PS3 Slim and 360 Elite at same $299 price makes 360 look primitive.

[dougsdad0629]

Onyxmeth said:

dougsdad0629 said:

Onyxmeth said:

dougsdad0629 said:

Microsoft should be extremely worried that their system is the same price now as the PS3.  Now that the price is a non-factor (who actually buys the 360 arcade unit?) for each company's fully featured console, the 360 looks absolutely primitive by comparison.  The PS3 plays Blu-ray...the 360 DVD.  PS3 has built in Wi-Fi...the 360 not.  The PS3 has free online...the 360 makes you pay.  The PS3 has a slot loading disc drive...the 360 an antiquated tray.  The PS3 is reliable...the 360 not so much.  I'm sure other people can think of more examples.  The point is that MS should not be looking to match the PS3's price.  They should be looking to beat it considering what each console offers.  The Elite 360 should sell at $249 or even $199.

Notice I'm not talking about the games here.  "Good" or "bad" games are a purely subjective matter.

If I combine a microwave oven and a 360 into one package and keep the price at $300, the 360 will essentially be saving you $30-50 on a microwave. That's value. Unfortunately, not everyone gives a shit about having a microwave and a game console all in one, and that's what you don't seem to comprehend. Value only has value so long as it adds a feature the prospective buyer cares about. What you don't seem to understand is that the value of the 360 is in that final sentence you can't seem to wrap your head around, the games. Quality is subjective, but general appeal is not and appeal comes from sales.

What I'd like you to do is this. Do this exact same scenario with the Wii. Take games out of the equation (since it's all subjective) and just judge "value". You'll see even more value on the PS3's end, and yet none of that will propel it past the Wii outside of a possible initial spike over the next few weeks. Sometimes you have to understand that what people see appealing in a console cannot always be presented in a feature comparison chart. If you make all your purchases off of value charts then congrats. Most people don't.

The Wii offers a unique interface which partially justifies its price.  The PS3 and 360 have the same standard controller interface.

So what you're saying is, something that cannot be directly compared as objective value is somehow affecting the sales of a particular console over another. Jeez, I kinda think that was the point I was making. The 360 and the PS3 are not the same console. They do not do 100% of the same things. They have subjective criteria that go into why people purchase each, the same as the Wii. This is why you can't feature compare them and then come up with an answer. These are not DVD players. These are not computers. These are individual consoles that play different games and offer different features. If somebody wants to play Halo 3 with their friends, the value comparison to have that on a PS3 is a few billion dollars so Sony can buy it off of Microsoft. We each had our individual reasons to buy our consoles, but I'll be damned if mine was based on some side-by-side features chart.

Mine was purely based on features.  I gladly paid $500 for my launch 20 gig PS3.  I wanted hi-def games and hi-def movies.  There was/is only one place to get both, the PS3.  Buying a 360 for $300-$400 at the time plus a $1000 Blu-ray player just sounded stupid.