*Circus of Value* Spin-off

[obonicus]

Ok, but this is getting silly. Are you going to bring up the batteries for the controller then? That could be $5+ a month if you play 5 hours a day!

Hey, don't look at me. I'm just saying that those who defend Live! use the same 'well, it's only $x, that's nothing to me' which is purely subjective. And that's the point really. I don't think Live is worth the money, honestly, and so I stopped paying for it (though I probably will get a 3 month card to play co-op Gears 2 with my friends).

But there's no final say here. To echo what people have been saying, excluding people who care about exclusives, if you want to play BDs and are interested in a current-gen console the PS3 is the way to go. If you want a current-gen console just to play games with no online, then the 360 arcade is the way to go. If you want online, then things get complicated. Do you want wifi? Do you need voice-chat? How much money is your kWh? Do you have a battery charger and two sets of AAs?

Seriously, though, at this point, I think selling the PS3 as the superior value as a gaming machine is pretty hard. And I actually prefer my PS3 -- I get most of my multiplat games on it, for reasons I can't quite fathom (I think I mostly prefer the controller).

 

[eastmen]

That's the same argument people use to justify the cost of Live! though. Money's money.

Right 50/13 = 3.85/30 = 13 cents a day. Thats not even the tax on a large coffee.

...forever. Versus free. That will be the question in their mind. Free is a powerful word in marketing.

And that bluray feature you keep talking about is 10-$60 more per purchase. So for example this month. I've bought iron man ($10 more ) Sleeping beauty ($10 more) indiana jones ($10). and I'm going to buy Hulk (another $10) Thats $40 bucks right there just $10 shy of a year of live on only 4 titles in 30 days.

You present live as a problem because of its cost but you allways neglect to mention the price premium of bluray and you include it as a postive. Live may be $50 a year but its obvious that the premium for bluray can surpass that after a few purchases.

 

[obonicus]

And that bluray feature you keep talking about is 10-$60 more per purchase. So for example this month. I've bought iron man ($10 more ) Sleeping beauty ($10 more) indiana jones ($10). and I'm going to buy Hulk (another $10) Thats $40 bucks right there just $10 shy of a year of live on only 4 titles in 30 days.

You present live as a problem because of its cost but you allways neglect to mention the price premium of bluray and you include it as a postive. Live may be $50 a year but its obvious that the premium for bluray can surpass that after a few purchases.

It's not really the same, though. It's not like you're not getting anything for the BRD premium. Whether you think the extra quality is worth $10 extra per disc is a judgment call, but that's what you're paying for. Naturally, if you don't have the setup, or you're happy with upscaled images, you may not think it's worth it.

I'd say that XBL vs. PSN is a lot hazier. XBL is the superior service still, and the extra value will only increase with NXE, but for what I'd call the central feature, which is playing online with friends, they're much closer to parity. So as I see it, what your $50 a year gets you isn't very much: all the extra stuff like voice chat, voice messages, early content and now netflix and parties (I'm probably forgetting a lot). None of those interests me particularly, so I'd feel that BRDs are the better, more tangible value and I'm not even that interested in BRDs.

 

[DrJay24]

And that bluray feature you keep talking about is 10-$60 more per purchase.

That's not part of the cost of ownership, you don't have to buy BD movies, most people rent them, which is now $1/month more. How do you play online with XBL without the fee?

The cost of a 360, at least for me, was always higher than a sticker price. Things like Wi-fi, XBL, play-and-charge kits, etc. adds to the legitimate cost of ownership.

 

[PARANOiA]

The cost of a 360, at least for me, was always higher than a sticker price. Things like Wi-fi, XBL, play-and-charge kits, etc. adds to the legitimate cost of ownership.

None of which are needed to enjoy most of the games you buy. You can go online without Wifi - I do this today. You don't need play-and-charge kits at all, since disposables are not only cheaper but better - most people I know have oodles of AA batteries around the house for many other purposes. Live makes the experience "better" for those that game online - but it's hardly a necessity. Hell, nearly all gamers from PS2 didn't go online last gen for competitive or cooperative play. I'm a gold user since I dabble in online gaming, but it's hardly a must. I could just as easily skip Gold.

The flip side is for PS3, you are paying double for free inferior online and a HD media player. For Sony, it's a much, much harder push uphill to prove that's worth it, when most gamers haven't had it before. The onus is on Sony to prove to the consumer that it's worth it for the consumer. The price of entry is the biggest factor. MS on the other hand doesn't need to "prove" that the optional added costs you're talking about are needed - consumers are making that choice already.

Again, I completely understand the view that many PS3 users see as "better value" but I don't think you really understand that this is not what the majority of consumers also perceive as value. People need to break out of the thought line of "it's good value for me so it must be good value for everybody."

 

[Skrying]

It's not really the same, though. It's not like you're not getting anything for the BRD premium. Whether you think the extra quality is worth $10 extra per disc is a judgment call, but that's what you're paying for. Naturally, if you don't have the setup, or you're happy with upscaled images, you may not think it's worth it.

I'd say that XBL vs. PSN is a lot hazier. XBL is the superior service still, and the extra value will only increase with NXE, but for what I'd call the central feature, which is playing online with friends, they're much closer to parity. So as I see it, what your $50 a year gets you isn't very much: all the extra stuff like voice chat, voice messages, early content and now netflix and parties (I'm probably forgetting a lot). None of those interests me particularly, so I'd feel that BRDs are the better, more tangible value and I'm not even that interested in BRDs.

Here's the problem "what I'd call the central feature." You can't use your opinion as a model for everyone else. So for you BRD might be great but for me I couldn't careless about mainstream movies and I'm willing to pay the premium for Xbox Live.

 

[bkilian]

That's not part of the cost of ownership, you don't have to buy BD movies, most people rent them, which is now $1/month more. How do you play online with XBL without the fee?

The cost of a 360, at least for me, was always higher than a sticker price. Things like Wi-fi, XBL, play-and-charge kits, etc. adds to the legitimate cost of ownership.

The cost of ownership of the 360 for me has been huge. It's the first console I've owned, and my Grandboss gave it to me as a thank you for something. Since then I've spent literally thousands of dollars on games and accessories I would never have bought if I didn't have a console. Just my Rock band and Rock band 2 purchases have added up to more than a 360Pro. Its like a never ending stream of money from my wallet to the gaming companies...

Why are people complaining about the cost of Live or the added BRD when the cost of the hardware is a tiny fraction of the money you'll spend on games and accessories over the life of your console?

Oh, and DrJay24, you don't have to play online. I've owned a 360 since launch, and only recently when my SortaNiece* insisted we start playing Rock Band with her did we start playing online. For those folks who like games like Mass Effect or JRPGs, or who don't like being sworn at by thirteen year olds with ridiculous thumb reflexes, or who just want a Media Center Extender, they can get all the functionality they want, including movie downloads, etc, for no extra cost.

Like buying BD discs, or games, or accessories, online play is a choice, and not a requirement.

And your $1 a month more for BD rentals is also misleading, since unless you already had a netflix subscription (which I don't) it's at a minimum $6 a month

(*) SortaNiece: My wife's ex-husband's brother's daughter.

 

[RobertR1]

(*) SortaNiece: My wife's ex-husband's brother's daughter.

wow! I don't even know where to begin a follow up question.....

 

[obonicus]

Here's the problem "what I'd call the central feature." You can't use your opinion as a model for everyone else. So for you BRD might be great but for me I couldn't careless about mainstream movies and I'm willing to pay the premium for Xbox Live.

Right, I never posed it as anything more than my opinion. We're just discussing opinions at this point. I don't even think the price is Live is a compelling argument to buy a PS3 at twice the price. But I own both consoles, so I see Live as a questionable value for what it gives over the PS3 while BD is comparatively real value.

 

[eastmen]

That's not part of the cost of ownership, you don't have to buy BD movies, most people rent them, which is now $1/month more. How do you play online with XBL without the fee?

The cost of a 360, at least for me, was always higher than a sticker price. Things like Wi-fi, XBL, play-and-charge kits, etc. adds to the legitimate cost of ownership.

you don't have to play online either. Many people don't.

Many people also don't need wi-fi . I can tell you though no one talks about the lack of high def cables for the ps3. Everyone likes to dismiss the hidden costs of the ps3 but love to point them out in the 360.

Why are people comparing BR prices to XBL ?

I dunno what your on about, but its ridiculous, two completely different things and totally not comparable.

Why bring up extra costs on anything. Once again no one brings up the fact taht the $400 and soon the $500 ps3 units don't come with high def cables. But everyone loves to point out that live costs more and the 360 controllers need batteries and a wifi dongle.

 

[makattack]

Why bring up extra costs on anything. Once again no one brings up the fact taht the $400 and soon the $500 ps3 units don't come with high def cables. But everyone loves to point out that live costs more and the 360 controllers need batteries and a wifi dongle.

Having just bought a 360 in Mid September, I actually like this aspect of the 360:

Ethernet network port: I prefer connecting over ethernet to my router, which is right next to the 360 vs. going wireless. I'd rather not have more wireless devices taking up an IP address, and like the choice of not having to pay for a wireless capability. Besides, they change standards somewhat frequently these days.

Includes component or HDMI cables depending on the version: I bought the 60GB model, so it only came with component cables, but because I had a cheap $10 HDMI cable on mailorder, I was still able to connect via the included component cables.

Controllers use AA Batteries: I use a lot of AA batteries in other devices, so I have a lot of rechargeable kind lying around. I much prefer using these with a slow charger I use (to maximize battery life) vs. a proprietary battery scheme. This saves me money in the long run.

 

[DrJay24]

Having just bought a 360 in Mid September, I actually like this aspect of the 360:

The PS3 has a Giga-bit port built in, and including a rechargeable battery is now a negative? Wow guys...

I can tell you though no one talks about the lack of high def cables for the ps3.

It has come up time and again for two years now, stop playing dumb.

you don't have to play online either

But if you want to you have to pay. If you want to watch BD you DO NOT have to buy them, see the difference yet?