<\/span>@Selftest<\/strong>: You don't need PS+ to play Hulu+....that was only in the beta for the program...and was stated in the press release...and blogs...and Giant Bomb...<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>McShank<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1700<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>920<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By McShank<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@Lobster_Monster<\/strong> said:<\/p>I guess they could give us a free service that's super-slow and has half-assed security like PSN. Is that really preferable?<\/blockquote>Microsoft has no extra security as sony does, if hackers were not such dicks and microsoft had tried to take the people who jailbroke the xbox to court i bet anon would have got butt hurt from that and sent everyone after mircosoft.. Also when has PSN online been slow? I have had the ps3 since launch and my internet has always been stable. If Xbla was free i would have also got a xbox but until i can play everything on the internet for free since i am paying for internet already then microsoft wont see my money, just like netflix, why should I have to pay extra for a service i am already paying for just because its on their system when other systems have it free? So far everything in this is just Hate towards ps3 since it was down for a month. Boohoo free service for the past 3years to not get to play games online for a month and then get free shit? Sounds fine to me. Xbox goes down for a month? people would jump ship after the second day of not being able to play COD.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>TotalEklypse<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>982<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>2<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By TotalEklypse<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@GrandHarrier<\/strong> said: Everything about Xbox Live is better than the alternatives from the other consoles; For the sake of being practical, this means PS3 since the Wii is an absolute joke. <\/blockquote>Better how?\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>EmuLeader<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>635<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 3<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By EmuLeader<\/a><\/div><\/div>No matter how many good arguments either side makes, no one on the internet is going to say, \"I'm sorry. I was wrong, thank you for the good reasoning.\" Both the OP and the people arguing with him are 100% convinced of their side, and no matter what anyone else says, its not going to change their mind. They may say, \"If someone comes up with a good argument then I would listen, but no one has,\" but we all know statements like that are BS people say to bolster their own belief that they are right. They just keep their horse blinders on and continue to complain\/argue. Again, I'm talking about both sides to this matter, not just the OP.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>Nasar7<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>3236<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>647<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By Nasar7<\/a><\/div><\/div>Like one guy said way back, if you see value in LIVE, you will pay for it. If you do not, then you won't. Simple.\u00a0 \u00a0I used to pay for LIVE, then my 360 red-ringed so I started using PSN. Never went back. To me, the small differences between the two services does not warrant the extra money for LIVE, as I find the free PSN to be sufficiently competent (matchmaking, download speeds, community features) or better (XMB interface, PSN store, Netflix) than its paid counterpart.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>haggis<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1674<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>4<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By haggis<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
<\/span>@Lobster_Monster<\/strong> said:<\/p>I guess they could give us a free service that's super-slow and has half-assed security like PSN. Is that really preferable?<\/blockquote>Microsoft has no extra security as sony does, if hackers were not such dicks and microsoft had tried to take the people who jailbroke the xbox to court i bet anon would have got butt hurt from that and sent everyone after mircosoft.. Also when has PSN online been slow? I have had the ps3 since launch and my internet has always been stable. If Xbla was free i would have also got a xbox but until i can play everything on the internet for free since i am paying for internet already then microsoft wont see my money, just like netflix, why should I have to pay extra for a service i am already paying for just because its on their system when other systems have it free? So far everything in this is just Hate towards ps3 since it was down for a month. Boohoo free service for the past 3years to not get to play games online for a month and then get free shit? Sounds fine to me. Xbox goes down for a month? people would jump ship after the second day of not being able to play COD.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>TotalEklypse<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>982<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>2<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 0<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By TotalEklypse<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@GrandHarrier<\/strong> said: Everything about Xbox Live is better than the alternatives from the other consoles; For the sake of being practical, this means PS3 since the Wii is an absolute joke. <\/blockquote>Better how?\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>EmuLeader<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>635<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 3<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By EmuLeader<\/a><\/div><\/div>No matter how many good arguments either side makes, no one on the internet is going to say, \"I'm sorry. I was wrong, thank you for the good reasoning.\" Both the OP and the people arguing with him are 100% convinced of their side, and no matter what anyone else says, its not going to change their mind. They may say, \"If someone comes up with a good argument then I would listen, but no one has,\" but we all know statements like that are BS people say to bolster their own belief that they are right. They just keep their horse blinders on and continue to complain\/argue. Again, I'm talking about both sides to this matter, not just the OP.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>Nasar7<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>3236<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>647<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By Nasar7<\/a><\/div><\/div>Like one guy said way back, if you see value in LIVE, you will pay for it. If you do not, then you won't. Simple.\u00a0 \u00a0I used to pay for LIVE, then my 360 red-ringed so I started using PSN. Never went back. To me, the small differences between the two services does not warrant the extra money for LIVE, as I find the free PSN to be sufficiently competent (matchmaking, download speeds, community features) or better (XMB interface, PSN store, Netflix) than its paid counterpart.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>haggis<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1674<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>4<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By haggis<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
<\/span>@GrandHarrier<\/strong> said: Everything about Xbox Live is better than the alternatives from the other consoles; For the sake of being practical, this means PS3 since the Wii is an absolute joke. <\/blockquote>Better how?\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>EmuLeader<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>635<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 3<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By EmuLeader<\/a><\/div><\/div>No matter how many good arguments either side makes, no one on the internet is going to say, \"I'm sorry. I was wrong, thank you for the good reasoning.\" Both the OP and the people arguing with him are 100% convinced of their side, and no matter what anyone else says, its not going to change their mind. They may say, \"If someone comes up with a good argument then I would listen, but no one has,\" but we all know statements like that are BS people say to bolster their own belief that they are right. They just keep their horse blinders on and continue to complain\/argue. Again, I'm talking about both sides to this matter, not just the OP.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>Nasar7<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>3236<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>647<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By Nasar7<\/a><\/div><\/div>Like one guy said way back, if you see value in LIVE, you will pay for it. If you do not, then you won't. Simple.\u00a0 \u00a0I used to pay for LIVE, then my 360 red-ringed so I started using PSN. Never went back. To me, the small differences between the two services does not warrant the extra money for LIVE, as I find the free PSN to be sufficiently competent (matchmaking, download speeds, community features) or better (XMB interface, PSN store, Netflix) than its paid counterpart.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>haggis<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1674<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>4<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By haggis<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
No matter how many good arguments either side makes, no one on the internet is going to say, \"I'm sorry. I was wrong, thank you for the good reasoning.\" Both the OP and the people arguing with him are 100% convinced of their side, and no matter what anyone else says, its not going to change their mind. They may say, \"If someone comes up with a good argument then I would listen, but no one has,\" but we all know statements like that are BS people say to bolster their own belief that they are right. They just keep their horse blinders on and continue to complain\/argue. Again, I'm talking about both sides to this matter, not just the OP.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>Nasar7<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>3236<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>647<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 0<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By Nasar7<\/a><\/div><\/div>Like one guy said way back, if you see value in LIVE, you will pay for it. If you do not, then you won't. Simple.\u00a0 \u00a0I used to pay for LIVE, then my 360 red-ringed so I started using PSN. Never went back. To me, the small differences between the two services does not warrant the extra money for LIVE, as I find the free PSN to be sufficiently competent (matchmaking, download speeds, community features) or better (XMB interface, PSN store, Netflix) than its paid counterpart.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>haggis<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1674<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>4<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By haggis<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
Like one guy said way back, if you see value in LIVE, you will pay for it. If you do not, then you won't. Simple.\u00a0 \u00a0I used to pay for LIVE, then my 360 red-ringed so I started using PSN. Never went back. To me, the small differences between the two services does not warrant the extra money for LIVE, as I find the free PSN to be sufficiently competent (matchmaking, download speeds, community features) or better (XMB interface, PSN store, Netflix) than its paid counterpart.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>haggis<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>1674<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>4<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 3<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 1<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By haggis<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
<\/span>@nintendoeats<\/strong> said: <\/span><\/p>Hey, we are just talking about features here, nothing else. All I'm saying is that if you wanted a 360 with all of the features of a stock PS3 in 2007, you were going to be paying more than if you had just gotten a PS3. There was other stuff that made the 360 more successful (earlier launch, better games, and lower barrier-to-entry for developers just to name a few). <\/blockquote>I'm not really disputing the cost comparison, but the sales numbers don't lie. If people thought the PS3 was a better deal at the time, they would have purchased more of them. I think this has more to do with how Microsoft marketed Xbox components, though, rather than any inherent advantage one console had over the other. Looking back, it's easy to overlook Sony's overpricing with Blu-ray because they won that particular battle, but at the time it was a risk many consumers didn't want to make. Sony's decision may now be vindicated, but they handicapped themselves with mainstream consumers during 2006 and 2007. I'll say that the lack<\/i> of wireless was one feature I appreciated when buying the 360: I was putting it right next to my router anyway, so I didn't need it. I wasn't going to use it, so why pay for it? Not all consumers think this way, but many of them do. They're not looking at having every feature, but the features they need. My PS3's wireless connection has never been used. I've played a Blu-ray movie in it twice. \u00a0This is, I think, one of the points that LIve detractors should try to understand: Sony's console was always the comprehensive package, Microsoft's always the mix-and-match package. Not everyone wants that comprehensive package. I might have to spend more to get all the same features with an Xbox, but I probably don't want<\/i> all those features. I didn't want wireless, for instance. I didn't want (at first) online play. I could stream movies from my PC, and had no real desire for Blu-ray. The Xbox 360 was a better value for me precisely because I didn't want to pay for things I didn't need. Eventually I bought a PS3, but it was for the games, not the features of the console.\u00a0In this case, the flexibility helped Microsoft, at least initially. Whether those same market conditions will continue into the next console generation is anyone's guess.\n <\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/a>LiquidPrince<\/a><\/svg><\/i> Follow\n <\/a><\/div><\/header>17073<\/p>Forum Posts<\/p><\/div>-1<\/p>Wiki Points<\/p><\/div>0<\/p>Followers<\/p><\/div><\/section>Reviews:<\/span> 1<\/p>User Lists:<\/span> 5<\/p><\/section><\/div><\/div>\n Edited By LiquidPrince<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
<\/span>@buft<\/strong> said:<\/p>it costs barely anything and i like the service, i use it to watch sky player on my tv, for me thats great because otherwise i would have to watch it on a laptop screen and it doesnt always work well because my processor is slow. how come i gotta pay rates even though i own my house?<\/blockquote>It costs the price of a game. That's not barely anything considering you could buy a new game with that money.<\/p><\/article>12 years ago<\/time><\/div>
252 Comments<\/h4>