360 Is More Powerful Than PS3 Says Microsoft

No new 360 hardware for 2007!

Posted by Staff
360 Is More Powerful Than PS3 Says Microsoft
A spokesman for Microsoft has finally returned comment on the ?deluxe 120Gb black Xbox? story we ran last week ? the company has denied announcing such a unit.

Within this statement the company also laid out is plan for the year ? which apparently sees no new 360-related hardware ? and a claim that the 360 is more powerful than PlayStation 3. Microsoft told SPOnG that:

?What we have delivered is the most-powerful and affordable video game system on the planet today. And with games like Halo 3, Guitar Hero 2, Mass Effect, Grand Theft Auto 4, and Forza Motorsport 2, the story of the year on Xbox 360 is the games, not the hardware."


In terms of the PS3-launch dampening uber-360, the company told us:

"We haven't announced such a product."


So, Microsoft has not ?announced? a black, HDMI-equipped, 120Gb Xbox 360. This, media-studying readers, is a marvellous example of the non-denial-denial (complete with a healthy dose of ?plausible deniability?) and can be read in a number of ways:

?This black, HDMI-equipped 120Gb Xbox 360??

1) ?does exist but we haven?t announced it.

2) ?does not exist which is why we haven?t announced it.

3) ?did exist but we?ve decided to pull it following some idiot at some store in Austria or somewhere shooting his mouth off, goddammit.

4) ?never existed but, hell, it?s not going to hurt if maybe some people in Austria (or somewhere) think it?s going to exist just prior to the PS3 launch!

Clever, ain?t it?

Comments

Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 65.
schnide 14 Feb 2007 10:29
46/65
LUPOS wrote:
Ms just entered the console wars five years ago. There first attempt at makign a console they beat out nintendo.


Wait, let's not get carried away here - Xbox didn't win, Nintendo just lost. Nintendo were on dodgy footing with the N64 and the Gamecube gave away a lot of ground leaving more room for Microsoft. Let's also not forget that Microsoft made huge losses on the Xbox but had the funds to sustain it, whereas Nintendo were in profit but lost market position. It's really not that clear cut. But, anyway..

Why would they be "scared" of sony? I feel like your just choosing your words wrong.


We could argue about your other points but it isn't worth it, in some ways you're right and in others I am. But my point is..

Microsoft can see a potential future, however unlikely, where the 360 has nowhere else to go. Up till now it's had the reputation of the world's most powerful games console.

Yes it plays DVDs, but so can some people's refridgerators these days. You can play arcade games on XBL but you could do that on MAME years ago. Live is the best way to play games online by far but a) it's debatable whether that's the future of gaming and b) any other company could replicate that in software quite quickly.

What you can't do is improve the hardware within it's own life cycle, except with add-on's, and we all know how typically successful they are.

Sony may or may not have a successful launch and we'll have to wait and see. But if the public perception of the PS3 really is that it's the most powerful machine by far, plays Blu-Ray (Wow! say the general public, a new media format that comes built in!) and has a free gaming service that's as good as Live, why would Joe Punter buy an 360 with a HD-DVD add-on?

Games? A lot of games are multi-format these days so MS needs killer apps, but that's been the case for several console wars. The thing is, there are people who will buy a PS3 because it's the PS3 and think about games afterwards. No-one buys a 360 just because it's cool.

So price? Would you buy a console you didn't want because it's cheaper? Well maybe, but then it'd have to be very cheap, and even if Microsoft can afford to sell it that cheap, it's image might be so dented people might not want it anyway.

I'm not saying it's a forgone conclusion, but Microsoft's recent PR stunts are very obviously PR stunts, and if they're so confident of the 360 then why be so vocal and bitchy about it?
PreciousRoi 14 Feb 2007 14:00
47/65
w0rd.

If ever there was a time for MS to be scurred of Sony it was when they announced the Xbox. Sony's only gotten progressively less scary since then.

This tool also seems to suffer from a persistent delusion of this console generation. That being, that anyone is going to 'win' the 'console war'.

The real war is commerce, this is merely a battle. And like some battles theres many ways to look at it... All three console manufacturers have achieved certain objectives they thought were important. So in a way, they're all winners :)

The Wii is selling, is quite popular, and is creating a market no one but Nintendo suspected was as large or potentially profitable as it is apparently becoming.

The 360 is strong, while possibly not fulfilling MS' wildest dreams, it is almost certainly exceeding expectations.

The PS3, while yet to make a true impact as a gaming console, has already given the home office at Sony a lot to smile about by driving BluRay into American homes.

As an aside, and at the risk of being called a Sony anti-fanboy, I have to report that according to sources at the local Wal-Mart, and this is in their own words and secondhand, I make no claim that they aren't exaggerated.

guy at Wal-Mart wrote:
Every PS3 we've sold has been returned.


I'll check into why...
more comments below our sponsor's message
PreciousRoi 14 Feb 2007 14:06
48/65
oh give it a rest.

you lose, your arguments are almost as impressive as your avatar.

*hands you the neocarillo Award and an "I got my ass handed to me on the SPOnG forum by PreciousRoi" t-shirt*

wear it with pride
tyrion 14 Feb 2007 14:51
49/65
PreciousRoi wrote:
My reasons are my own and are ultimately unimportant, as they matter only to me. You'll just have to trust me that they deal with Sony's history as a video game company.

Fair enough and I apologise for insinuating that your issues with Sony stemmed from their non-gaming businesses. Given the mood of the Internet at the moment, I felt it was a safe guess.

I do feel that if you stated what your issues with Sony are that I would better understand where you are coming from, but that's your decision and rightly so.

PreciousRoi wrote:
at one point I saw the whole 'tyr is a Sony fanboy' thing as something of a running gag.

It was to an extent, and one I've played along with on occasion for s**ts and giggles. I'm able to laugh at myself, sometimes I'm the only one laughing, but hey, that's not a unique problem! :-)

PreciousRoi wrote:
Now, how can your agenda be Sony's defense without your being a Sony fanboy yourself? Simple, the 'Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend' principle. You defend Sony because you oppose MicroSoft

You really are reading a hell of a lot into the fact that I dislike Microsoft. Surely it would be so much more useful for my anti-Microsoft agenda if I stuck to just attacking Microsoft?

I have been known to defend Sony where there is no angle that defending them can cause "hurt" to Microsoft, PSP vs DS sales figures for example. I have also been known to slate Nintendo for things I don't agree with. Doesn't that make Microsoft look better by your "rules"? In fact, I have been known to praise Microsoft for things they have done right (again, in my opinion) and on matters that aren't so cut and dried that I'd look like an idiot if I said they were wrong.

Occam's razor would be a good technique to apply here. Am I praising and defending Sony in order to make Microsoft look bad and sometimes bashing Sony and praising Microsoft so I'm not as obvious? Sounds overly Machiavellian to me, I'm not that determined nor do I have that much time to dedicate to my ongoing war against the evil that is Microsoft.

I've spent much more time trying to explain my approach to you than I have ever done in attacking Microsoft.

PreciousRoi wrote:
and at the time you began your campaign of 'balance' everything was going wrong for Sony, not becasue of some 'imbalance' which required correction, but simply becasue they were screwing everything up.

It was exactly because Sony have cocked up themselves that I started to point out where people were just jumping on the bandwagon and slating them for no real reason other than the fact that everybody else was doing it.

Where they have cocked up, I've had a go at them, for example the EU release slip and the loss of rumble in the Sixaxis.

PreciousRoi wrote:
I DO however have a problem with someone (especially a biased someone) putting forward thier opinions as 'balanced', or for the purpose of creating or maintaining 'balance'. It appears patently disingenuous and self-serving.

You must get into a lot of arguments. Everybody has biases, yet most intelligent people are able to put those aside and look at the data logically and come up with a balanced opinion. I hope I am able to do that, it's certainly what I attempt to do. It's something I've seen you doing, defending Sony on occasion against your natural bias. Why do you think that I'm incapable of doing the same thing?

Perhaps "balance" means something different to you than it does to me and that's where this gap in understanding comes from. I'm not talking about equal but opposite fanboy statements, I'm trying to counter fanboy statements with rational arguments and facts.

PreciousRoi wrote:
Now, perhaps in this case I misinterpreted what was intended as a humorous observation

I can only say that you did, but I agree it was a reasonable conclusion, based on your natural bias against me when I criticise Microsoft. As has been pointed out, I may have to start attaching smilies to offhand jokes like that in the future.

What annoyed me was the "Fox News" reference, partly because I don't see myself in that role, but mostly because I hate their guts and the rest of Murdoch's "news" peddling organisation.

As I've tried to point out many times before, I see myself using facts to balance wild fanboy ranting - in any direction. If I come across as always defending Sony it's because there has been a lot of ranting against them lately - some justified, which I have left alone or agreed with, and some not justified (in my opinion), which I have tried to counter.

To be honest, I have spent more time on this than I ever thought I'd need to, you seem like an intelligent chap and you have some interesting points to make, otherwise I'd just ignore you and go on my way. Please take this explanation as a compliment, I feel you are worth the time, but also please pay attention to what I am saying because it's true.
schnide 14 Feb 2007 15:13
50/65
PreciousRoi wrote:
*hands you the neocarillo Award and an "I got my ass handed to me on the SPOnG forum by PreciousRoi" t-shirt*


If you give me your address, I'll send you a pen so you can write "Dude, I'm a TOTAL geek!" in big letters on your forehead.
LUPOS 14 Feb 2007 16:13
51/65
schnide wrote:
"Dude, I'm a TOTAL geek!"



...says the guy arguing about video games on the internet...
__________
PreciousRoi 14 Feb 2007 16:42
52/65
tyrion wrote:
PreciousRoi wrote:
I DO however have a problem with someone (especially a biased someone) putting forward thier opinions as 'balanced', or for the purpose of creating or maintaining 'balance'. It appears patently disingenuous and self-serving.


You must get into a lot of arguments. Everybody has biases, yet most intelligent people are able to put those aside and look at the data logically and come up with a balanced opinion. I hope I am able to do that, it's certainly what I attempt to do. It's something I've seen you doing, defending Sony on occasion against your natural bias. Why do you think that I'm incapable of doing the same thing?

Perhaps "balance" means something different to you than it does to me and that's where this gap in understanding comes from. I'm not talking about equal but opposite fanboy statements, I'm trying to counter fanboy statements with rational arguments and facts.


Once you start labelling you own opinions as 'balanced' the implication becomes that your opinions are somehow superior, and also that other's opinions are 'imbalanced', which while it may be true, would be better stated explicitly, rather than tarring everyone else with the same implied brush. Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a 'balanced opinion', and if there was, I wouldn't want anything to do with it...sounds like something you'd need either a committee, someone with multiple personality disorder, or perhaps a trained seal to come up with, and smacks of compromise or worse, political correctness. By balanced, do you perhaps mean 'rational' or 'carefully considered'?

Also, although I have my problems with Sony (vastly overemphasised at this point, I've been pretty much over it for some time now) a statement such as "I just wish some other company had made it." would never occur to me and I have no special desire to see them absented from the arena. So our prejudices differ in this respect...I don't really have as much of an axe to grind as you do. But thats just my probably deeply flawed interpretation.

tyrion wrote:
What annoyed me was the "Fox News" reference, partly because I don't see myself in that role, but mostly because I hate their guts and the rest of Murdoch's "news" peddling organisation.


Of course it did, it was fully intented to wind you up as much as possible...of course I couldn't know for sure that you held them in such deep contempt, but I was extremely gratified by your dismay at being held in comparison to them. I'm a jerk like that sometimes, heh. I'm quite proud of that one, got plenty of mileage out of it...

tyrion wrote:
...you seem like an intelligent chap and you have some interesting points to make, otherwise I'd just ignore you and go on my way. Please take this explanation as a compliment, I feel you are worth the time, but also please pay attention to what I am saying because it's true.


Back at you, I hope you will recall some of the compliments I've included in many posts in several 'discussions' we've engaged in on the forum. While many of them were admittedly backhanded, they were not at all sarcastic. It shouldn't be hard for you to believe that when I read schnide's original comments I actually did think about what your response might be to them and my dismay at my misinterpretation of your comment was not feigned. I do see you as a vital ally against the forces of rampant fanboyism and international terrorism who hate us and want to destroy our way of life and mock our avatars of choice.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster reach out and touch you with his Noodly Appendage of Love.

Ra-men.
schnide 14 Feb 2007 17:06
53/65
LUPOS wrote:
schnide wrote:
"Dude, I'm a TOTAL geek!"



...says the guy arguing about video games on the internet...
__________


Well if you're going to apply that broad a rationale, I'll get a pack of ten pens for all of us at a discount.
schnide 14 Feb 2007 17:14
54/65
PreciousRoi wrote:
I do see you as a vital ally against the forces of rampant fanboyism and international terrorism who hate us and want to destroy our way of life and mock our avatars of choice.


Listen Bush, if you're going to suck up to people, can you at least not make out that I directed anything at anyone except for you and your really crappy avatar please?
RiseFromYourGrave 14 Feb 2007 17:30
55/65
schnide wrote:
PreciousRoi wrote:
I do see you as a vital ally against the forces of rampant fanboyism and international terrorism who hate us and want to destroy our way of life and mock our avatars of choice.


Listen Bush, if you're going to suck up to people, can you at least not make out that I directed anything at anyone except for you and your really crappy avatar please?


you also assaulted reason, and lots of people hold that dear
tyrion 14 Feb 2007 20:23
56/65
PreciousRoi wrote:
Once you start labelling you own opinions as 'balanced' the implication becomes that your opinions are somehow superior, and also that other's opinions are 'imbalanced', which while it may be true, would be better stated explicitly, rather than tarring everyone else with the same implied brush.

Compared to the fanboy rantings that I usually offer my opinions against, I hope mine are superior.

However, I don't think that by saying "my opinions are balanced" that I'm also saying "everybody else's opinions are not balanced" - all I'm saying is "the fanboy rant I'm replying to is not balanced". There are many others on these forums that offer balanced opinions and that are capable of calling a spade a spade when their preferred company/platform/game comes up lacking.

PreciousRoi wrote:
Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a 'balanced opinion'

Unfortunately, the rest of the English-speaking world disagrees with you. A balanced opinion, often used in the context of "a fair and balanced opinion" is used almost everywhere to mean an opinion that considers all sides to the point in question, i.e. an opinion that has balance.

I agree that they are rare, and a lot of the time opinions that claim to be balanced are not, but the phrase is a perfectly cromulent one.

PreciousRoi wrote:
By balanced, do you perhaps mean 'rational' or 'carefully considered'?

That is the meaning of the phrase "a balanced opinion", so yes, that's what I mean.

PreciousRoi wrote:
Of course it did, it was fully intented to wind you up as much as possible...of course I couldn't know for sure that you held them in such deep contempt, but I was extremely gratified by your dismay at being held in comparison to them. I'm a jerk like that sometimes, heh.

You hardly strengthen your case by acting like a jerk. I had thought you used the comparison for a shorthand to what you were trying to say. I'm a little disappointed that you feel the need to try and wind me up. I've been civil to you all the way through this discussion, as I pointed out earlier, only one of us has resorted to name calling.
LUPOS 14 Feb 2007 21:28
57/65
tyrion wrote:
You hardly strengthen your case by acting like a jerk.


The trick here is that roi is a fairly intelligent person. Only problem being that he believes himself to be exceedingly so and there for feels some sort of satisfaction from toying with "lesser" people (hence all the time spend on internet forums I suppose).

Some intelligent people see the problems around them and try and use there enhanced reasoning to aid those less fortunate. Some see the problems in the world and despise the "stupid people" that cause them and become intollerant.

Roi seems to be more of a Magneto I think.
______
RiseFromYourGrave 14 Feb 2007 23:45
58/65
i bet Roi is a perfectly affable chap in person, confining his wordy assassinations to the net :P

in real life i dont stick my tongue out at the end of sentences, unless its the end of a particulary good chat up line



tyrion 15 Feb 2007 08:39
59/65
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
i bet Roi is a perfectly affable chap in person, confining his wordy assassinations to the net :P

That's what makes me so disappointed that he resorts to name calling. It's obvious he's intelligent and can think around issues, yet he resorts to immature name-calling and wind-up tactics that he probably wouldn't use if he weren't behind the anonymity of a forum handle.
schnide 15 Feb 2007 10:34
60/65
RiseFromYourGrave wrote:
you also assaulted reason, and lots of people hold that dear


I did nothing more than give it a little tickle :)

I have yet to see my opinions debunked, and trust you have all equally enjoyed the debate they started (however much some might protest).

PreciousRoi 15 Feb 2007 15:09
61/65
well, that'll teach me to use self-deprecating humor, I call myself a jerk, and all of a sudden everyone picks up on that...extending the olive branch by admitting that maybe I was a little bit of a jerk, and you turn around and jam it up my ass...real class.

Sheesh tyr, lighten the f**k up, will ya...maybe I used incorrect British slang...I was assuming that 'wind someone up' was identical in meaning with what would be called in my circles over here 'f**king with' which is generally something someone does with their friends, but not in a mean spirited way... In any event, 'FOX News' worked for me on several levels, of course the original and base meaning was a shorthand comparison. And as I stated previously, I had absolutely no idea that your reaction to it would be as vehement as it was. Was I trying for such an extreme reaction? Not really. Was I genuinely offended by what I saw as your setting yourself up as arbiter of the balance? Yes. Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps you were a bit too knee-jerk in your defense of Sony at times? Apparently not.

Now as to balance...the phrase 'balanced opinion'...I still don't like it, besides you clearly stated and implied that your opinion was not only 'rational' and 'thoughtfully considered', it was also intended to work toward the other, non-metaphorical, more traditional meaning of 'balance'. Which is PRECISELY where you left yourself open to comparisions with FOX.


Forget it, the more I defend my position, the more pissed off you're going to get...
PreciousRoi 15 Feb 2007 15:23
62/65
You suppose wrong, this is the only forum where I'm consistently active.

You malign Magneto.

Do I go around looking for 'lesser' mortals to toy with? Of course not, wheres the glory or fun in that? Am I afraid to confront someone I see as assaulting that which I hold dear, regardless of mutant powers, or lack thereof? Not at all. Have I been known to lord it over the broken bodies of my defeated enemies? Yes, but only only when the person in question lacks the basic reason and logic neccessary for rational discourse.
PreciousRoi 15 Feb 2007 15:27
63/65
Actually you'd be surprised. I'm every bit as confrontational in person as I am online. I'm a great believer in the maxim 'the only thing that is needed for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.' Its the people who DO use the comfortable anonymity of the internet to act differently than they do in person that I tend to get into it with. I despise that sort.
schnide 15 Feb 2007 15:40
64/65
PreciousRoi wrote:
Its the people who DO use the comfortable anonymity of the internet to act differently than they do in person that I tend to get into it with. I despise that sort.


You being so judgemental, makes you not so superior.
RiseFromYourGrave 15 Feb 2007 17:13
65/65

well theres a difference between being forthwith in presenting opposition and being acerbic. im happy to believe you take no s**t in real life and throw your weighted opinion around with glee, i can identify with that. i have just always though you wouldnt be as caustic :D
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.