Microsoft getting ready for legal action..
- Thread starter MasterDisaster
- Start date
The factsheet merely tells you what you need to add to the 360 to get the equivalent or near equivalent of a PS3. It is not even slander since the information in the chart isn't false. It's up to the consumer to decide if they wnat all the extra functionality the PS3 comes with as standard. What ground does MS have to sue Sony?
Require; Verb; to impose need or occasion for; make necessary or indispensable.
What is "required" on the Xbox360 to play a game? Technically nothing but a memory card and the games. That chart is reading like a direct comparison of how much the user will need to play a game, this is evident by the addition of no costs to the Wii which showed the true Bias in the trash, err excuse me "Fact" sheet, so the Playstation and Wii dont require anything else to do what they do yet the Xbox360 requires, as in it needs these to function:
controllers,
a 20gb HDD,
a 1 year subscription to an Online service,
and a HD DVD-Drive.
In short its Sony telling people what they need to use the consoles and in terms of the Xbox360 its total crap.
How can that go over your head?
Lord Darkblade
Newcomer
From what I can see this is a "What we offer and how much it would cost for the competitor to equal our offering" sheet.
Thus required is a valid word since to achieve the same as a PS3 you need to add those things onto the XBox... if it was "to play game" then its wrong however if its to level the playing field then it seems like a valid comparison.
The Wii gets nothing added as: (afaik)
a) It has no hdd addon
b) It has no hi-def drive addon
c) It doesn't require an additional wireless controller
d) It doesn't need a wi-fi addon
So it is a fair comparison, you can't match the PS3 with the Wii functionality, you can however with the X360, ergo its fair to compare... perhaps not informative but it is a fair comparison of feature support.
Thus required is a valid word since to achieve the same as a PS3 you need to add those things onto the XBox... if it was "to play game" then its wrong however if its to level the playing field then it seems like a valid comparison.
The Wii gets nothing added as: (afaik)
a) It has no hdd addon
b) It has no hi-def drive addon
c) It doesn't require an additional wireless controller
d) It doesn't need a wi-fi addon
So it is a fair comparison, you can't match the PS3 with the Wii functionality, you can however with the X360, ergo its fair to compare... perhaps not informative but it is a fair comparison of feature support.
There's a Sony response here. They say it was a 'required to match PS3's abilities' reference sheet, but if that's how they intended it, they worded it very poorly, and didn't make any note that Wii couldn't be upgraded to PS3 abilties. They also messed up the pricing by saying what you'd need to upgrade the Core XB360. Start with the full XB360 pack, with wireless controller and HDD, and you've saved $50. Obviously it's a case of trying to make the competition look as expensive as possible.
Companies shouldn't release these kinds of reference sheets or any comparisons other than perhaps side-by-side 'specs' from the rival's own PR departments. There's 3rd parties who's job it is to do comparisons, and hopefully with less bias.
Companies shouldn't release these kinds of reference sheets or any comparisons other than perhaps side-by-side 'specs' from the rival's own PR departments. There's 3rd parties who's job it is to do comparisons, and hopefully with less bias.
I thought the PS3 does more than just play games. The chart does not explicity say to play games does it?
To get the 360 to approximate the PS3's functionality you require the add-ons. The chart simply shows you the value comparison, consumers still have their sovereignty. Is freedom of information not allowed anymore?
Frankly tactics like this from Sony were the least I expected and to be honest I think on that sheet they've been slightly conservative, they could easily have added a $250 charge for 5 years of XBL. The omission of the Wii simply tells you just what Sony thinks of Nintendo's threat in the states, i.e. it poses none, which is folly in my opinion. Furthermore the 360 and PS3 are essentially going for the same market (18-35 male), Wii is not directly targeted at that group.
I think people are getting upset over this is unnecessary and I can't quite understand it. What's so wrong with what they've done? Have they lied?
The thing Sony did here was very clearly answer the question that retailers are going to get when asked why pay 499 for a PS3 when the 360 costs 299. Because the 360 has all these optional features separately and they are priced, Sony could make this comparison card. Same for comparing the PS3 to the Wii.
This sounds like yet again a completely overblown bit of media spin. It's all about the word require here, which could be misinterpreted, and obviously is being (willfully) misinterpreted. If the full caption had had more space it would have read 'required to match the PS3's 20gb version's functionality) then we wouldn't have had this discussion.
This sounds like yet again a completely overblown bit of media spin. It's all about the word require here, which could be misinterpreted, and obviously is being (willfully) misinterpreted. If the full caption had had more space it would have read 'required to match the PS3's 20gb version's functionality) then we wouldn't have had this discussion.
Since the add ons are not required i would say yes...
But they are required if you want anywhere near the same functionality that Sony is marketing their console to have "out of the box"...
They may be not required for the sole purpouse of gaming, but the chart didn't single out gaming as the only function in this context now did they?
There's no willful misinterpretation about it. As I'm sure you know I'm a great one for giving people the benefit of the doubt or recognising when a comment is being misunderstood or misrepresented, but this is definitely not one of those cases. The caption reads 'requires users to buy' with no qualification at all, meaning to everyone who reads it (and who knows no better), the XB360 requires these extras. The only possible 'get out clause' would be...
...but that falls over when you take into account Sony could have sized this table however they wanted! If they needed a larger box to fit in a better explanation, why not make that row larger in the table? Why not add a little line above the table explaining that 'in order to attain the same level of features as a PS3, you would need to spend...'? Why not show the cost of the full rather than Core XB360, which is what the users wanting that level of features are going to buy?
Grab a copy of the table, and change the contents of that box to To match PS3’s features users also must buy: It increases the table by one line, without changing any of the rest of the formatting or breaking the table or subsequent tables. Layout is no excuse.
Everything about the presentation and choice of words and options in that first table is FUD. FUD is fear, uncertainty and doubt. By creating a table where they 'meant to say to match the features of our console' but presented it as saying 'must be bought on top of the original box purchase', they create uncertainty as to the full cost of XB360.
And unlike PR comments from interviews, documents like these can be worked and reworked and reviewed to make sure they say exactly what you want them to, so there's no leeway for oversights that completely change the meaning of the document. If they meant 'to match PS3's features' then why didn't they write that? Certainly not a matter of layout. And certainly not a matter of oversight unless they're an incompetant company when it comes to reviewing public documentation.
I see nothing wrong with those charts. Unless they are missing something or incorrectly labeling MS product prices incorrectly.
The PS3 comes with the ability to play HD movies/media. It comes with a wireless controller and free online service.
MS does have a few things to note though. They have a controller in there, so it's not exactly $50 difference as the user gets a controller which would bring that comparison down.
MS has an online service which is more mature and probably has more features than Sony's. So, some of the cost there can go down.
But the big items that bring the price up are the Hard Disc drive $100 and HD-DVD drive $199. That is an additional $300, compared to the $500 for the Sony machine.
Try to argue that to get the equivalent functionality of the PS3 (20gb) with the XBOX 360 core.
If you compare the premium, you will probably get the same results as PS3 has built-in wi-fi, XBox 360 requires a $99 purchase.
Speng.
The PS3 comes with the ability to play HD movies/media. It comes with a wireless controller and free online service.
MS does have a few things to note though. They have a controller in there, so it's not exactly $50 difference as the user gets a controller which would bring that comparison down.
MS has an online service which is more mature and probably has more features than Sony's. So, some of the cost there can go down.
But the big items that bring the price up are the Hard Disc drive $100 and HD-DVD drive $199. That is an additional $300, compared to the $500 for the Sony machine.
Try to argue that to get the equivalent functionality of the PS3 (20gb) with the XBOX 360 core.
If you compare the premium, you will probably get the same results as PS3 has built-in wi-fi, XBox 360 requires a $99 purchase.
Speng.
And were was that writen on the fact sheet?...
So you do see somthing wrong.
Let me put it this way: imagine if MS came out with a chart detailing what all you'd have to add to the PS3 to get a 360. If they included $200 to $300 for a Media Center Extender, don't you think that's more than a little misleading however factually correct it is?
My bad, I didn't look at the word document before hand but was playing devils advocat. Now after seeing the doc, the information not only ius incorrect, it's also primitive and I doubt it's from any marketing department within Sony. At the very least, they should at least get someone with a proper MS Word education to make such a 'fact sheet'.
The only thing of note I can think of is how annoying it is to read blogs at times (and other low-end online journalism)... The part where Engadget mentions MS is going to take legal action against Sony is rather cute. Where Engadget got that from who knows. It's not likely MS is going to actually take legal action.
I don't really see what's the big deal... Sure it's dumb PR... but it isn't like Sony was stating incorrect prices or anything factually wrong when taken in the correct (PR) context -- to match PS3 feature wise you'd more or less need all those things -- I'm sure everyone here already did a quick comparison in their head long ago (it didn't matter then, and it still doesn't really matter now). Certainly not worth a 3 page thread!
For what you get hardware/platform wise, PS3 is likely the best value of the next gen consoles, by a fair bit -- whether you want all the stuff or not is a different story. The comparison didn't seem all that off depending on how you look at it -- feature wise it's rather valid... but realistically not all of that will matter to a consumer -- it's kind of a consumers job to figure out what does matter. I'm certainly not going to get uptight because a company isn't necessarily putting the competitions product in the best light -- that isn't really their job. If MS thinks it's wrong, they should come up with their own price comparison (I wouldn't be surprised if one did show up on Major Nelson's site within a week!).
I guess I don't really put much faith in the PR sides of any company... so it isn't exactly disappointing or frustrating to see this type of thing. It doesn't affect me so it doesn't really matter.
I don't really see what's the big deal... Sure it's dumb PR... but it isn't like Sony was stating incorrect prices or anything factually wrong when taken in the correct (PR) context -- to match PS3 feature wise you'd more or less need all those things -- I'm sure everyone here already did a quick comparison in their head long ago (it didn't matter then, and it still doesn't really matter now). Certainly not worth a 3 page thread!
For what you get hardware/platform wise, PS3 is likely the best value of the next gen consoles, by a fair bit -- whether you want all the stuff or not is a different story. The comparison didn't seem all that off depending on how you look at it -- feature wise it's rather valid... but realistically not all of that will matter to a consumer -- it's kind of a consumers job to figure out what does matter. I'm certainly not going to get uptight because a company isn't necessarily putting the competitions product in the best light -- that isn't really their job. If MS thinks it's wrong, they should come up with their own price comparison (I wouldn't be surprised if one did show up on Major Nelson's site within a week!).
I guess I don't really put much faith in the PR sides of any company... so it isn't exactly disappointing or frustrating to see this type of thing. It doesn't affect me so it doesn't really matter.
Where is this word document? I didn't see any link to it. Kind of curious now!
From what I saw about the chart it didn't seem all that disingenuous as far as lame PR goes (at least when taken in the "to match PS3's features you need this stuff on the 360" context).
Second link in the OP.
But without that context it is disingenuous, and that context wasn't provided...
Similar threads
