By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - For non-360 owners only ...

Reasonable on 26 January 2009
crumas2 said:
Reasonable said:

...

1) With 360 you have to pay for live, and while it isn't much it adds up.  With PS3 you don't have to buy anything you don't want too.  Over four years, if you're playing COD4, etc online then with 360 you've added around $160 dollars to the console's cost vs a PS3.  One service is free with optional costs, the other demands a cost, that is a real difference and hardly bogus.  I suspect many people are acting more on principle than because it's a lot of money, but that's their right.

...

 

While I certainly wouldn't want to inadvertantly drop $160 from my pocket, saying that $160 over 4 years is a lot of money to people who were willing to pay $400-$600 for a PS3 and $60 per game seems a bit of a stretch.

That isn't to say that the argument is invalid, just a little tenuous.  It's like someone saying they won't pay $40 a year for online gaming, but are willing to pay $25-$35 per Blu-ray movie just because they have more video detail and better sound than an upscaled DVD.  Sometimes it depends on user preference, but I often get the feeling it has more to do with product loyalty than anything else.

 

I didn't say it was cost but principle for many, in my view (certainly it is for me.  The cost is nothing but coming from PC the principle just seems off.  I know Live is very good, still better than PSN even, but you get my drift).  The cost element was an extrapolation as follows (more fully):

PS3 & Free PSN = $600 (I'm UK so I'll take your top figure) and 4 years later its still $600

360 & Live Gold = $400 (Elite, so roughly similar specs, right) and 4 years later its now $ 560 total including Live (of course after 5 years the PS3 has actually cost you less, particularly if you've bought seperate WiFi for 360, although to be fair I'd add the cost of a headset to PS3 is you want to make them exactly the same, and being generous I won't include cost of a seperate BR player for 360 as you don't need it for games.

Now assuming PSN cost the same as Live then the situation evens out, but it doesn't.  The simple fact is that if I play COD4 online over 4 years (cause I really love it!) then the additional cost on a PS3 is $0.  On a 360 the additional cost is around $160.  That's not tenuous, now is it?

Of course, these days, even $160 dollars over 4 years probably seems like a lot to some.

 

Final point, the BR to online argument I didn't get.  They have nothing in common IMHO.  If I want free online for MP gaming and to watch BR movies those are two unrelated desires except I can do both on a PS3.  Just because I don't want to pay online doesn't mean its strange I'll buy a BR movie.  I might as well argue if you're going to use a 360 or a PS3 you're strange for playing them on an SD TV (as many apparently do).

 

 

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
crumas2 on 26 January 2009
Reasonable said:

...

Now assuming PSN cost the same as Live then the situation evens out, but it doesn't.  The simple fact is that if I play COD4 online over 4 years (cause I really love it!) then the additional cost on a PS3 is $0.  On a 360 the additional cost is around $160.  That's not tenuous, now is it?

Of course, these days, even $160 dollars over 4 years probably seems like a lot to some.

Final point, the BR to online argument I didn't get.  They have nothing in common IMHO.  If I want free online for MP gaming and to watch BR movies those are two unrelated desires except I can do both on a PS3.  Just because I don't want to pay online doesn't mean its strange I'll buy a BR movie.  I might as well argue if you're going to use a 360 or a PS3 you're strange for playing them on an SD TV (as many apparently do).

 

The Blu-ray to online argument was designed to point out that some people will quibble over an extra $40-50 per year cost for unlimited online play on XBoxLive (which is for all relevant 360 games, not just one), but those same individuals will not balk at spending $25-$35 to re-buy movies on Blu-ray because they look and sound better than an already good copy on DVD.  Assuming those individuals get good online deals on Blu-ray movies ($20 per movie) and buy 5 over the course of a year, then they have spend $100 on new copies of something they already have.

I'm not talking about the people who insist on buying only the Blu-ray movies they don't currently own on DVD... I'm refering to those who are willing to shell out the money to replace perfectly good movies for "better" versions.  I find the argument that those people will not "waste" $40 on online play out of "principle" to be a tenuous one.

Yes, there are those who will not replace older movies with Blu-ray movies (I am one of them), just as there are people who will walk back to the store after realizing they have received too much in change (I've done that as well).  I just believe that some people who argue that they would never pay for XBoxLive online as a matter of principle are actually saying that simply as a point of argument.  When the PS3 came out, I found the concept of paying $600 for a gaming console to be rediculous... it's primarily a game console after all, but I never claimed that I wouldn't buy one for that price as a matter of principle.

Anyway, I believe I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think a lot of people are as reasonable as you when it comes to this specific argument.  Then again, you *are* "reasonable".

 

 



saxophonehero on 26 January 2009
windbane said:
saxophonehero said:
no and nobody who owns a PS3 would say yes because the bundle had no games that were truly unique. really i rather spend $120 on resistance 2 and american idol than to buy a new system for two similar games.

 

i'd suggest rock band 2 over american idol, but yeah =)


he gave a crappy game like Lips so i had to be fair and say american idol.

BoXeR-zAiN on 27 January 2009

No 360 lacks something.



BoXer-zAiN

windbane on 27 January 2009
saxophonehero said:
windbane said:
saxophonehero said:
no and nobody who owns a PS3 would say yes because the bundle had no games that were truly unique. really i rather spend $120 on resistance 2 and american idol than to buy a new system for two similar games.

 

i'd suggest rock band 2 over american idol, but yeah =)

 

he gave a crappy game like Lips so i had to be fair and say american idol.

ah, i got ya.  some people like american idol so I wasn't sure, heh.  Singstar is better, I hear.

 



Around the Network
nightsurge on 27 January 2009
madskillz said:

If MS came out with a holiday bundle with - Gears 2, Lips AND 13 months of Xbox LIVE Gold for free - and a 60gb HD - for $325, would you 'jump in?'

You would also get the 3-year warranty on RROD and the standard year on everything else.

Why? Why not?

Why is this posted in the PS3 forum and not the "Gaming" forum or MS forum?  You are basically asking everyone who has a PS3 if they would buy a very similar system for only a few different exclusives.... that doesn't make much sense at all.  Just like most 360 users wouldn't buy a PS3 bundled with Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 at $425 because they don't need/want it......

I think since you never specified that this was for people that already own an HD console or people without any, it should be moved to the appropriate section.



Rainbird on 27 January 2009
fastyxx said:
As someone who owns both PS3 and 360, I think there is really not a good reason to own both. So I agree with most of you on here that it's probably best NOT to but a 360 if you already have a PS3.

However, I WILL say that the three big reasons on here to not buy a 360 are pretty bogus:

1. Don't wanna pay for live. Whatever. Sony milks me for $35 a year in other ways (Qore, Home knickknacks, etc.), and Live is totally worth it. If you don't think so, you're not using it, or at least not fully.

2. Loudness. Unless you are playing with the sound really low and with the console right next to you, who notices it? Occasionally in a cutscene or load screen I will notice the noise, but it's really not anything to cry about.

3. Red ring. Had one. It sucked for a little while. If you get a new 360 right now, the odds are good you'll have no issues. So unless you're buying a used one from 2006, get over it.

Both are good consoles. But if you have a PS3 there's no reason to buy a 360. And if you have a 360 there's no reason to buy a PS3. Unless there is an exclusive you just HAVE to play. Like Left 4 Dead or Uncharted, which are both awesome.

1. I don't think paying for Live is worth it for a number of reasons. I don't play a lot of online multiplayer, maybe a couple of times a month. I don't know anyone with a 360, where as I know a bunch of people with PS3s, so chatting thorugh Live would be kind of irrelevant. I hate subscription-based fees, primarily stuff like Live and MMOs where it is up to yourself to make the most of what you pay.

3. RRoD is probably more symbolic of all the things that can go wrong with your 360, when people talk about it today. Personally, the failure rate still seems too high for me to want to jump in.



nightsurge on 27 January 2009

^RRoD failure rate is non-existant on new Jasper models and was reduced to the industry accepted standard of 5% with the Falcon revision. No more RRoD worries for anyone just now jumping in.

Now, if you have more friends on PS3, that is a great reason to stay on it. It varies by area, as in my area everyone has 360's and Wii's, and hardly anyone owns a PS3, so for me LIVE is very worth it, especially for the games I play (CoD4/5 both have much better online play on 360).



Torillian on 29 January 2009

Probably wouldn't buy it. Very few games interest me (course I don't really keep track of what's on the 360, so that may be the reason), I don't like the controller, and I don't have space by my TV for a third console.



...