all the thrills of the best console available, then go with the PS3. Otherwise, XBOX should be your choice.

Notso

02-05-2009, 12:52 PM

Is there any reason to get a 160g version over a 80g version of the PS3?

Kinetic

02-05-2009, 01:24 PM

Is there any reason to get a 160g version over a 80g version of the PS3?

more room for your porn and pirated movie collection.

Ashylarry

02-05-2009, 02:51 PM

more room for your porn and pirated movie collection.

A lot of the bigger games have manditory and optinal installs that will eat up a few gig's too, so if you buy a lotta games and dl shit, you can run out of room pretty quick.

solaxo

02-06-2009, 06:18 AM

My Thoughts:

- I had the red rings of death in April of 07, called Microsoft, they sent me a box to ship my 360 in; took about a week and a half, and got mine back. Was impressed by the speed of that...there may have been worse issues the 1st year or so as the realization of the red ring problem became apparent. Since then Microsoft has corrected their hardware mistakes and the failure rate of new consoles produced is at a new low compared to launch - first year consoles.
----I haven't had an issue with the PS3, bought it summer of 07 (after the price drop :P)

- The fall update added the biggest feature for me, the option to install all of my games...My 360 did sound like a small vacuum, and I do have it plugged into a surge protector, but I have had it plugged into the wall with the same noise. Bottom line now I play my games, and the noise is gone. The con to that is if you plan to install multiple games having the large hard drive is the way to go.
----Some games have this option for the PS3, but I would really love the option to do it for any game like the Xbox 360

- Each system has its own exclusive games, FF 13 while not so much exclusive will prob be a multi disc game like Lost Odyssey was ( I think that was 3 or 4 discs...on Blu Ray it would be 1.)
----God of War 3 comes to mind for the PS3, MGS4 was a great game as well.

- Gamerscore is cool if you are into that, for me it was much cooler when they had a contest to increase your gamer score to win prizes...I won a free contra arcade game - but I haven't seen anymore of those.
----PS3 has trophies now, but not all games support it. (older games)

- The party chat on the xbox live is cool, I can be playing a game different than my friend or brothers are and we can still be chatting on xbox live.
----I haven't really seen any improvements to the party chat on PS3 - I think the Xbox wins here.

- To match a PS3 in terms of basic buy...You need to buy xbox live; a wireless receiver attachment if you don't have wired capabilities, a bigger hard drive, and no blu ray support.
----A PS3 does cost more, but comes fully loaded.

- I go back and forth; I own both systems and some months I find that I do nothing but look at a ps3, and other times its the xbox...that is when warhammer isn't calling me...I usually only play them now when the baby is napping in her pack and play in the family room haha.

Your best bet is to look at your cost of what you will need, what games you want to play, and what your friends or family have. They are both great systems and you will get enjoyment out of either of them.

Sertain TKell

03-11-2009, 02:31 PM

My 2cents...

I have all 3 systems (360, Wii and PS3).

I'll keep it short since everyone else has posted max details...

360 - Solid game selection, comfortable controller, easy to use UI - hardware seems to always die but still probably the best system.

Wii - Great for kids, really fun controller interface, crappy display on HDTVs.

PS3 - Primarly used for a Blueray player and dust collector. Best hardware but poor game selection, borrowed UI from PSP and cheap feeling in box controller leave this one sitting.

-Sertain

Darkeros

03-14-2009, 10:01 AM

I haven't been doing alot of console gaming recently only thing I can comment on is there other abilities.

PS3 can go online and pretty much play youtube for music in your house kind of nice instead of downloading anything u can just stream music/videos.

Xbox 360 netflix although the movies arent blockbusters its kind of nice to be able to stream in video.

I have both they both have a purpose although they're usually pushed to the wayside when a decent pc game comes out.

Mebe

03-15-2009, 05:27 AM

I have a PS3 hooked up to an HD TV. Here's what I think:

- Bluray owns. I hate watching DVDs now. It's not just the resolution, it's also the color gamut and range. Bluray even looks better than the local theater (really, the close theater is kind of crappy.) I have a netflix account and 99% of the content that comes in the house is Bluray. Watched Sideways and Matrix this weekend. Really, I can't say enough good about movies on Bluray on an HD TV.

- Some PS3 exclusives own. (MGS was fantastic! I really liked Heavenly Sword)

- Many of the blockbusters come out on both. (GTA4, for example was really fun on the PS3. So was Bioshock. Orange Box was fun for me as I'd not played HL2 and Portal was a brilliant puzzle game.)

I can firmly state that I would be less happy with an Xbox360 because I love having the bluray player. I can also firmly state that I don't feel like I've run out of games or am unhappy with gaming on the PS3.

I also own a Wii. The wii is fun for parties. (4 player mario kart is a hoot as are wii sports.) The wii's library of old games is fun for nostalgic reasons. (The NES came out in wide release the year I went to college.) Other than that, the wii gathers dust, though I do have Super Mario Galaxy on my ebay watch list.

Mog

03-16-2009, 09:40 AM

The PS3 is still one of the best if not the best Blu-Ray player on the market.

The PS3 controllers are a superior design to the Xbox's.

The PS3 looks sexy enough to sport anywhere in the house. The Xbox looks like something your 10 year old brother might have next to his Tonka toys.

Microsoft sucks as do all things they touch. They bought the Halo series by acquiring Bungie Software (guys who brought us Marathon on the Mac back in '94) No way Microsoft would be able to create a game series so innovative on their own. They just don't know what the word innovation means.

marcothy

03-16-2009, 10:25 AM

Kinetic

03-17-2009, 09:01 AM

If the PS3 was all that and a slice of bread, they wouldn't have failing numbers in terms of console sales compared to the 360 and the Wii.

Blu-Ray to Blu-Ray, the player is not the best player on the market. Its an awesome perk in a console, but not the best player.

Controllers are better, because Sony recognized the excitement around the Wii's new style of gameplay, and incorporated the axis control into their product (coincidentally not innovative either).

Microsoft is a Publisher/Distributer in the gaming market. They operate in a large capacity the same way EA does. They buy out development teams for IP Rights and distribution/publishing agreements. They don't self develop in most all cases.

You can't really be innovative in something you typically don't do.

As for their counterpart in this topic, Sony, SOE speaks for itself.

Don't forget, Microsoft's main goal in corporate existence, was to enable every household to have a pc. It is that which nearly put IBM out of business, and its that reason that everyone of us have 1-3 pcs on average in our house. They made damn good money by enabling people to have the technology. I don't hate a company for that, which the "monopolistic" mindset is typically why you see the anti-microsoft posts.

All code should be open source the same reason health care should be free...oh wait-I don't want free health care.

Comparing sales figures of items at radically different price points or for different markets is just plain stupid. Hannah Montana sells lots of tickets, ramen noodles sell lots of meals, etc. See where I'm going with this?

I'll bet you any amount of money you can think of that if the PS3 and the 360 came out at the same time, and cost the same amount of money, Sony would be kicking the shit out of Microsoft because their product has more features, better implementation, and eventually will have an excellent software library just like every iteration of the Playstation always has.

I won't even start on the fact that you mentioned the Wii. I think there are cell phones out there with more power than the Wii. Every friend I know that rushed out to snap up a Wii is now so bored of Tennis and Bowling that they never even turn the thing on unless someone who has never played one comes over. Just another novelty item from Nintendo with no real substance behind it (Powerglove, the little robot guy, etc).

marcothy

03-17-2009, 09:40 AM

Kinetic, its obvious its a fanboy discussion at this point.

In consoles, your sales is indicative of the developer's market you will see for that game. Period.

It's the crutch behind the PS3, that keeps it from making it. Read every publication about the PS3, and they will tell you, its the most expensive and advanced game console you can own - BUT-the game selection beyond its hand full of blockbusters is abysmal.

The Wii, on the other hand, perfected the ability to sell a console in mass, but they don't have the games to go with it. Most people simply don't want to develop for the Nintendo platform for various reasons. They have the market share, but they don't have the developers that want to develop for it.

The PS3 though, screwed the pooch because they didn't understand what Microsoft did, and that is that price points matter. They have developers that would develop games for the console-easily, but developers cant justify it with a limited marketshare.

That's Sony's fault for not marketing a PS3 console in a more costly fashion. The plus is they won the Blu-Ray vs HD DVD battle, but at the cost of the PS3 struggling because of the price point simply being too high.

If you read back through the posts, my main argument against the PS3, is its lack of games. That directly links to its lack of sales. Its competitors happened to put themselves in a more regular price point.

And although the price points are different, they are the competitors.

The main scope of the thread, is PS3 and 360. So arguing about different price points is a moot point. If you are looking for a place where I said the Wii is on par with the 2 as a console, I didn't. But the bottom line is, if you discuss sales as a factor, PS3 ranks #3, with less than half the marketshare for NA that the 360 owns.

If you don't think marketshare has anything to do with game development, or you think the # of quality games available for the PS3 is identical to the 360, then you probably failed the basic economics class.

As far as the declining sales of the PS3, heres some reading material:
http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=3148

No fear though, they expect the PS3 to perk up between 20011 and 2017, so my only question is, will the PS3 still be competing against the 360 at that point?

http://www.vgchartz.com/images/wiilogo.png
7.90M Japan (http://www.vgchartz.com/japweekly.php#hard)
22.05M America (http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php#hard)
18.01M Others (http://www.vgchartz.com/eweekly.php)
47.96M
48.9%

http://www.vgchartz.com/images/360logo.png
0.99M Japan (http://www.vgchartz.com/japweekly.php#hard)
16.65M America (http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php#hard)
11.46M Others (http://www.vgchartz.com/eweekly.php)
29.10M
29.7%

http://www.vgchartz.com/images/ps3logo.png
2.97M Japan (http://www.vgchartz.com/japweekly.php#hard)
8.04M America (http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php#hard)
9.97M Others (http://www.vgchartz.com/eweekly.php)
20.98M
21.4%

Kinetic

03-17-2009, 10:33 AM

I wonder what the market share would look like if there was a way to remove all the hacked 360's out there, since no one is making any sort of money on those people at all. I'd put up a poll, but all the paranoid people won't answer honestly anyways on whether they've hacked their fisher price box or not.

And just for full disclosure if I haven't said it already, I own a PS3 and a 360. The 360 collects dust, the PS3 is constantly in use for games and blu-rays.

marcothy

03-17-2009, 11:21 AM

If people aren't making money, the trend corrects itself. If the 360 "was mostly hacked" as you are saying, rather than "hackable"-and no ones making money off a majority of the market share..

Why would people be investing millions into developing multiple games with the console? If they didn't make money, and good money out of it-the answer is they wouldn't.

It is what it is, and I would say far more PS3 owners own a 360 as well. Primarily, because games that are popular online have better access to other players through a 360.

Friend of mine bought Madden for his PS3, got online, could barely find people to play with. Within a week, he went and bought a 360 just to feed his crack like addiction to playing Madden online.

PS3 is a more powerful console, but the good games that are out there for it aren't as abundant as they are for the 360. It doesn't matter how you want to explain it.

Kinetic

03-17-2009, 12:30 PM

Marcothy, you seem like a smart guy, but you sure are full of yourself sometimes.

No where did I say "was mostly hacked" but I like how you use quotes as if I did instead of it being a paraphrased stretch from your own brain. The point I was trying to make was that the market share numbers between PS3 and 360 might be a bit closer if there was a way to remove the hacked 360's from the picture. Certainly not a proper sample, but everyone I know that owns a 360 has hacked it.

You keep going back to the games issue as well, which is totally subjective. I happen to hate Halo and Gears of War. Any fps with that big clunky controller on the 360 just doesn't feel... accurate. PS3 controllers are mildly better, but at least I can run a keyboard and mouse if I feel the need to play oversimplified console fps's. I enjoyed Forza on the 360, but Gran Turismo is better. My old PS2 rpg's like the entire Final Fantasy line blow away any of the garbage rpg's on 360. Metal Gear has a massive following, but not really my cup of tea. Same for LittleBigPlanet. To be honest, a large chunk of the games I play are released for both consoles, so I'd rather have a machine with the extra bells and whistles of the PS3.

Since you seem to enjoy arguing with people on these forums, I'll be anxiously awaiting your "I'm better and know more about everything than you" response. ;)

govtcheeze

03-17-2009, 12:41 PM

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/pretension.jpg

Sorry, couldn't resist. This was my desktop for a looooong time :D

Sheeva

03-17-2009, 01:21 PM

LMFAO!!

Not stuck on himself....just very firm in his opinion.

Cel

03-17-2009, 01:25 PM

I have all 3 and like all of them for various purposes, but if I had to choose 1 to take out of a burning building (ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of such a situation) it would probably be the 360. There are just more good games to play on it, and I like the controller better. Unfortunately the PS3 is my main movie player and I love my Blu-rays so that would make me very sad. All that said you can't really go wrong with either, just look at what games are available on both that you want to play, and decide whether blu-ray and Wi-Fi are worth the difference in games/online experience.

marcothy

03-17-2009, 01:39 PM

Comparing sales figures of items at radically different price points or for different markets is just plain stupid. Hannah Montana sells lots of tickets, ramen noodles sell lots of meals, etc. See where I'm going with this?

Sorry, not trying to pick fights with anyone, but just keeping the information as honest as I can. But I do seem to recall you coming out swinging talking about comparing consoles in different price points as "stupid." Coincidently, thats the point of the thread.

I wonder what the market share would look like if there was a way to remove all the hacked 360's out there, since no one is making any sort of money on those people at all. I'd put up a poll, but all the paranoid people won't answer honestly anyways on whether they've hacked their fisher price box or not.

The point I was trying to make was that the market share numbers between PS3 and 360 might be a bit closer if there was a way to remove the hacked 360's from the picture.

And you think I am way off for claiming you stated 360s were "mostly hacked" when you believe the market share would be closer if you removed all the hacked 360s from the picture?

North American totals:
XBOX 360: 16.65M
PS3: 8.04M

I think your view of hacking is quite skewed as to how wide spread it actually isn't. If no ones paying for games, the economics of it is simple, no ones going to develop them.

Using quotes is also used for effect. Maybe I should italicize instead. I figured since most can read, they would see it was not what was said, but it was what you were implying. Closing a 8M gap in terms of market share is a large number of hacks, as much as 50% of their entire NA market.

If you weren't implying the if not for the hacked 360s argument, then I completely misread where you were going with it.

Kinetic

03-17-2009, 01:53 PM

Sorry, not trying to pick fights with anyone, but just keeping the information as honest as I can. But I do seem to recall you coming out swinging talking about comparing consoles in different price points as "stupid." Coincidently, thats the point of the thread.

And you think I am way off for claiming you stated 360s were "mostly hacked" when you believe the market share would be closer if you removed all the hacked 360s from the picture?

North American totals:
XBOX 360: 16.65M
PS3: 8.04M

I think your view of hacking is quite skewed as to how wide spread it actually isn't. If no ones paying for games, the economics of it is simple, no ones going to develop them.

What was the release date of the 360 and the release date of the PS3 again? Feel free to correct me if my info is incorrect...

360: 11/22/2005
PS3: 11/17/2006

A full year lead (and if you quibble over the five days...) to sell more machines, let developers settle in and start churning out better games as they get more familiar with the hardware and coding, etc. Why do you 360 fruits always conveniently discount this? When the 360 first came out, the game selection was terrible. It slowly built up to having some nice titles. It looks like the PS3 is on track to do the exact same thing, while being a far superior system in terms of features. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

marcothy

03-17-2009, 02:01 PM

Never said the PS3 wasn't superior as a machine. I am also not a 360 fan. I hate all consoles equally(PC FTW). I have 2 expensive paper weights I can send you.

If you think the year difference though is responsible for 8M in sales, why is Sony experiencing declines in both hardware (new market potential) and much more damning in software from year to year? How can you potentially add more to your market, but see a decline in your software?

The answers quite simple. Hardware has always been price point coupled with the lack of games.

Software is due to the lack of games.

Math is a science, you can't argue with numbers.

You love your PS3, that much we can gather.

Sheeva

03-17-2009, 02:05 PM

Take away the "Blue-ray"....what have you got?

The stats on the BR player are by far the worst in comparison to the standalone versions on the market.

I would just prefer to have a good gaming system rest atop a 14-bit Deep Color Samsung.

In all honesty tho... if you are just looking for cool add-on's for your purchase, they are giving away GIANT Mountain Bikes with every purchase of a 4-Runner here in Atlanta. That alone totally justify's the price and performance.

***EDIT***

My CPU can kick your honor students ass!

Adairen

03-17-2009, 02:17 PM

britney spears is fantastic music... according to the numbers. :~(??

Sheeva

03-17-2009, 02:19 PM

britney spears is fantastic music... according to the numbers. :~(??

I love Britney Spears!!!

"I'm a wom-an-izer...oh wo-man-izer!!"

SerLyeu Stormbringer

03-17-2009, 02:26 PM

Just jumping into this epic thread...

... "carry on" ...

Oh wait... carry on!

Kinetic

03-18-2009, 09:10 AM

Math is science you say, so lets do some math...

Xbox 360 Elite (chosen to get an hdmi port)
Amazon.com: Xbox 360 Elite Console 120GB with 2 Bonus Games: Video Games

$399.99

Xbox 360 Black Play & Charge Kit (to match the rechargeable PS3 controller)
Amazon.com: Xbox 360 Black Play & Charge Kit: Video Games

$19.99

Xbox 360 Wireless Network Adapter
Amazon.com: Xbox 360 Wireless Network Adapter: Video Games

$86.99

Xbox 360 Live Subscription Gold Card (to actually play online)
Amazon.com: Xbox 360 Live 12 Month Gold Card plus 1 Month Bonus: Video Games

$38.99

Samsung BD-P1500 1080p Blu-ray Player (chosen as amazon's bestselling blu-ray player)
Amazon.com: Samsung BD-P1500 1080p Blu-ray Player: Audio & Video

$199.00

Grand total = $744.96

Sony Playstation 3 (80gb, no games but the games that come with the 360 are trash anyways)
Amazon.com: PlayStation 3 80GB: Video Games

$399.99

Grand total = $399.99

I'm starting to think 360 owners are too stupid to realize they are getting nickel and dimed into spending far more to get less. :)

PS: Kudos to Ada and Xen for the forum coding, nice amazon picture links #1

Cel

03-18-2009, 12:41 PM

That assumes that you require WiFi capability, can save a little money there. Also that BD player doesn't support profile 2.0, the PS3 does. That's one of the main advantages of the PS3, because of the internet and hard drive (user replaceable I might add with Sony's blessing) it can support basically any blu-ray profile they can come up with via a firmware update.

Can't really dispute that the PS3 comes with more out of the box. I think in some respects the cost for XBL Gold is offset by the fact that in my experience MS provides a better and more useful online experience. Like I said above, you have to weigh whether the larger library of A-list and arguably arcade titles on the 360 (and occasionally better-coded, PS3 being the slightly newer platform obviously), and the market share that it has in the online market, outweigh the benefit of Wi-Fi and Blu-Ray.

Incidentally if you're really motivated you can get an HD-DVD drive for dirt cheap for the 360 and buy a lot of movies out of the bargain bin and off Deep Discount DVD that are cheaper than even DVD prices for 1080p and a lot of features :P I bought HD-DVDs that would've cost like 40% more at DVD prices out of the bargain bin lol. These weren't shitbucket titles either, Matrix trilogy, Ocean's trilogy, Transformers, American Gangster, Jarhead, Clerks II, etc. (Ok maybe not the best selection in the world but they were like $12 apiece, so sue me :P )

Oh and by the way I'd never recommend that play-n-charge kit for the 360 to my worst enemy, get the one that holds two batteries and plugs into the wall :p

marcothy

03-18-2009, 12:53 PM

Its odd that for someone who seemingly keeps throwing the word stupid around, they still have yet to grasp the basic economics for how things work.

1. XBOX 360 vs the PS3, the PS3 is the more complete and also more capable console.
2. The primary difference between the two, is the availability of quality games (360 has more), oddly enough, your price comparison now doesn't hold much water for how its gone so far. Coincidently, the 360 offers a package at less than $200 as well. No-its not on par, but the 360 has sold more because it has been more scaleable and had a better price point.

Issue #2 exists because PS3's initial price point was set too high. This meant more people-when faced with choosing between PS3 and the 360, much more chose the 360. This happened on a 2:1 ratio.

With less of a market share, fewer developers were seeking the PS3 for the platform of release compared to the 360.

Does that mean the 360 is superior? No. It means there is a larger variety of games for the 360 compared to the PS3.

With fewer games compared to its competitor, its been an argument against buying the PS3 for almost 2 years now.

It continues to be a problem, so much that Sony has decided going back to the start of 2008, to play the games of price drops.

But they are still struggling.

Market wise: In February 2008, you have 6 million PS3's in your market. You see a software sales of say 3 million.

February 2009, you have 8 million PS3's in your market, but you see 1.6 million in software sales. If your hardware increases, so should your software sales. The adverse relationship is a bad indicator because it means the software developed is being purchased less by those who own a PS3-despite having 2 million more opportunities to sell to.

Consoles are only as good as the games you can play on them. The PS3, as I have said before, and say again upon either deaf ears or illiterate eyes, is a superior machine compared to the 360 in terms of capabilities.

However, you see a much less quality experience on the PS3 with online play (but it is free) , you have fewer games to choose from at this time compared to the 360. With increases in hardware, but decreases in software, the PS3 from all development standpoints is a shrinking market.

Price points have been lowered to combat that. To try and increase new sales in PS3s, and up their software sales.

The marketing side of it is what is used to justify an overhead cost of multi-million dollars to develop a major title. If a platform is not seen as viable, they aren't going to develop it. And Sony has seen the 360 become more of an icon in it's backyard, again-not a good market sign for the PS3.

The good news is Blu-Ray won the Hi Definition DVD battle. That makes the PS3 a much more viable platform for the future. That has yet to trickle into the market, but it certainly will at some point, coupled with lower costs for Blu-Ray technology, which will mean more price drops for the PS3. When you see the PS3 drop down to the next price point, I would expect the market to take a much sharper turn toward the PS3.

For the next 9 years, the 360 is plateaued for its hardware growth, and they will have good numbers for a while just for where they are.

Given Blu-Ray upsides, I don't think its unreasonable to think the PS3 could overtake the 360's market share. BUT-my only question is whether Microsoft will be releasing a newer console. The PS3 was built around a 10 year market cycle, the 360 was built around a 5-7 year market.

It is what it is.