The Xbox360 vs PS3 war. Hidden costs for Xbox??

superscaper

darich wrote: »

PS3 would be covered under sale of goods act so unless the xbox 360 deal includes home visits for repairs or new for old no matter the age, the 3 year guarantee is acutally sneaky advertising - the SOGA covers items like this regardless of the guarantee.

Although there's a very definite shift in responsibility. Microsoft are essentially saying they'll take all responsibility for repairs and problems in the first three years, whereas Sony aren't willing to take that responsibility and are leaving it in the hands of the retailers.

wolfman

I know how you feel, but you also have to understand things from a readers perspective.

We do see quite a few fan boy posts, so it's easy to see this as another one. And as mentioned the most important thing with a console are the games which the Wii is selling the most of and the 360 arguably has the best collection of.

robmaytum wrote: »

I stated "direct comparison" in specs, so for me that includes wireless and HD.

True, but your example was exactly the same approach as a sly marketing campaign Sony did to compare their product to the 360. Hence another reason the fan boy comments may have been made.

It is a "direct" comparison but on a very simplistic level, but doesn't take into account that the 360 is more modular, possibly cheaper, has better games, more games etc...

darich

superscaper wrote: »

Although there's a very definite shift in responsibility. Microsoft are essentially saying they'll take all responsibility for repairs and problems in the first three years, whereas Sony aren't willing to take that responsibility and are leaving it in the hands of the retailers.

While that's good of Microsoft to acknowledge their legal responsibility it doesn't remove it from Sony so any problems should be referred to the retailer in the first instance and then to Sony if a solution cannot be reached.

At least MS acknowledging it would make it easier for any replacements. Unfortunately it's no less underhanded than Sony and their comparison because MS would be liable for any faults regardless of whether they admit it or not.

My personal preference is the PS3. I have a PS2 and my games will be playable on the PS3 now that updates to firmware and patches have been issued.
I also believe that since both games are graphically similar just now but with the Xbox360 having 18month head start, the games on the PS3 will be superior in a few months when programmers start utilising the machines capabilties to their fullest.
Besides, my brother has a PS3 in NYC and i'm hoping to play him online at games!!
Maybe later this year!

darich

wolfman wrote: »

True, but your example was exactly the same approach as a sly marketing campaign Sony did to compare their product to the 360. Hence another reason the fan boy comments may have been made.

It is a "direct" comparison but on a very simplistic level, but doesn't take into account that the 360 is more modular, possibly cheaper, has better games, more games etc...

I don't think it's a sly comparison at all. Any comparison to be fair must compare like for like.
However i agree that the more modular 360 is a better way to be selective on the features you want where as with PS3 you have to buy the whole lot to get the console itself.
And to be honest, the people who spend that much on their gaming consoles probably want a bigger hard drive and wireless and the other whistles and bells that go with it.
If the PS3 was more modular though it would be a hands down winner for me.

superscaper

darich wrote: »

While that's good of Microsoft to acknowledge their legal responsibility it doesn't remove it from Sony so any problems should be referred to the retailer in the first instance and then to Sony if a solution cannot be reached.

At least MS acknowledging it would make it easier for any replacements. Unfortunately it's no less underhanded than Sony and their comparison because MS would be liable for any faults regardless of whether they admit it or not.

That's not true under any law I know of. Microsoft aren't acknowledging any legal responsibility, they're making themselves legally responsible. Sony (if they aren't offering a warranty) have absolutely no legal responsibility to the consumer at all. Similarly if MS decided to only have a one year warranty, if your xbox developed a fault after 13 months, MS have absolutely no legal obligation to do anything about it. SOGA only applies to retailers.

wolfman

darich wrote: »

I don't think it's a sly comparison at all. Any comparison to be fair must compare like for like.

But it's arguably not a fair comparison. What has been compared is a 360 with a load of extras (not everyone will need) against a bare minimum PS3 package.

Surely a fair comparison would be a bare 360 Premium package against a bare PS3 package as both are the bare essential that someone needs before they can play games.

darich

wolfman wrote: »

But it's arguably not a fair comparison. What has been compared is a 360 with a load of extras (not everyone will need) against a bare minimum PS3 package.

Surely a fair comparison would be a bare 360 Premium package against a bare PS3 package as both are the bare essential that someone needs before they can play games.

But if the packages are not the same then the comparison is not fair.

I agree that if you bought the bare package the 360 would be a better buy. I did say that the 360 being more modular is a good advantage but serious gamers who are inclined to spend around £400 on a pure game machine would probably be inclined to buy at least some extras.

Regardless of what we think is better some players will buy the 360 whereas i would be inclined to buy the PS3 because i have a library of PS2 games that i want to continue playing.

wolfman

darich wrote: »

But if the packages are not the same then the comparison is not fair.

That's just the point. The packages aren't the same. And they don't have to be to make a fair comparison.

By including all of the extra's with the 360 you no longer have the original package, and by doing so you're ignoring one of it's main points (being cheaper and modular), so in effect that's unfair.

C_Ronaldo

For the 360 is better but thats because i have a 360 and i think its great. I dont see the point in buying a hd dvd drive yet as a my tv isnt all that good and b im happy with tyhe 360 as a dvd player,

marleyboy

I guess it depends on the cost of games, and the availability of games for each console, personally, I prefer my pc. My son has an Xbox, Xbox 360, PS1 & PS2, IMHO thats 3 wasted consoles already, and the games for either are too expensive.

But whats it matter, this time next year I have no doubt the next generation of PS4's or Xbox 500's will be out, making the previous models and games cheaper to buy. And I have no doubt, he will be bored of those ones by then and will be itching to get his hands on the next latest console to hit the market.

I think I will stick to upgrades and PC's. (which already have emulators that let you play PS1 and PS2 games).