| crumas2 said: You're kidding, right? You're trying to compare a console with several times the performance of the Wii, the ability to be used as a DVD player, media center capable, supporting HD games, the ability to have a mass storage device (hard drive), etc., and saying that the Wii is a good value for about the same price? Nintendo could probably still make money on the machine at $150, yet they keep the price at $250. I have no problem with that, but I'm not going to pretend MS is bad because they charge a small fee for online services not even available on Nintendo's online system, while Nintendo is good because they don't charge for a bare-bones online system while charging much more for the base unit than they need to in order to turn a profit. The bottom line is that MS makes a small profit or just about breaks even on each 360 sold, while Nintendo make a very large profit on each Wii sold. So tell me again, which company is providing a good value for the price of the base console? The people at Nintendo are reporting massive profits while the MS gaming division reports a loss due in part to how little margin they add into their console prices, and you think Nintendo is doing you a favor. I'm starting to think you would give Nintendo a pass if they mugged you in an alley.
|
Let's...let's try this again. My guess is you're not reading what I write, but responding helps pass the time.
Okay, the original statement you made is that complaining about paying an additional $50/year (on top of the base unit price) for every year you use the system is "amusing" when not complaining "about the fact that the Wii has stayed at its original price of $250." This is a poor counter-argument because you're comparing an ongoing subscription fee to a unit price, i.e. two completely different things, instead of comparing unit price to unit price (or total price to total price, etc.). To put it in other terms, you're comparing a complete car to an optional service plan. Why?
The part about tech features has already been answered, and you've said nothing to make me reconsider that position.
Finally, your last paragraph is a complete mess. Two points: 1) What does a company's profits have to do with the consumer's value? Before responding, consider carefully what "value" to a consumer means. A small pearl of wisdom to start you off: it does not mean "moar stuff!"Nor does "Company X is making a profit!" have anything to do with it.
2) I invite you to point out any evidence that the underlined is true. Here is my post history. If you're correct, you should have no problem finding evidence to support your statement somewhere in my roughly 5,600 posts. In fact, it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes, right? I eagerly await your response.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: The base unit of the Xbox 360 offers more than the Wii. For starters the arcade system can hold saves for a couple of games (not uploaded) in the system with 256 MB port, so you can enjoy the system before the upgrade to 20, 60 or 120 GB HD's. |
I'm quite aware. But then again, that's something both systems share...
After you try the month of Xbox Live gold, it's worth paying for annually. Who cares if you pay $200 in four years for an annual service? (Noticed I said service...not a system) That is fairly cheap. For the quality of updates you get on live, I don't see where all the complaining is coming from. Xbox 360 games value are worth more because of the fact that the replay value for them with Xbox Live is above par from what you get on the PS3 or the Wii. It can only get better.
That's fine that you feel that way. Personally, I don't think it's worth it, but I've never bashed folks who do. Look back at the post you're quoting: the reason I brought it up isn't "lol you're getting ripped off," it's that he's comparing a service (as you rightly point out) to a system.
You're getting more for your money based on output with the Xbox 360 arcade. Paying $200 for an HD system is a steal.
Fair enough. I happen to disagree, since the Wii has many more things that I want, and I feel that my gaming PC is a usperior replacement, but since value is pretty subjective (that's another hint, crumas...) I can't argue: I can hardly deny that there are millions worldwide who feel as you do. Again, my point isn't to bash one system or argue that one is objectively better than the rest: it was to point out that crumas' rebuttal was entirely mis-aimed.
