Price advantage means paying less then something else.
Value for money is a ratio between the price and value compare to other product.

So you can say that the Xbox arcade at 199$ has a price advantage while you can also say that the PS3 is a better value for money at 299$. The problem is that the journalist didnt used the right terms

It doesn't force you to buy those at all.

A games console at $199 has a price advantage over a console that's $299.

I find that global price assessments are invalid in the console war...

The reality is that price is dependent on what you want...

So, if you want a straight up console to just play games your best price console may be much different then someone who wants to play blu-ray movies as well, or someone that wants to buy more then one console for their home or someone that has wired network availability over wireless, or maybe you only like Mario games, or you want to take advantage of a wireless N network, or you want twitter/facebook, or you refuse to pay to play online, or maybe you don't even want to be online...

All your wants gets listed and then you need to figure out what manufacturers can deliver. Once you do that then, you can figure out who provides what you want for the cheapest total cost of ownership.

Theres a major difference in your example and what we are discussing. A car without tire cannot work, while the xbox arcade can work even if you dont purchase all the other thing. A good example would be to compare a car that is manual and doesnt have a/c to a car full equip. One would have a price advantage while the other can be a better value for money depending on your needs. We have the same opinion in which the PS3 is a better value for money, but the XBox arcade does have a price advantage.

Exactly, value for money depends greatly on your needs, and can be different from consumer to consumer.

Its $299 versus market leader Wii at $199, and alternative U.S leader XBOX 360 at $199

still at a disadvantage, despite the extra features