ORIGINAL: KongRudi

IBM didn' t sue Microsoft when they sent those fake Cell vs. PPC- comparisons wich Microsoft made up during their 360-launch.

That' s because IBM made the chips for the 360 as well.

Maybe I should sue you because you removed 2/3 of the offended parts in my message, just to suit your point better.

However, I' m pretty sure that my reasoning why MS ' got away' with doing what they did, without ending up in court, is correct.
And I believe that also IBM would dislike it, when someone talks bad about their latest product, even if it' s based on assumptions.

What i said...

Actually y' know, looking at it again i don' t think they' ve done anything wrong. It just looks bad for Microsoft.

Take another look and you' ll notice, or should notice that Sony are comparing 360' s functionality against PS3, in that for 360 users to make use of the same functions Sony' s console ships with (next gen DVD drive, HDD, online access).. ..a 360 owner would have to pay for them.

I don' t think Microsoft can actually do much at all.

BTW, this is pretty much how Evil Man was comparing them. What he and Sony ignore is the fact that not everybody wants those things.

What Sony have said...

Through our comparison chart we are not implying that you must purchase the myriad of peripherals and add-ons that Microsoft offers to play your Xbox 360. You don' t. However, if you want to attempt to come close to the performance of the $499 PlayStation 3 by using your Xbox 360, Core or Premium, you could only do that through expensive add-ons -- that is what our chart is demonstrating. Once you add it all up, it would cost you more than our $499 unit, and you would still not come close to everything we offer, ie: free multiplayer gaming, 50GB storage capacity of Blu-ray disc, Blu-ray disc player for games AND movies, processing power of the Cell Broadband Engine.

LINK

...

Yeah thats true majik not everyone wants those things, but that chart definetly makes the ps3 FAR more Appetizing than a 360.

At the end of the day its up to what you want as a gamer which is why 2007 is gonna be a great year to be a gamer.

...processing power of the Cell Broadband Engine....

Im not even going to comment.

...processing power of the Cell Broadband Engine....

Im not even going to comment.

I' ll second that motion.

ORIGINAL: Eddie_the_Hated

...processing power of the Cell Broadband Engine....

Im not even going to comment.

I' ll second that motion.

Third.

fourth lmao

Um sony' s reply is the exact same explanation I gave 2 hours ago.

$499 PS3 is a bargain, plain and simple.

it sure is...

$499 PS3 is a bargain, plain and simple.

Its a great bargain, if I want a BluRay player to watch a format that may or may not take off

You get a lot of things for your money, but its still expensive for the average console gamer, which generally have their mums purchase their stuff.

For a parent the 360 is the obvious choice, since you actually get the same for less, except you dont gamble on a HD format.

It doesn' t really matter about the numbers. You' re still paying far too much for a games machine with the PS3.

It' s not ' free online access' either. You pay for your demos and movies. They don' t say how much they' ll cost us.

So the only difference between premium to premium is HD movies. If you' re banking on BluRay coming out over HDDVD, and really want an expensive first gen movie player, then PS3 is the only option. I' m not buying into either format yet...

Overall as a games machine, a premium 360 ($399) still looks like better value than a PS3+HD cable (likely $550+) to me... *tries to be as objective as possible*