| mitsuhide said: @Parokki: Well dont be surprised if MS rushes the next xbox aswell just to get a slight lead which didnt help that much this gen anyway. @your mother: PS3 vs. X360-PS3 is better value for money. X360 vs. Wii-Doesnt take a genius to relise its the Wii. PS3 vs. Wii-Depends on 2 things 1.The amount of cash you have and 2.What games you want to play. |
No, you misunderstood.
PWNAGE1_FTW said:
"You get what you pay for."
This statement normally means "if you buy something cheap, it won't last long, but if you pay a bit more you get quality that lasts."
What I am saying is his statement does not correlate to consoles - well, for this generation at least.
A fully decked out 360 will most likely break down, which means you are paying more, but you aren't getting the quality.
A PS3 costs a lot, but won't likely break down ever, which matches the quality = price argument.
A Wii costs the least yet will suffer far fewer failuers compared to the 360, and will likely match the PS3 in reliability. Therefore, you don't pay much, but you still get the quality.
Therefore, you don't get the reliability you should get with a 360 but you get more than satisfactory reliability with a Wii yet you don't need to pay that much to obtain that reliability.
The PS3? Yeah, you get what you pay for!
