Moving this one out of the Gears of War destroys 360 thread, since it' s way offtopic, there and it' s something I think would be fun to discuss witout ruining their thread.

--- 8<-- Moved messages --- 8<--

Eddie_the_hated wrote:

-60 gig PS3
-" Real" 1080p HDTV
-1080p tested HDMI

$1300-$1900

Or, on the opposite price end of the spectrum:

-Premium 360
-21inch UXGA (1600x1200) CRT
-360 VGA Cable

$525

Did I mention that the 21inch UXGA tube monitor has a marginally higher resolution than the best HDTV on the market???

KongRudi wrote:

If you absolutely MUST take advantage of the maximum standards on your PS3 home entertainment system (i.e. 1080P), I' m sure you would prefer the same on your 360.. :)

Then it gets more like this:

525$ Your price:
+ 300$ - 6 year Live subscription
+ 120$ - Wifi+Wireless controllerpack
+ 200$ - HD-DVD Drive
(oops.. now you too need HDMI-cable and better TV to take advantage of HD-DVD' s max resolution, that means + (1900$-600$=1200$, then we take away the 300$ your VGA-cable and TV-set for 360=900$))

1325-1925$ <= for your 360 with your prices..
And the PS3 owners still got plenty features, like SACD, Linux, and 40GB more then 360.. :P

The PS3 isn' t more expensive than 360, it just does more. :)

mastachefbkw wrote:

No dumb ass, you' ve just listed pointless shit that sony threw in their console to force you to buy it instead of having an option. For example HD DVD, Wifi, Wireless controller, and live subscriptions are not required. Instead of buying a video game console, you buy an over priced DVD player. PS3 is a piece of shit, we had this discussion months ago, sit down and shut up

--- 8<-- End of moved messages --- 8<--

Read the posts before you start calling people names, it will make you look smarter, besides if I' m wrong I might just be misinformed instead of dumb.

You do not have to own a 1080p TV for playing games on PS3 either, you can still get cheap 720p/1080i sets and play the games in your TV' s maximum resolution.

Live subscriptions ain' t needed on 360 true, but if you intend to have online play on your 360 games for 6 years, you need to subscibe to Live.
Atleast that' s what they told me in the store last time I came over a game I wanted for that platform, that you had to subscribe on a service in order to play against other people online.

Sure, Sony forces you to buy Bluray forinstance, if you want the PS3 you get the hardware in it.
You' ll still have use of it, that means that no developers have to worry about people only having 7GB-drives (DVD).

360 does not require you to pay for Live, however you will still pay full price for your game even if it' s multiplayer-mode turns useless, but I' m sure it' s nice to have the option to buy it again.
While on PS3 your multiplayer-mode in the game will still work, since their online is free, regardless if you intend to use it or not.

Sony might force you to buy some unwanted hardware, but you' ll have use for it when you buy it..

Same with 360, Live subscriptions aren' t necessary, but you' ll be able to make use of it when you buy it.

I don' t think PS3 is expensive compared to the 360, atleast.. It' s just different ways of gaining money from the consumers.

PS3 is kind of cheap considering it packs a pretty powerful console AND a Blu-ray player.
But was the Blu-ray player necessary in the first place? I' m not sure about that.
Without the Blu-ray player the PS3 would' ve had a much better price.
I don' t think it' s fun paying for live but it' s kind of cheap. And I think Sony will compensate with something else.
A famous economist once said that " NOTHING IS FREE" . You always pay for it in some way or the other. I think he got the Nobel price or something.

I mean we' ve said it before but, as a standalone games machine a premium 360 (with a wireless controller) even with live subscriptions seems much better value than a PS3.

But if you want a high def movie player you' re kinda gambling either way. Premium 360 + HDDVD is just as expensive if not more than a PS3 + BluRay, but I' m not placing bets yet. The Playstation name alone might carry BR through, betamax didn' t have that. It' s quite devious really.

Imo, sure PS3 does more, but in the process of multi-tasking it may not do certain tasks that well. (eg mobile phones with cameras etc).

Yer, spot on choupolo, it all depends on what your after, then equasion has different meanings.

...i can' t believe anyone would actually create a topic replying to mastaisuckmicrosoftcock....

...that looser is by far the biggest uneducated piece-of-shit M$ fanboy on this whole forum...

Well, Sony decided the product that they wanted to sell, and they' re charging a reasonable price for it. Same with microsoft. It' s the individual consumers that decide if it' s worth it. " Best value" is really a matter of individual preference.
There' s nothing unfair about either one' s strategy.

These are electronics products, not hamburgers. You can' t expect any company to make you a console with only the stuff you plan to use.

Who cares how much they cost? It doesn' t affect our buying decisions, we are smart enough to buy the consoles that support the games we like. The reason the price point matters is because many people don' t knwo what they are buying and hundreds of dollards is a big difference on the sticker price.

...that looser is by far the biggest uneducated piece-of-shit M$ fanboy on this whole forum...

fuck he took my title?

You' re not a fanboy, you just have bad taste

I should have clarified. I' m not directly comparing hardware on the consoles (IE built in WiFi vs. WiFi Adapter Perhipheral) I' m comparing both high-end models straight out of the box.

+ 120$ - Wifi+Wireless controllerpack

WiFi isn' t required. WiFi is finnicky and expensive. Hardline is cheaper, more reliable, & more effective anyways. I won' t even be using my PS3' s WiFi online.

I didn' t include a 2nd controller in my comparison of the PS3, neither should you.

+ 200$ - HD-DVD Drive
(oops.. now you too need HDMI-cable and better TV to take advantage of HD-DVD' s max resolution,

Because now you suddenly can' t run 1080p via VGA? You also don' t need a " better" TV either. 1200p IS better than 1080p. You don' t need to be a spec whore to figure that out.
I only listed HDMI for the PS3 because I have never seen an official VGA lead for the PS2. All I' ve seen is component PS2 cables, the only official analog HD-cable for the PS3. So like I said, roughly $125 for an HD setup

You do not have to own a 1080p TV for playing games on PS3 either, you can still get cheap 720p/1080i sets and play the games in your TV' s maximum resolution.

No, you' re screwed if you' ve got a 1080i TV. It downscales to 420p. 360 displays in 1080i with no problem.

+ 300$ - 6 year Live subscription

Only five years between Xbox & 360 buddy. Judging by history, try $250.

Xbox 360
$400-Console
$125-768 HD Monitor
$250-5 yr Online
$775

PS3
$600-Console
$800-720 HDTV+VGA
$000-Online
$1400

Funny that, 360 still comes out at almost half the price.

I' m not trying to start a flamewar here or anything, but if you' re going to make statements like that, then do your homework first.

You people are retarded,count in which way you please you dumb fucks,still xbox360 prem costed me 3700 kr at launch,and the stores here in Sweden is gonna take above 6000-6600 kr for the ps3.


the HDDVD player is gonna cost around 2000-2200 kr here,thats almost 6000 kr,but you know what?

I decie myself when i choose to get a HDDVD,i couldn' t afford one at xbox360 launch,nor would i pay for it,but if i see myself intresting in getting a HDVD player,i probably gonna buy one for my real home tv or the comp.

oh about xbox live,yeah it cost,but you know what?
People pay for it,guess why,guess why people pay for wow every month,some stuff are better then others,and its just 50-80 dollars depending where you live.

Thats one less game a month,sorry tiz but you who play the fucking sonic,skip it next time ffs.
Oh btw if you gonna complain about xbox live fee,why dont you stfu and take your moutgh out of sony' s ass,No HDMI cables?
No componetn?
Okay so this console was all about HD but doesnt have the cables...NICE GJ SONY!!!
Anyway.

SInce Xbox360 can play games in native 1080p also,this BS about pricey HDTV isn' ät intresting.

Eiether you get a 720p tv or you get 1080p who gievs a shit?

The higher reso the lower graphic settings will be in the game.

I should have clarified. I' m not directly comparing hardware on the consoles (IE built in WiFi vs. WiFi Adapter Perhipheral) I' m comparing both high-end models straight out of the box.

Anyway, you' re not planning to use Wifi, that' s good then you can get even cheaper, get out of it with 500 in the low-end package of PS3, wich does all that high-end 360 does. :)

Then it is:
PS3 => $499
360 => $650

Before TV' s/Monitors wich you say is also is part of the models straight out of the box..

However it dosn' t have to ruin your month-pay if you are going to settle for monitor, this one $359-monitor Spectre 22" LCD with HDMI is reported to work well with PS3 in customer reviews there atleast. :-/

PS3=$858 (Console, online gaming, HDMI/LCD Monitor)
360=$775 (Console, online gaming, VGA/CRT Monitor)

Rejoice, you saved 83$ with CRT monitor project.. :)
However if you expect your 360-games to get the advantages of 1200p, I think you' ll be sadly dissapointed.

Maybe when the first game with 1080o is available for 360 you can ask MS to make a upgrade to live, so it will scale it to 1200p.. :-/

You people are retarded,count in which way you please you dumb fucks..........

If you had bothered to be less obnoxious, I might have bothered to respond to any of your other comments in your 1 page long responce. :-/
I hope you used a long time it. I didn' t. :P

Who cares about the actual prices!
The PS3 costs more to produce and development costs have been insane so it' s not strange that it costs more.
What matter to us as consumers is what experiences we get from the consoles.
And what we think we' ll get is just a matter of taste.
To me the PS3 costs too much because I don' t think I' ll get entertainment so good that it makes up for it. But that' s just my opinion.
To someone else the PS3 might be the most entertaining thing ever created and then it' s definitely worth the money.
Talking about cables, online fee' s or what kind of screen you' ll use to play these machines is just stupid.

How about this?

You' re retarded who think ps3 is cheaper then xbox360 with a big marginal?

Anyway, you' re not planning to use Wifi, that' s good then you can get even cheaper, get out of it with 500 in the low-end package of PS3, wich does all that high-end 360 does. :)

Again you misunderstand me. I' m not planning on using my PS3' s WiFi ONLINE. It' s a brilliant idea for LAN parties though. Also, I' d never opt out for the $500 model, I' m a total port whore. I need my memory slots.

Before TV' s/Monitors wich you say is also is part of the models straight out of the box..

Well I' m assuming you like having visuals to go along with your 7.1 surround. Maybe it' s just me though.

However if you expect your 360-games to get the advantages of 1200p, I think you' ll be sadly dissapointed.

Trust me, I' m not that dumb, but considering you can' t get true 1080p from that monitor, and with 5ms response time, you' re still going to have the occasional motion-blur. (belive me, I hate 1050p more than anybody here) CRT is still the way to go for gaming, at least until somebody invents a no-blur, perfectly-scalable, true-color alternative at least. I will give you some credit though, you shop at Newegg.

Rejoice, you saved 83$ with CRT monitor project.. :)

That' s MGS4 uber edition and some Doritos dude. That isn' t worth it?

Who cares about the actual prices!

Neither me or KongRudi, but it' s fun to bitch about it untill I can get one! Out of curiosity though, do you have a PS3 KongRudi?

Heh, no response.

Pwned like a pirate!!![:' (]