Microsoft: “Everybody Knows” PS3 “Isn’t as Good of an Entertainment Console” as Xbox 360

[Mr Puggsly]

platformmaster918 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

platformmaster918 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

platformmaster918 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

platformmaster918 said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:
Microsoft probably has created a better multimedia environment.

That being said, it's games that matter. Not Netflix, not Redbox, not ESPN, not YouTube.

Just give me a disc drive, a CPU, some RAM and processors, and wrap it all up in plastic, metal, and glass. Support it with awesome games. All the other applications and multimedia functions are just gravy.

I don't get how people can say that.  One can play blu-rays and support 7.1 surround, the other can't.  One lets you access almost all the apps of the other one FREE while the other one charges $60 for you to do so every year.  Which one sounds more like the entertainment hub now?

Consider this, you have to be a Gold member to get access to all the entertainment apps on the 360. However, no amount of money is gonna get you access to those same apps on PS3. So even a little extra to use those apps, the 360 still offers more multimedia options.

The high quality sound and picture of Bluray! Well players start at about $50 now. Bluray players seem to do a great job at supporting the rental industry, because I don't know many people actually buying Bluray movies.

Crackle (rarely), Netflix, youtube, etc. are available on PS3.  Sure it can do ESPN I guess but I can watch highlights on my computer (same applies for the other ones too I guess).  My point is not really worth $60 in my estimation, but whatever.  Also high quality sound and Bluray are things you can't get on 360 no matter what you pay so same logic applies and my bluray collection says that does matter.

No, you can get high quality picture and sound on Xbox. It just doesn't play Bluray.

If you really care about Bluray, I'd recommend a Bluray player. But for streaming media, 360 is one of the best devices. Especially compared to other home consoles.

People aren't just paying $60 to access multimedia. Most people pay for online gaming and also take advantage of other online features. For example, I pay the fee to play games, but others and I often use my account for streaming media as well.

Now lets stop pretending $60 is a lot of money for the amount of entertainment the 360 offers. Between online gaming, streaming media, and game discounts, Gold is well worth having. I spent like $60 last on drinks and food last night, that was just a single night of entertainment.

If a person bought a PS3 and a 360 in 06 they probably thought the 360 was $200 cheaper.  Instead they've ended up paying $420 just to play online.  Also PS3 streams stuff just fine.  $60 is the price of a full new retail game.  Also you made my point people are paying to access online gaming, which is free on PS3.  If you think cross game chat (which I've never actually seen anyone use and probably wouldn't myself since I'm normally talking to people in game when do play online and want to be immersed in SP games) is worth the price of a game a year then fine but I don't.

Oh boy... you're gonna keep arguing moneY? You aren't considering the games. My favorite games to play online aren't on the PS3. Hence, I payed extra to play the games I enjoy. I don't want settle with crap on PS3 because its free to play.

Its actually less than $420 because it became $60 just a few years ago. But that doesn't sound like a lot of money for 7 years of entertainment.

Spin it all you want, but the 360 is actually one of my cheapest entertainment expenses that I get a lot of value from. It doesn't matter if I can save money just playing my PS3 online. The problem is I don't care for what PS3 offers so its not worth my time even for free.

oh well why didn't you just say so.  If you really enjoy the 360 exclusives more than that's a good enough reason to prefer it.  Still though you would think you would rather have free online and play those exclusives.  Oh well guess it's nice to have disposable income I wouldn't play online on PS3 if it cost $60 a year.  I only pay for plus because it offers me, as a primarily SP guy (local MP when I do play it) a lot of great experiences (even though those damn Europeans get a lot more awesome games free it's still well worth it).

Disposable income is nice indeed. But you don't need a lot of disposable income to pay for Xbox Live. Especially if you shop around. I never paid more than $40 for an annual subscription.

I have PS Plus, but I rarely care for the games being offered. For someone or a family with a tight budget, I think its awesome. I won't argue PS3 gives you more bang for your buck. But I rather spend a little more on what I prefer.