Squilliam said:
gavind5uk said: Well while i agree that the PS & PS2 were the less powerful systems against N64 & XBOX respectively, and i agree they were more future proofed, i.e. CD for PS much more flexable, bigger games, able to play music CDs, PS2 play films without silly hacks etc. I dont think the same can be said for 360.
In this instance technology wise is the more powerful (subjective i know, but for the sake of the thread's argument)/expensive system is the more future proofed. If BD takes off like its looking like so far, and the PS3 is the best machine for stereoscopics (again subjective at this point), then who knows.
My only guess is the outcome of this console war wont be overly comparible with the last couple of generations. |
Wait, Sony is going to make money selling Playstation brand headache pills? Wow, pharmacuticals are a good money spinner!
Though you do realise that cheap as chips is probably the number 1 feature of a future proof console? 
|
Thats why i said technology wise, price wise i agree the 360 is great value for money, tbh i think both systems are good value for what your getting respectively. But i suppose there is two parts to future proofing, the console itself for getting new users all the time, and then keeping the current crop of users happy once they have it - both equally important.