PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Sales

[quote name='Thomas96']Right now the PS3 isn't selling because its too expensive, its not because its a bad product, or because its a product that people don't want.. its a product that people can't afford. Also, PS3 will get cheaper and will get better games, which will lead to increased sales. Coming out with a new console (for sony) would be silly and a waste R&D. PS3 is a product that isn't going to be out of date for a long time. That's the main point, you don't stop selling PS3s until the market starts to consider it obselete, for goodness sakes, the PS2 is still selling. I'd love to see one more PS2 design where its in the form of a Portable DVD player w/ a screen that folds up - for about 119.99. Main thing is that, PS2 is still selling, I think that its going to take a longer period of time for the PS3 to catch on before it starts to sell.

With the 360, I think people are starting to feel that it has run its course and that the games aren't going to get any better graphically..[/QUOTE]

Disagree. I think the 360 has a good 2 years left in it before the PS3 is able to start doing games that the 360 just cant handle. Even then I wouldn't be surprised if developers find ways, or if the PS3s power is simply not utilized to its fullest very often because most developers would rather put a game on the 360 and the PS3 to maximize sales. I do think people are reaching their limit with the RRoD though.
 
Hell, the PS2's peak was in 2002. Year over year sales have been down ever since. To its credit, since the 360 launched, the PS2 has actually outsold it slightly to date.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Hell, the PS2's peak was in 2002. Year over year sales have been down ever since. To its credit, since the 360 launched, the PS2 has actually outsold it slightly to date.[/QUOTE]

Wow outside sales you really do know nothing about gaming huh? Even the PS2 a system you supported your ignorance of is astounding.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']less fun for you i guess...sounds like you have backed yourself into an imaginary console corner[/quote]
...or maybe I realize that my 360 will see very little playtime if I get a PS3 so I might as well sell it and put some of the cash towards a PS3?
 
Yeah, with 3rd party exclusives being pretty much dead it's hard to justify owning both a PS3 and 360 since so many of the good games are on each. It's really best to just pick which one's exclusives you like the best and just buy it.

Nothing wrong with owning both if you have the money and the time. The time is the main kicker for me as I can't play all the 360 games that I'd like to try out so definitely no justified reason to pick up a second console.
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']and is the best blu-ray player money can buy.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's true anymore. In reading reviews, AVS threads etc. when making sure the Sony S350 was solid before buying it for $150 on Black Friday most put a few other players above the PS3 now. But the PS3 was still well regarded, but I think there are some better players out there now--though many are price costing as much or more than the PS3.

Anyway, just nitpicking as there's no doubt it's a great player (requiring adapter for use with universal remotes aside).
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Disagree. I think the 360 has a good 2 years left in it before the PS3 is able to start doing games that the 360 just cant handle. Even then I wouldn't be surprised if developers find ways, or if the PS3s power is simply not utilized to its fullest very often because most developers would rather put a game on the 360 and the PS3 to maximize sales. I do think people are reaching their limit with the RRoD though.[/QUOTE]

Metal gear solid 4 was a good taste of the PS3s power, Sony has Killzone 2, and Uncanny Valley (I forgot the name of the game - oh.. Heavy Rain) [that will look very good. I think its good for the PS3 that earlier in the year (of 2009) that they start to set the bar for what PS3 games are supposed to look like. No developer at this time, needs to spend the extra resources needed to optimize a game for the PS3, problem is, they believe its not going to result in increased profit.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Metal gear solid 4 was a good taste of the PS3s power, Sony has Killzone 2, and Uncanny Valley (I forgot the name of the game - oh.. Heavy Rain) [that will look very good. [/quote]


I hope MGS4 WASNT a taste of the true potential of the PS3. While nice looking it wasn't mindblowing. I expect much better visual by the end of the PS3's lifecycle. I've heard more talk of how Gears 2 is the current benchmark for this generation in the graphics department. I honestly dont know though because I have not had my Gears 2 disk in my 360 yet.

Killzone 2 (while I hope is a great game I will be able to play on my PS3) doesn't look to be breaking in new ground in the graphics department (not even close to the famous E3 trailer from years ago). Same goes for Heavy Rain. That game has iffy written all over it.
 
Of course we will see a 10 year lifespan with the PS3, its gonna take that long to get GT5 out the door at least. :p
 
[quote name='Malik112099']The PS3 will do the same thing the PS2 is doing when the PS4 comes out.[/QUOTE]

This might be a stretch. The PS2 received support for so long because it was such an amazing system that dominated the market. This gen we have seen a very clear split. The Wii has dominated sales, MS has the most good games if only by a small amount and the PS3 is the tech powerhouse by a fair margin. The PS3 lasting 10 years will require several things. First off Nintendos follow up system to not sell well, second for MS's follow up system to come at least another 6 years down the road or for it to come earlier but like Nintendo fail. It will also require major investment and commitment by Sony.

Any and all of these things are very questionable. Sony will want to commit to the PS3....but when they see MS revving up for a new console release or the Wii2 selling well....it might cause them to rethink a 10 year commitment. And if MS puts out the next system in the next 4-5 years then Sony may panic and push a system out feeling its a necessity.
 
Sony right now claims the PS3 has the power to eclipse the 360, the trouble seems to be getting to that power. I'm going to guess that Sony can't introduce a PS4 anytime soon, based on their financial situation and their investment in the CELL processor, unless the PS4 is just an upgraded PS3 with more RAM and a faster bank of Cells.

But lets assume Microsoft introduces the 360 replacement in 2011 or so....by that time unlocking the PS3's abilitites will have happened (hopefully) and the 360 will come out with a 1080p machine based on DX10 or DX11 and whatever those API's bring to the table.

At that point Sony is going to really have to ask itself what can it bring to the table to differentiate itself from the next 360......maybe nothing? Resolutions are fairly capped for the forseeable future...and visual effects are largely the domain of the PC, and the PC is microsofts realm...DirectX API's have introduced most of the cool visual effects we all take for granted now....

So really, where does Sony go?
 
i think Sony needs to make its next console easier to develop on....like something the vast majority of developers know how to use. What could I possibly be talking about?
 
[quote name='daschrier']As an RPG gamer 99% of the time, I have no interest in the PS3 yet.

As for using a Sony card to get a PS3 cheaper....dumb idea to open a line of credit just to buy a stupid game console.[/quote]

I disagree. I was able to buy my 60gb PS3 for $350 in August 2007 and this is *still* cheaper than the lowest price point a year later, and the same price as the 360 premium was dropped to on August 8th last year. The Sony card is run by Chase and the terms have been favorable to me. So much so that it couldn't have come at a better time considering Capitalone decided to jack up the interest rates across the board on all customers last Fall and it made it quite easy to cancel them especially when my Sony card was in month 2 of 12 months of 0% interest. My Sony card remains my primary card out of the two I have in my name and is not only a nice compliment to my credit score that is in the high 700s, but has netted me some great rewards. Since owning the card and participating in their free rewards site, they've given me a free 40gb PS3 from the daily contest, and I've redeemed rewards points for over a half dozen PS3 games since last year.

So... a great offer if you know how to manage your finances.
 
But who, other than Sony itself, is going to spend a lot of extra time optimizing for the Cell processor when sales are so low? Unless that's done, I don't think the PS3 even has a shot at getting a better-looking game than the 360.
 
I think a part of the problem is Sony has tapped the fanboys (myself included) two years into it. If I was looking for a console today I can't see myself going for the ps3. I've been a Sony loyalist through the years due to the FF series, tekken, gran turismo and gta. Now everything I buy or lust after (aside from KZ2) is multi or for the 360 - Gears, L4D. Anyway I think the current lack of third party exclusives is what's hurting them. A $60 mgs4 (i was done with mgs after 2) isn't going to sell a $400 console to the average gamer, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='hpbbes']I think a part of the problem is Sony has tapped the fanboys (myself included) two years into it. If I was looking for a console today I can't see myself going for the ps3. I've been a Sony loyalist through the years due to the FF series, tekken, gran turismo and gta. Now everything I buy or lust after (aside from KZ2) is multi or for the 360 - Gears, L4D. Anyway I think the current lack of third party exclusives is what's hurting them. A $60 mgs4 (i was done with mgs after 2) isn't going to sell a $400 console to the average gamer, IMO.[/QUOTE]

I think the fact that so many of us at this site dont have a PS3 speaks to that fact. In generations past most of us owned all 3 systems....this time around it seems everyone owns a 360 and then they might own a Wii or a PS3. The Wii and the PS3 just have not brought enough games to the table to make it worth it for us. Sony needs to drop this whole we refuse to pay for third party support idea and fast unless they are going to start majorly investing and first and second party games.

Edit - BTW I will add that while I am not a Sony loyalist I would have never thought the 360 would be my primary system this gen. Last gen I bought an Xbox mid gen then sold the damn thing because I was never playing it because my PS2 received so many good games. I kept my GC but it largly gathered dust. The gen before that was similar, I sold my N64 because it just couldnt get enough good games to make me look away from my PSX)and when I rebought it later in the generation again I found myself so flooded with great PSX games that I still hardly played it.

Edit- New sales data out. In its 2 months out LBP has only moved 350,000 copies and Valkyria Chronicles 33,000. I think this shows that the hardcore or if you preffer "core" gamer market is not lining up behind the PS3 just yet. These are 2 games that core gamers would eat up usually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HeadRusch']Sony right now claims the PS3 has the power to eclipse the 360, the trouble seems to be getting to that power. I'm going to guess that Sony can't introduce a PS4 anytime soon, based on their financial situation and their investment in the CELL processor, unless the PS4 is just an upgraded PS3 with more RAM and a faster bank of Cells.

But lets assume Microsoft introduces the 360 replacement in 2011 or so....by that time unlocking the PS3's abilitites will have happened (hopefully) and the 360 will come out with a 1080p machine based on DX10 or DX11 and whatever those API's bring to the table.

At that point Sony is going to really have to ask itself what can it bring to the table to differentiate itself from the next 360......maybe nothing? Resolutions are fairly capped for the forseeable future...and visual effects are largely the domain of the PC, and the PC is microsofts realm...DirectX API's have introduced most of the cool visual effects we all take for granted now....

So really, where does Sony go?[/QUOTE]

Question is, where do the 3rd party devs go? The Wii is dominating the sales, charts but 3rd party games on the Wii aren't benefitting from that market domination. Of course there's the 360, but you can't Just make games for the 360. I think that 3rd party devs are going to support Sony, and I think that so that both Sony and devs can churn a profit they are going to have to optimize games for the PS3. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, GT5P, Heavy Rain, these games are setting the bar as to what a PS3 game needs to look like. I think Sony will find its success when the devs stop making 360 games for the PS3, and start making PS3 games.

When the xbox came out, they optimized games for the xbox. The xbox was more powerful than the PS2, and devs took advantage of that. But now when its the PS3 that has probably a slight edge in power, devs don't bother to do anything to differentiate the PS3 from the 360.


EA just came out and said that they aren't that profitable on the Wii... earlier this year EA was saying how they were more profitable on the PS3. Take that and apply it to other 3rd parties. Remember when EA came out with those piss poor versions of Madden on PS3 they lost money, but now when they release a decent version they get their profits. If first party Sony games raise the bar and show what PS3 games should be (in terms of graphics) I feel like other devs will have to follow suit. Everyone knows as time passes, there will be even more profits to attain from the PS3, and this will keep 3rd parties supporting the PS3. Just like Sony made it mandator for all games in 2009 to have trophies, Sony needs to step in and make sure that PS3 games are up to par.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Thomas96']Question is, where do the 3rd party devs go? The Wii is dominating the sales, charts but 3rd party games on the Wii aren't benefitting from that market domination. Of course there's the 360, but you can't Just make games for the 360. I think that 3rd party devs are going to support Sony, and I think that so that both Sony and devs can churn a profit they are going to have to optimize games for the PS3. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, GT5P, Heavy Rain, these games are setting the bar as to what a PS3 game needs to look like. I think Sony will find its success when the devs stop making 360 games for the PS3, and start making PS3 games.

When the xbox came out, they optimized games for the xbox. The xbox was more powerful than the PS2, and devs took advantage of that. But now when its the PS3 that has probably a slight edge in power, devs don't bother to do anything to differentiate the PS3 from the 360.[/QUOTE]

Why cant you just make games for the 360? Seems Dead Rising and Gears did pretty damn well as 360 only games. If I recall Bioshock also did well over a million as did Mass Effect and others. You say they cant go to the 360 but then say the should go to the PS3, a system with less support, more complicated hardware, a company that wont pay them to keep exclusives and a smaller install base.

Realistically too you and many others say the key is taping into the hardware....I completely disagree. We have seen time and time again that just because a game is flashy and takes advantage of hard ware it doesn't guarantee sales. What will guarantee PS3 success is more good games in addition to a huge price drop. A good example of this was the Xbox last generation. Its graphical capabilty surpased the PS2s by HUGE margins...hell it even had some HD games. But the PS2 still dominated because it was cheap and it had the games.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Edit - BTW I will add that while I am not a Sony loyalist I would have never thought the 360 would be my primary system this gen. [/QUOTE]

Same here. I bought an Xbox primarily for KOTOR and never really got into the console. I played the PS2 and Gamecube more.

This gen I started with a Wii since it was cheapest, but couldn't get into it and picked up a 360 as I was playing it a my friends more than I was playing my Wii. Eventually sold the Wii and haven't looked back, and have enjoyed the 360 the most of any console since the SNES.

I have no loyalty to any of these companies, I just go where the games I want to play are now that I don't have the free time to justify owning all consoles.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Same here. I bought an Xbox primarily for KOTOR and never really got into the console. I played the PS2 and Gamecube more.

This gen I started with a Wii since it was cheapest, but couldn't get into it and picked up a 360 as I was playing it a my friends more than I was playing my Wii. Eventually sold the Wii and haven't looked back, and have enjoyed the 360 the most of any console since the SNES.

I have no loyalty to any of these companies, I just go where the games I want to play are now that I don't have the free time to justify owning all consoles.[/QUOTE]

*hugs Dmaul*

May not agree with you on politics or social issues but this is dead on! A gamer should go where the games are and while I wouldnt say that I am enjoying the 360 as much as the PS2/SNES I am enjoying the hell out of it.

Edit - I was just doing the rounds reading gaming news sites while eating lunch and found this article where Square is saying that the 360 is easier to develop for then the PS3. http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/12/16/square-enix-360-easier-to-develop-on-that-the-ps3/

So again like I said earlier why should developers flock to the PS3? Its harder to develop for and has a smaller market share. Then add in that as the VC and LBP sales show games aint doing so hot on the PS3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MSI Magus']Why cant you just make games for the 360? Seems Dead Rising and Gears did pretty damn well as 360 only games. If I recall Bioshock also did well over a million as did Mass Effect and others. You say they cant go to the 360 but then say the should go to the PS3, a system with less support, more complicated hardware, a company that wont pay them to keep exclusives and a smaller install base.

Realistically too you and many others say the key is taping into the hardware....I completely disagree. We have seen time and time again that just because a game is flashy and takes advantage of hard ware it doesn't guarantee sales. What will guarantee PS3 success is more good games in addition to a huge price drop. A good example of this was the Xbox last generation. Its graphical capabilty surpased the PS2s by HUGE margins...hell it even had some HD games. But the PS2 still dominated because it was cheap and it had the games.[/QUOTE]

The video games market needs really all three consoles to do well. That's why you can't JUST sell on the 360. Devs are too greedy to limit their games to just one console, especially when they know there's potential to earn money from three different consoles. The PS2 already had a good established user base by the time the xbox was released. Even though, the PS2 had a bigger user base, the xbox did NOT suffer in regards to the quality of its games. The reason why the xbox did well, is due to the factt that it had some big exclusives games (HALO) that showed off the strength of the system, and other multiconsole games (Madden) that optimized for the system. If all xbox games (despite being the bettter console) would have been poor ports of PS2 games, then the margin of success that the PS2 had would have been greater.

I did a little research and from what I find is that the PS2 and the Xbox were both 299? I'm not sure, but I do remember that the Xbox was more competitively priced w/ the PS2 than the PS3 is with the 360. Better graphics for the PS3 isn't the cure, the price still needs to come down. But even if the price comes down, Sony still has the burden of trying to get customers to switch. 837k customers bought 360s during November, to get them to switch consoles (which probably isn't likely to happen for several months) you have to have games that can prove that the PS3 is worth the money and worth switching. But you can't expect price alone to cure everything, because your're console is late to the market, it has to stand out more, and that can't happen when you're games are only up to par with games of a cheaper console. Sony has to show that the PS3 can produce higher quality games than the 360. Not just exclusives, but with multiconsole games as well... Especially Madden.. if Sony can get a version of madden that's been optimized for the system, PS3 sales would see an immediate increase.
 
The market doesn't need all three to do well.

The 16 bit era kicked all kinds of ass with just the SNES and Genesis.

In fact, I think there's only room for 2 consoles in the market, and they really need to be consoles that offer something different. There's very little reason to own both a 360 and PS3 as the bulk of the good games end up on both. So it's really just a matter of price, extras (blu ray, xbox live. netflix etc.) and which exlusives one likes more. There just aren't enough AAA exclusives to justify owning both for most people.

Again, Sony and MS would be well served to merge and focus on making the best games possible, and have Nintendo around focusing on kids and casual gamers. But again, it will never happen, one will have to die off.

Also, I do think the PS2 having the largest base hurt the quality of games on the Xbox. It was very underpowered compared to the Xbox (and GC). With it having the largest user base you had the lowest common denominator factor where games were made for it and ported to the other two. Thus a lot of multi-platform games didn't look nearly as good as the exclusive Xbox games since they weren't built to take advantage of the extra power. Just like what you're complaining about with the PS3 today.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']
I did a little research and from what I find is that the PS2 and the Xbox were both 299? I'm not sure, but I do remember that the Xbox was more competitively priced w/ the PS2 than the PS3 is with the 360. Better graphics for the PS3 isn't the cure, the price still needs to come down. But even if the price comes down, Sony still has the burden of trying to get customers to switch. 837k customers bought 360s during November, to get them to switch consoles (which probably isn't likely to happen for several months) you have to have games that can prove that the PS3 is worth the money and worth switching. But you can't expect price alone to cure everything, because your're console is late to the market, it has to stand out more, and that can't happen when you're games are only up to par with games of a cheaper console. Sony has to show that the PS3 can produce higher quality games than the 360. Not just exclusives, but with multiconsole games as well... Especially Madden.. if Sony can get a version of madden that's been optimized for the system, PS3 sales would see an immediate increase.[/quote]

THIS :applause:
 
There is no reason to own a PS3 and a 360. One or the other. And the 360 is a better value/choice for the majority.
 
[quote name='jer7583']There is no reason to own a PS3 and a 360. One or the other. [/quote]


That's not true. I generally play 360 games but I couldnt do without blu-rays, Uncharted, God of War, etc.
 
[quote name='jer7583']There is no reason to own a PS3 and a 360. One or the other. And the 360 is a better value/choice for the majority.[/QUOTE]

I keep hearing this and I simply dont get it. Maybe if you have large time constraints and like many genres this is true. But for many people it is worth owning both since there are some great games on the other system that are worth playing. For instance I dont own a PS3 right now because I cant see coughing up the money for it when I have a PS2 and 360 back log as it is. However I would freaking love to have one to play Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea 3 and R&C(iv almost bought the system just for R&C). And if Sony was to announce finally working with sucker punch to release Sly Cooper 4.....its over I am getting one!

I think a lot of people can agree to that. While for most people its common sense to just get a 360 there is plenty of reason to grab a PS3 in addition.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']That's not true. I generally play 360 games but I couldnt do without blu-rays, Uncharted, God of War, etc.[/QUOTE]

Agreed with Mak. I actually enjoy both my Xbox 360 and My PS3. While I do enjoy my 360 a lot more, the PS3 has some pretty interesting 1st party games ( Uncharted, Little Big, etc... ) that I like to play.
 
I think for me personally cost is the issue.

If the PS3 was $200 or less, I'd pick one up just for the few exclusives I want and the ability to play Blu-Ray discs.

But at $300-$400 it just pushes it beyond the "What the hell" threshold into the "Well do I really need one" threshold, but thats just for me.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']I think for me personally cost is the issue.

If the PS3 was $200 or less, I'd pick one up just for the few exclusives I want and the ability to play Blu-Ray discs.

But at $300-$400 it just pushes it beyond the "What the hell" threshold into the "Well do I really need one" threshold, but thats just for me.[/QUOTE]

Agree with this exactly. I had a chance to pick up a PS3 for $250 and still couldnt help but think hmmm ill wait till I see it at $200 or under. I want to play some of its games....just not enough to pay even half its asking price!
 
A way a justify the cost of any system, that works for me, is to find the games you like and think about how much extra you'd be willing to pay for that game.

Say the PS3 had 40 games you wanted, and they were all so good you wouldn't mind paying 10$ extra for each game. I'd be justified, to myself, in buying the console.

However, when there's only 3 or 4 games you find interesting, is it worth it to you to pay 100$ extra for each of those games?

This works great for me because I'm only interested in games on a console. I couldn't give 2, possibly 3, dicks about the console features. I've got a PC for all that other stuff.
 
I still don't get all the hate on the PS3's price.

360 with a 60gb HD and wifi adapter = $400

PS3 with 80gb HD, built in wifi, and blu ray player = $400

The fact that there is a 360 SKU for $200 helps them in terms of sales, but for people like us who are going to be on XBL generally will need to buy the wifi adapter and a HD. I personally love both systems.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I still don't get all the hate on the PS3's price.

360 with a 60gb HD and wifi adapter = $400

PS3 with 80gb HD, built in wifi, and blu ray player = $400

The fact that there is a 360 SKU for $200 helps them in terms of sales, but for people like us who are going to be on XBL generally will need to buy the wifi adapter and a HD. I personally love both systems.[/QUOTE]

Ermmmm problem with that is not all of us are tech nuts that feel we need all that extra crap. I dont give a shit about blue ray and I dont need a huge hard drive. So it more comes down to $400 PS3 with extras we dont need or a $200 Xbox or $250 with HD. Most of us will want to download some stuff so the difference is $250 vs $400. $150 difference which is HUGE, especially those of us whom like myself are extreamly cheap ass gamers....for that $150 I can buy an extra 7-10 games. Then there is the fact that like many of us have discussed Sony is just not offering up enough good games. So should we really pay all that extra money to play a select few PS3 games? No.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I keep hearing this and I simply dont get it. Maybe if you have large time constraints and like many genres this is true.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, for me it's largely time constraints. I don't have a ton of free time, and gaming isn't my number one hobby to spend that limited time on. As such I can't play all the games on the 360 that interest me, so no need for a second console.

Factor in that I mainly only play FPS and western RPGs and the 360 was an easy choice for me since most of Sony's exclusives are Japanese games that don't float my boat.

But my bigger point is I have no need to have two consoles that play similar types of games. While I love FPS games, I can live without a few like Resistance, Killzone etc. as there are plenty of FPS on the 360 to keep me busy.

[quote name='rodeojones903']... but for people like us who are going to be on XBL generally will need to buy the wifi adapter and a HD. I personally love both systems.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with that. It's pretty easy for most people to just hook up an ethernet cable to the 360. Especially if you have cable internet. Just hook the modem and router up near the TV where the TV cable is coming into the house and run a wire to the 360 and use the Wireless for laptops, PCs in other rooms etc.

And if that doesn't work you can always use a cheap wireless bridge rather than getting ass raped by MS by shelling out $100 for the WiFi adapter.

That said, I think the PS3 is well worth the $400 if the games float your boat and you want a Blu Ray player.

I just couldn't justify picking one up for the reasons above, especially when I nabbed the Sony BDPS350 Blu ray player for $150 on Black Friday. But the PS3 is a good value if you want the games and a Blu Ray player for sure.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I still don't get all the hate on the PS3's price.

360 with a 60gb HD and wifi adapter = $400

PS3 with 80gb HD, built in wifi, and blu ray player = $400

The fact that there is a 360 SKU for $200 helps them in terms of sales, but for people like us who are going to be on XBL generally will need to buy the wifi adapter and a HD. I personally love both systems.[/QUOTE]

Here's how it breaks down.

Do you see games on the shelf that you want to play by yourself or with a buddy at home?
$199.99

Do you want to play those games online with buddies?
$249.99 paying full price for a year of LIVE.

Do you want to play games with buddies and download stuff or install games to a hd?
$299

Do you want to play games with buddies online and download stuff or install games to a hd?
$349.99 paying full price for a year of live

Do you want to store a whole lot of garbage or install a bunch of games to your HD and you really love the color black?
$450 including a year of live.


Sony: $399. The End.
Yes, you get BD playback for free..even if you dont want it...you're still paying for it.

The real differentiation is this: You can play 360 games for $199....you can play PS3 games for $399.

You can compare all the accessories and features till you are blue in the face, but if I want to play Call of Duty 4, I can do it on a $200 system, or I can do it on a $400 system, and the game is almost virtually identical on both platforms.

Which U gonna choose....


Remember if you are a hard core gamer, you already got these systems....microsoft is selling arcades to people who want a spare, people who want a second box, casual gamers who aren't all that interested in going online or really aren't caring about installing games or downloading demos. They want to play GTA4 and COD4......$199 vs $399.
 
The 360 with hard drive is $230 right now. Less if you find a better deal. Most people don't really need much else.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I keep hearing this and I simply dont get it. Maybe if you have large time constraints and like many genres this is true. But for many people it is worth owning both since there are some great games on the other system that are worth playing. For instance I dont own a PS3 right now because I cant see coughing up the money for it when I have a PS2 and 360 back log as it is. [/quote]

This!

I have had the money set aside for a PS3 since before launch. But they were so slow out the gate with games that I ended up getting a 360, always with the intention of buying a PS3. Today though, I dont see myself getting a PS3. I still *want* one, to play Ratchet, Heavenly Sword, and Drake's, but it's hard to justify buying *another* machine when I have a backlog in 360 games. As much as I'm excited about the games above, it just would be unwise to get a PS3 when there are plenty of 360 games that I am similarly interested in.

The only thing that could happen at this point is me getting my basement re-done and a new 1080p HDTV (my current one is an older 1080i model). I could then justify it in my mind that now I need a machine to take full advantage of the TV.

But that's at least a year off (unless mortgage rates really do drop off the face of the earth soon *crosses fingers*)
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']Here's how it breaks down.

Do you see games on the shelf that you want to play by yourself or with a buddy at home?
$199.99

Do you want to play those games online with buddies?
$249.99 paying full price for a year of LIVE.

Do you want to play games with buddies and download stuff or install games to a hd?
$299

Do you want to play games with buddies online and download stuff or install games to a hd?
$349.99 paying full price for a year of live

Do you want to store a whole lot of garbage or install a bunch of games to your HD and you really love the color black?
$450 including a year of live.


Sony: $399. The End.
Yes, you get BD playback for free..even if you dont want it...you're still paying for it.

The real differentiation is this: You can play 360 games for $199....you can play PS3 games for $399.

You can compare all the accessories and features till you are blue in the face, but if I want to play Call of Duty 4, I can do it on a $200 system, or I can do it on a $400 system, and the game is almost virtually identical on both platforms.

Which U gonna choose....


Remember if you are a hard core gamer, you already got these systems....microsoft is selling arcades to people who want a spare, people who want a second box, casual gamers who aren't all that interested in going online or really aren't caring about installing games or downloading demos. They want to play GTA4 and COD4......$199 vs $399.[/QUOTE]

LOL nice; now will the 360 still work after that year is up... What if you want a bigger harddrive, with PS3 you can go as high as you want, w/ xbox,360 you're stuck w/ the 160gb hard drive. Remember you have pay for live continously year after year or month by month in order to access the online features of your game. The truth is yes the PS3 is the more expensive console, but its not really fair to compare a barebones 360 w/ the 399 PS3 with all the features intact. That 199 model doesn't even have a hard drive does it? If you're online and need Wifi well, that's going to be 99.99 to give your 360 wifi capabilities. The entrance price is cheap but be prepared to be nickel and dimed to death. It all depends on what the consumer wants, and can afford. I don't think that anyone can show legitimately that the PS3 is a bad deal, and not worth the money. You can play that "if you do or don't want this feature" just to make your point, I understand, however know that the PS3 is worth the money.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Consumers dont want it at the current price. I'd say the case is closed on whether or not its a good deal.[/QUOTE]

400,000 is a good deal for a Ferrari.. but hell I still can't afford it. Hell everyone in the world may think that 400,00 is a good deal for a Ferrari but most of us can't afford it.. so who the hell cares that it is a good deal. Same with Sony, if you can't afford it, then you really don't have NO other choice but to go with the Xbox. I like my PS3, but I have to admit that if you can't afford the PS3 its a lot easier to go w/ the 199 xbox (if you're not going online); I said this before, the 360 provided a very good console since DAY ONE! at an affordable price. 499 and 599 may be a good deal, but Sony needs to remember who their customers are, and they need to understand how much people can actually afford to spend on themselves and/or their children. Video games aren't for the rich and famous, they're for everyone.. and initally that's what Sony forgot, or maybe they were so ambitious in terms of trying to make the PS3 powerful that they forgot about making it affordable. Which is unfortunate, because makes the PS3 a non option.. Hell when I was a kid, I feld that the Neo Geo was nice... but hell it was 999.99 dollars, (or 599.99 someone correct me if I'm wrong) totatly off my radar, and I had to put that machine out of my options.

You're right, consumers do not want the PS3 at its current price..
 
Whether or not something is a good deal is not objective.

If my GameStationX has holographic storage in it that normally costs $2000 by itself, but the whole machine costs $1500, whether or not it is actually a good deal is dependent on whether or not you are interested in holographic storage. Otherwise its a bad deal.

The masses have spoken.
 
Whether or not something is a good deal is not objective.

A ferrari at a 20% discount (for example) is not a good deal unless and ONLY UNLESS you are in the market for a ferrari. Its overpriced at full price, and its STILL overpriced at 20% off.
 
Well, everything is relative. A ferrari at 20% off is a good deal regardless of whether or not you're in the market for one.

And everything about comparing the price of the two consoles is pretty much impossible to please everyone. Personally for me, if I ever got a 360 and wanted to go online wirelessly, I would bridge a network connection with my laptop. I do like, however, being able to play online when I feel like it knowing I don't have a recurring fee or anything. But the 360 (the pro model) comes with the headset which is nice. But then again, if you already have a bluetooth headset (like I do) then you're set with the PS3. At this point, bluray isn't the big thing for me, since the movies cost like 2-3 times as much as a DVD. I don't know, there's just too many variations to compare the two.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']That's not true. I generally play 360 games but I couldnt do without blu-rays, Uncharted, God of War, etc.[/QUOTE]

And if you don't own a Wii your missing out on Super Mario Galaxy and a few other gems.

The truth is every system is worth owning one point or another, it just depends on how long you can wait on a price drop or if your willing to wait till the system is dead and grab all the games cheap (and the few that end up rare you'll just pay MRSP or slightly above for them, considering most "rare" games just end up staying the price they were when they were originally released) .

I'm a XBox fanboy but theres no way I could not pass up a PS2 with Persona and Suikoden, and the Wii with Nintendo's products. Once the PS3 drops to $300 hopefully by the rumored March/April then I'll pick one up to buy a game here and there and mainly watch blu-ray movies on it unless someone puts out a blu-ray player at $100 that is just as good as the PS3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top