Niode wrote:
I'm not talking about personal preference here. I'm talking about financial sense. You just aren't listening. I'm not a fanboy of anything. I own both a PS3 and a 360, all I'm saying that in my experience I've had far more entertainment and value out of my 360 than my PS3.
Yeah, and a lot of racists claim that they have friends of all races. Doesn't make a bit of difference if you own every console under the sun. I am listening. You are claiming that the X360 is better than the PS3 because it is a cheaper initial investment. I'm saying that the cost of online multiplayer makes that argument moot - cheaper initial investment, sure, but more money overtime. Also, you haven't been saying that you get more entertainment value out of a 360 than a PS3 - you're saying that EVERYBODY gets more entertainment value out of a 360 than a PS3.
Niode wrote:
Regarding only shooters and sports titles, I own 0 sports titles for my 360, I own only Ridge Racer 6, Forza 2 and NFS: MW that are racers and fps, I only own Halo 3 and The Darkness. That's it, yet I own over 40 games for my 360. I'm sorry but you are talking out of your arse. There's plenty of genres available for the 360, there's plenty of genres available for both systems, but when the overlap of multiplatform games comes into it, why pay more?
Again, I don't look at it as paying more when, if I get the X360 version, I'm getting neutered versions of many games unless I sign up for Xbox Live Gold. The focus of this generation is clearly Online Gaming (or at least Online Functionality), and getting a system that can't unleash its full potential unless I give it $50 a year until Armageddon isn't exactly paying less.
Niode wrote:
You don't need to defend your PS3. I already have one. I know what they are like and the games available for it. I have come to the conclusion that you can get much more bang for your buck from a 360 than a PS3. I'm talking plain financial sense here not some blind obsession with a brand which is what a lot of people who buy the PS3 are doing it for, because it's a Playstation. I'm not saying that that's you and quite why you've taken such an offence to my statements is beyond me.
You can't understand why I would take offense to your statements? Did you not just post "The only reason I can see anyone buying a PS3 over a 360 is idiotic, fanboy brand loyalty"? I mean, you must have - I just copy-pasted that directly from one of your posts. 'Anyone' is a lot of people. In fact, 'Anyone' is 100% of the people who bought a PS3 over a 360, myself included. So, you've just called me an idiotic fanboy. Now tell me - why would I take offense to that? "I'm not saying that that's you.." - but you just did! You just did!
Here's my plain financial sense - an X360 with a hard-drive costs $300 (Or, I could get an Arcade unit and buy a 120 GB hard-drive instead - which would cost $360). My TV is far from my router, so I'd need a Wireless Network Adapter - $100. I get the free year of subscription, but then I have to pay $50 afterwards every year. My plain financial sense tells me that just in that first year, I'd spend the same amount of money (or $60 more to use a hard-drive that won't fill up within a month), and I'd be donating $50 to poor ol' Microsoft every year so that I can play online games that aren't even using dedicated servers from Microsoft. In fact, in most cases, my bandwidth is being used to host the games, not Microsoft. What the hell am I paying for?
Niode wrote:
I personally find the 'added value' statements as Sony fed bullshit. It's what they said when they tried to justify why the PS3 was so much more expensive than it's rivals and I didn't buy it then, and I'm not going to buy it now from somebody regurgitating it verbatim. I don't know what prices are like in your country, perhaps both systems are on a much more level playing field, however in this country when you can pick up the 60GB 360 premium which comes with a HDMI cable (something the PS3 doesn't may I add) wireless controller, two free games and a bunch of accessories for £200 it just doesn't make sense to pay £300 for a PS3 which comes with a game, maybe another budget title or an HDMI cable if you're lucky. Plus when you factor in the same games that you want are much cheaper on one console than the other, Bioshock still costs about £30 pretty much everywhere on PS3, whereas you can get it for less than £10 everywhere fro the 360. It just doesn't make sense to buy a PS3, and when you factor in that there's only a handful of games worth playing that are exclusive to the system it just makes me think why bother paying the premium.
I guess not everyone sees value in free online play, best Blu-Ray player on the market, in-the-box WiFi, Region-Free and Import Friendly, Ability to load it with a secondary OS, Ability to use any 3.5 inch hard-drive as opposed to just the ones Microsoft wants you to use, Mouse/Keyboard support, and anything else I could throw at you that would only nerd-rage you at this point. I can understand not seeing value in it, but some people
will. Just as some people would rather buy the cheapest machine on the market and forget all the bells and whistles, some would rather pay for a complete package then and there. Also, it's a shame prices suck for you in the UK, but where I am, the 360 is $300 and the PS3 is $400. I'm not sure how much Bioshock is for the 360, but I got it brand-new for the PS3 for $20. And personally, I did pay the premium for the exclusive games. One persons trash is another treasure, and I sure as hell treasure Metal Gear Solid 4, Resistance, Warhawk and many of my other PS3 games.
To me, it looks like you are getting about as much joy out of your PS3 as I was getting out of my Wii. In which case, why don't you find someone who will get enjoyment out of it and sell it to them? At least get some return on your investment.
