The problem with the $200 360 is that it's got very little internal storage - not everyone needs a huge hard drive and the 360's ability to use USB drives for storage helps mitigate this, but it's still a pretty big caveat compared to the 160GB PS3.
I'm going to reveal some of my ignorance as a non-enthusiast X360 owner, but doesn't the ability to hook up to your Windows PC and stream files negate some of the need for storage on your console? I have an older 20GB HDD 360 and it's never gotten more than 75% full (mostly due to downloaded demos I never play).
Admittedly I'm a casual user, but to casual users $200 vs $300 for the PS3 is an awfully big jump.
$200 X360 is only 4GB. Enough for game saves, but not for demos or saving game disc to hard drive for speeding up load times. Next model up X360 is $300.
Sony is now coming in at $250 with 160GB drive. So it's $200 vx $250 or $250 vs. $300, rather than $200 vs $300. And PS3 has DLNA so it can stream movies and music from PC as well.
Even though i dont really use my PS3 much, and prefer the 360 as it does just about everything better, i have to admit the PS3 is now a better deal for most people as it also comes with Blu-Ray as well as the extra storage space, all for just $50 more.
It's got nothing to do with that. You need the drive to install games, both for better performance, and to make the noise level acceptable.
The cheaper model Xbox has always been there to make it look like the system is $100 less than it is, not as a legitimate choice. That was true in 2005, and is even more true today.
Microsoft's $100 price difference for a hard drive space difference is a laughable rip-off in the face of consumers. You can get plenty of 2TB SATA drives on the desktop for $70-80 (and often even less than that with rebates). Even 2.5 inch form factor 1TB USB 3.0 external drives cost $90 "only":
Laptop 750gb hard drives are $70. And here we are in 2011 with Microsoft charging $100 for 250GB (!!). They'd be FAR better off shipping an 80GB SSD in the Xbox360 vs. some slow overpriced 250GB mechanical drive.
But besides, looking at the overall picture, it's insane that PS3 still costs $249-299:
1) The graphics are completely outdated by now 2) Both 360/PS3 are near the end of their lives. Prices for them should be $99-149 by now. 3) It's shocking to think that in 5+ years, price of consoles has only fallen in half since launch prices, while at the same time GPU speed increased 10-fold (and is about to increase another 50-75% with 28nm offerings).
I am still just stunned that people continue to buy these consoles for $300 and then pay $50-60 for games that can't even output 30 fps at true 1080P. Do console gamers really have such low standards that they are willing to drop so much $ on hardware from 2006?
I agree that 100.00 extra for a hard drive is ridiculous on the xbox, and that both consoles have not gone down as much in price as they should have.
I do disagree with you somewhat on being stunned that people will play on consoles. First, they are still quite a bit cheaper than a gaming PC, and many console gamers play on a 720p TV. There is also the social experience of online gaming with friends and the ability to play together on the same machine without having a gaming PC and a copy of the game for each player. Sadly, there are really very few PC exclusive big name games for the PC. And dont forget that you can rent games for the consoles, and usually finish them with in the rental period, as far as single player goes. And again unfortunately, there are a good number of console exclusive franchises that you cannot play on a PC at all.
Personally, I only game on the PC because that is what I started gaming on, and it is better for RTS and RPG games, which are my favorite. However, I do think a console is a reasonable alternative for gaming.
I know one company that made a killing in the current generation of consoles wars without the latest and greatest hardware and charging $500-600 price tags - Nintendo. Sure, their financials weren't that great in the last 12 months but that's more reflective of the investments they are making into the new Wii U and 3DS. Also, it is expected that sales for their console are winding down given that they have announced Wii U. The slow transition to the new 3DS is understandable given the current state of the economy.
But all in all, with a larger userbase, you tend sell more software and accessories. With 90 million Wiis shipped, Nintendo is the one laughing to the bank while Sony is still struggling to overcome its damaged brand image due to all the issues they have had in the last 6 months. $249-299 PS3s aren't going to make any difference because MS will lower the price on their Xbox360 shortly.
In case you are counting, Xbox360 has outsold PS3 in the last 13 of 14 months.
I do not have a PS3 nor am I planning to get one as I don't game... but any how... in addition to the larger storage, you also get a BLU-RAY player as well. In my opinion it's not so bad of a deal, but again, I'm not really a gamer...
unless you're like me and blu ray is worth literally NOTHING to you. I'm not re-buying ALL my movies most of which cost over 20 bucks. Blu Ray will never fully replace DVD cause Sony is keeping the prices out of range of most people. Players need to drop down to 30 bucks for generic cheap walmart brand versions. Blank discs need to come WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down in price. Movies that are 6+ months old need to be under 10 bucks.
The PS3 is a multifaceted home entertainment system that just accidentally happens to include a Blue Ray player. I understand "no one cares about Blue Ray" in your vast world of home entertainment knowledge but Red Box, Netflix and the rest of the movie entertainment industry doesn't seem to have consulted with you to gain your sage advice.
Whereas the 360 is more of a piecemealed gotcha ordeal of pastic encased upgrade nickel and dime options based on the foundation of a 4GB base. Throw what you want at it and its still shackled by its obviousl design limitations. You know lipstick on an expensive pig is still a pig?
So at $250.00 for a complete system that is still way into its proven reliable lifecycle? You bet! The PS3 took the slow and steady pace and now with aggressive updating and feature expansions, along with a very robust library of exclusive games, have made it a centerpiece of gaming and entertainment. So any reduction of price today is attractive to consumers.
Oh no question about it, at $250, the PS3 is more attractive than the $199 Xbox360, esp. since you get 160 GB of space, free online gameplay, better first party exclusives, and Blu-Ray player. Microsoft has to drop the price on the 360 or add a HDD to the cheapest version.
I think my main point was that by now I would expect to see these consoles at $149-199 or even lower. It's been literally 5+ years since release. The hardware technology inside them is ancient and you can get a Blu-Ray player (not burner) for $60:
I am pretty sure Sony can produce a 12x Blu-Ram player for way less than $50. That means you are paying $200 for what? USB 2.0 ports? 160GB hard drive and 7900GT style GPU? That's pretty expensive for such obsolete parts. That was my main point.
Obviously if I had the option between 360 4GB for $199 and $249 PS3 160GB, I'd get the PS3 .
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
Vinny DePaul - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
Sony needs a 200 dollars PS3 to compete with Xbox. Graphics are similar on both.Andrew.a.cunningham - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
The problem with the $200 360 is that it's got very little internal storage - not everyone needs a huge hard drive and the 360's ability to use USB drives for storage helps mitigate this, but it's still a pretty big caveat compared to the 160GB PS3.Taft12 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
I'm going to reveal some of my ignorance as a non-enthusiast X360 owner, but doesn't the ability to hook up to your Windows PC and stream files negate some of the need for storage on your console? I have an older 20GB HDD 360 and it's never gotten more than 75% full (mostly due to downloaded demos I never play).Admittedly I'm a casual user, but to casual users $200 vs $300 for the PS3 is an awfully big jump.
raulr - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
$200 X360 is only 4GB. Enough for game saves, but not for demos or saving game disc to hard drive for speeding up load times. Next model up X360 is $300.Sony is now coming in at $250 with 160GB drive. So it's $200 vx $250 or $250 vs. $300, rather than $200 vs $300. And PS3 has DLNA so it can stream movies and music from PC as well.
B3an - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Even though i dont really use my PS3 much, and prefer the 360 as it does just about everything better, i have to admit the PS3 is now a better deal for most people as it also comes with Blu-Ray as well as the extra storage space, all for just $50 more.Wolfpup - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
It's got nothing to do with that. You need the drive to install games, both for better performance, and to make the noise level acceptable.The cheaper model Xbox has always been there to make it look like the system is $100 less than it is, not as a legitimate choice. That was true in 2005, and is even more true today.
gevorg - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
Sony is trying to heal the wounds from Anonymous.RussianSensation - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
Microsoft's $100 price difference for a hard drive space difference is a laughable rip-off in the face of consumers. You can get plenty of 2TB SATA drives on the desktop for $70-80 (and often even less than that with rebates). Even 2.5 inch form factor 1TB USB 3.0 external drives cost $90 "only":http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
Laptop 750gb hard drives are $70. And here we are in 2011 with Microsoft charging $100 for 250GB (!!). They'd be FAR better off shipping an 80GB SSD in the Xbox360 vs. some slow overpriced 250GB mechanical drive.
But besides, looking at the overall picture, it's insane that PS3 still costs $249-299:
1) The graphics are completely outdated by now
2) Both 360/PS3 are near the end of their lives. Prices for them should be $99-149 by now.
3) It's shocking to think that in 5+ years, price of consoles has only fallen in half since launch prices, while at the same time GPU speed increased 10-fold (and is about to increase another 50-75% with 28nm offerings).
I am still just stunned that people continue to buy these consoles for $300 and then pay $50-60 for games that can't even output 30 fps at true 1080P. Do console gamers really have such low standards that they are willing to drop so much $ on hardware from 2006?
frozentundra123456 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
I agree that 100.00 extra for a hard drive is ridiculous on the xbox, and that both consoles have not gone down as much in price as they should have.I do disagree with you somewhat on being stunned that people will play on consoles. First, they are still quite a bit cheaper than a gaming PC, and many console gamers play on a 720p TV. There is also the social experience of online gaming with friends and the ability to play together on the same machine without having a gaming PC and a copy of the game for each player. Sadly, there are really very few PC exclusive big name games for the PC. And dont forget that you can rent games for the consoles, and usually finish them with in the rental period, as far as single player goes.
And again unfortunately, there are a good number of console exclusive franchises that you cannot play on a PC at all.
Personally, I only game on the PC because that is what I started gaming on, and it is better for RTS and RPG games, which are my favorite. However, I do think a console is a reasonable alternative for gaming.
ET - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
If a company will ever come to me asking for tips on how to lose tons of money quickly I'll be sure to refer it to you.RussianSensation - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
I know one company that made a killing in the current generation of consoles wars without the latest and greatest hardware and charging $500-600 price tags - Nintendo. Sure, their financials weren't that great in the last 12 months but that's more reflective of the investments they are making into the new Wii U and 3DS. Also, it is expected that sales for their console are winding down given that they have announced Wii U. The slow transition to the new 3DS is understandable given the current state of the economy.But all in all, with a larger userbase, you tend sell more software and accessories. With 90 million Wiis shipped, Nintendo is the one laughing to the bank while Sony is still struggling to overcome its damaged brand image due to all the issues they have had in the last 6 months. $249-299 PS3s aren't going to make any difference because MS will lower the price on their Xbox360 shortly.
In case you are counting, Xbox360 has outsold PS3 in the last 13 of 14 months.
ssnova - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
I do not have a PS3 nor am I planning to get one as I don't game... but any how... in addition to the larger storage, you also get a BLU-RAY player as well. In my opinion it's not so bad of a deal, but again, I'm not really a gamer...Harsh3090416 - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 - link
PS3 can is also a Blu ray disc player while Xbox 360 isn't. That's well worth the extra 50 bucks.Hrel - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
unless you're like me and blu ray is worth literally NOTHING to you. I'm not re-buying ALL my movies most of which cost over 20 bucks. Blu Ray will never fully replace DVD cause Sony is keeping the prices out of range of most people. Players need to drop down to 30 bucks for generic cheap walmart brand versions. Blank discs need to come WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down in price. Movies that are 6+ months old need to be under 10 bucks.
Chaser - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
The PS3 is a multifaceted home entertainment system that just accidentally happens to include a Blue Ray player. I understand "no one cares about Blue Ray" in your vast world of home entertainment knowledge but Red Box, Netflix and the rest of the movie entertainment industry doesn't seem to have consulted with you to gain your sage advice.Whereas the 360 is more of a piecemealed gotcha ordeal of pastic encased upgrade nickel and dime options based on the foundation of a 4GB base. Throw what you want at it and its still shackled by its obviousl design limitations. You know lipstick on an expensive pig is still a pig?
So at $250.00 for a complete system that is still way into its proven reliable lifecycle? You bet! The PS3 took the slow and steady pace and now with aggressive updating and feature expansions, along with a very robust library of exclusive games, have made it a centerpiece of gaming and entertainment. So any reduction of price today is attractive to consumers.
RussianSensation - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - link
Oh no question about it, at $250, the PS3 is more attractive than the $199 Xbox360, esp. since you get 160 GB of space, free online gameplay, better first party exclusives, and Blu-Ray player. Microsoft has to drop the price on the 360 or add a HDD to the cheapest version.I think my main point was that by now I would expect to see these consoles at $149-199 or even lower. It's been literally 5+ years since release. The hardware technology inside them is ancient and you can get a Blu-Ray player (not burner) for $60:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
I am pretty sure Sony can produce a 12x Blu-Ram player for way less than $50. That means you are paying $200 for what? USB 2.0 ports? 160GB hard drive and 7900GT style GPU? That's pretty expensive for such obsolete parts. That was my main point.
Obviously if I had the option between 360 4GB for $199 and $249 PS3 160GB, I'd get the PS3 .