TRios_Zen said:
The PS3 includes, at the same price as the Elite 360, a Blu-Ray player, Wi-Fi and free on-line play. So, I can only assume, that by level playing field, you really mean, Sony has to include more functionality than the 360 at a similar price to effectively compete? As that sounds to be your argument (please correct me if I'm wrong); shouldn't it really be the Sony fans tacit acknowledgment that they have the "inferior" machine? Seeming as it only started performing at high levels when the price was cut to match the 360, while including Blu-Ray and Wi-Fi that the Elite doesn't have? For the record, I don't think Sony has an inferior/superior machine, it has a different one. I just think the logic your trying to use to defend your position to be tenuous at best. |
that's a good point to bring up, and it needs to be addressed. how does one determine a superior machine? since there will always be rather significant differences between consoles, it seems to preclude ever being able to speak of such a thing as superiority. if one requires the consoles to be chiefly the same, then the notion of superiority loses its meaning. in order to avoid this quandary we need to be clear is how we define our terms. i think that in determining superiority it is relevant and important to consider what each respective manufacturer bothered to bring to the table in this gen. what i'm referring to is what comes in each box. sony thought it important to include bluray, wifi, etc...., and microsoft thought it best to include a headset or whatever they put in the box.
when one boils it down, at equal price points the public prefers what sony brings to the next gen table. this discussion overlooks objective notions of superiority in lieu of brute sales. i don't subscribe to this thinking, as i've always thought the ps3 was the best system. i was just trying to make people realize the implication made in saying the 360 needs to be cheaper and bundled out the ass to be competitive again.
art is the excrement of culture







