The hodge fallout from Sony's Value Comparison chart *spawned*

Status
Not open for further replies.
specwarGP2 said:
Why is it ridiculous? The chart that eastmen brought up has already set the metric for determining value - RETAIL pricing, nothing else. Feature for feature, PS3 clearly has more value.
Click to expand...

It is ridiculous because if you want to be objective about it, the only way to get FEATURE FOR FEATURE parity, regardless if you own a X360 or a PS3 is to buy the other console. But such a chart would be a bit more boring to make.

And feature for feature "comparisons" with different products used as substitutes is also percieved value not real value.


You're talking about perceived value. You can argue that for whatever reason you perceive silver to have more value than gold, but when you actually go out and buy an ounce of each you'll see that gold clearly has more $$ value.
Click to expand...

Of course im talking about percieved value, its fairly obious because you cannot take your PS3 and sell your bluray player feature (or any other feature). Its allways about percieved value when it comes to products like this.

The numbers that you provided are also pervieved values, the chart prices various features of the consoles to retail pricing of different products that offer similar\same features. That is pervieced value. Its not objective, its not the same products, its just a subjective value metric set by whoever made the chart.

If I buy a X360 and a bluray player i still dont have the PS3 experience. Get it? Your chart, its using percieved value as well.
what value does the chart have set for being able to play X360 games or PS3 games, or home?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You lose live, but online gaming is free on PSN.

You loose netflix for your 360 only, you do not lose the ability to rent DVDs and Blu-Rays. You can also stream your netflix through your PS3 Webbrowser if I'm not mistaken, and you still have the ability to stream those films to your PC.

Not to mention with the PS3 you gain access to Hulu.com on your bigscreen TV, which is free and features very few commercials.

Are we done comparing yet and trying to justify why Sony is so evil? Seriously, there are trade offs either way, and this is stupid, for every single strength you post, I can counter it with another feature on another console. This is absolutely pointless.
Click to expand...

Its free but you get what you pay for.

Everytime i play sf2 hd on my ps3 and i get a message from a friend it freezes my system

Some things are worth paying for and a quality online service is one of them. I can't get live on my ps3 adn thus I loose that value.

The browser streaming with netflix is a mess as i have tried to do it before.

I could just buy a $100 bluray drive for my pc and rip the blurays to my pc server and stream them to my 360.


There are ways around everything and a way to get more out of every system. But if your buying a system to play games on , then the $200 360 offers that at $200 less than the cheapest ps3.

If i had $300 to buy a system and games. I couldn't get a ps3 but i could get a 360 with 5 free arcade games , a sonic retail game and then have $100 left over for another game or two. Its the same if i had $400 to spend. I could buy a ps3 for $400 or a 360 arcade with 5 free arcade games a sonic retail game and then rock band 2 the complete bundle. I would still have $30 bucks or so left over for a 20 gig hardrive and 3 months of live.

Value is every where and to a certian amount of people out there a bluray player isn't a value.
 
rofl, in true form eastmen, you reply once again. It's not worth a reply, however, your experience =/= everyone else. PSN performs just as well as live for me, see how that works?

Ostepop - There is a difference between perceived value and actual monetery value. If you can compare dollar amounts, that is value, and while it may not be an object of value to the consumer, it is still a 'value' package if it costs more to get the components individually.

You're talking about two different things as if they were the same, when they are not.
 
Ostepop said:
If I buy a X360 and a bluray player i still dont have the PS3 experience. Get it? Your chart, its using percieved value as well.
what value does the chart have set for being able to play X360 games or PS3 games, or home?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, where does the chart say that you need to buy a BD player for 360 to equal BD playback functionality in PS3? Also, retail pricing is not subjective. You may argue that the xbox wifi adapter isn't worth $100, but at the end of the day if you want to buy one from best buy its still $100.

Once again this chart is ONLY comparing the retail price of particular features available on both platforms that are comparable to each other. Trying to put value on things such as "the playstation experience" is not within the scope of this chart and irrelevant IMO.
 
tha_con said:
rofl, in true form eastmen, you reply once again. It's not worth a reply, however, your experience =/= everyone else. PSN performs just as well as live for me, see how that works?

Ostepop - There is a difference between perceived value and actual monetery value. If you can compare dollar amounts, that is value, and while it may not be an object of value to the consumer, it is still a 'value' package if it costs more to get the components individually.

You're talking about two different things as if they were the same, when they are not.
Click to expand...

and of course if you've read my posts you would have seen where i have said multiple times that everyone values something else and there are hidden costs with all platforms .

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts
 
eastmen said:
and of course if you've read my posts you would have seen where i have said multiple times that everyone values something else and there are hidden costs with all platforms .

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts
Click to expand...

Again, I will not take this topic down the shitter because you want to have a pissing contest. Throw away comments do not justify the length and quantity of posts in which you try to show how x console is better value, etc. I was proving a point, you were on a crusade. I'm out of this discussion as of now.


---BREAK---

I think the largest impact of no price drop will most certainly be in sales, but also in perception. People will begin to slowly forget about the PS3 in general, and be content with what they own. If I go into a store to buy a console, and I am undecided, there is a better chance of me picking up a cheaper console and being content with that.

Let us not forget there are not many multi-console owners out there, and even fewer who own all 3. I think it will take a lot of great marketing to really bring people back to the PS3, but when that happens, the price will have to be lower. Until there is a $249-$299 PS3, it will continue to be the red headed step child.

When it does hit that price point, however, Sony needs to have a lot of fresh new content ready to hit the market with a marketing campaign to match. Be they carbon copy crank out sequels, they need to have both at the same time to really wash away the stigma of "too expensive and has no games".
 
DrJay24 said:
You could mod you 360 and never pay for games again, but we are trying to keep the conversation sane and legal.
Click to expand...

Not to derail this further, but this gets me going... There's "fair use" vs. "illegal" -- what he described is fair-use: archiving the physical media he owns to a file server. What you describe is piracy: never pay for games.

True, it doesn't take much to go into piracy if you're storing those files, but again... that's up to the person to break the law or not.

I personally archive all my media: CD's and DVD's onto a home/self-built NAS with 4 terabytes of storage (and mirrored/duplicated for redundancy -- so I only have 2 TB storage). Whenever I buy a movie or album, it goes straight into my computer, and the physical media immediate goes into a storage box never to be seen again. Most days now, I actually just go straight to downloading content from emusic.com & amazon unboxed. Although I dislike DRM on the amazon stuff, it's ok since I can store it on my HDDs or just re-download it from their servers. What is onerous is they require their own PC/Windows based player for off-line storage. Since all my home systems are linux based, I've just been streaming everything instead. Saves me server storage space.
 
Tap In said:
The more important point missed by the article that Sony is trying to promote is more people who buy the Arcade unit will ONLY open the box and start playing games at $199 and not require, nor desire all those other add ons.
Click to expand...

One good question would be : how many have no clue at all ?
For example ,i know people pretty pissed of,because they felt quickly the urge to buy a HDD because the new OS swallowedmost of the memory card .
 
makattack said:
Not to derail this further, but this gets me going... There's "fair use" vs. "illegal" -- what he described is fair-use: archiving the physical media he owns to a file server. What you describe is piracy: never pay for games.

True, it doesn't take much to go into piracy if you're storing those files, but again... that's up to the person to break the law or not.

I personally archive all my media: CD's and DVD's onto a home/self-built NAS with 4 terabytes of storage (and mirrored/duplicated for redundancy -- so I only have 2 TB storage). Whenever I buy a movie or album, it goes straight into my computer, and the physical media immediate goes into a storage box never to be seen again. Most days now, I actually just go straight to downloading content from emusic.com & amazon unboxed. Although I dislike DRM on the amazon stuff, it's ok since I can store it on my HDDs or just re-download it from their servers. What is onerous is they require their own PC/Windows based player for off-line storage. Since all my home systems are linux based, I've just been streaming everything instead. Saves me server storage space.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the legality, and DrJay's choice of 'illegal' was unfortunate. I agree with his use of 'sane', though. I don't think streaming full-quality ripped Blu-Ray discs via extender as a way to match the PS3's Blu-Ray capability to be 'sane'.
 
specwarGP2 said:
Why is it ridiculous? The chart that eastmen brought up has already set the metric for determining value - RETAIL pricing, nothing else. Feature for feature, PS3 clearly has more value.
Click to expand...

Several people on this thread keep parroting this, as if the PS3 has a superset of the features of the 360. But it doesn't. It's a different feature set. The two consoles just can't be compared on the basis of added-value in the way that the Sony chart wants to compare them.

If we assign $200 value (or whatever) to the BD playback on the PS3, then do we assign a value to Netflix playback (say, the $99 of a Roku box)?

Is the $99 Wifi adapter more valuable than the PS3's wifi since it is 802.11A compatible? Is Gigabit Ethernet worth more money than 100 Mbit Ethernet?

Are two USB slots worth less than 3 USB slots?

Which details are below our threshold of importance? Media Extender? IR remote? Rumble? Play & charge? Removable batteries? Accelerometers? VGA compatibility? Both consoles are unable to offer this entire list, and some of these features are added costs and some not.
 
tha_con said:
I think the largest impact of no price drop will most certainly be in sales, but also in perception. People will begin to slowly forget about the PS3 in general, and be content with what they own. If I go into a store to buy a console, and I am undecided, there is a better chance of me picking up a cheaper console and being content with that.

Let us not forget there are not many multi-console owners out there, and even fewer who own all 3. I think it will take a lot of great marketing to really bring people back to the PS3, but when that happens, the price will have to be lower. Until there is a $249-$299 PS3, it will continue to be the red headed step child.

When it does hit that price point, however, Sony needs to have a lot of fresh new content ready to hit the market with a marketing campaign to match. Be they carbon copy crank out sequels, they need to have both at the same time to really wash away the stigma of "too expensive and has no games".
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I think the PS3 was geared to be much more of a media center than the other two consoles. This is indicated by the blu-ray drive, the standard hard-drive and the standard hdmi output together with a build quality (read silent and reliable) that is second to none.
Many gamers that don´t want a media center or don´t have a HD TV will likely find the price too high and may be turned off. Some may wait for the price to come down but they will not wait forever.

Anyway I think it may be wise of Sony to save some subsidies to when it makes more of an impact. It will be really interesting to see when the next price drop will occur. I predict there will exist a < $300 SKU this fall, but I dare not guess how it will get there or what the SKU will look like.
 
One thing crossed my mind regarding the Arcade and online gaming, Is it possible to patch the games ?, Almost every game i own with online capabilities did get a patch or DLC how does the Arcade sku handle that without any bigger amount of storage ?.

That made me think that the Arcade isn't really suitable without addons for online gaming and will sony ever try to compete in that segment ? do they really need a sub $300 pricetag.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
habbe said:
One thing crossed my mind regarding the Arcade and online gaming, Is it possible to patch the games ?, Almost every game i own with online capabilities did get a patch or DLC how does the Arcade sku handle that without any bigger amount of storage ?.

That made me think that the Arcade isn't really suitable without addons for online gaming and will sony ever try to compete in that segment ? do they really need a sub $300 pricetag.
Click to expand...

yes. patches are limited in size. The several we had DL'ed prior to adding an HDD on the Arcade unit, worked just fine

Game Add-ons and DLC, different story.

Edit:
a large portion of gamers (as _phil_ points out above) aren't even aware and/or don't care.

My step son had no idea that Madden had a patch available until i set him up a silver account and got it for him. he could really not have cared less and it's his favorite game. ;)

They still live in the "offline" world and are happy as pigs in slop.

count on Ms's next versions all having ample amounts of built in (yet cost effective) Storage for lots of online content. this is a transitional generation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well with all this extra content in downloadable form (like the Gears2 map pack which is included in the price/box when you buy the game) the Arcade doesn't seem to be the optimal SKU, makes me wonder why MS would like to split up there userbase, And why Sony did go the complete other directions when they discontinued the 20gig SKU (which was lacking wifi).

My impression is that Sony is totally focusing on the online part with home and bigger storage SKU:s and so on, Makes me wonder if they ever will try to compete in the offline segment (With a smaller storage device such as flash or harddrive whatever is cheapest and removed wifi and other "not must" have functionality),
 
habbe said:
Well with all this extra content in downloadable form (like the Gears2 map pack which is included in the price/box when you buy the game) the Arcade doesn't seem to be the optimal SKU, makes me wonder why MS would like to split up there userbase,
Click to expand...

This isn't splitting the userbase. You can add a harddrive to the Core and Arcade units (20gig, 60gig or 120gig). Splitting the userbase would be having the Core/Arcade units unable to add the drives available that the other systems use. Since all the systems are exactly the same (except for color/trim) you can add any part from any console (controllers, harddisk, memcard, component/HDMI, visioncam, etc...).

This is a modular design...buy what you need/want/can afford, add more later (if you choose).

A "split" design would require you to go out and buy an entirely new console with the features you want.
 
Zassk said:
Several people on this thread keep parroting this, as if the PS3 has a superset of the features of the 360. But it doesn't. It's a different feature set. The two consoles just can't be compared on the basis of added-value in the way that the Sony chart wants to compare them.

If we assign $200 value (or whatever) to the BD playback on the PS3, then do we assign a value to Netflix playback (say, the $99 of a Roku box)?

Is the $99 Wifi adapter more valuable than the PS3's wifi since it is 802.11A compatible? Is Gigabit Ethernet worth more money than 100 Mbit Ethernet?

Are two USB slots worth less than 3 USB slots?

Which details are below our threshold of importance? Media Extender? IR remote? Rumble? Play & charge? Removable batteries? Accelerometers? VGA compatibility? Both consoles are unable to offer this entire list, and some of these features are added costs and some not.
Click to expand...

The only reason this chart exists is because MS has put an actual dollar value on these popular accessories. It would be fair to compare USB functionality if you could actually purchase them at retail, you cannot so therefore no comparison can be made. Similarly, you cannot purchase BD functionality so therefore no price is given in the chart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top