ps3 cheaper then 360

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] what if you plan to download things and game online... lets say for 3 yearsPrinceofSarcasm

Cost of XBL for three years $150

Cost of playing PS3 for three years compared to 360. $171

Oh wait someone saved $21 with his 360 didn't they.

50$ + 360 electricity bill > then newer efficent 399 ps3s electricity bill

Did you not listen to me or read the data where it says the PS3 uses $57 MORE electricty then the 360 :|

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

PrinceofSarcasm

Aw is someone not liking the fact that oh wait you actually have to pay for electricity? Or do you power your PS3 via spirit energy or some other fictional force?

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]360 = $20020GB HDD = $30

XBL - $50 yearly/PS3 energy cost is $57 more then 360's yearly meaning that the price is negated.

Pay attention to the links and information posted.

Andrew_Xavier

I know the diff bettween all the ps3 models if you really want me to get a link fine I will

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/08/26/80gb-sony-ps3-more-energy-efficient-65nm-rsx-chips/the newer 80/160 gb are the power efficient followed by the 40gb then the old 80/60/20

sony keeps reducing the size of the cell and rsx

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

live + 360 power consumption still is greater then > the ps3s power consumption (newer models are even more efficient)

PrinceofSarcasm

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

live + 360 power consumption still is greater then > the ps3s power consumption (newer models are even more efficient)

PrinceofSarcasm

The more efficient 40 GB models with 65nm chips were introduced in 2007. Both of Blackbond's reports were from 2008. They likely use the 40 GB PS3 as their measuring point.

Interestingly, the current $500 model is more energy efficient than the 40GB model, but that model already costs $100 more, so it probably shouldn't be used for this discussion.

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

Blackbond

Aw is someone not liking the fact that oh wait you actually have to pay for electricity? Or do you power your PS3 via spirit energy or some other fictional force?

keep up xbl + 360s power consumption > then free psn and ps3 power consumption I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THIS AGAIN

stop saying ps3 needs a price cut and learn math (note the 360 is an arcade)

based on all the feedback I will add this. If you just want to pay for live for just 1 year and dont care about anything else like downloadable games, demos, booster packs THEN the 360 is a better deal till the year is up.

Ok a 199 360 is obviously cheaper then a 399 ps3 but to make it equal to the ps3 you will pay more in the long run especially with live as the years add up.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] different ps3 skus use less power then others. This is comparing the new and most energy efficient ps3 to the arcadePrinceofSarcasm

I know the diff bettween all the ps3 models if you really want me to get a link fine I will

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/08/26/80gb-sony-ps3-more-energy-efficient-65nm-rsx-chips/the newer 80/160 gb are the power efficient followed by the 40gb then the old 80/60/20

sony keeps reducing the size of the cell and rsx

And the 360 Jasper chip set is out now you know the one that doesn't sound like a jet engine? Companies are always shrinking their chips and reducing energy consumption. Unfortunately for your argument the 360 Jasper unit has put the 360 ahead of the curve in that regard.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] different ps3 skus use less power then others. This is comparing the new and most energy efficient ps3 to the arcadePrinceofSarcasm

I know the diff bettween all the ps3 models if you really want me to get a link fine I will

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/08/26/80gb-sony-ps3-more-energy-efficient-65nm-rsx-chips/the newer 80/160 gb are the power efficient followed by the 40gb then the old 80/60/20

sony keeps reducing the size of the cell and rsx

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

live + 360 power consumption still is greater then > the ps3s power consumption (newer models are even more efficient)

sonicmj1

The more efficient 40 GB models with 65nm chips were introduced in 2007. Both of Blackbond's reports were from 2008. They likely use the 40 GB PS3 as their measuring point.

Interestingly, the current $500 model is more energy efficient than the 40GB model, but that model already costs $100 more, so it probably shouldn't be used for this discussion.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

live + 360 power consumption still is greater then > the ps3s power consumption (newer models are even more efficient)

PrinceofSarcasm

The more efficient 40 GB models with 65nm chips were introduced in 2007. Both of Blackbond's reports were from 2008. They likely use the 40 GB PS3 as their measuring point.

Interestingly, the current $500 model is more energy efficient than the 40GB model, but that model already costs $100 more, so it probably shouldn't be used for this discussion.

This thread is a failure to humanity. People adding in prices of optional accessories, features, and electricity costs. Bond why don't you fish up the amount of gas the average gamer spends on going to the store to buy a game versus how much they can save by downloading it off of the PSN or steam :roll:f50p90

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

PrinceofSarcasm

Aw is someone not liking the fact that oh wait you actually have to pay for electricity? Or do you power your PS3 via spirit energy or some other fictional force?

keep up xbl + 360s power consumption > then free psn and ps3 power consumption I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THIS AGAIN

If you aren't getting this let me say it for you one more time as this will be the 3rd. PS3 costs $57 MORE to power then the 360

$57 More for power - $50 XBL fee = $7

You are paying $7 a year more. MORE. Good lord man.

hey I didnt bring electricity into this it was just add-onsPrinceofSarcasm

Unfortunately for you while add-ons aren't required to game electricity is.

This thread is a failure to humanity. People adding in prices of optional accessories, features, and electricity costs. Bond why don't you fish up the amount of gas the average gamer spends on going to the store to buy a game versus how much they can save by downloading it off of the PSN or steam :roll:f50p90

Because gas and cars aren't needed to power a game console or play them duh. Really man.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"][QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

ha the only why lems can fight back is by searching the web for power consumption charts:lol:

live + 360 power consumption still is greater then > the ps3s power consumption (newer models are even more efficient)

PrinceofSarcasm

The more efficient 40 GB models with 65nm chips were introduced in 2007. Both of Blackbond's reports were from 2008. They likely use the 40 GB PS3 as their measuring point.

Interestingly, the current $500 model is more energy efficient than the 40GB model, but that model already costs $100 more, so it probably shouldn't be used for this discussion.

I had forgotten that Sony had replaced the 40 GB SKU with an 80 GB SKU.

But just as Blackbond's report does not account for this more efficient SKU, it also fails to account for the new Jasper Xbox 360s that Microsoft has introduced alongside NXE. These are also more energy efficient than their predecessors.

I don't think we can draw anything conclusive from these as a result.

EDIT: Updated the link. The new PS3 SKU gets its power savings by moving the RSX chips to a 65nm process. The same thing occurs in the Jasper with its graphics chip. The Jasper also uses a less power-hungry PSU. So the energy-savings gap should probably increase between the two models, unless I'm going about this wrong.

Still, for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post, this whole debate is pretty irrelevant. Attempting to reach 'equivalency' between the two consoles through add-ons and other things is a fruitless endeavor.

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"]

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

Aw is someone not liking the fact that oh wait you actually have to pay for electricity? Or do you power your PS3 via spirit energy or some other fictional force?

Blackbond

keep up xbl + 360s power consumption > then free psn and ps3 power consumption I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THIS AGAIN

If you aren't getting this let me say it for you one more time as this will be the 3rd. PS3 costs $57 MORE to power then the 360

$57 More for power - $50 XBL fee = $7

You are paying $7 a year more. MORE. Good lord man.

Your statement-----------> Fanboy Filter --------------> him, Krazy Ken, PS3 running thru a field of daisies :P

nice chart, but dont forget

becasue the 360 has more and better games the chances are you'l spend more on electricity playing it.

and you have to spend at least 200 to buy halo , gears , fable , mass effect , gears 2 call of duty, so add that

and as we are using wireless net devices why not chuck on a wireless headset for good measure.

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"][QUOTE="Blackbond"] Add ons aren't required to play games. Hence why they are called add-ons and not requirements.sonicmj1

If someone wanted the capabilities of a PS3, why would they get a 360?

And if they wanted the capabilities of a 360, why would they add on a whole bunch of stuff just to make their system equal to a PS3, when that isn't what they want?

nice chart, but dont forget

becasue the 360 has more and better games the chances are you'l spend more on electricity playing it.

and you have to spend at least 200 to buy halo , gears , fable , mass effect , gears 2 call of duty, so add that

and as we are using wireless net devices why not chuck on a wireless headset for good measure.

scottiescott238

Why didnt the TC add on the cost or " quor " or what ever its called,

and a HDMI cable

and a proper sized charge lead

and dont forget a new pad for when yours runs out of juice.

wireless headset requires charging which uses more electricity, don't forget. And also who's keeping a tally on how many batteries your gamepad uses, those things are pricey. Or if you have a play and charge kit, that chugs some more electricity of coursef50p90

360's come with a wired headset why would you need a wireless one? And my data already takes in account the cost of batteries. See when you charge the PS3 controller batteries you are using the PS3's power. That and well you still have to buy a headset for the PS3 as well if you're playing the headset game. You can get battery chargers for far cheaper then a headset and even if you got a little $10 charger you still come out way cheaper. A little battery charger charging batteries does not use as much energy as your PS3 charging your batteries.

[QUOTE="f50p90"]wireless headset requires charging which uses more electricity, don't forget. And also who's keeping a tally on how many batteries your gamepad uses, those things are pricey. Or if you have a play and charge kit, that chugs some more electricity of courseBlackbond

360's come with a wired headset why would you need a wireless one? And my data already takes in account the cost of batteries. See when you charge the PS3 controller batteries you are using the PS3's power. That and well you still have to buy a headset for the PS3 as well if you're playing the headset game. You can get battery chargers for far cheaper then a headset and even if you got a little $10 charger you still come out way cheaper. A little battery charger charging batteries does not use as much energy as your PS3 charging your batteries.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="PrinceofSarcasm"] all Im saying is that to get the same experience that you get with the ps3 you must get these addons which up the 360 price above the ps3PrinceofSarcasm

If someone wanted the capabilities of a PS3, why would they get a 360?

And if they wanted the capabilities of a 360, why would they add on a whole bunch of stuff just to make their system equal to a PS3, when that isn't what they want?

This isn't a very relevant qualifier, though.

I don't think people are arguing about functionality. It's fairly obvious that the PS3 offers greater functionality than the 360, unless you really value the 360's Netflix streaming or something. People are arguing about individually perceived value. And there's a huge difference there.

I don't see much value in the PS3's Wifi connection or its Blu-Ray drive, for example. I buy my game consoles to play games. I don't want a 360 with the add-ons that are included in the PS3, because that isn't why I'm buying the console. So when I look at the price of the 360 relative to the PS3, all I need to see are the price tags on the boxes, and my decision is clear.

I suspect many people feel similarly. As you might notice, the Wii is included in the comparison. There's no real way to make it equivalent to the PS3. Does that put the PS3 in a league of its own in functionality? Certainly. But the public has found the Wii more valuable, and that has almost nothing to do with the feature set. Putting the price of the functionality there just isn't relevant.

Basically, the way of thinking you're using, even if its true, doesn't reflect the way people make purchases. If I want an Xbox 360, I don't want an Xbox 360 that's pretending to be a Playstation 3. Similarly, you wouldn't want to add the price of a box that streams Netflix movies to your TV to the price of your PS3. That isn't what's important to you, and that's why you made the purchase you made.

[QUOTE="f50p90"]wireless headset requires charging which uses more electricity, don't forget. And also who's keeping a tally on how many batteries your gamepad uses, those things are pricey. Or if you have a play and charge kit, that chugs some more electricity of courseBlackbond

360's come with a wired headset why would you need a wireless one? And my data already takes in account the cost of batteries. See when you charge the PS3 controller batteries you are using the PS3's power. That and well you still have to buy a headset for the PS3 as well if you're playing the headset game. You can get battery chargers for far cheaper then a headset and even if you got a little $10 charger you still come out way cheaper. A little battery charger charging batteries does not use as much energy as your PS3 charging your batteries.

you can buy separate chargers for charging your headset/controllers use a computer or just let it charge while your playing. Also you can buy any blu tooth head set you findso f get an expensive one that's your decision

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="f50p90"]wireless headset requires charging which uses more electricity, don't forget. And also who's keeping a tally on how many batteries your gamepad uses, those things are pricey. Or if you have a play and charge kit, that chugs some more electricity of coursef50p90

360's come with a wired headset why would you need a wireless one? And my data already takes in account the cost of batteries. See when you charge the PS3 controller batteries you are using the PS3's power. That and well you still have to buy a headset for the PS3 as well if you're playing the headset game. You can get battery chargers for far cheaper then a headset and even if you got a little $10 charger you still come out way cheaper. A little battery charger charging batteries does not use as much energy as your PS3 charging your batteries.

Now pay attention I'm only going to say this once.

360 = $200

HDD = $30

and you are spending $7 less a year on live compared to the PS3's power consumption cost

360 = $230 * $50X

PS3 = $400 * $57X

$20 from Walmart

New Formula

360 = $250 + $50X

PS3 = $400 + $57X

Still much cheaper on the 360's end man and with the PS3's upkeep being $7 more each year. I'm going to look more specifically but I'd take a gander that chargering some measly walmart energizer batteries consumes less power then Sony's Lithium Battery in its PS3 controllers.

I don't need throw in headsets or HDMI cables for my side either.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="f50p90"]wireless headset requires charging which uses more electricity, don't forget. And also who's keeping a tally on how many batteries your gamepad uses, those things are pricey. Or if you have a play and charge kit, that chugs some more electricity of coursePrinceofSarcasm

360's come with a wired headset why would you need a wireless one? And my data already takes in account the cost of batteries. See when you charge the PS3 controller batteries you are using the PS3's power. That and well you still have to buy a headset for the PS3 as well if you're playing the headset game. You can get battery chargers for far cheaper then a headset and even if you got a little $10 charger you still come out way cheaper. A little battery charger charging batteries does not use as much energy as your PS3 charging your batteries.

you can buy separate chargers for charging your headset/controllers use a computer or just let it charge while your playing. Also you can buy any blu tooth head set you find so get an expensive one that's your decision

Buying seperate chargers for your headset/controllers costs money, buying that headset for your PS3 costs money, charging that controller on a computer or while you're playing costs money as it uses energy. You weren't really making a point.

i have an xbox 360 and ill agree with you that when you add all that up it is more expensive. But you don't really need the wifi adaptor, its actually better playing live through ethernet since you never dc as opposed to wifi where you dc almost every 10 mins (in my experience). You don't NEED the hard drive since watching movies can only be done through dvd or by streaming. all the hard drive is good for is for downloadable demos. Xbox live ill agree with you even though most lemmings will claim you dont need it... Gaming on xbox isnt half as fun without live and charging 60 + tax to play games online is robbery plain and simple. Blu ray is nice and all but not needed for gaming. Even though i have an hdtv, almost 90% of the us population still have older CRT tube televisions so to most people its usseless anyways. Thus the true cost of xbox 360 is the cost of the arcade plus xbox live which comes to 270$...still 120$ less than the ps3

Why didnt the TC add on the cost or " quor " or what ever its called,

and a HDMI cable

and a proper sized charge lead

and dont forget a new pad for when yours runs out of juice.

Blackbond, why don't you link your old thread you put up months ago..

But i can play all 360 games and online with an Arcade Also i can get a 30$ used HDD, so i can have a Premium for half the PS3 price

Arcade = 199$

Used 20GB HDD = 30$

Sum = 229$ for a system that gets same as PS3 visuals, 10x bigger game lineup, 10x more RPG's and gets the best of both PC and console worlds wth huge exclusives like Fable 2, Star Ocean 4 etc

Blackbond, why don't you link your old thread you put up months ago..

joopyme

I already just posted the OP in this thread and included more up to date information. But some how some people seemingly want to ignore it for obvious reasons.

dont you need to add the price of a good gaming pc to the PS3, you know if you want to get the same experience of the 360

dont you need to add the price of a good gaming pc to the PS3, you know if you want to get the same experience of the 360

onewiththegame

[QUOTE="onewiththegame"]

dont you need to add the price of a good gaming pc to the PS3, you know if you want to get the same experience of the 360

blue_hazy_basic