Microsoft: Xbox 360 Significantly Better Value Than PS3

If we compare the 2 consoles based on hardware and throw the word value into the mix we are obviously left with the PS3 being better value easily since the hardware it has.

Now if we look at the offering of games, online, online content, exclusives etc etc then I would say the Xbox 360 is the winner in value - based on my opinion of course others may or maynot disagree.

PS3 gamers will of course say yes to the first and no the second and claim the PS3 has the best and biggest line up this year as one does.

Xbox 360 gamers may agree on the first and second but also note that the 360 also have a big line up of games this year also...

All in all I think value is based on a persons own choice if they are happy with what they have purchased for them it will be the best value.

Xbox 360 Best Value?

I don't think so. When you have to pay extra for simple things like Memory Cards to save games, Themes (199 points or so), and other items like Wireless and HD DVD.

The PS3 has alot of these items built in and free.

Yeah, it's kind of silly for MS to say they have a superior product on hardware alone. That's trumped by pretty much every console in history for quality. Their games lineup is better...for now. But again, some folks prefer alot of the SCEA games that Sony puts out, over the MS games. So, I'm willing to wait on the games. But, yeah, rather odd statement to be making, especially given the BR player...


Morne

You didn't think before you wrote that tripe did you?

Time to wake up - Xbox 360 Arcade pack comes with a memory card 256mb.

All other consoles come with a hard drive

Why would you HAVE to buy a theme????

Why do you HAVE to buy wireless and maybe a HD-DVD add-on?????

Sony doesn't even offer a memory card and thanks to the new 40gb you dont even get any memory slots!!

Also if you want to transfer your PS2 saves over to the PS3 you HAVE to buy the one time use adaptor.

Go to the Xbox 360 marketplace then look at the PS3 marketplace there is a huge difference in content and games being offered...

Well, you can either look at it in terms of what you're paying vs. how much it costs to make (or buy separately, etc), or you can look at it in terms of how much the person buying it "values" what they're getting. And I don't think it's fair to combine those, because it's a different meaning of the word "value."

Additionally, whether you actually use a feature isn't completely relevant. If you do use it, and you appreciate it, then it has a high personal value (i.e. cannot be objectively expressed). On the other hand, if it costs a lot of money to make or buy, vs. the amount you're paying, then it's good value financially, whether you use it or not!

So I suppose the objective way to do it is to compare the cost of what you're physically getting in the package, and divide it buy the price. Whether a feature is useful, or whether you want it, is a separate issue (personal value - that isn't the kind of value that someone can tell you exists, because someone else can't decide it for you).

So what is left to do is, add up the costs of each package, and calculate what you're actually getting for your money (whether or not you want or need it!), and then we'll have the facts, as opposed to the propaganda. And, of course we have to use RRP, since any variation on that is not objective, and can't be guaranteed per purchase either.

I personally find whichever one has the features and games I want gets my vote on value thats how I look at it.

Since having an Xbox 1 and loving the games available and the controller and Xbox Live the move to the 360 was pretty much the way to go and considering that even more and more games came out on the 360 than the Xbox 1 along with improvement to Xbox Live and its content and controller and many games that were PS only games came over to the Xbox 360 for me its the best value ever.

Uhh, I don't think you have figure in how much something costs to make in its value, thats asinine, unless you're a corporate beancounter.

Value can best be defined as the actual utility (for the end user) compared with its cost (to the end user).

If MS came out with a 360 tomorrow with a hand-crafted mahogany case, made by the Amish and hand-rubbed for 30 hours by strippers, it would be expensive to make...but would it add much "value" to the console? Just because someone is selling cheap what was expensive for them to make does not make it a "value". It simply means the person is either up to something or is a financially a loony.

What is relevant is the cost of similar capabilities, when determining the "value" of the PS3, it doesn't matter how much Sony paid for the blue diode, it DOES matter how much you'd have to pay for a standalone BluRay player.

What is also relevant is the utility of these capabilities, and their utility to individual consumers. Lets pretend for a second that BluRay lost the NGDFW (NextGenDVDFormatWar) and HDDVD was the victor...no more BluRay movies are going to be made. All of a sudden the PS3 drops in "value"...Sony didn't pay less to include it, its just worth less than it was when BluRay was a viable format going forward.

About the themes and crap...theres some free themes and crap on 360, theres some you have to pay for...but the only reason PSN is as free as it is (because believe me they'd love to get you embroiled in their microeconomy) is they're new and still feeling inferior to LIVE!...the minute they feel like they're on truly equal footing...




Anyway thats my two bits...my take...buy the one you want to play, 'nuff said.

If you don't care about blu-ray the 360 is better. DVD is better. It's cheap, they last, they copy, and every movie ever made(almost) is available. The quality is a bit better, but nothing like moving from VHS to DVD. The discs currently about 1/3 more expensive with a poor selection and no cheap blu-ray copiers. The ps3 with HDMI cable and an extra controller is $600 USD. That's an awful lot of money.

Buy xbox 360 after the next price drop(soon), and you can stock a library of games for the cost of just the PS3. PS3 will likely have a longer lifespan(because it came out later and is more capable). But by then the next xbox will blow it away. And if that isn't for you buy the, by then, cheap PS3 for ~$150. For the moment, current games play better on the 360.

I've been looking at this very closely for a few weeks now. I think 360 won the competition. In this case worse seems to be better.

Blu-ray will most likely take hold(remember when the new thing was laser discs), but there really isn't much benefit to buying in right now.

Eggs are good value and there good for you!

Yes, obviously, to you personally, something has a value. But if you're going to actually compare value using that definition, then it isn't going to work, because you're only using your own personal definition of value. I'm not saying that isn't important, but isn't it slightly obvious that everybody is going to have different uses, and different appreciations, for different things? If we do decide to define value in this way, then it's worthless to say that one thing is necessarily better value than something else - because we're neglecting the fact that people "value" different things differently. On the other hand, by making an objective statement about value, we're actually implying that our own personal value is irrelevant; the "value" we're talking about is every other kind of value than your own personal value.

So let's pretend Blu-ray did lose the format war. Using the "actual utility (for the end user)" definition, if you do want to watch movies on it, it's lost value. If you don't want to watch movies on it, it hasn't lost value! Using the objective "value" - yes, it has lost value - because the price is less, because it's less in demand.

Anyway, let's talk in terms of personal value, then... the XBox 360 has such a low value to me that I find it impossible to describe. As a PS3 owner, I would benefit far more if the XBox 360 never existed; I have no use for one. In fact, it does have some value - it's competition in the market. Not fanboyism, I emphasize - it's inherent purely because I bought a PS3 instead of an XBox 360.

But, yeah, buy the one you want to play.

yeah same here, as of now the 360 has little if anything of iterest to me so I'd feel robbed even if I was given one

you wrote this 10 hrs ago and say ps3 is $600?? nice try. $400 is the console price, a controller is $50, and an hdmi is NOT $150, at least the ones i would buy. does xbox come with 2 controllers?a hdmi cable is included with the xbox that does use hdmi? get bent. for $50 more money than xbox... you would get a $500 bluray player, free online play, and a console that does not break down all the time or sound like a truck. also, current games do NOT play better on xbox. that was a few games at the launch. many games now are even or actually BETTER ON PS3. you are talking s**t and you know it too. the 360 would be pretty good if not for its lack of quality but even then would fall short of the ps3. this years game releases will really begin the DECLINE ON THE 360. you will have one soon, lol. also, if microsoft does release a new console that would be better than ps3, dont you think it would sell at around $600 or more??? i guess that would leave you with only your 360 since you feel that is WAY too much money to pay. besides, if they did put a new console out, it would be about 2 years from now, figure the first year or 2 would start modestly, and your looking at f4 or 5 years until its up to speed. just when the ps3 will be it its prime. LOGIC AND TRUTH HURTS HUH. TOO BAD!!!

I've just wasted 5 minutes of life reading these comments. It was actually a good discussion on the meaning of "value" for the most part but then I deflated completely when I read the above "...get bent..."

OK, you start off all wrong and head south from there.

First you imply that I am attempting to utilize subjective value as opposed to your cost-based objective value. This is misleading and incorrect, my definition does not take an individuals personal feelings of value into account at all. If you reread the definition I posit above...really read it, its plainly an objective definition based on utility, not subjective opinion. The fact that your game console can play movies adds value to it, if you use it or not is up to you, but the capability, which was paid for in cost, carried into the price paid, is there.

Cost does not equal value. Value is utility over price, insofar as cost goes to determining the price it affects value, but is is not value.

XBox is making a new console for 2010 so why would anybody bother wasting their money on a 360. It is like sorry saps who are out their buying Vista. My solution don't buy microsoft products.

Obviously you get more gaming value in the 360 than you do in PS3.

- First of all, I don't want a high definition player, and if I did want one, it wouldn't be a $400 player. I'm not an idiot.
- Achievement Points. Sony can't compete.
- XBOX Live. PSN is like playing on a BBS from the 90s.
- Better games. More of them, too!! PS3's best game (according to IGN) is a PSN game Castlevania. That's a remake of an old game, and it's the best game available on PS3! hahahahahhahahahahahahahaa
- DVDs vs Blu-Ray. DVDs are cheaper, and you can access data off DVDs WAY faster than on PS3's Blu-Ray turtle drive.
- $ony wants to overcharge you, in order to line their pockets. That company in particular believes in outrageous profit margins, and annoying proprietary garbage.


You know you want a 360!! $ony forgot how to make good consumer electronics! lol

Erm... You forgot to login SuperSaiyan.

$ony typers = Gay!

Your moms a PS3!