Demos are free, you don't need Live Gold for that. I have no Live Gold on my bedroom 360, but I can still download demos to it.
You don't own a PS3. Why?
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Demos are free, you don't need Live Gold for that. I have no Live Gold on my bedroom 360, but I can still download demos to it.
C'mon, the general consumer doesn't need Live Gold to enjoy all the games available, nor to download demos. You know that!
patsu said:
I think you missed my point
Sure but the Gold people subsidized the entire XBL operations. And the general consumers don't get all XBL services. Conversely, PSN people don't pay anything to use all the online services, but they don't get a say in demo. There are demoes on PSN though, just not for every game. On 360, you continue to pay every month/year. On PS3, it's flat fee (so far !). The former is not exactly cheap(er).
I think you missed my point
Not really. You pointed out that each person have their preferences, but it doesn't mean that there is no point in highlighting great, exclusive content. e.g. If someone loves to sing, then perhaps SingStar will be worth more to him/her. If there is no point in highlighting exclusive/unique games from consumer perspective, MS won't have to come up with Natal after the success of Wii and PS Eye.
So let compare version of 360 w/o the option of online multiplayer then.
Fair enough...you can't get around that low price point that Microsoft set. I think it is one of the best moves they did along with releasing first.
It depends on who spins it, the 360 is cheap at first sight, there is additions to the price and unlike the more expensive PS3 doesn´t offer as much.
1) Buy the more expensive console that offers:
- best and most wide ranged exclusive games
- enough downloadable content for anyone but theorycrafters and the cheap harddrive upgrade to support it
- more than enough demos
- best HiDef experience on the console market
- more free services than any console on the market
- keeps your PC usefull with the best multiplatform games and best digital service (steam)
2) Buy the cheaper console that offers:
- the 2nd best versions of multi platform games
- the most downloadable content available, though barely practical
- demos for every piece of downloable content
- a must have need for a backup plan if it fails
- SD DVD for that 90´s feel
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Best bulletin point ever lol...
This thread is getting bad.
edit: And the part about best exclusive games is so subjective that it really shouldn't be even said. I personally disagree with that, but I wouldn't use it as bulletin point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heya Josh,
Appologies if my post came across in any way insulting or a bit harsh. Maybe 'disturbed' was a bit much in the context that I ment it, but I wrote that post, while realising that Sony will make us pay 249 Euros (~$359 excluding VAT) for the new PSPgo, while you are getting it for $249. Meanwhile, I'm about to buy my first PSP (Modell 3004 Slim) for roughly that price. So while I'm here trying to justify spending the amount of money on an older PSP model that you will pay for the new PSPgo model, I'm reading topics like that the price is too high etc. This topic here with many hints to the PS3 price point just enforces it.
I guess my post and it coming from me, after I just showed pictures of me doing tours to the alps in my car in the general discussion forum, probably isn't the best showcase either. For what it's worth though, I understand the economic and social condition is quite different overthere than it is to here.
Despite that though, I can say for sure that launch prices of consoles overhere (PSone, PS2, PS3, even the X360 upper models) have been around what I'd say is a full weeks salary for most people as well.
If it's then not a matter of people really having more disposable income here in Europe, maybe it's more that we've been used to these prices since the last 15 years, while in the US, you've been used to paying half that up until the launch of the X360 at $399 and PS3 at $499/$599?
As joker454 said, tons of people bought iPhones for $600 overthere. The market might not be the same, but then, maybe the problem is, that people get used to what they pay for certain goods and see a problem if there's a sudden price increase. I suppose what I'm saying is - people expect the new BMW 335i to cost as much as the last one (or at least not significantly more) just as much as people expect to pay roughly the same for games with every new generation. I guess if console games would suddenly increase by 30% or more, I'd seriously consider finding a different hobby too - although I find an increase in software to be worse than having to pay more for hardware that ultimately is an investment that lasts for 5 to potentially 10 years. In fact, I'm very much against paying subscription fees too, even if it's a relatively low amount. I pay enough "subscription fees", starting with mobile phone, house, tax, health-cover, car insurrance etc... I'm happy if I can pay for more "one off" if it helps me reduce my regular monthly fees, which is why I'm not too impressed with Microsofts strategy with live.
I know you can always make the point that purely as a gaming machine, the X360 is a lot cheaper. If you look at how many people pay for a live subscription, a harddrive (isn't it mandatory for newer games anyway? - or at least if not that, an overpriced memorycard), you're right up in the ballpark of the PS3 entry price anyway. So really, how is the PS3 so much more expensive for people interested in purely in gaming? I'm sure if you factor in the memorycard or harddrive, the difference can't be that much.
Overhere, if you look at the arcade - it's 230 CHF (~$250). If you factor in the harddrive, it's another 156 CHF (~$170) so you're at ~$420 already. And that doesn't include the live subscription you're likely to be buying over the next 5 years... The PS3 is ~$500 or $520 as a bundle with just about any game (KZ2, LittleBigPlant, Fifa, GT5 etc). Is $80 that much of a difference? That amounts to not even a game (new release) overhere!
I guess I see the point that "yes - you can get the X360 for as cheap $199", but I think we both know that most people that buy this deal end up buying live subscription, a harddrive somewhere down the road. The people that get the best deal, pay more in the beginning and later less. The PS3 only gives that option (hate it or love it for that!).
Of course, you can say that considering the PS3 and X360 are more or less level in how much they end up costing the average consumer - why buy a slightly more expensive PS3 if you can get the X360 with more and better games? I guess there's not much I can say to that - it's subjective and I can't begrudge people going with the X360. It's certainly the better catch from that angle, to especially new people coming to gaming.
From the perspective of price though (to which I was responding purely), I really don't see a difference that justifies it being brought up in every topic that compares the two consoles. In fact, I think the X360 is as much more expensive than the PS3, it just hides it away nicely because they're offering a SKU with next to nothing (knowing damn well that 70% of those buyers will end up buying expensive accessories that they'll sooner or later need).
To be honest, I think the days of $299 for new consoles is over in the states. Consoles are evolving into more than just pure gaming machines and pack quite expensive technology in them (more so than 10 years ago). To be able to be competitive in the market and ensure cycles over roughly 5 to 7 years, they have to. Considering a $299 PSone lasted 5 years ('95 to 2000), the PS2 had to last from 2000 until 2006. I'm pretty sure the original plan for the PS3 to last at least until 2012 or even 2013 if not longer. Microsofts strong present and them lagging behind might change that strategy though. I fully expect the next Xbox and PS4 to be priced $399 or higher in the US.
I would love to play with you though. Sadly, I seem to be on the other part of the fence, being one of those that stick to one console of a given generation and already made my choice with the PS3. I'm sure Forza 3 is a great game to own and with the X360 being so cheap, there's not much to argue against it, but I don't have the room to hook up two consoles and to be honest, as great as Forza 3 may be, since I regularly go drive in the alps and the track, I've seriously gone off any of the "race simulators". To be really honest, I'm not even sure I might buy GT5 when it comes out for this reason. If I get it, probably as a platinum title to check it out for "good old times sake" and perhaps marvle at some of the cars I'll never drive in there. If Forza 3 were compatible with the Logitech wheels (I just can't play any sim racers without a good wheel), I'm sure I'd be more interested - given that this will probably never happen and I'd have to buy a new wheel entirey, seriously limits its appeal for me.
Appologies if my post came across in any way insulting or a bit harsh. Maybe 'disturbed' was a bit much in the context that I ment it, but I wrote that post, while realising that Sony will make us pay 249 Euros (~$359 excluding VAT) for the new PSPgo, while you are getting it for $249. Meanwhile, I'm about to buy my first PSP (Modell 3004 Slim) for roughly that price. So while I'm here trying to justify spending the amount of money on an older PSP model that you will pay for the new PSPgo model, I'm reading topics like that the price is too high etc. This topic here with many hints to the PS3 price point just enforces it.
I guess my post and it coming from me, after I just showed pictures of me doing tours to the alps in my car in the general discussion forum, probably isn't the best showcase either. For what it's worth though, I understand the economic and social condition is quite different overthere than it is to here.
Despite that though, I can say for sure that launch prices of consoles overhere (PSone, PS2, PS3, even the X360 upper models) have been around what I'd say is a full weeks salary for most people as well.
If it's then not a matter of people really having more disposable income here in Europe, maybe it's more that we've been used to these prices since the last 15 years, while in the US, you've been used to paying half that up until the launch of the X360 at $399 and PS3 at $499/$599?
As joker454 said, tons of people bought iPhones for $600 overthere. The market might not be the same, but then, maybe the problem is, that people get used to what they pay for certain goods and see a problem if there's a sudden price increase. I suppose what I'm saying is - people expect the new BMW 335i to cost as much as the last one (or at least not significantly more) just as much as people expect to pay roughly the same for games with every new generation. I guess if console games would suddenly increase by 30% or more, I'd seriously consider finding a different hobby too - although I find an increase in software to be worse than having to pay more for hardware that ultimately is an investment that lasts for 5 to potentially 10 years. In fact, I'm very much against paying subscription fees too, even if it's a relatively low amount. I pay enough "subscription fees", starting with mobile phone, house, tax, health-cover, car insurrance etc... I'm happy if I can pay for more "one off" if it helps me reduce my regular monthly fees, which is why I'm not too impressed with Microsofts strategy with live.
I know you can always make the point that purely as a gaming machine, the X360 is a lot cheaper. If you look at how many people pay for a live subscription, a harddrive (isn't it mandatory for newer games anyway? - or at least if not that, an overpriced memorycard), you're right up in the ballpark of the PS3 entry price anyway. So really, how is the PS3 so much more expensive for people interested in purely in gaming? I'm sure if you factor in the memorycard or harddrive, the difference can't be that much.
Overhere, if you look at the arcade - it's 230 CHF (~$250). If you factor in the harddrive, it's another 156 CHF (~$170) so you're at ~$420 already. And that doesn't include the live subscription you're likely to be buying over the next 5 years... The PS3 is ~$500 or $520 as a bundle with just about any game (KZ2, LittleBigPlant, Fifa, GT5 etc). Is $80 that much of a difference? That amounts to not even a game (new release) overhere!
I guess I see the point that "yes - you can get the X360 for as cheap $199", but I think we both know that most people that buy this deal end up buying live subscription, a harddrive somewhere down the road. The people that get the best deal, pay more in the beginning and later less. The PS3 only gives that option (hate it or love it for that!).
Of course, you can say that considering the PS3 and X360 are more or less level in how much they end up costing the average consumer - why buy a slightly more expensive PS3 if you can get the X360 with more and better games? I guess there's not much I can say to that - it's subjective and I can't begrudge people going with the X360. It's certainly the better catch from that angle, to especially new people coming to gaming.
From the perspective of price though (to which I was responding purely), I really don't see a difference that justifies it being brought up in every topic that compares the two consoles. In fact, I think the X360 is as much more expensive than the PS3, it just hides it away nicely because they're offering a SKU with next to nothing (knowing damn well that 70% of those buyers will end up buying expensive accessories that they'll sooner or later need).
To be honest, I think the days of $299 for new consoles is over in the states. Consoles are evolving into more than just pure gaming machines and pack quite expensive technology in them (more so than 10 years ago). To be able to be competitive in the market and ensure cycles over roughly 5 to 7 years, they have to. Considering a $299 PSone lasted 5 years ('95 to 2000), the PS2 had to last from 2000 until 2006. I'm pretty sure the original plan for the PS3 to last at least until 2012 or even 2013 if not longer. Microsofts strong present and them lagging behind might change that strategy though. I fully expect the next Xbox and PS4 to be priced $399 or higher in the US.
I would love to play with you though. Sadly, I seem to be on the other part of the fence, being one of those that stick to one console of a given generation and already made my choice with the PS3. I'm sure Forza 3 is a great game to own and with the X360 being so cheap, there's not much to argue against it, but I don't have the room to hook up two consoles and to be honest, as great as Forza 3 may be, since I regularly go drive in the alps and the track, I've seriously gone off any of the "race simulators". To be really honest, I'm not even sure I might buy GT5 when it comes out for this reason. If I get it, probably as a platinum title to check it out for "good old times sake" and perhaps marvle at some of the cars I'll never drive in there. If Forza 3 were compatible with the Logitech wheels (I just can't play any sim racers without a good wheel), I'm sure I'd be more interested - given that this will probably never happen and I'd have to buy a new wheel entirey, seriously limits its appeal for me.
No love for Magic
There's a lot more, that's true, but that's not altogether a good thing. PSN titles, though fewer, are on average higher-quality games. There are stinkers, sure, especially early-on, but the 'velvet rope' comparison is fairly apt. Outside of the 'Summer' games, most of the XBLA stuff is pretty forgettable. Magic's an example. It's a gimped version of a card game, which is why I can't extend love to it. I was never a MtG fan, or CCGs in general, but it's hard to mention a WotC cash-in in the same breath as games that actually have unique premises or gameplay. Again, like Braid. There's a reason why Microsoft is pushing for bigger games like Shadow Complex, they want to get over the impression (that they created) that XBLA is cheap.
I would dare to say that pretty much everything about the preferred console platform is subjective, price and more importantly, value for money is not objective in any way.
.
Which is why I personally think and have suggested earlier that each of these threads would be more interesting if the people it addresses post their reasons for not owning a console and everyone leaves it at that. We can then always create a separate discussion thread picking on those reasons. That would keep things much cleaner.
I could not agree more, but it quickly becomes muddy when someone makes an argument on something that Console X is lacking, though it´s not true.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
The post by joker, which you quotet contained only objective things though.
The items he listed are objective, the value assigned to them isn't. For someone brought up on PS2, is the 360 controller more appealing than the DS3? Are demos for online content important for those people who don't even hook their machines to the internet? If you don't read B3D, you don't even know that most multiplat releases are inferior on PS3. Hell, if you read ordinary gaming sites you might even have the opposite impression. $299 vs. $399 is entirely objective, if we're talking about Joe Schmo who only plays videogames, which I think is the typical case anyway. But here we are, and we're talking about the market again. It's not about the market, it's about individual anecdotes.
I mean, I had buyers remorse when I bought my PS3, but in 2008 I bought more PS2 games than 360 games and most of the best games I played that year were PS2 games. So the fact that my PS3 came with a PS2 in it made it a terrific value. That clearly doesn't apply to everyone.
I have to agree with Joker here. As with most people in the industry the thing you hear the most from non industry friends is what console should I buy, (followed closely by my PC is broken can you fix it).
Last generation it was easy. PS2, PS2, PS2. This generation it's ended up being 360, Wii, 360.
While there are obviously some great games on Ps3, the people I know who are interested in those games have and were always going to buy a PS3 and are unlikely to ask advice.
Cost and cross platform game performance are easily the biggest factors in recommending a console, and the PS3 is just not recommendable at this stage on those criteria.
On a side note I find it amusing that people who argue that the "true" cost of a 360 is equal to or greater than the PS3 are the first people to argue that PS3 sales are good considering the price. Sorry you can't have it both ways.
Last generation it was easy. PS2, PS2, PS2. This generation it's ended up being 360, Wii, 360.
While there are obviously some great games on Ps3, the people I know who are interested in those games have and were always going to buy a PS3 and are unlikely to ask advice.
Cost and cross platform game performance are easily the biggest factors in recommending a console, and the PS3 is just not recommendable at this stage on those criteria.
On a side note I find it amusing that people who argue that the "true" cost of a 360 is equal to or greater than the PS3 are the first people to argue that PS3 sales are good considering the price. Sorry you can't have it both ways.
Like I said, when you define the criteria solely to the 360's strengths the decision looks easy. Of course that just shows your bias. You could easily start looking at other criteria where the 360 is weaker.
Are you interested in HD movies?
Are you concerned with the sound of your media components?
Are you concerned with reliability?
Are you going to play online? Do you mind additional cost?
Do you game on a PC too?
True, but to be fair there's the underlying assumption that the software library of both consoles is largely equal, which certainly wasn't the case for the PS2.
It's a joke to compare the PS3 with the iphone.
The iphone is a product that has won the mindshare of the mass market. It's very desireable. The PS3 absolutely does not have this mindshare factor on it's side. The Wii has won that war.
Last gen the PS2 certainly did. Thus, even when the competition was dropping prices left and right, the PS2 shrugged it all off and continued to sell even at a higher price point. That comes down to desireability.
The iphone did launch at a high price. While they had good initial sales, even apple realized they had to drop the price and did so quickly by a large amount. A couple of years later and we're looking at 16gb iphones for $199 vs the 4GB launch unit at $499 and 8GB at $599. Not only that but they are also improved units over previous gen. So you're looking at highly desireable product that has come down in price and has been upgraded over previous generations vs a product that has not won over the mass market and has pitiful price drops based on a very high cost of entry and feature REDUCTIONS over a 3 year period (vs 2 year for the iphone) . Is it really a shock why the iphone has sky rocketed while the PS3 has been, well, doing what it's doing?
The PS3 should have distinguished itself from the pack on the strenght of it's gaming. This is something that the PS1 and PS2 did and clearly it was the right strategy. For more details on this, you can just reread Josh's bullet points.
My favorite is the people who bring out the list wars of features. No shit it needs to have features available that atleast try to justify it's price range! What should they have done? Make a 360 clone, have a poor online infrastructure, less than par ports over and over and then ask the consumer to had over $600 for it? Just be glad you have the list wars to argue with.
The iphone is a product that has won the mindshare of the mass market. It's very desireable. The PS3 absolutely does not have this mindshare factor on it's side. The Wii has won that war.
Last gen the PS2 certainly did. Thus, even when the competition was dropping prices left and right, the PS2 shrugged it all off and continued to sell even at a higher price point. That comes down to desireability.
The iphone did launch at a high price. While they had good initial sales, even apple realized they had to drop the price and did so quickly by a large amount. A couple of years later and we're looking at 16gb iphones for $199 vs the 4GB launch unit at $499 and 8GB at $599. Not only that but they are also improved units over previous gen. So you're looking at highly desireable product that has come down in price and has been upgraded over previous generations vs a product that has not won over the mass market and has pitiful price drops based on a very high cost of entry and feature REDUCTIONS over a 3 year period (vs 2 year for the iphone) . Is it really a shock why the iphone has sky rocketed while the PS3 has been, well, doing what it's doing?
The PS3 should have distinguished itself from the pack on the strenght of it's gaming. This is something that the PS1 and PS2 did and clearly it was the right strategy. For more details on this, you can just reread Josh's bullet points.
My favorite is the people who bring out the list wars of features. No shit it needs to have features available that atleast try to justify it's price range! What should they have done? Make a 360 clone, have a poor online infrastructure, less than par ports over and over and then ask the consumer to had over $600 for it? Just be glad you have the list wars to argue with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Poll
