Greenberg responds to Sony's add-on chart

But how lame that is when this generation of gaming is much more than just inserting a disc and playing.PoppaGamer

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]But how lame that is when this generation of gaming is much more than just inserting a disc and playing.IronBass

:lol: What a maroon. MS better hope no one takes comparison grids into stores. Otherwise people will see the extra investement they still have to make AFTER they buy a 360 unit (Especially the arcade). No, you don't have to have any of the add-ons to play 360 games. Not at all. And I'm sure that would suite a 12 year old gamer just fine. No HDD? Then forget about having multiple downloadable titles on your system at once to play. No Wifi? Then forget about moving your console away from your router or modem. Whatever room they are in, it will be in, forever. Unless you can run Cat5 cable around your house. No blu-ray? Start convincing yourself HD isn't that great. Then go return that HDTV you just bought. No online play? That's alright, you would rather just play with yourself. When it comes down to it, you CAN get away with just having a stripped down version like the arcade. But how lame that is when this generation of gaming is much more than just inserting a disc and playing.PoppaGamer

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]But how lame that is when this generation of gaming is much more than just inserting a disc and playing.PoppaGamer

You do realise the Pro comes with a hard drive right?

If you want wifi, blu-ray and more than 20Gbs of space then sure, a 360 may end up costing more, the whole point is MOST people don't. Just look at the sales figures.

I play ALOT of games, I don't want Blu-Ray (in my console anyway) I don't need Wi-Fi and I certainly don't need more than 20Gb.

But if you EVER plan to play online, if you EVER plan on using Wifi, if you EVER want to watch the best in HD on blu-ray, you best bet is PS3. Here endeth the lesson.PoppaGamer

Our point was simply "the 360 has better library than a PS3". We didn't say "the 360 has the best library" neither "the 360 has the best exclusives".

Simple:"the 360 has better library than a PS3". I don't know what has PC to do with that point :|

And, as I already said, the overall critic agrees that the 360 has better exclusives than the PS3, so I can't see your point.

IronBass

Your and his point was that you get more value with your buck from the 360 library (the very first thing he mentions is price). However, considering how many of the games are not truly exclusive, it defeats the point of cost-efficiency. It becomes apparent that there's more value in PC-PS3 than in PC-360.

Obamania wasn't just comparing games. He was comparing price for games.

What's more, I'm forced to point out that the most notable games on the 360 aren't simply apart of the "360 library" but rather the "PC-360 library."

I'm also forced to point out that a lot of the considered-to-be "better exclusives" (according to your blanket-statement) aren't actually because they went to PC and PS3.

Your and his point was that you get more value with your buck from the 360 library. However, considering how many of the games are not truly exclusive, it defeats the point of cost-efficiency. It becomes apparent that there's more value in PC-PS3 than in PC-360. Pariah_001

Now changing the points, righ? You clearly said "there's nothing more "vast" in regards to the 360's libraryin comparison to the PS3's". PS3 vs 360, but now you say 360+PC vs PS3+PC? Why changing? ;)

Still, the 360 has more exclusives than the PS3, so with a PC/360 combo you get more games than with a PC/PS3, so I can't understand that point, neither.

Obamania wasn't just comparing games. He was comparing price for games.Pariah_001

Considering that you can play about 90% of the PS3 library, + some nice exclusives on a console that costs $200 less, I can't see your point here, neither.

What's more, I'm forced to point out that the most notable games on the 360 aren't simply apart of the "360 library" but rather the "PC-360 library."

I'm also forced to point out that a lot of the considered-to-be "better exclusives" (according to your blanket-statement) aren't actually because they went to PC and PS3.

Pariah_001

Gears 2, Forza 2, Tales of Vesperia, Ninja Gaiden II, Banjo Kazooie K&B, Viva Pinata 2, Fable II, Halo 3 (etc etc) are not on PC, so, once again, I can't see your point.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Our point was simply "the 360 has better library than a PS3". We didn't say "the 360 has the best library" neither "the 360 has the best exclusives".

Simple:"the 360 has better library than a PS3". I don't know what has PC to do with that point :|

And, as I already said, the overall critic agrees that the 360 has better exclusives than the PS3, so I can't see your point.

Pariah_001

Your and his point was that you get more value with your buck from the 360 library (the very first thing he mentions is price). However, considering how many of the games are not truly exclusive, it defeats the point of cost-efficiency. It becomes apparent that there's more value in PC-PS3 than in PC-360.

Obamania wasn't just comparing games. He was comparing price for games.

What's more, I'm forced to point out that the most notable games on the 360 aren't simply apart of the "360 library" but rather the "PC-360 library."

I'm also forced to point out that a lot of the considered-to-be "better exclusives" (according to your blanket-statement) aren't actually because they went to PC and PS3.

Microsoft should be able to make a comeback as to why the 360 is a better buy.

hakanakumono

CASUALS PUSH THE SALES PEOPLE! PoppaGamer

Can you please explain to me how someone with a 20Gb Pro with wired connection and no built in Blu-Ray is a casual GAMER?

Sony acted like internet fanboys with that chart. I've seen similar charts before Sony even made that one.Parasomniac

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]:lol: He spoke the truth Consumer don't take biased charts into stores they have common sense.Holyknight_CJ

Consumers? Common sense? Good one.

It's a biased chart for sure, but at least it's smarter than "$200 and white, or $400 and black. But wait this is 80GB, that's good, right?"

Anyone with a basic understanding of Finance can rip the PS3's high initial price a new one. Those comparitive charts where they tack on a recurring fee ( LIVE ) and assign it full price at purchase are foolish. The proper way to value money is to consider the time-value - saving $200 now and paying $50 a year for four years costs LESS than paying $200 up front due to the effects of interest, inflation, and the personal time value of money.subrosian

Like it or not, PS3 is the best value when you add up the $$$. Still, value doesn't necessarily mean much to consumers, since they seem to flock towards whatever has the lowest price tag.Timstuff

not true, otherwise most major tv, ipod or mp3 and computer companies will be out of business, as with your logic we all buy 14" tv whatevers cheapest, 1gb no name mp3s, and cheap computers. Consumers go after whatever offers the best value for what they need, and here in the uk the 360 = £159 for the pro and £299 for the ps3.

With the amount of advertising microsoft does with like fifa, madden, guitar hero all shown on the 360, people see it in stores as the cheaper option, has the msot games and therefore think it has the best value.

i know the ps3 might work out cheaper with the wireless addon, an elite purchase and it's lack of bluray drive. If you didn't game wirelessly and don't care about bluray, then the 360 is way better value. I have both ps3 and an elite with wireless addon so in my case the ps3 is better value, but most average consumers won't care.

He should have just said, "Well the chart does not lie, but when consumers go into a store they want the product with the cheaper price tag, even though the cheaper price tag also means a much cheaper and less value product"

Bingo, then he would be honest

To Ironbass and speedsix above, You two are using sales to justify your statements about how those "extras" aren't needed. CASUALS PUSH THE SALES PEOPLE! Look at the friggin' Wii! Are you telling me that the Wii should be all most gamers need? :lol: The point is, it is very, very, very rare for someone to buy a console and never want to game online. They may start out with justbeing okay with oiffline gaming. But sooner or later they want to go online. Then what? More money spent. In the long run they will spend more maney that they thought they were saving in the first place. Now, if you are casual through and through, hell no the PS3 isn't for you. But if you EVER plan to play online, if you EVER plan on using Wifi, if you EVER want to watch the best in HD on blu-ray, you best bet is PS3. Here endeth the lesson.PoppaGamer

• XBL > PSN
• I don't use Wifi for gaming as its worse then wired
• I game I don't watch HD movies

I think you're teaching methods aren't up to date.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Pariah_001"]

You really love that hyperbole don't you? At this point in time, there's nothing more "vast" in regards to the 360's libraryin comparison to the PS3's. A lot of its more notable games can be played on the PC, including Mass Effect and Gears of War--Not to mention it was only a matter of time before Bioshock went to the PS3. Pariah_001

In comparison to the PS3's, not in comparison to the PS3+PC.

Comparing it to the PS3 alone (where those PC/360 shared mutiplat count), the 360 library is considered (by the overall critic) much better.

Hence the reason why people claim you can play 90% of the games on PS3 for half the price right? Preach about exclusiveness all you want. You can't run away from the overall library forever. If you're going to compare PS3 + PC to 360 then you are just proving the 360's case even more.

The fact that a $200 platform can play PC games is a plus man.

GiantBomb also responed to the chart with this other chart:DarkGamer007

GiantBomb also responed to the chart with this other chart:DarkGamer007

[QUOTE="Zoso-8"]He forgot to mention a lot of consumers aren't smart. People just see a low price tag and automatically assume it's a better deal.speedsix

Anyone that pays almost double to play pretty much the same games isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the box imo.

So you are inferring PS3 owners are stupid now?

Some of us have the means to be able to buy a $400 dollar system. Others even have the means to *gasp* buy both!

I was attracted to all the bells and whistles and greatly enjoy my PS3 purchase. By all means if price is important to you then be an Xbox fan. It is just kinda silly to say PS3 owners are stupid just because they can afford and enjoy the system.

Thats silly. There's nothing wrong with selling your console to the consumer (by telling him the pros of buying your console vs. the competetors).

Microsoft should be able to make a comeback as to why the 360 is a better buy.

hakanakumono

"I don't think people take comparison grids into retail stores." Yeah. Only smart people do this. Which i am not. So i buy the cheepest *** vehicle i can drive home. And then it hits me, "ah crap why did i do that, it just broke down on me." I spend the lesser a lot. and i end up hitting myself for it. But i Only i can speek for myself. This may never happen to anyone else. :roll:LOXO7

LOL...cows justifying their purchase, thinking they spent wisely...when in reality they got taken to the cleaners by Sony. It's just crazy that in this economy some people are willing to help a cold-hearted corporation with the expenses of launching a new movie format. I don't know about common sense, but they sure have lots of loyalty to give out.

[QUOTE="speedsix"]

[QUOTE="Zoso-8"]He forgot to mention a lot of consumers aren't smart. People just see a low price tag and automatically assume it's a better deal.Lewisite

Anyone that pays almost double to play pretty much the same games isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the box imo.

So you are inferring PS3 owners are stupid now?

Some of us have the means to be able to buy a $400 dollar system. Others even have the means to *gasp* buy both!

I was attracted to all the bells and whistles and greatly enjoy my PS3 purchase. By all means if price is important to you then be an Xbox fan. It is just kinda silly to say PS3 owners are stupid just because they can afford and enjoy the system.

Err...if price is important...

...and online is important...

...and better games are important...

...and better versions of multiplatform titles are important...

...and the list goes on...

It just doesn't not make much sense to go with Sony when there are better and less expensive alternatives. Apparently, the majority of consumers looking for a high end gaming machine agree.

Maybe that guy should explain why all of their accessories are grossly overpriced. Its nice that the arcade is $200 but why does wifi cost $100 and why do I have to pay $150 for a 120gb hard drive?!? Why pay $50 for an online service that does everything p2p and doesnt run dedicated servers?!

What a rip off.

Sony has a valid point. Thats why Im selling my 360. Im sick of M$ nickle and diming me to death.

Maybe that guy should explain why all of their accessories are grossly overpriced. Its nice that the arcade is $200 but why does wifi cost $100 and why do I have to pay $150 for a 120gb hard drive?!? Why pay $50 for an online service that does everything p2p and doesnt run dedicated servers?!

What a rip off.

Sony has a valid point. Thats why Im selling my 360. Im sick of M$ nickle and diming me to death.

Mr_Ditters

[QUOTE="Mr_Ditters"]

Maybe that guy should explain why all of their accessories are grossly overpriced. Its nice that the arcade is $200 but why does wifi cost $100 and why do I have to pay $150 for a 120gb hard drive?!? Why pay $50 for an online service that does everything p2p and doesnt run dedicated servers?!

What a rip off.

Sony has a valid point. Thats why Im selling my 360. Im sick of M$ nickle and diming me to death.

Pimpshigity21

I already have. Slow downloads suck but gaming is the same except not as many people use mics (no more little noisy kids) and they sometimes have dedicated servers (very little lag or host advantage, 30 v 30 matches),and the satisfaction that I havent given microsoft money for doing practically nothing. I do like netflix though, but I'll just stream it to my ps3 from my pc.

Nope Im done with the 360. My friends are making the transition as well. They share my frustrations, especially after Gears 2 multiplayer was a mess and getting RROD 4x. My friend has 2 360's that he uses in rotation when he has sent one in for repairs (true story).

The crux of the matter is that PS3 fanboys simply cannot understand that features not needed/wanted is money wasted

No interest in Blu-Ray - Lets say $100 wasted

Uses a wired connection - $20 wasted

Doesn't use more than say 10Gb - $20 wasted

If there was no economic recession, then I would have said that the PS3 will dominate in sales. After all, the Xbox at least got a 2nd place spot in the last console generation, despite being the highest priced console. But there is an economic recession, so most people just want to buy the things which are the cheapest. There is just no way that Sony can win this console war with this in mind. Even if Sony does get a lot more impressive titles, that still won't be enough to save it.[QUOTE="speedsix"]

The crux of the matter is that PS3 fanboys simply cannot understand that features not needed/wanted is money wasted

No interest in Blu-Ray - Lets say $100 wasted

Uses a wired connection - $20 wasted

Doesn't use more than say 10Gb - $20 wasted

Mawy_Golomb

Actually people finally see through Sony's BS overhype and realize the 360 is a better choice for a gaming machine.

BTW, Sony wants to flaunt the fact that the PS3 is the only system to watch Bluray movies, did they bother to factor in the additional cost Bluray discs have over reguler DVD's?

Maybe that guy should explain why all of their accessories are grossly overpriced. Its nice that the arcade is $200 but why does wifi cost $100 and why do I have to pay $150 for a 120gb hard drive?!? Why pay $50 for an online service that does everything p2p and doesnt run dedicated servers?!

What a rip off.

Sony has a valid point. Thats why Im selling my 360. Im sick of M$ nickle and diming me to death.

Mr_Ditters

http://www.psu.com/Clothing-is-flying-off-the-virtual-rack-in-Home--a0005913-p0.php

Cause Sony certainly doesn't do that with it's silly over priced clothing.

Or perhaps this one:

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/12/08/street-fighter-dlc-for-littlebigplanet-in-pictures/

The main difference is most XBL users are smart enough not to buy this crap. As you can see PS users tend to be incredibly stupid and eat it up. $6 for a 3 character pack? wtf lol

Don't even get me started on the santa suit. "HEY LOOK NOW I CAN BE A PERVERT ON HOME IN A SANTA SUIT TOO!"

Microsoft should be able to make a comeback as to why the 360 is a better buy.

VERY well put, Greenberg.

Could'nt have said it better myself.

Good job.

Like it or not, PS3 is the best value when you add up the $$$. Still, value doesn't necessarily mean much to consumers, since they seem to flock towards whatever has the lowest price tag.Timstuff

Then why didn't Gamecube win last generation with the lowest price tag? It came in 3rd. The cost is still only as worth it as the games make it worth buying. And while GC was solid in it's 1st party games (most being the familiar Nintendo staples) it was very much behind in the 3rd party support against PS2 and Xbox1.

GAMES will always be the key, but even so, a console with the games can still be held back by a steep price tag. At the end of the day, if the average consumer can't afford it, they won't be walking out of the store with it.

PS2 in the last gen showed the key to success: a reasonable price supported by an abundant and diverse library to make the purchase worth it.

[QUOTE="Mawy_Golomb"]If there was no economic recession, then I would have said that the PS3 will dominate in sales. After all, the Xbox at least got a 2nd place spot in the last console generation, despite being the highest priced console. But there is an economic recession, so most people just want to buy the things which are the cheapest. There is just no way that Sony can win this console war with this in mind. Even if Sony does get a lot more impressive titles, that still won't be enough to save it.[QUOTE="speedsix"]

The crux of the matter is that PS3 fanboys simply cannot understand that features not needed/wanted is money wasted

No interest in Blu-Ray - Lets say $100 wasted

Uses a wired connection - $20 wasted

Doesn't use more than say 10Gb - $20 wasted

AlphaGamer469

Actually people finally see through Sony's BS overhype and realize the 360 is a better choice for a gaming machine.

BTW, Sony wants to flaunt the fact that the PS3 is the only system to watch Bluray movies, did they bother to factor in the additional cost Bluray discs have over reguler DVD's?

[QUOTE="AlphaGamer469"][QUOTE="Mawy_Golomb"] Exactly. That is how it works. Why spend money on extra features when you are not so likely to end up using them? This is why Microsoft is doing so well. Nintendo, too, is doing well because it doesn't force its customers to buy something that includes a lot of add-on features that would hurt its profits and that customers might not be interested in at all.skektek

Actually people finally see through Sony's BS overhype and realize the 360 is a better choice for a gaming machine.

BTW, Sony wants to flaunt the fact that the PS3 is the only system to watch Bluray movies, did they bother to factor in the additional cost Bluray discs have over reguler DVD's?

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="AlphaGamer469"]

Actually people finally see through Sony's BS overhype and realize the 360 is a better choice for a gaming machine.

BTW, Sony wants to flaunt the fact that the PS3 is the only system to watch Bluray movies, did they bother to factor in the additional cost Bluray discs have over reguler DVD's?

mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="skektek"]The cost difference is insignificant if there is any at all. When BD production lines first started there was a less than $0.10 per disc cost difference compared to DVD and that was including the startup and retooling costs. Today BDs and DVDs are produced on the same lines with comparable cost. Don't act like this is the cartridge vs disc days, where are a cart cost $15-20 and a disc only cost ~$0.35 to produce.skektek

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I think he meant cost to the consumer, where movies on Blu-Ray are often more expensive than their DVD counterparts.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="subrosian"]Anyone with a basic understanding of Finance can rip the PS3's high initial price a new one. Those comparitive charts where they tack on a recurring fee ( LIVE ) and assign it full price at purchase are foolish. The proper way to value money is to consider the time-value - saving $200 now and paying $50 a year for four years costs LESS than paying $200 up front due to the effects of interest, inflation, and the personal time value of money. - We can get into the math if you'd like, but in layman's terms, anyone who goes "the system doesn't cost $200 less, because it has optional features you don't need!" is just being silly.Hoobinator

Technically speaking, Accounting doesn't considers inflation, since it is literally the recording of the financial numbers. However, when we draw conclusions from those numbers, or consider issues like growth, investment, or value (aka, Finance questions ) we always have to consider the "true" value of money. And yes, people love to ignore inflation and market forces.

"Gas costs $4 a gallon, we must be running out!" - no, market speculation, inflation, and supply-line difficulties combined with a relatively inelastic demand have shifted the supply curve. - "Gas dropped to $1.55 a gallon, what happened?" A weak economy lowered demand, and the elasticity of demand changed as unemployment increased. - The point is extremely simple though - anyone, ANYONE can understand this.

- $50 TODAY is worth more than $50 given six months from now. Would anyone like to contest that? Would anyone like to really argue against the general direction of the market, the personal value of "immediate money", or the effects of interest / inflation / risk ?subrosian

Nobody is going to argue that money inherently changes value over time. This is applicable to almost any good or commodity. The only reason why it is a little superfluous in this context with a value for money argument with PS3 v Xbox 360 is the time scale is quite small and the inherent utility derived from the benefits of add-ons is separate for different demographics. Been said a thousand times but a movie afficianado is going to take more utility out of the Blu-Ray drive than a pure gamer, whose interest is only gaming.

The second argument also relates to the prices of Xbox Live, again over a number of years, interest and inflation play a factor but even here the gains and losses over a 4 year time period would be quite small, a few dollars, if interest and inflation are taken to be quite low. I'm not discounting their effects, but these effects also do not mitigate that there are differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360. But that "value" of difference is almost uncountable. I could for instance argue that the inherent "peace of mind" and the utility derived from payng for Xbox Live up front would be enough for many people to part with $200 up front instead of piecemeal $50 over 4 years. Again not something modern accounting or Keynesian economics particularly accounts for, not could on a larger scale because of the lack of monetary value being attached to such notions.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="skektek"]Maybe... but that would a rather "no-duh" point (initially there is always a premium for new/better technology) that in no way detracts from the fact the PS3 can play Blu-ray movies.skektek

Yea, you're right they look at game case a and see $400 with few $30 games and full of $60 games, then they look at Game case B and see a GAME system at almost half of the price that has MORE games under $30 with newer $60 titles. 360 is a better GAMING value and that's way GAMERS prefer it...

To Ironbass and speedsix above, You two are using sales to justify your statements about how those "extras" aren't needed. CASUALS PUSH THE SALES PEOPLE! Look at the friggin' Wii! Are you telling me that the Wii should be all most gamers need? :lol: The point is, it is very, very, very rare for someone to buy a console and never want to game online. They may start out with justbeing okay with oiffline gaming. But sooner or later they want to go online. Then what? More money spent. In the long run they will spend more maney that they thought they were saving in the first place. Now, if you are casual through and through, hell no the PS3 isn't for you. But if you EVER plan to play online, if you EVER plan on using Wifi, if you EVER want to watch the best in HD on blu-ray, you best bet is PS3. Here endeth the lesson.PoppaGamer