New PS3-360 Price comparison!

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][

Oblivion, Virtua Tennis, Fight Night, Rainbow Six, Ridge Racer, and Need for Speed would like a chat with you.

As would UT3, Haze, Burnout Paradise, and Dark Sector (lead platform games or timed exclusives).

Ninja Gaiden=1080P+60FPS. Show me an example of this on the Xbox 360 and you win a prize.

kingsfan_0333

I had a chat with them...

oblivion told me that it wasn't worth waiting almost a full year for nearly the same graphics and some content than can be downloaded. It also told me that the 360 version had a higher average review score.

Rainbow Six on the ps3 told me that it was a loser because the average review score was lower than the average 360 score.

Ridge Racer told me that it didn't go multiplatform on the 360 with the latest edition. It wants to ask you why you chose this as an example.

Need for speed told me again that it was outrated by the 360 version.

Wow...ninja gaiden had nothing to do with my post. Thanks for the information though...although it did absolutly nothing in proving that the madden 08 ps3 version is "toned down".

And I couldn't chat with ut3, haze, burnout paradise, or dark sector...since none of those are out yet. So I guess i'll have to do what every other ps3 fan is doing and "wait".

lol i have to be honest with you...I can't wait to hear your excuses considering the ratings are right in front of you.

It's simple: According to the Eurogamer comparison each and every one of those games' still images look better in many ways than the Xbox 360 images.

Additionally, according to the Gamespot comparison, Armored Core looks substantially better on the Playstation 3.

Oblivion: not the same graphics, additional value, can easily be considered the best purchase of the bunch (sans PC version for mod's sake).

Rainbow Six was still considered the best version by IGN in their multiplatform comparison for having the best value.

Ninja Gaiden is a gleaming example of superiority. That's why I used it as an example. You may have football at 60FPS and 720p, but I have a game at 60FPS at 1080p. Presumably the Playstation 3 version of Madden is "toned down" because E3 has neither the inclination nor the resources (read: brains) to learn how to code for the Playstation 3 effectively, which we all more or less know has more grunt power behind it than the Xbox 360 if it is only tapped into effectively. It's EA. Their notoriety transcends them.

All of those games may not be out yet, but it's ironic that you tell me I'm the one that's going to be doing the waiting, since Haze is most certainly a PS3 timed exclusive, possibly an exclusive (only version coming out this year according to the Bonus Round on Gametrailers and numerous other sources). The others are lead platform and have a substantial shot at releasing before the Xbox 360 version of the game (UT3 has been rumored to do so). Additionally, I forgot: DMC4 is PS3 lead platform as well. Everyone forgets that since the multiplatform announcement, but there it is.

Ratings bely the value of a game. If you would have read the full reviews you would have immediately realized that Oblivion is the best value on the Playstation 3, etcetera. And I've seen the screenshot comparisons with my own eyes and I'm quite aware which is visually the best version of the following games (the other ones can just be more or less assumed due to lead platform).

and who says MS cant lower the 360's price down to the Wii's and destroy the "hot news" of the PS3's price dropping?supermechakirby

I already debunked that claim. Look around.

Sony is NOTmaking a profit on each PS3 sold. THey are still losing around $200 on each system. There is no way manufacturing costs have dropped that much in 6 months. No way in hell.However, the Xbox 360 is making a profit on each unit sold.

The_Game21x

"

Sony can cut prices because the company has fixed production problems with a diode used in the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray disk player, said Tretton, who is based in Foster City, California. He declined to discuss costs for the console.

Clearing up the trouble made PlayStation 3 profitable several months ago, giving the company room to cut prices, analyst Doherty said. Microsoft still loses money on each Xbox 360 it sells, he said.

``Any price cut they try to make puts them more into the red,'' Doherty said."

Okay. I just showed you the how and the why. Now you show me the how and the why, okay? Then we'll have a party.

[QUOTE="supermechakirby"]and who says MS cant lower the 360's price down to the Wii's and destroy the "hot news" of the PS3's price dropping?Redfingers

I already debunked that claim. Look around.

Yes, and because you say it won't, then it must be true. :roll:

[QUOTE="supermechakirby"]and who says MS cant lower the 360's price down to the Wii's and destroy the "hot news" of the PS3's price dropping?Redfingers

I already debunked that claim. Look around.

Because you are in head of the gaming division at MS, I forgot!

If you bought a 360 and didnt buy live... then please go back playing your ps2. You are not ready for next gen...

Basically live is needed and a must have.

It is my understanding the 360 does HD out of the box. It plays its games in HD resolutions (if you got tv that does HD) and it plays movies at HD resolutions (downloaded and reg dvd upscaled to hd resolutions). The only thing it doesnt have is an "hd format" being hddvd/blueray for higher capacity.

Both the premium and elite are cheaper up front regardless of all the extras included in the price. It would be different if we were comparing a ps3 with a snes. But then again the 3do was the big console on the block at the time of the snes and look how it turned out.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="Redfingers"][

Oblivion, Virtua Tennis, Fight Night, Rainbow Six, Ridge Racer, and Need for Speed would like a chat with you.

As would UT3, Haze, Burnout Paradise, and Dark Sector (lead platform games or timed exclusives).

Ninja Gaiden=1080P+60FPS. Show me an example of this on the Xbox 360 and you win a prize.

Redfingers

I had a chat with them...

oblivion told me that it wasn't worth waiting almost a full year for nearly the same graphics and some content than can be downloaded. It also told me that the 360 version had a higher average review score.

Rainbow Six on the ps3 told me that it was a loser because the average review score was lower than the average 360 score.

Ridge Racer told me that it didn't go multiplatform on the 360 with the latest edition. It wants to ask you why you chose this as an example.

Need for speed told me again that it was outrated by the 360 version.

Wow...ninja gaiden had nothing to do with my post. Thanks for the information though...although it did absolutly nothing in proving that the madden 08 ps3 version is "toned down".

And I couldn't chat with ut3, haze, burnout paradise, or dark sector...since none of those are out yet. So I guess i'll have to do what every other ps3 fan is doing and "wait".

lol i have to be honest with you...I can't wait to hear your excuses considering the ratings are right in front of you.

It's simple: According to the Eurogamer comparison each and every one of those games' still images look better in many ways than the Xbox 360 images.

Additionally, according to the Gamespot comparison, Armored Core looks substantially better on the Playstation 3.

Oblivion: not the same graphics, additional value, can easily be considered the best purchase of the bunch (sans PC version for mod's sake).

Rainbow Six was still considered the best version by IGN in their multiplatform comparison for having the best value.

Ninja Gaiden is a gleaming example of superiority. That's why I used it as an example. You may have football at 60FPS and 720p, but I have a game at 60FPS at 1080p. Presumably the Playstation 3 version of Madden is "toned down" because E3 has neither the inclination nor the resources (read: brains) to learn how to code for the Playstation 3 effectively, which we all more or less know has more grunt power behind it than the Xbox 360 if it is only tapped into effectively. It's EA. Their notoriety transcends them.

All of those games may not be out yet, but it's ironic that you tell me I'm the one that's going to be doing the waiting, since Haze is most certainly a PS3 timed exclusive, possibly an exclusive (only version coming out this year according to the Bonus Round on Gametrailers and numerous other sources). The others are lead platform and have a substantial shot at releasing before the Xbox 360 version of the game (UT3 has been rumored to do so). Additionally, I forgot: DMC4 is PS3 lead platform as well. Everyone forgets that since the multiplatform announcement, but there it is.

Ratings bely the value of a game. If you would have read the full reviews you would have immediately realized that Oblivion is the best value on the Playstation 3, etcetera. And I've seen the screenshot comparisons with my own eyes and I'm quite aware which is visually the best version of the following games (the other ones can just be more or less assumed due to lead platform).

still images? Do you play games in still images? Me either...so we can consider that point a waste of time.

Armored Core link? I heard a few small details here and there...I would like to see where it says "substantially" better. And don't forget, in that same graphics comparison..most 360 games came out on top.

Oblivion additional value? All additional value can be downloaded for the 360 version. I'm pretty sure you know that...so don't assume I don't.

Rainbow Six: First of all, I give you better average review scores and you come at me with specific IGN reviews? That's pretty lame. I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt by taking the full average and not picking and choosing specific websites myself...because that would be biased. Second of all, IGN rated the 360 version clearly higher than the ps3 version...wow, they must have really love the ps3 version more eh?

lol That's it, critisize EA...because your game development knowledge is ffffffffaaarrr superior. You have pretty much lost all of my respect at this point once you reduced yourself to this. And if you check the back of 360 boxes, they do 1080p as well...so I don't see where the superiority comes in.

And forgive me..but I still don't see how Haze and the other unreleased games fit into this discussion. They have not yet been toned down..toned up...or toned anything. And your "I heard this" talk is far from factual.

lol so I am supposed to trust your eye when you look at screenshots? Can I ask you an honest question? Do you consider yourself unbiased?

If you bought a 360 and didnt buy live... then please go back playing your ps2. You are not ready for next gen...

Basically live is needed and a must have.

Tamarind_Face

basically it's not..since it's optional.

It is my understanding the 360 does HD out of the box. It plays its games in HD resolutions (if you got tv that does HD) and it plays movies at HD resolutions (downloaded and reg dvd upscaled to hd resolutions). The only thing it doesnt have is an "hd format" being hddvd/blueray for higher capacity.

Both the premium and elite are cheaper up front regardless of all the extras included in the price. It would be different if we were comparing a ps3 with a snes. But then again the 3do was the big console on the block at the time of the snes and look how it turned out.

skyvader

Problems with your post: There is a gigantic difference between upscaled DVDs (which are still, in all respects, 480p picture quality at best), and Blu Ray DVDs, which play in native 1080p. If you can't tell the difference by reading these words, go to Best Buy, watch a Blu Ray display on a 1080p set, then get back to me and tell me if it was any different than an upscaled DVD.

PS3 is still more impressive in many respects than the Xbox 360. Let me provide one that doesn't require fancy tech-talk or developer interviews (though there are plenty to support it). The Blu Ray drive and the standard HDD both provide something to games that the Xbox 360 cannot provide with it's non-standard HDD and DVD drive. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune streams everything, from animations, audio, texture, level data, environments, and character models, from the HDD and the Blu Ray disc in order to eliminate loading times from the game completely. Game data can be cached on the standard HDD for easy access and streaming information can be placed on the disc. Additionally, 60 gigs versus 20 gigs obviously provides a substantial step up in space for downloadable games, movies, pictures, what have you. Also, the third-party 2.5" SATA drive that you can use to replace it can be used for further advantage.

Gigantic games like Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance (compare Resistance's 30 levels and plenty of HD FMV to Gears' 7) already pay testament to the strength of these features.

I'd like to point out that people even thinking about using the $300 dollar Core system as some sort of leverage as far as price goes just need to reconsider their stance. It is called the "tard pack" for a reason. $40 for a memory card alone? And if you want HD, you have to go get component cables to go with that??

Okay for all intensive purposes, let's keep it realistic and argue between the $400 Premium and the $500 PS3. AKA the SKUs that 90% of the population actually worry about.

360:

$400 system

$50 per year for XBL x let's just say 4 years = $200 (if you argue that you don't need a subscription that is fine but then you relieve the right to brag about things like "VF5 online XBL only lololol", "Halo 3 will pwn" or anything XBL related since you don't use it)

=$600

PS3:

$500 system

$10 HDMI cable off of monoprice

$30 Bluetooth headset

=$540

These are what I consider to be the bare essentials of both systems. Most of the rest of the gaming accessories (controllers etc) are almost identical in price so they factor each other out. I am not being a fanboy here. I only present the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. Until MS announces its own price drop (which I fully expect to see), price can no longer be considered a reasonable argument pro MS or against PS3. Even if/when MS drops its price by $100, that still makes it only $40 cheaper than a system much more rich in features. This isn't even taking into account the current deal in which you get 5 free BR movies if you buy a PS3!!! There is absolutely no plausible or logical argument against the PS3 being too expensive anymore. That is unless the person arguing that is a sheep, then in which case it is acceptable to rip on both MS and Sony for the heftier price. Sony, at this moment, beats MS in the price category due to the cut.

So let's quit trying to spin this somehow in MS's favor. Keep bragging about the better multiplats and overall selection of games or the 7 million unit lead. That's what MS has going for it now, and that is what Lemmings can currently reasonably claim ownage over Cows for. However, as far as value/features and hardware quality/reliability goes, Cows can currently reasonably claim ownage over Lemmings. I know it's probably a lost cause, but let's at least try to keep it somewhat logical here.

I'd like to point out that people even thinking about using the $300 dollar Core system as some sort of leverage as far as price goes just need to reconsider their stance. It is called the "tard pack" for a reason. $40 for a memory card alone? And if you want HD, you have to go get component cables to go with that??

Okay for all intensive purposes, let's keep it realistic and argue between the $400 Premium and the $500 PS3. AKA the SKUs that 90% of the population actually worry about.

360:

$400 system

$50 per year for XBL x let's just say 4 years = $200 (if you argue that you don't need a subscription that is fine but then you relieve the right to brag about things like "VF5 online XBL only lololol", "Halo 3 will pwn" or anything XBL related since you don't use it)

=$600

PS3:

$500 system

$10 HDMI cable off of monoprice

$30 Bluetooth headset

=$540

These are what I consider to be the bare essentials of both systems. Most of the rest of the gaming accessories (controllers etc) are almost identical in price so they factor each other out. I am not being a fanboy here. I only present the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. Until MS announces its own price drop (which I fully expect to see), price can no longer be considered a reasonable argument pro MS or against PS3. Even if/when MS drops its price by $100, that still makes it only $40 cheaper than a system much more rich in features. This isn't even taking into account the current deal in which you get 5 free BR movies if you buy a PS3!!! There is absolutely no plausible or logical argument against the PS3 being too expensive anymore. That is unless the person arguing that is a sheep, then in which case it is acceptable to rip on both MS and Sony for the heftier price. Sony, at this moment, beats MS in the price category due to the cut.

So let's quit trying to spin this somehow in MS's favor. Keep bragging about the better multiplats and overall selection of games or the 7 million unit lead. That's what MS has going for it now, and that is what Lemmings can currently reasonably claim ownage over Cows for. However, as far as value/features and hardware quality/reliability goes, Cows can currently reasonably claim ownage over Lemmings. I know it's probably a lost cause, but let's at least try to keep it somewhat logical here.

a_random_hobo

$399 deal with it.

To play games out of the box Xbox 360 costs anywhere from 300 - 480 dollars. PS3 costs anywhere from 500 - 600 dollars. Nothing else is needed.

/Thread

swaginator

$300. WTF

Truthg is the PS3 offer wayy better bang for your buck anyday

[QUOTE="skyvader"]

It is my understanding the 360 does HD out of the box. It plays its games in HD resolutions (if you got tv that does HD) and it plays movies at HD resolutions (downloaded and reg dvd upscaled to hd resolutions). The only thing it doesnt have is an "hd format" being hddvd/blueray for higher capacity.

Both the premium and elite are cheaper up front regardless of all the extras included in the price. It would be different if we were comparing a ps3 with a snes. But then again the 3do was the big console on the block at the time of the snes and look how it turned out.

Redfingers

Problems with your post: There is a gigantic difference between upscaled DVDs (which are still, in all respects, 480p picture quality at best), and Blu Ray DVDs, which play in native 1080p. If you can't tell the difference by reading these words, go to Best Buy, watch a Blu Ray display on a 1080p set, then get back to me and tell me if it was any different than an upscaled DVD.

PS3 is still more impressive in many respects than the Xbox 360. Let me provide one that doesn't require fancy tech-talk or developer interviews (though there are plenty to support it). The Blu Ray drive and the standard HDD both provide something to games that the Xbox 360 cannot provide with it's non-standard HDD and DVD drive. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune streams everything, from animations, audio, texture, level data, environments, and character models, from the HDD and the Blu Ray disc in order to eliminate loading times from the game completely. Game data can be cached on the standard HDD for easy access and streaming information can be placed on the disc. Additionally, 60 gigs versus 20 gigs obviously provides a substantial step up in space for downloadable games, movies, pictures, what have you. Also, the third-party 2.5" SATA drive that you can use to replace it can be used for further advantage.

Gigantic games like Lair, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance (compare Resistance's 30 levels and plenty of HD FMV to Gears' 7) already pay testament to the strength of these features.

I find it funny that you say Resistance is so much bigger than Gears of War, yet its campaign tops out at about 12 hours. Gears tops out at about 8. Wow. Huge difference there. :roll:

$399 deal with it.

kingsfan_0333

No XBL deal with it.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

a_random_hobo

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

'Clearing up the trouble made PlayStation 3 profitable several months ago, giving the company room to cut prices, analyst Doherty said.'

This quote is from the link you provided, but it is totally wrong as it contradicts the earlier part of the news article which states that Sony gaming division is making a loss of $405 million this fiscal year, after a record loss.

... correct price comparisions are

$399 (Premium 360) vs. $499 (60gb PS3)
... IF you need WiFi its
$499 vs. $499
... IF you demand online play its
$449 vs. $499
.. IF you demand WiFi AND Online Play its:
$549 vs. $499 ...

Therefore 360 is cheaper for casuals and more expansive for the hardcore gamers ...

$479 (Elite 360) vs. $599 (80gb PS3)
... well 360 simply wins here because id rather buy a 60gb PS3, a 120gb HDD AND Motorstorm and pay $580 - $610 ...
choasgod

In your first comparision why does 360 win

PS3 offers 3X the HDDD storage
Free online play
Blu-ray

All for a meer $100

It's simple: According to the Eurogamer comparison each and every one of those games' still images look better in many ways than the Xbox 360 images.

Additionally, according to the Gamespot comparison, Armored Core looks substantially better on the Playstation 3.

Oblivion: not the same graphics, additional value, can easily be considered the best purchase of the bunch (sans PC version for mod's sake).

Rainbow Six was still considered the best version by IGN in their multiplatform comparison for having the best value.

Ninja Gaiden is a gleaming example of superiority. That's why I used it as an example. You may have football at 60FPS and 720p, but I have a game at 60FPS at 1080p. Presumably the Playstation 3 version of Madden is "toned down" because E3 has neither the inclination nor the resources (read: brains) to learn how to code for the Playstation 3 effectively, which we all more or less know has more grunt power behind it than the Xbox 360 if it is only tapped into effectively. It's EA. Their notoriety transcends them.

All of those games may not be out yet, but it's ironic that you tell me I'm the one that's going to be doing the waiting, since Haze is most certainly a PS3 timed exclusive, possibly an exclusive (only version coming out this year according to the Bonus Round on Gametrailers and numerous other sources). The others are lead platform and have a substantial shot at releasing before the Xbox 360 version of the game (UT3 has been rumored to do so). Additionally, I forgot: DMC4 is PS3 lead platform as well. Everyone forgets that since the multiplatform announcement, but there it is.

Ratings bely the value of a game. If you would have read the full reviews you would have immediately realized that Oblivion is the best value on the Playstation 3, etcetera. And I've seen the screenshot comparisons with my own eyes and I'm quite aware which is visually the best version of the following games (the other ones can just be more or less assumed due to lead platform).

kingsfan_0333

still images? Do you play games in still images? Me either...so we can consider that point a waste of time.

Armored Core link? I heard a few small details here and there...I would like to see where it says "substantially" better. And don't forget, in that same graphics comparison..most 360 games came out on top.

Oblivion additional value? All additional value can be downloaded for the 360 version. I'm pretty sure you know that...so don't assume I don't.

Rainbow Six: First of all, I give you better average review scores and you come at me with specific IGN reviews? That's pretty lame. I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt by taking the full average and not picking and choosing specific websites myself...because that would be biased. Second of all, IGN rated the 360 version clearly higher than the ps3 version...wow, they must have really love the ps3 version more eh?

lol That's it, critisize EA...because your game development knowledge is ffffffffaaarrr superior. You have pretty much lost all of my respect at this point once you reduced yourself to this. And if you check the back of 360 boxes, they do 1080p as well...so I don't see where the superiority comes in.

And forgive me..but I still don't see how Haze and the other unreleased games fit into this discussion. They have not yet been toned down..toned up...or toned anything. And your "I heard this" talk is far from factual.

lol so I am supposed to trust your eye when you look at screenshots? Can I ask you an honest question? Do you consider yourself unbiased?

You don't need a link, you only need to take a look. "Most 360 games" doesn't do it for me, given I presented you with a lot that are substantially superior in one way or another.

For. A. Price. Horse armor is not additional value, it is a waste of money. For $60 you get more bang for your buck. This is generally agreed upon.

It wasn't a review. Like you said, the game was considered to have greater *value* although they criticized it for its visuals in their actual review. However, if you want to compare visuals. I direct you to the Eurogamer comparison where many of the images show a leap in clarity and greater overall image quality, albeit with some sacrifices, such as in lighting and some aliasing. Still, don't look toned down. Look better.

Native 1080p? At 60FPS? Who'da thunk it. I'd ask the Team Ninja guys about it, but all they'd have to say is that "no game on the Xbox 360 currently runs at 60 FPS at 1080p." Thus, point pretty much nil. I criticize EA because, again, Team Ninja gives me ammo. "If you aren't willing to leverage the power of the PS3, you're lazy!" An extremely rough paraphrase, but they said something like that. If EA isn't willing to place the Playstation 3 version of the game for ease of porting and for platform specific optimizations like Julian Eggebrecht recommended, then the Playstation 3 version of the game is going to suffer. This is biting them in the ass in more than a couple ways, to be sure. If you remember correctly I just showed you that the Playstation 3 is capable of running a visually stunning game at 1080p at 60 FPS with no issues whatsoever. The question isn't capability. It's willpower. And willpower naturally describes a human element rather than a technological one.

Would you like to see them? Hold on...

Again, I digress. This isn't the topic of this thread. I've posted them so many times it's seriously getting to me.

Lead platform equals greatest possible performance on that platform, meaning that it will not suffer, will not be toned down, or anything. It means that that platform will have zero porting issues.

No, I am not biased. I willingly concede that many Xbox 360 versions of multiplatform games look better on that platform. I am not willing to concede, however, that all look better or are better on that platform. I am not willing to concede that the Playstation 3 is a less capable platform until resoundingly proven otherwise. I am not willing to concede a value assessment which is 100% true which is the topic of this thread which you have attempted to basically sideline by drawing in an irrelevant point.

[QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

kingsfan_0333

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

XB360P $399 + (XBL $50p/y)100 years $5000 ... + ext HD $200 + $100 Wi-Fi + 100 repairs!!! $20,000 = $25,699

PS3 60 $499... - $200 for PS name - $200 for being supercool -$98 for again being PS - $201 forthesakeofit = $200 profit!!!!

PS3 MAKES YOU MONEY!!!

Redfingers

I fixed it for you

... correct price comparisions are

$399 (Premium 360) vs. $499 (60gb PS3)
... IF you need WiFi its
$499 vs. $499
... IF you demand online play its
$449 vs. $499
.. IF you demand WiFi AND Online Play its:
$549 vs. $499 ...

Therefore 360 is cheaper for casuals and more expansive for the hardcore gamers ...

$479 (Elite 360) vs. $599 (80gb PS3)
... well 360 simply wins here because id rather buy a 60gb PS3, a 120gb HDD AND Motorstorm and pay $580 - $610 ...
choasgod

$549 vs $569

if you demand HDMI and a Headset

[QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

kingsfan_0333

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

They can't. they have to justify buying it. I mean a $600 paperweight where it's best games are older ports of 360 games at $400 more the price? I'd be trying to justify it too if I didn't own a 360/pc too...

The PS3 isn't fun yet

Lets have a 360 fun Vs Ps3 fun thread

[QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

kingsfan_0333

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

Without XBL games like Gears of war = 8 hours then trade-in. Deal with it.

I don't care if you're wowed by these comparisons, you simply have to reasses the assertion that the all multiplats are better on the PS3 and they've all been toned down to compensate for whatever inherent weakness or defect in the PS3 architecture.

Ridge Racer.

Hold on, more's coming.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

Blinblingthing

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

Are you forced to have online to play games?

/end

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

Unforgiven2870

Just add 10 dollars.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

a_random_hobo

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

Without XBL games like Gears of war = 8 hours then trade-in. Deal with it.

The what is Lair and Uncharted. 10 hour games with no online... Online is mandatory this gen remember so I guess they are last gen games with your logic...

[QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

DoctorBunny

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

Without XBL games like Gears of war = 8 hours then trade-in. Deal with it.

The what is Lair and Uncharted. 10 hour games with no online... Online is mandatory this gen remember so I guess they are last gen games with your logic...

Who said anything about Lair or Uncharted? Do you believe Gears of War would get a 9.6 if it had no online whatsoever?

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

Redfingers

hahaha what a silly guy

first of all sony took all MS ideas second of all

you get a ethernet cord a 120Gb har drive, Hdmi, Microphone, and Some of the best games that ever came out for about 500$

ps3 you pay about 700 bucks for a piece of &^%$ that wont even satisfy your needs, the copied downlaods demos and eveything,

market place for xbpx can let you watch movies and sony maybe what, they got kilzone 2 OMG

we got mass afftect, blue dragon, GEARS 2 , bio shock, halo 3, and im too tired its 2 oclok in the morning so my brain is friend

so dont start saying dis, sony has only one good idea, blu ray, OMG they charge double for a movie for a tiny dif in pic, i saw the difference, there is none

sony fans G-E-T A- L-Y-F-E

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

Redfingers

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

a_random_hobo

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

Without XBL games like Gears of war = 8 hours then trade-in. Deal with it.

The what is Lair and Uncharted. 10 hour games with no online... Online is mandatory this gen remember so I guess they are last gen games with your logic...

Who said anything about Lair or Uncharted? Do you believe Gears of War would get a 9.6 if it had no online whatsoever?

The 2 games cows say define next gen yet they have no online at all, which is what you define as next gen. contradicts itself.

And easily yes as you can play every multiplayer mode offline and co-op on a single 360.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

latin0playa

hahaha what a silly guy

first of all sony took all MS ideas second of all

you get a ethernet cord a 120Gb har drive, Hdmi, Microphone, and Some of the best games that ever came out for about 500$

ps3 you pay about 700 bucks for a piece of &^%$ that wont even satisfy your needs, the copied downlaods demos and eveything,

market place for xbpx can let you watch movies and sony maybe what, they got kilzone 2 OMG

we got mass afftect, blue dragon, GEARS 2 , bio shock, halo 3, and im too tired its 2 oclok in the morning so my brain is friend

so dont start saying dis, sony has only one good idea, blu ray, OMG they charge double for a movie for a tiny dif in pic, i saw the difference, there is none

sony fans G-E-T A- L-Y-F-E

PS3 isn't 700 dollars, Its 500 dollars.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

It's simple: According to the Eurogamer comparison each and every one of those games' still images look better in many ways than the Xbox 360 images.

Additionally, according to the Gamespot comparison, Armored Core looks substantially better on the Playstation 3.

Oblivion: not the same graphics, additional value, can easily be considered the best purchase of the bunch (sans PC version for mod's sake).

Rainbow Six was still considered the best version by IGN in their multiplatform comparison for having the best value.

Ninja Gaiden is a gleaming example of superiority. That's why I used it as an example. You may have football at 60FPS and 720p, but I have a game at 60FPS at 1080p. Presumably the Playstation 3 version of Madden is "toned down" because E3 has neither the inclination nor the resources (read: brains) to learn how to code for the Playstation 3 effectively, which we all more or less know has more grunt power behind it than the Xbox 360 if it is only tapped into effectively. It's EA. Their notoriety transcends them.

All of those games may not be out yet, but it's ironic that you tell me I'm the one that's going to be doing the waiting, since Haze is most certainly a PS3 timed exclusive, possibly an exclusive (only version coming out this year according to the Bonus Round on Gametrailers and numerous other sources). The others are lead platform and have a substantial shot at releasing before the Xbox 360 version of the game (UT3 has been rumored to do so). Additionally, I forgot: DMC4 is PS3 lead platform as well. Everyone forgets that since the multiplatform announcement, but there it is.

Ratings bely the value of a game. If you would have read the full reviews you would have immediately realized that Oblivion is the best value on the Playstation 3, etcetera. And I've seen the screenshot comparisons with my own eyes and I'm quite aware which is visually the best version of the following games (the other ones can just be more or less assumed due to lead platform).

Redfingers

still images? Do you play games in still images? Me either...so we can consider that point a waste of time.

Armored Core link? I heard a few small details here and there...I would like to see where it says "substantially" better. And don't forget, in that same graphics comparison..most 360 games came out on top.

Oblivion additional value? All additional value can be downloaded for the 360 version. I'm pretty sure you know that...so don't assume I don't.

Rainbow Six: First of all, I give you better average review scores and you come at me with specific IGN reviews? That's pretty lame. I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt by taking the full average and not picking and choosing specific websites myself...because that would be biased. Second of all, IGN rated the 360 version clearly higher than the ps3 version...wow, they must have really love the ps3 version more eh?

lol That's it, critisize EA...because your game development knowledge is ffffffffaaarrr superior. You have pretty much lost all of my respect at this point once you reduced yourself to this. And if you check the back of 360 boxes, they do 1080p as well...so I don't see where the superiority comes in.

And forgive me..but I still don't see how Haze and the other unreleased games fit into this discussion. They have not yet been toned down..toned up...or toned anything. And your "I heard this" talk is far from factual.

lol so I am supposed to trust your eye when you look at screenshots? Can I ask you an honest question? Do you consider yourself unbiased?

You don't need a link, you only need to take a look. "Most 360 games" doesn't do it for me, given I presented you with a lot that are substantially superior in one way or another.

For. A. Price. Horse armor is not additional value, it is a waste of money. For $60 you get more bang for your buck. This is generally agreed upon.

It wasn't a review. Like you said, the game was considered to have greater *value* although they criticized it for its visuals in their actual review. However, if you want to compare visuals. I direct you to the Eurogamer comparison where many of the images show a leap in clarity and greater overall image quality, albeit with some sacrifices, such as in lighting and some aliasing. Still, don't look toned down. Look better.

Native 1080p? At 60FPS? Who'da thunk it. I'd ask the Team Ninja guys about it, but all they'd have to say is that "no game on the Xbox 360 currently runs at 60 FPS at 1080p." Thus, point pretty much nil. I criticize EA because, again, Team Ninja gives me ammo. "If you aren't willing to leverage the power of the PS3, you're lazy!" An extremely rough paraphrase, but they said something like that. If EA isn't willing to place the Playstation 3 version of the game for ease of porting and for platform specific optimizations like Julian Eggebrecht recommended, then the Playstation 3 version of the game is going to suffer. This is biting them in the ass in more than a couple ways, to be sure. If you remember correctly I just showed you that the Playstation 3 is capable of running a visually stunning game at 1080p at 60 FPS with no issues whatsoever. The question isn't capability. It's willpower. And willpower naturally describes a human element rather than a technological one.

Would you like to see them? Hold on...

Again, I digress. This isn't the topic of this thread. I've posted them so many times it's seriously getting to me.

Lead platform equals greatest possible performance on that platform, meaning that it will not suffer, will not be toned down, or anything. It means that that platform will have zero porting issues.

No, I am not biased. I willingly concede that many Xbox 360 versions of multiplatform games look better on that platform. I am not willing to concede, however, that all look better or are better on that platform. I am not willing to concede that the Playstation 3 is a less capable platform until resoundingly proven otherwise. I am not willing to concede a value assessment which is 100% true which is the topic of this thread which you have attempted to basically sideline by drawing in an irrelevant point.

So in graphics comparison that was done by Gamespot...the 360 having had the most graphically superior multiplatforms compared to the ps3 doesn't do it for you? Wow...tough crowd...especially considering it was you that brought up the comparison in the first place.

lol I love how you use lines like "this is generally agreed upon". By who? That'sa complete line of BS and a failure to provide any meaningful proof behind your statement what so ever. How do you get more bang for your buck? This is the 3rd time I've asked you this and so far you have failed to give me anything everytime. You can do better than that.

Of course they look better..you are looking at them through the eye of a sony fan who wants to justify his $600 purchase. We could sit here all day and argue over what screenshots have slightly better details..but the fact of the matter is that the reviews went in the 360's favor and you can't deny that. Therefore it's the superior version...it's absolutly the only nonbiased way of looking at things.

For what ever reason...EA still isn't doing it. You can make up all the reasons you'd like....and EA can have the lamest reason in the world for not having madden in 60fps on the ps3...but in the end, does it matter? It's not, and if you aren't getting developer support from huge companies like EA, that really decreases the value of the ps3 experience.

Check my post again. Did I say a 360 game is doing 60fps at 1080p? No...so thanks for the useless team ninja example yet again. First of all, the option between 60fps and 1080p is an easy one, considering 30fps fails to deliver the same amount of animations as 60fps, and 720p or 1080i is still very beautiful (especially considering most people don't own 1080p televisions). Seems like a fair trade off to me. But since the 360 is capable of 60fps, as well as 1080p..I really don't see how it can't be capable of both in a rare game...much like ninja gaiden on the ps3. Perhaps when that happens I can use it as an example 20 times straight like you love to do.

your biased...admit it.

I don't care if you're wowed by these comparisons, you simply have to reasses the assertion that the all multiplats are better on the PS3 and they've all been toned down to compensate for whatever inherent weakness or defect in the PS3 architecture.

Ridge Racer.

Hold on, more's coming.

Redfingers

For someone who told me to read reviews instead of just looking at the score, It's pretty obvious you dont' take your own advice. Go read your famous IGN fight night review to find out where the ps3 lacks in graphics.

ridge racer 7 compared to ridge racer 6? Pretty low, even for you.

[QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

DoctorBunny

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

Without XBL games like Gears of war = 8 hours then trade-in. Deal with it.

The what is Lair and Uncharted. 10 hour games with no online... Online is mandatory this gen remember so I guess they are last gen games with your logic...

Who said anything about Lair or Uncharted? Do you believe Gears of War would get a 9.6 if it had no online whatsoever?

The 2 games cows say define next gen yet they have no online at all, which is what you define as next gen. contradicts itself.

And easily yes as you can play every multiplayer mode offline and co-op on a single 360.

I never defined next gen. I only stated that because Lemmings brag so much about superior online experiences, that I should throw in XBL. *Sigh* but I guess you're right. Let's throw out XBL altogether. You win and the 360 is $140 cheaper. Let's also go ahead and use the Core system as our reference, seeing as how the Premium is purely optional as well. Memory card are YOUR CHOICE to buy too! Yes, you are correct, a $300 bare bones system (since the rest is purely optional) beats a $500 system. As for Gears of War getting the same score without XBL, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. I could swear though that people were raving so much about the very fun online experience. =(

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

Blinblingthing

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

umm it was option last gen too. It's an optional feature no matter when it was offered.

Fact: XBOXLIVE recently within the last few months reached 6 million users.

How can a feature that is used by only a little more than half the fanbase be considered required? What a joke...I'm pretty sure I just destroyed every argument that online is necessary.

[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

DoctorBunny

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

Are you forced to have online to play games?

/end

online gaming in some games was about the one of the best features

online fighting, gears's online , racing online... plenty added value

[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

kingsfan_0333

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

umm it was option last gen too. It's an optional feature no matter when it was offered.

Fact: XBOXLIVE recently within the last few months reached 6 million users.

How can a feature that is used by only a little more than half the fanbase be considered required? What a joke...I'm pretty sure I just destroyed every argument that online is necessary.

I think by your logic you could destroy any argument ever created for "optional" things. The very act of even buying a next-gen system is optional. A vast majority of people don't even have next-gen consoles and play only their PS2s. Why are we even considering next-gen?

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

Blinblingthing

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

Are you forced to have online to play games?

/end

online gaming in some games was about the one of the best features

online fighting, gears's online , racing online... plenty added value

doesn't make it required...thanks for sharing though.

[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"][QUOTE="a_random_hobo"][QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]

$399 deal with it.

a_random_hobo

No XBL deal with it.

optional service...deal with it.

So Online gaming which we've had all last gen should be optional next gen?????

umm it was option last gen too. It's an optional feature no matter when it was offered.

Fact: XBOXLIVE recently within the last few months reached 6 million users.

How can a feature that is used by only a little more than half the fanbase be considered required? What a joke...I'm pretty sure I just destroyed every argument that online is necessary.

I think by your logic you could destroy any argument ever created for "optional" things. The very act of even buying a next-gen system is optional. A vast majority of people don't even have next-gen consoles and play only their PS2s. Why are we even considering next-gen?

Was your strategy to exagerate my post to try and make it less true? I'm pretty sure you failed miserably. But I will simplify it based on your failed strategy:

Among360 console owners, online is optional...which is quite clear considering only about 50% of 360 owners have xboxlive. If this is not quite clear, than perhaps you need to ask someone for help.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

metallica_one

doubt that.

the 3 year warranty is gonna cost MS an extra billion to implement.

also the problem why they are breaking is the cheap components they use in them. so expect revised 360 to cost more to produce

dropping prices only sells more 360s which means more to repair

[QUOTE="metallica_one"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

It's time to make this happen. With the new and *Improved!* Playstation 3 price we can now make a brand new price comparison between the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, between the most *valuable* of the two SKUs (Elite is a wash, 80GB is a wash).

The Xbox 360 Premium SKU retails at $399 and comes sans HD format playback, wi-fi, and an expanded hard drive. It is, however, a decent value proposition and does provide a hard drive, some online materials, and a shiny DVD drive. In order to play games online through Xbox Live you must pay a $50 annual fee for Xbox Live Gold Membership.

The Playstation 3 60 GB SKU retails at $499 and comes with an internal Blu Ray drive for HD movie playback and Blu Ray disc games. It comes equipped with Wi-fi and an expanded hard drive that can be replaced with any 2.5" compatible SATA hard drive. Online gaming is free. It also comes equipped with a web browser no one cares about.

For basic feature parity we will take the Xbox 360 Premium SKU and add costs as needed, because that's how I'm gonna do it.

XB360P $399 + (XBL G $50p/y)4 years + $200 ext HD + $100 Wi-Fi = $899.

PS3 60 $499 + $0 = $499.

Oh, my lord, look at that, I think we have a winner as far as value judgments are concerned.

Blinblingthing

doubt that.

the 3 year warranty is gonna cost MS an extra billion to implement.

also the problem why they are breaking is the cheap components they use in them. so expect revised 360 to cost more to produce

dropping prices only sells more 360s which means more to repair

wow, that post was pretty..unsupported.

Fact: When you go to a store, and look at the price stickers, the 360 is cheaper.

/thread

1st point:

If you buy it from Microsoft, it costs $50. If you buy it from Ebay, it costs $30 (I assume "per month" was a typo, and if it wasn't you lose viciously). Very observant. Still, in four years time, that's $120 and it still puts you at $20 over the Playstation 3. BTW: at $330 you're still missing the online tools, component cables, and a memory card which are necessary for basic, functional gaming this gen. At the very least you need a memory card, at $40.

Heres the problem, I don't buy it from Best buy or Circuit City. If I did that, my HDMI cable for the PS3 would cost $100. I don't need to predict 4 years ahead. I might not play for six months next year. In that case I'll just pay for the months I paid. Also, you are assuming that the PS3 will be free forever which may not be true. Keep your crystal ball in your jacket. I bought the X360 permium for $300 (the one that comes with an Hard Drive) not the core version.

Your point has failed.

2nd point:

You can get an HDMI for $6 and you can buy a Bluetooth headset for less than $30. Mine cost $30 on Ebay. Literally 4 out of 5 of the players on Rainbow Six (probably a greater percentage) had headsets and were actively using them to harass me with annoying white noise and meaningless comments and swearing.

Funny, you can get an HDMI for $6 and a bluetooth headset for $30 (NOT A DECENT ONE FROM BEST BUY OR CIRCUIT CITY). From a big electronic store it will run you $100 - $150. However, off ebay you could get it that cheap but then again, you could do the same with xbox live. Infact, I know ppl who have bought 1 year of live service for $20.

Your point has failed.

3rd point:

True gamers play Dragon Quest on the NES. Point destroyed. The term "True Gamers" is subjective and essentially meaningless. I could say "True Gamers play Halo" or "True Gamers play Resistance" as per needed. Bigger and much better game library point has already been confronted and dismantled. I will make this game instead. The Playstation 3 already has a bigger game lineup for this year and the next, consisting of many quality first and third party titles.

Forget the term True Gamers. Lets just use the term gamers. From a gamers point of view, the X360 is better value due to more and better game lineup. Its not the portstation. Oh, and again, please refrain from referring to the future as though you have some magical crystal ball. If Sony gets a better lineup, we'll talk.... until then keep the facts straight. We don't quite know what titles on the Sony platform will be quality. An example is the following:

Untold Legends Dark Kingdom - 6.0

Genji Days of the Blade - 6.4

NBA 07 - 4.9

Formula One Championship Edition - 7.2

Motorstorm - 7.9

Resistance Fall of Man - 8.6

All Sony 1st party (supposed quality titles) and only 1 really good game.

Your point failed again.

If Microsoft responds with a price cut, it will only be because they are forced into a corner. I expect them to be forced in a corner, but I don't expect them to react quickly. According to my source, Bloomberg.com, on the first page, Microsoft loses money on each Xbox 360 sold while Sony makes a profit. That means Sony has wiggle room that Microsoft does not. Sony is looking to make a $600 million profit this year (source: Gamespot) while Microsoft is going to take projected over $1 billion in losses from the latest warranty extension this year alone (source: Peter Moore's mouth). Additionally, Microsoft is probably rather preoccupied with fixing the Xbox 360's inherent defects on the assembly line as well as in the repair shop, meaning engineering, R&D, and advancing manufacturing costs that the Playstation 3 will not share in.

If they drop the price, there's a different argument.

MS didn't need to price drop with the original xbox since they never made any profit...... yet they still dropped the price. Your analogy through example is seriously flawed. They will likely drop the price of the X360 but the real question is how much??? Will it be $50 since they believe that they have a superior and bigger game library than the PS3 whereas the PS3 has blu ray (which most gamers may give secondary consideration) or will it be $100 in their effort to continue the lead month by month on the PS3. In the recent Vgchartz report for the month of June, the PS3 has sold 80,000 units inNorth Americayet again for the 3rd month as opposed to the X360 at 200,000.

http://www.vgchartz.com/news/news.php?id=399

Yet again, your point failed.

I might read what you have to say next and if its something intelligent (highly doubtful since never happened) I might reply to carry on the discussion ...... otherwise I won't waste any time on useless brain fodder. You can assume no reply means you failed yet again (I lost count) to make any point remotely intelligent.

RaveRabbid

My argument doesn't fail because the Premium SKU for the Xbox 360 is still $400. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360prosystem/default.htm

I've heard of people getting Playstation 3's for 4, 500 dollars before the price cut before. Magnificent. If I thugged somebody and ganked one, it'd be a golden price of free. That isn't what we're comparing here. You win anyway. Congratulations. Doesn't make a point that doesn't exist valid.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=bluetooth+headset&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960

Or $50? For the record, I'm looking at an entire page of Bluetooth headsets for ten dollars on Ebay. One is "Buy it now" for $11.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=bluetooth+headset&x=0&y=0

There are about five on that page for $20-25. Your quality argument fails because even the lowest quality Bluetooth headset utterly destroys the wireless 360 headset. What standards are you judging it by, anyway?

You expect me to manipulate my XBL numbers to assume that you're taking an XBL hiatus? You expect me to assume that you're taking some get-together time with your PC or your PS3 and just halve the numbers for you? That's not really a valid value assessment, although it may be a valid value assessment for you. Let's be OBjective, not SUBjective. I'll do a case-by-case another day.

Plus, at $20 all I have to do is assume a 5-year generation. Seeing as the Playstation 2 is still ongoing after 7 years (I bought God of War 2 this year), that's a reasonable assessment.

Additionally, I can reasonably assume that the lineup of Playstation 3 titles that doesn't encompass launch titles and encompasses third parties is seeping with value. Let's take a look. GT5, Afrika, DMC4, Dark Sector, UT3, Killzone 2, FFXIII, FFXIII Versus, Uncharted, Ratchet, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk. Think any of those will be any good?

BTW I'm not sure Halo 3 will be very good. Halo 2 got a 7.0/10 on Vista this year and...I like to use previous scores to judge the future, so that's what I'm going to do in this case. What can I say, I revel in hypocrisy. Essentially you cannot judge the upcoming lineup on face, especially considering it's composed primarily of what you would consider "blockbusters." Although we don't actually know what many of these titles look like, what would that matter anyway? They're stacked to the rafters and at least an acceptable portion will be good. In addition, there's more than enough value to be had simply in Playstation 3 titles on the market right now. Motorstorm is a decent value proposition, esp with the added game mode and leaderboards, with new, presumably free DLC on the way, the single criticism that prevented the game from achieving a decent score should be toppled eventually, at any rate.

Resistance is a more than acceptable value proposition and, in fact, I consider it a greater value than Halo, Gears, any of that. I simply don't abide by your definition of "gamer," then, do I.

Until "gamer" means "Gamespot loyalist," I'm afraid your criterion doesn't hold water. The Playstation 3 still has more titles slated for release in 2007, more announced in 2008, and 15 first party titles lined up for announcement before the end of the year for a grand title of 140 for US titles by the end of the year. That's acceptable to me.

The Xbox 360 is only "comparable" to the Playstation 3 lineup, it is not better. If it is in your eyes, that's great, but it's really not in mine.

Plus, as a gamer, I'll be playing a substantial portion of the 360 titles on PC, making me not really entirely upset about the missing three brown patches on my carpet (for Xbox, power brick, and external HD-DVD player).

I'll take "lack of intelligence" as a baseless insult, by the way, something that doesn't constitute any kind of a real argument. The threat "I may not respond to your next post" is really of no consequence to me either way and I'm not truly affected by it.

VGcharts is not a legitimate source of information. I do, however, know what the legit sales actually say, which is that the Playstation 3 is performing poorly. However, with a profit on each box even after the subsequent price cut, which should boost sales, Sony is in a better position to dink with the price. Microsoft is still losing money according to my source (Bloomberg) and has a number of manufacturing and reliability concerns that did not exist with the original Xbox. For example, the original Xbox did not have three warranty extensions totalling three years with a potential blowback cost accumulating over $1 billion for one single year.

Meanwhile, Sony stands to make $600 million profit this year. Sony has also had three successful gaming device ventures, all of which led them to profit immensely. Sony's gaming division=profitable. Microsoft's gaming division=not profitable. It didn't STOP them from lowering the price on the original box, but just like anything else, manufacturing costs lower dramatically over the course of a console's lifespan and I'm sure they eventually made a profit on each box sold. If not, please provide a link because lowering component costs are a fact of life. Their gaming division was never profitable, that much is true, however. With the Playstation 2 and the Playstation Portable each continuing to sell more units since launch than the Xbox 360 and the success of the Playstation 1, 2, and Portable under their belt, along with profitability both overall and on each console sold (in addition to maintaining game division profits), Sony is in a preferable position financially.

Microsoft has fallen short of projected sales and has a huge number of complications. Repairs, warranties, manufacturing, R&D, optimizations, engineering. All of these fixes are going on simultaneously and have to meet a specific deadline in order to save face. They have an unprecedented number of consoles currently being repaired while they plan to fix the issue, meaning increased costs from both ends. Microsoft is increasing costs in components, engineering, and manufacturing in order to cut back on blowback costs from malfunctioning consoles, which add up to a whole lot of ouch in the bottom line.

Meanwhile, Sony continues to cut costs and make a profit, simultaneously boosting sales. Which is a more preferable position?

Fact: When you go to a store, and look at the price stickers, the 360 is cheaper.

/thread

kruesader

Funny.