Quantcast
The Best Value Console

Forums - Sony Discussion - The Best Value Console

Chairman-Mao said:
PS3 is the best value obviously. You get DVD/Blu-ray player, built in wifi and the online is free. For 360 wifi is extra and online costs money. The wii has no DVD player. So its pretty clear VALUE wise the PS3 is the best.

The 360 has been better value for me, cos it's the console I use the most by far. You can't just look at hardware spec sheets. It's how you end up using the consoles that matters. The 360 outperforms the PS3 in most cross-platform games and without silly forced installs and other annoyances, and the online service is much better and is therefore more than worth the £26 I've just paid to renew my 12 month subscription. I don't use the Blu-Ray player in my PS3 (other than to play games obviously) or the wireless, so that makes no difference to me. It's only used to play exclusives (at the moment at least), so it's essentially just the same as the 360 but with a smaller games catalogue and worse online (although it's free). As for my Wii, well that poor bugger hasn't been turned on for a long time and if I could go back in time, I'd keep the £180 I spent on it in my wallet.



Around the Network

ah, we already clarified that the PS3 was the best value for him, and not necessarily everybody else.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Well I do agree except that you don't need a Wii Remote recharge pack. The article seems fine otherwise as they're clearly talking about the value of the hardware.



 

Its simple

You got kids that are under 12 get a Wii its the best value.

You like watching loads of movies and playing games get a PS3 its the best value

You like gaming and are not bothered about movies then get an Xbox 360 its the best value.

Circumstance people....its all down to circumstance.



With console value it has to be the PS3 really.... No not saying its the "Better" console (getting annoyed with that stupid fanboy shit) but really it cant be argued when comparing features.



Around the Network

ah the impartial opinion of a PS3 fan site, next week, which console has better games? (from 360ftw.com)



Vergis said:
With console value it has to be the PS3 really.... No not saying its the "Better" console (getting annoyed with that stupid fanboy shit) but really it cant be argued when comparing features.


Actually, it can be argued, as different people would value different features. For this household, movie playback is irrelevant. We have a couple of perfectly good DVD players, and we're not willing to pay the premium price over DVD to get a BR disk. So the value of Sony's forced Blu-Ray to us is $0. However, we also have games from all 3 of the prior-gen systems. Thus, backwards compatibility is a desired feature. As we already have the prior systems, there is no additional financial cost to us, however, we do have a critical cost that is only in the PS2-3 issue- system space. Our switch boxes are full. By getting a PS3, we would have to choose to not have something else hooked up. That's not a price we're willing to pay, so even at $0, it's just not valuable to us.

Now, if you want to look only at paper, and say that you need everything that is shoehorned into a system, you can get a different story. One of the powers of competition is the ability to choose what is the best value for each on an individual basis. If you don't need Blu-ray, wireless, motion, etc, then don't factor it. At that point, it becomes a very cloudy picture as to which is truely the best value...

-dunno001

-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...