Why Do People Keep Bringing Up The Cost of Xbox Live?

[QUOTE="HoldThePhone"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

Did you not read when I said I'd rather have it free and that I would rather not pay for it? The point is that PS3 owners have no room to talk about the cost of XBL in a price comparison. Because in the end they come out of it worse.

Blackbond

Yes my countless posts of garbage. It was only like two pages ago man.

Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.one_on_one

[QUOTE="one_on_one"]Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.Samox

In the grand scheme of things £30 is year is not much, i spend more on crisps, I probably lose more down my sofa/ on the street. I've spent more on a single drink.

[QUOTE="one_on_one"]Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.Samox

Dude you have no idea what you talking about, read my post on page 5 pls

[QUOTE="Samox"][QUOTE="one_on_one"]Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.corn_dogs

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

Your power argument got debunked in your other thread but sure.. we'll have another go.

1) Different people play different amounts of time (the person who plays 8 hours a day differs from the person playing 2 hours a day and no one plays 24/7 365)

2) They don't take into account the different models available (both have had a reduction from original models)

3) Cost of electricity is different in different areas (more or less, and some places don't pay electricity at all like gov residents, dorm or apartments with utility's included at set price)

4) They also don't take into account other variables like a stand alone Blu-ray player if that's one of your reasons for getting a PS3, or power consumption when recharging controllers, or a installed game vs non-installed, or 360 with HDD or without, 360 with Wi-fi or without, or PS3 with switch turned off in back.

I figured out with your last thread that, with my models and time played, a 360/blu-ray combo with XBL gold would cost $60 more per year then just my PS3.

Granted, not everyone cares about Blu-ray but that shows that your conclusion on energy cost is not finite. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

If your worried about energy cost BB... I would look at your SDTV first ;)

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="dual_boot"]

But how does paying for electricity have anything to do with whether or not someone wants to pay for online or not. Do you honestly and realistically believe that most consumers think that way? Like if I was to stay at a Gamestop all day and ask people whether or not they would pay for online and do a poll, that most people would actually bring that up? I highly doubt that. When it comes to paying for online, people think about principal and whether or not they want to invest $50 a year on a service they can get free else where.

According to your logic, if someone buys a Lexus over a Toyota, then they must automatically be in favor of paying for online. What if some people just don't want to pay for online? Has that ever occured to you?

dual_boot

Trying to deflect the argument because you believe that most consumers wouldn't think about it doesn't change the facts about the argument. Look around in this forum of all the false, misinformed, statements about PC gaming and then ask again what peopel think of realistically.

Car analogies for the 500,000,000 time are not relevent on SW I'd think you guys who used it would have remembered that epic 20+ page thread about it that got deleted. Do not put my logic in a car analgoy because based on economic princiapals a car analogy doesn't work period.

What consumers do and don't do doesn't change anything. Its still there.

I think you're the one deflecting my argument, actually. You haven't answered my questions. Your argument may sort of work in theory, but that's all it is, theory. Reality is what counts my friend. But I see you feel pretty strongly about this, as you should because you probably much more informed than the average consumer. And you're my hardcore from what I can tell. But the fact remain is that the average consumer will not come to what you have concluded, sorry.

Yes I'm the one deflecting you're argument because I was the one that made a car analogy and made claims on who cares the consumer wouldn't think about it even though it still exists :roll:

Right.....

And in the real world you pay for electiricty and as that chart shows you are paying more in the difference of your PS3 to 360 in energy cost over the price of XBL per year. $57 > $50.

Inconvenient or not, it's still free online for the 360 and an alternative to Live meaning that you don't have to pay for Live if you want free online and that's the point of my thread.Baird-06

Here is the extensive list of games you can play on the 360 over Xbox Connect:

Call of Duty 3
Farcry Instincts Predator (360)
Perfect Dark Zero
Project Gotham Racing 3
Saints Row
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Quake 4

This is from the Xbox connect website. I noticed quite a few games missing. No Halo 3, no Gears of War 1 or 2, no Call of Duty 4, no Forza 2, no PGR 4...

Besides, Xbox Connect is not Xbox Live and having one be free does not excuse the other from costing. But people will stop complaining about the price when other people stop using Xbox Live as a benefit over the PS 3 (because, quite frankly, PSN offers much more than Xbox Live Silver).

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

FragTycoon

Your power argument got debunked in your other thread but sure.. we'll have another go.

1) Different people play different amounts of time (the person who plays 8 hours a day differs from the person playing 2 hours a day and no one plays 24/7 365)

2) They don't take into account the different models available (both have had a reduction from original models)

3) Cost of electricity is different in different areas (more or less, and some places don't pay electricity at all like gov residents, dorm or apartments with utility's included at set price)

4) They also don't take into account other variables like a stand alone Blu-ray player if that's one of your reasons for getting a PS3, or power consumption when recharging controllers, or a installed game vs non-installed, or 360 with HDD or without, 360 with Wi-fi or without, or PS3 with switch turned off in back.

I figured out with your last thread that, with my models and time played, a 360/blu-ray combo with XBL gold would cost $60 more per year then just my PS3.

Granted, not everyone cares about Blu-ray but that shows that your conclusion on energy cost is not finite. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

If your worried about energy cost BB... I would look at your SDTV first ;)

Debunked? Not last night, not last week, not last month.

1. Hence why the figures are an average. And the average of $57 is greater then that of $50
2. I have the older data as well this is the latest data. Every SKU that has come out alongside eachother favors the 360 in energy efficicency but my data is actually biased against the 360 since it doesn't take into account the newest Jasper chipset. So the results for the data are actually more forgiving then what they actually are.
3. This is why the term "Average" is used. If you're going to bring in the account of Gov residents, dorm, or apartment utitliies then hell one could just bring in my mom, my dad, my uncle, my girlfriend, my guardian absorbs the price
4. They don't take into account the variables of Blu-Ray only the PS3 as a game console. It wouldn't be fair to consider Blu-Ray as the 360 doesn't have Blu-Ray but I do have the data that compares energy of watching a DVD on 360 to that of Blu-Ray on the PS3 and its dramatic. If you want to talk about how much energy it uses to when watching Blu-Ray I suggest you check out my blogs because it ain't pretty. Yes I did take into account 360 with an without an HDD. You can get an arcade for $200 and you know You can get refurbished HDD's directly from MS for $30. We already know that Wifi is not needed for online and its inferior. That is an option not a need. As far as rechargable batteries go

$20 from Walmart

Formula for cost

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, DS3's, or HDMI cables for my side either.

When the heck did Blu-Ray equipped 360's come out? If you're really adding a stand alone Blu-Ray player next to the 360 then all I can say is wow lol. The charts and data I have provided are based on "GAMEPLAY" only. Hell you throwing in a Blu-Ray player (if this is the case) would be like me saying you need to buy a PC alongside your PS3 to play the games you are missing out on that the 360 has but the PS3 doesn't.

I don't game in HD. You should know that. But I am not concerned about energy costs. I'm perfectly financially stable. But for the people that act like XBL is some back breaking cost over the PS3 they are simply wrong.

Because every other platform offers free online(including handhelds and PCs) in some cases better and lemmings are dumb enough to pay for it when it should be free in the first place.nintendog66

Free doesnt always equal to good. As far as XBL....they dont have any service available on any console that can match it, If it was below the FREE options. Then I would understand the gripe. Other than that...I can understand a child complaining about it because he doesnt want to explain to his parents why he needs the cash for XBL. For the people who cant afford it.....just dont get it.

XBL has a price...Microsoft doesnt hide it, everyone knows it. If you dont like it, get a PS3 and enjoy your PSN, or whatever they have on the Wii.

Debunked? Not last night, not last week, not last month.

1. Hence why the figures are an average. And the average of $57 is greater then that of $50
2. I have the older data as well this is the latest data. Every SKU that has come out alongside eachother favors the 360 in energy efficicency but my data is actually biased against the 360 since it doesn't take into account the newest Jasper chipset. So the results for the data are actually more forgiving then what they actually are. (the gap between the two with new data drops with new SKUs)
3. This is why the term "Average" is used. If you're going to bring in the account of Gov residents, dorm, or apartment utitliies then hell one could just bring in my mom, my dad, my uncle, my girlfriend, my guardian absorbs the price. (they could pay for everything witch makes PS3's overall cost mute, you would have a hard time getting your landlord or school to by a 360/PS3 for ya)
4. They don't take into account the variables of Blu-Ray only the PS3 as a game console. It wouldn't be fair to consider Blu-Ray as the 360 doesn't have Blu-Ray but I do have the data that compares energy of watching a DVD on 360 to that of Blu-Ray on the PS3 and its dramatic. If you want to talk about how much energy it uses to when watching Blu-Ray I suggest you check out my blogs because it ain't pretty. Yes I did take into account 360 with an without an HDD. You can get an arcade for $200 and you know You can get refurbished HDD's directly from MS for $30. We already know that Wifi is not needed for online and its inferior. That is an option not a need. As far as rechargable batteries go (if you talk about refurbished items you know that there is refurbished PS3s right? ones with games, blu-ray movies,HDMI cable and rumble?)

$20 from Walmart

Formula for cost

360 = $250 + $50X

PS3 = $400 + $57X

now add in 5+ years of XBLG cost..... OH OH! HOT DOG!

(or maybe we all, on a AVERAGE, only play one year on a given console)

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, DS3's, or HDMI cables for my side either.

When the heck did Blu-Ray equipped 360's come out?If you're really adding a stand alone Blu-Ray player next to the 360 then all I can say is wow lol. The charts and data I have provided are based on "GAMEPLAY" only. Hell you throwing in a Blu-Ray player (if this is the case) would be like me saying you need to buy a PC alongside your PS3 to play the games you are missing out on that the 360 has but the PS3 doesn't. (that's like saying you need to by a PS3 to play PS3 games, your talking in loops. You talk about mumble, headset and HDMI but not Blu-ray?)

I don't game in HD. You should know that. But I am not concerned about energy costs. I'm perfectly financially stable. But for the people that act like XBL is some back breaking cost over the PS3 they are simply wrong.

Blackbond

I know you would love to hide behind averages and apparently your mommy and daddy too. But the simple fact remains... and read carefully because I cant make this any more clear.

The 360 is not always cheaper hardware wise and/or electricity wise.

In your particular case 360 might be cheaper but for another person, a person who enjoys HD gaming and wants Blu-ray functionality (along with other things like online play), the PS3 can be cheaper. Regardless of weather you personally want those features or not, both platforms on a even keel (CD,DVD,Blu-ray,Wi-fi, Online play, Wireless controller, HDD, Headset, Rumble) PS3 is cheaper.

-

Is Gold cost back breaking? no, that's not my point or the point of many people here. It's the fact that online gaming is free on other platforms so what justifies the cost of XBLG.

Your attempt to say "But energy cost" rather then addressing the topic at hand (and doing a piss poor job at that) is nothing short of diversion.

(feel free to use larger fonts and colors with wrestling pics, I know that's your thing)

Paying for online, when you're already paying a fee for internet, is absolutely laughable. It's even funnier that there's people in here trying to defend it when online gaming has been free for years.

(feel free to use larger fonts and colors with wrestling pics, I know that's your thing) FragTycoon

:lol: That's golden.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

FragTycoon

Your power argument got debunked in your other thread but sure.. we'll have another go.

1) Different people play different amounts of time (the person who plays 8 hours a day differs from the person playing 2 hours a day and no one plays 24/7 365)

2) They don't take into account the different models available (both have had a reduction from original models)

3) Cost of electricity is different in different areas (more or less, and some places don't pay electricity at all like gov residents, dorm or apartments with utility's included at set price)

4) They also don't take into account other variables like a stand alone Blu-ray player if that's one of your reasons for getting a PS3, or power consumption when recharging controllers, or a installed game vs non-installed, or 360 with HDD or without, 360 with Wi-fi or without, or PS3 with switch turned off in back.

I figured out with your last thread that, with my models and time played, a 360/blu-ray combo with XBL gold would cost $60 more per year then just my PS3.

Granted, not everyone cares about Blu-ray but that shows that your conclusion on energy cost is not finite. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

If your worried about energy cost BB... I would look at your SDTV first ;)

so no. no debunk

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

3picuri3

Your power argument got debunked in your other thread but sure.. we'll have another go.

1) Different people play different amounts of time (the person who plays 8 hours a day differs from the person playing 2 hours a day and no one plays 24/7 365)

2) They don't take into account the different models available (both have had a reduction from original models)

3) Cost of electricity is different in different areas (more or less, and some places don't pay electricity at all like gov residents, dorm or apartments with utility's included at set price)

4) They also don't take into account other variables like a stand alone Blu-ray player if that's one of your reasons for getting a PS3, or power consumption when recharging controllers, or a installed game vs non-installed, or 360 with HDD or without, 360 with Wi-fi or without, or PS3 with switch turned off in back.

I figured out with your last thread that, with my models and time played, a 360/blu-ray combo with XBL gold would cost $60 more per year then just my PS3.

Granted, not everyone cares about Blu-ray but that shows that your conclusion on energy cost is not finite. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

If your worried about energy cost BB... I would look at your SDTV first ;)

[QUOTE="one_on_one"]Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.Samox

Actually PSN is quite superior in many ways being it's a server based system. The only game I really play online that much is COD:WAW and it operates the exact same way online on both consoles the only difference being I can play it for free on PSN.

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

3picuri3

Your power argument got debunked in your other thread but sure.. we'll have another go.

1) Different people play different amounts of time (the person who plays 8 hours a day differs from the person playing 2 hours a day and no one plays 24/7 365)

2) They don't take into account the different models available (both have had a reduction from original models)

3) Cost of electricity is different in different areas (more or less, and some places don't pay electricity at all like gov residents, dorm or apartments with utility's included at set price)

4) They also don't take into account other variables like a stand alone Blu-ray player if that's one of your reasons for getting a PS3, or power consumption when recharging controllers, or a installed game vs non-installed, or 360 with HDD or without, 360 with Wi-fi or without, or PS3 with switch turned off in back.

I figured out with your last thread that, with my models and time played, a 360/blu-ray combo with XBL gold would cost $60 more per year then just my PS3.

Granted, not everyone cares about Blu-ray but that shows that your conclusion on energy cost is not finite. Different strokes for different folks and what not.

If your worried about energy cost BB... I would look at your SDTV first ;)

No, it doesn't. Here's the math. 360 uses 26.00 kWh/week. 26 kWh = 26000 Watt-hours. 26000/168 (hours in a week) = almost 155Watts power usage (the PS 3 number works out to roughly 198 Watts - seems high). The $57 difference assumes that someone is playing the console every hour of every day for a year. For a person that averages 8 hours a day, the difference would be $19/year; for 2 hours/day, it would be $4.75 / year. They also assume a 15 cent/kWh cost, which would vary depending on where you live (2008 US residential average was a little less than 12 cents/kWh).

because XBL is a rip off, evethough its only $50 / year it is still a rip off considering PC and PS3 offers it for free. You must also remember that MS tried to do this too in PC gaming but they didnt succeed, just immagine, if they allowed PC gamers to have it for free why not us Live users?

Please admit this people with XBL Gold subscribers, the only reason why we bought XBL Gold is because for online play.

[QUOTE="one_on_one"]Think of it like this, when you buy a game with multiplayer it already cost $60 bucks, so it's just absurd that you have to pay to play online for the 360 while you can play for free on the PS3. This is one reason why the PS3 is the best because it's free to play online.Samox

quality isnt free? Steam doesnt think so. Steam offers a better service and yet its free.

360's online is superior? I have both consoles and I dont really see anything superior in XBL.

MS charges for XBL not because its superior, its because they can, its money, and us with 360's have no choice but to pay so we can play online.

MS knows online gaming is the present/future of this generation and next generations to come, most games will support online multiplayer and MS took advantage of this by adding a subscription to their supposed to be free service.

In your particular case 360 might be cheaper but for another person, a person who enjoys HD gaming and wants Blu-ray functionality (along with other things like online play), the PS3 can be cheaper. Regardless of weather you personally want those features or not, both platforms on a even keel (CD,DVD,Blu-ray,Wi-fi, Online play, Wireless controller, HDD, Headset, Rumble) PS3 is cheaper.

-

Is Gold cost back breaking? no, that's not my point or the point of many people here. It's the fact that online gaming is free on other platforms so what justifies the cost of XBLG.

Your attempt to say "But energy cost" rather then addressing the topic at hand (and doing a piss poor job at that) is nothing short of diversion.

(feel free to use larger fonts and colors with wrestling pics, I know that's your thing)

FragTycoon

If a person indeed did want all of those they would just buy the PS3 would they not? And as you can see by the latest sales figures that is not the case. You are adding in uneccesary things such as Blu-Ray, Wifi, Online, Wireless controller, HDD, and a Headset which aren't needed to play games.

But like wise even if you do add in online its negated, if you want to talk about wireless controllers all 360's come with them, if you wanted to talk about HDD's they are $30 from MS, if you want to talk about headsets 360 comes with them while PS3 doesn't, if you want to talk about about rumble then you have to buy a Dual Shock 3.

Your point just didn't add up.

A piss poor effort and a diversion? Yes like you throwing in a bunch of uneeded addons without even realizing you added in Rumble and Headsets two things that not all PS3's even came with right?

Again you haven't even disputed the numbers.

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]

1) Xbox live $50 dollars a month.

2) To play PC games you have to have Internet service so thats anywhere from $45 dollars on up a month plus other gaming fees like to play WoW you have to pay a $40 dollar fee a month so thats $85 bucks a month to play a game while on-line, but most other games don't have that so it is around the $45 dollar mark.

3) The PS3 only has that one thing "free online" as an advantage over the other platforms but you can also tell it's free. Live to me is way better.

Blackbond

Um no, that's not how it happens :|

Because it is $60 too expensive. All other video gaming platforms throughout the history of online have offered it for free. Now Microsoft comes along and offers an inferior to PC service and charges for it.foxhound_fox

That's the reason why I dislike it. Thankfully Windows LIVE fees went down the drain.

Because Resistance 2 can hold 60 players without any lag and its free. Yet Gears of War 2 lags with 10 and you have to pay :P.

Mostly because besides matchmaking servers, overall XBL is based off P2P. Paying for P2P is stupid. End of story.

What the eff is Xbox connect? and I don't even want to know about what kind of weirdos congregate there.Rockman999

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"]

In your particular case 360 might be cheaper but for another person, a person who enjoys HD gaming and wants Blu-ray functionality (along with other things like online play), the PS3 can be cheaper. Regardless of weather you personally want those features or not, both platforms on a even keel (CD,DVD,Blu-ray,Wi-fi, Online play, Wireless controller, HDD, Headset, Rumble) PS3 is cheaper.

-

Is Gold cost back breaking? no, that's not my point or the point of many people here. It's the fact that online gaming is free on other platforms so what justifies the cost of XBLG.

Your attempt to say "But energy cost" rather then addressing the topic at hand (and doing a piss poor job at that) is nothing short of diversion.

(feel free to use larger fonts and colors with wrestling pics, I know that's your thing)

Blackbond

If a person indeed did want all of those they would just buy the PS3 would they not? And as you can see by the latest sales figures that is not the case. You are adding in uneccesary things such as Blu-Ray, Wifi, Online, Wireless controller, HDD, and a Headset which aren't needed to play games.

But like wise even if you do add in online its negated, if you want to talk about wireless controllers all 360's come with them, if you wanted to talk about HDD's they are $30 from MS, if you want to talk about headsets 360 comes with them while PS3 doesn't, if you want to talk about about rumble then you have to buy a Dual Shock 3.

Your point just didn't add up.

A piss poor effort and a diversion? Yes like you throwing in a bunch of uneeded addons without even realizing you added in Rumble and Headsets two things that not all PS3's even came with right?

Again you haven't even disputed the numbers.

Somehow I know you wouldn't leave it alone so here we go

PS3 = $400 (and I wont even count refurbished models that are for sale)

Ok, now add in any accessory you would like to the PS3 system HDMI $9 (I'll even use the more expensive one), Rumble$55(I'll even use Best buy), Headset $27 (you can find others cheaper I'm sure, I use my PS2 one ;) )

Total = $491

still with me? that's some sticker shock ain't it? lets look over here at the 360 shall we?

360 arcade = $200

The refurbished HHD your pushing = $30

now here is where the magic comes in...

XBLG = $50/ year

Total for first year = $280

Total for second year = $330

Total for third year = $380

Total for fourth year = $430

Total for fifth year = $480

Total for sixth yea = $530 (oh oh better get a new x-box soon)

Total for Seventh year = $580 (wait, didn't this all start at $200?)

and god forbid it goes eight years... because now your over the PS3 launch price

*takes a bow*

*waves goodbye*

-fin-

Somehow I know you wouldn't leave it alone so here we go

PS3 = $400 (and I wont even count refurbished models that are for sale)

Ok, now add in any accessory you would like to the PS3 system HDMI $9 (I'll even use the more expensive one), Rumble$55(I'll even use Best buy), Headset $27 (you can find others cheaper I'm sure, I use my PS2 one ;) )

Total = $491

still with me? that's some sticker shock ain't it? lets look over here at the 360 shall we?

360 arcade = $200

The refurbished HHD your pushing = $30

now here is where the magic comes in...

XBLG = $50/ year

Total for first year = $280

Total for second year = $330

Total for third year = $380

Total for fourth year = $430

Total for fifth year = $480

Total for sixth yea = $530 (oh oh better get a new x-box soon)

Total for Seventh year = $580 (wait, didn't this all start at $200?)

and god forbid it goes eight years... because now your over the PS3 launch price

*takes a bow*

*waves goodbye*

-fin-

FragTycoon

:lol:

What party of $57 a year > $50 a year don't you get? You obviously read no point that I previously had made.

Formula

$20 from Walmart

360 = $250 + $50X translates to $200 360 + $20 Battery Charger + $30 20GB HDD + $50 worth of live over X years

PS3 = $400 + $57X translates to $400 for PS3 + $57 more worth of energy cost then compared to 360 over X years

Still much cheaper on the 360's end man and with the PS3's upkeep being $7 more each year on average. 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. Not only that but the data doesn't even reflect the new Energy efficent Jasper units. So I gave you bias data in your favor.

I don't need throw in headsets, Dual Shock 3's or HDMI cables or anything else either.

Thank you for ignoring every piece of info I posted in light of just posting your own which got quickly disproved.

Because apparently $5 a month is a lot of money. I wonder how the people complaining that $5 is too much can manage to pay bills, if they're even old enough to have them :?Skittles_McGee

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Because apparently $5 a month is a lot of money. I wonder how the people complaining that $5 is too much can manage to pay bills, if they're even old enough to have them :?Zhengi

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

1. Electricity is a variable cost, Live is a fixed cost.
2. Different areas have different Price/Consumption.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

nitekids2004

1. Electricity is a variable cost, Live is a fixed cost.
2. Different areas have different Price/Consumption.

Hence why its an average and that average is over the fixed cost of something that not even all owners use. Keep in mind I didn't even have to go into a DS3, HDMI cables, a Headset or anything else.

Sweet Avatar though.

Wait is it just me or are you people realing arguing about this again! Live has well over 17 million members, at least half of them pay for the gold membership those people knew before thy bought an 360 and still know, so if you own a PS3 why is it your problem? Ok you get it for free good for you, but don't try too make people think your way because you wouldn't pay. O and for those of you who said PSN and LIVE is the samething, then explain too me this. Why are people willing too pay for a service you say is inferior? Makes you think doesn't it, how about we drop this discussion its getting old, people who don't want too pay didn't, and those who don't mind payed for it. Just get over it.theMarshell

It is not inferior, but it's still not better enough to have a fee. People pay for it because if they don't, they can't play games online. That's about it. A major question if you ask me.

Wait is it just me or are you people realing arguing about this again! Live has well over 17 million members, at least half of them pay for the gold membership those people knew before thy bought an 360 and still know, so if you own a PS3 why is it your problem? Ok you get it for free good for you, but don't try too make people think your way because you wouldn't pay. O and for those of you who said PSN and LIVE is the samething, then explain too me this. Why are people willing too pay for a service you say is inferior? Makes you think doesn't it, how about we drop this discussion its getting old, people who don't want too pay didn't, and those who don't mind payed for it. Just get over it.theMarshell

[QUOTE="theMarshell"]Wait is it just me or are you people realing arguing about this again! Live has well over 17 million members, at least half of them pay for the gold membership those people knew before thy bought an 360 and still know, so if you own a PS3 why is it your problem? Ok you get it for free good for you, but don't try too make people think your way because you wouldn't pay. O and for those of you who said PSN and LIVE is the samething, then explain too me this. Why are people willing too pay for a service you say is inferior? Makes you think doesn't it, how about we drop this discussion its getting old, people who don't want too pay didn't, and those who don't mind payed for it. Just get over it.campzor

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You see I have no problem complaining about it. I can see why a PC gamer or a Wii gamer can complain about it. But what I can't see is how a PS3 gamer can complain about it on merits of price compared to the PS3 and here is why.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106346&catId=100245&tid=100008&p=5&title=Computers%27+energy+costs

Your PS3 uses a lot more energy then an Xbox 360. If you didn't know the energy difference is $57 between the two. Which is also $7 more then the difference of a yearly subscription of LIVE.

So I see no relevant point in PS3 owners complaining about XBL fees. Its not like they are the ones really using live anyways. Do I think XBL should be free. Hell yeah. But for those who make it as if the price of XBL is the backbreaking difference between PS3 and 360 when the PS3 consumes so much more in energy cost is beyond me.

Money is money.

Blackbond

1. Electricity is a variable cost, Live is a fixed cost.
2. Different areas have different Price/Consumption.

Hence why its an average and that average is over the fixed cost of something that not even all owners use. Keep in mind I didn't even have to go into a DS3, HDMI cables, a Headset or anything else.

Sweet Avatar though.

Having to pay for energy is a totally different matter. Everyone has to pay that. The only platform that have fees for the online play is the 360. It's free on PC (the platform with the most online players), 2 PS systems... even the Wii has free online play!