Looking at the brochure, 20gb PS3 vs 360 core, 60gb PS3 VS 360 20gb.
Of course they did.
Microsoft getting ready for legal action..
- Thread starter MasterDisaster
- Start date
Looking at the brochure, 20gb PS3 vs 360 core, 60gb PS3 VS 360 20gb.
Of course they did.Bigus Dickus
Regular
Please don't play the idiot.
The compared it to the core system with additional separate purchases for HDD, controller, etc. Had they compared it to the premium system, the price would have been $50 lower.
The compared it to the core system with additional separate purchases for HDD, controller, etc. Had they compared it to the premium system, the price would have been $50 lower.
Save the comment for yourself. The premium 360 (20gb) is indeed compared with the 60gb PS3 version - the official price of $399 is used, with $0 for the cost of the HDD and $0 for the wireless controller (they didn't even ask for an equivalent 60GB HDD cost).
Bigus Dickus
Regular
We must be talking about two different documents.
I'm referring to the "Sony Fact Sheet" comparing the two consoles... the one in the first post of this thread, the one that started this discussion, and the one that prompted all the talk about unethical and misleading marketing, etc.
What are you talking about?
I'm referring to the "Sony Fact Sheet" comparing the two consoles... the one in the first post of this thread, the one that started this discussion, and the one that prompted all the talk about unethical and misleading marketing, etc.
What are you talking about?
The one in the OP is an edited form of that same document. I recall several scans (GAF, I don't have links) of the original document and it has both 360 SKU's compared to the PS3. This is so confusing now that I don't know what to believe, which document is real which one isn't?
Bigus Dickus
Regular
If that is the case, then I stand corrected. This thread made it seem as if the one in the OP was the original, with the ones referenced later being "revisions" that were less misleading.
So which way was it?
If every company out there were to send other companies to court over silliness like this, the world would start spinning the other way.
What should Sony have done after that Major Nelson "article" came up?? There are so many examples out there from all sorts of companies in all sorts of markets... Heck, just think about all the "comparisons" Intel and AMD or Nvidia and ATI construct against each other!!
What should Sony have done after that Major Nelson "article" came up?? There are so many examples out there from all sorts of companies in all sorts of markets... Heck, just think about all the "comparisons" Intel and AMD or Nvidia and ATI construct against each other!!
scooby_dooby
Legend
Here is the original document, and it has only the core in the comparison
http://www.engadget.com/videos/Next-Gen_Comparison FINAL.doc
My take on this comparison is PS3 will require at least a $50 component or HDMI cable, XBLive Gold is not comparable to Sony's online service, as far as I know 3rd party's may still charge for online gaming, and the wireless controller is not required because they should've been comparing the premium.
Take all that into account:
PS3 - $550
X360 - $600
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, they can, just like they can on Live.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Only MMO's, and they do not require buying the gold membership.
You expect anything outside of MMOs to cost on the playstation network?
How did PS2 online fare in that department? The online titles I know of were free to play, but then again I don't know many online titles!
scooby_dooby
Legend
I think we'll see what happens...I don't think has Sony explicitly confirmed all games will be free, the big question mark is still 3rd party games.
In US and EU, as far as I know, the only pay titles were MMOs (and there was only 1-2 of those).
In JP there was a lot of pay titles -- a lot of publishers had a $5 per month deal for their games, iirc. Haven't heard of that happening for PS3 though, so it seems JP might be handled like NA/EU now (free).
I don't see any reason to believe we'll start to see publishers charging for PS3's online.
Outside of cynicism for Sony, what legitimate reason is there to assume we'll see them charge? They'd get hammered by the press (Sony and the 3rd parties) if they tried. If there was some precedence, I might be inclined to humor the possibility, but as it stands, I don't think there is reason to believe we'll see charges for anything outside of extra content (microtransactions type of stuff) and MMO subscriptions.
I wouldn't pay anything more than $5.80 USD for my HDMI cable...I don't know where you're getting yours. But you should have went here:
monoprice.com (3 ft. HDMI male-to-male gold plated ferrite cores)
A 6 footer (same type) cost 50 cents more
I'd personally go with shorter because digital signals tend to degrade over physical distance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, I'd say that's pretty fair -- most people will be buying their cables from stores like best buy or gamestop... they do overcharge big time for them.
A small amount of the savvy will find sites like monoprice that have cheap cables, but most won't. Add to that the component cables for PS3 won't be generic cables like the ones monoprice has, so they best you can do is get a third party kind (which is fine, and thanks to the PS2 compatibility shouldn't be too expensive - $15-30). $50 didn't seem too horrible if we're rounding here and there.
Scooby's calculations are probably pretty close to how I'd do it too, to get more or less equal functionality (we may differ on our online views, but I'm not sure I'd even bother including it, since I know I wouldn't really use it much -- it isn't really worth paying for, and if I have to, I won't shed a tear at not being able to play online... unless we're talking an MMO or something): we both ended up with 360 costing a little more overall, but not too much. For what they offer, I don't think either console is all that bad of a deal at this point =p
Well, isn't that the same as
?
Really, interpreting and interpretation is never going to give good results or discussions. Same as religious discussion, really.
I interpreted the Major Nelson "article" as plain wrong on many fronts, pretty much like the Sony propaganda was plain wrong on many fronts. Saying that one is "less wrong" than the other because it was just selectively interpretative and misleading is not right at all.
But hey, that's my interpretation
scooby_dooby
Legend
It's not cynisism towards Sony as much as it is publishers in general.
If given the option, I believe EA wil lmost certasinly charge for online play, hell they're charging for every other thing under the sun, they certainly have shown no commitment to not overcharging gamers.
I dunno, it just seems to me to be a distinct lack of clarification here from Sony's end.
Similar threads
