I'd love it if it included good games, definitely.

This is not pointed towards everyone, but this thread has a lot of hate all over it. Get over yourselves, seriously

You know, with a OT that implies a bunch of people (PS3 owners) have made a wrong choice and would be better of getting a 360, and posts from 360 fanboys then stating said PS3 owners are just dumb for not falling over and saying they'd love to buy a 360 when the initial responses list simple, clear reasons why they'd not be interested, it's a given you're going to get a rapid loss of manners.

In my experience most everyone losses their temper at the equivilant of someone repeatedly asking why they didn't buy something else, particularly when some of the way's in which the question are couched are insultaing and/or arrogant to boot.

No. I don't see a reason for me to own a 360. I mean, they have good games, and their JRPG offerings are interesting to me, but I guess having a PS3 negates that. I can't see me getting much use out of a 360 since alot of the games are multiplat (which I would get for PS3) and I like the exclusives on the PS3 way more than the exclusives on 360. I would get a wii before getting a 360.

Not with that Particular Bundle I wouldn't because I don't want to play Gears 2 or Lips. If you were to change the games to say Star Ocean 4 and either Infinite Undiscovery or Tales of Vesperia then it would be a definate buy for me. Howevever I will be getting the Xbox360 once Star Ocean 4 comes out since ive pre ordered the game. Im hoping for a price drop before then because I already own A 60GB PS3.

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.

I've never bought an episode of Qore, nor have I ever paid for superficial DLC (anything in home, paid LBP costumes, paid themes). the fundamental difference is that Microsoft forces you to pay just to play the games you paid for online. That has always been my problem, because online play has historically been free unless it's an mmorpg. Period. In this case it's not the actual money, because $40 a year isn't much, it's the principle. Microsoft's Windows Live service tried to charge users in a similar approach to Xbox Live, but failed miserably and MS was forced to provide the service for free. There is no good reason why Microsoft can't make online play free, while retaining certain Gold only perks.

I agree both are good, but I'd argue with those 'bogus' arguements.

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.

2) Loudness - while the volume of the 360 isn't so bad when playing games, it's awful for watching movies.  I would imagine that when PS3 owners complain about this they are considering this in their thinking, which is fair enough and hardly bogus - the 360 is loud, the PS3 is quieter, who say's you have to consider loud acceptable?

 3) RROD - while I'm sure 360 is now a lot more reliable it wasn't, and without definate statistics many people will, fairly I would argue, view the 360 as still having a higher liklihood of failure than the PS3.  Again, I don't see how this is bogus?  Its a known fact that an association of poor reliability sticks.  In fact MS is lucky, due to demographics of many videogamers the 360 was tarnished a lot less than most other appliances would have been.  In the end it's fair enough people would see the unreliable reputation as a negative.

But I do agree both are good consoles, each with plenty of strenghs to outweigh the cons.

$325 does not even begin to cut it for me. I'm console agnostic, and don't play favorites in terms of platforms, but I can't justify shelling out that kind of money for a console with inferior playback tech, a hideously loud DVD drive, no next-gen BluRay, no wireless, no free online, a problematic record of quality control, no option to upgrade the harddrive, no option to diversify from expensive Microsoft proprietary accessories, and comparatively few must-buy exclusives.

At $199, the 360 would justify its price tag - a budget console with budget specs.

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.