I'll agree that if you want every single feature on offer than the PS3 is cheaper than buying them ala carte for the 360, but if you don't care for even one or 2 of those features then you are still cheaper with the 360, and it looks like for the core function of 'playing video games' the 360 will always be cheaper than the PS3.
Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you make the systems comparable then the PS3 is the cheaper and more elegant solution. Obviously if you don't want to upgrade the 360 to match the features of the PS3 than the core 360 is cheaper than the PS3.
Also your argument about not needing an HD player for pure gaming is not entirely true. As I've stated previously Sony chose to include the HD player not only for being able to play movies but also so that when games require more space than a standard DVD disc can accommodate they will not have to go multi-disc. This will be a fault of the 360...albeit small since it's not too much of a hassle to get up and switch discs.
Ok, I need a mode of transportation to work. I need to use it to transport groceries. I live in America where the maximum posted speed limit is 75 mph. Which is a better solution?
You are ignoring what I'm saying. I am only saying that to make the two systems comparable then you need to add components to the XBox 360. I am not saying a lamborghini is the best solution to America's driving needs.
What if you place no value in some of those 'features'? You can only make that comparison if all those features are wanted, or needed in a video game system. Do you want/need Wi-Fi? HD Movies? A card reader? Some want all, some want none. If the you buy a video game system for the puropse of playing Video games, then the $300 CORE 360 is just as viable a solution as the $600 PS3. Both (for example) will play Grand Theft Auto IV, and each version will look & play comparably.
Again, you are ignoring what I'm saying. If you add components to the XBox 360 to make the feature sets equivalent then the PS3 is the cheaper solution and more elegant since it is a bundled into a single package.
That wouldn't make it comparable, it only serves to make the PS3 look cheaper. It's like comparing a base $500 PS3 to a Wii and saying the Wii is more expensive because 'To really use it you have to buy 3 remotes, 3 nunchucks, 4 Classic controllers, a 2 Gig SD card, The Lan adapter, Component cables and 4 Wavebirds...'
It would make it comparable because it syncs up their feature sets. Comparing the core XBox 360 with the PS3 is like comparing a Honda Accord with a lamborghini. You have to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Not everyone who buys a 360 wants all the accessories you mentioned, nor are they required. An X-Box 360 Core system is $299 and comes with composite cables (just like the $600 PS3) and you can buy a 64 meg memory card for $25 if you want to play games in SD. $325 + tax and you are done*.
You're right, someone who wants just the base features has the right to choose that. And it is a nice feature of the XBox 360. But having the two consoles be comparable requires adding the additional components to the 360. So, if you want a system that isn't gimped and has all of the features, the PS3 is the cheaper and more elegant solution.
The PS3 is $600 and includes a 60GB HDD, wireless and wired networking, and a blue-ray HD player (chosen for playing HD movies and for having a media type with enough storage space for games that will eventually exceed the storage of a standard DVD disc).
The XBox 360 is $400 with only a 20GB HDD and to make it comparable to the PS3 you must buy a wireless adapter ($90.00), and an HD-DVD player ($190.00 and which Microsoft doesn't produce games on which means you'll be dealing with multi-disc games in the not too distant future). This brings the XBox 360 price up to $680.
In addition the online play is not free ($40 for a year subscription), it is prone to overheating so an intercooler is almost a must (NYKO Intercooler $15). This brings the XBox 360 to $735.
Furthermore, XBox 360 is going to increase the HDD capacity of the XBox 360 to 120GB to compete with the PS3 and since they use a proprietary drive this will cost you $180 whereas you can put any HDD in a PS3 (120GB HDD can be had for $53.00). This brings the XBox 360 to $915 and the PS3 to $653.
If you decide the HD player really just isn't worth it then that still leaves the XBox 360 at $725 which is $72 more than the PS3.
Then you add the fact that the PS3 is a single component vs. the now 4 components for the XBox 360 (The unit itself, intercooler, wireless adapter and the HD player) or 3 if you choose not to get the HD player. More components means more wires and more hassles and more space that is required. Plus, a single component looks a lot nicer in your living room rather than several. I realize the wireless adapter and intercooler actually connect to the XBox 360 but it is still more wires and more hassle and makes the console take up more space.
Another nice feature of the PS3 is that you can install Linux on it making it a fully functional computer if need be. The PS3 is also quieter (barring the recent whine discovered in some of the new PS3s which will hopefully be fixed soon), a lot more backwards compatible and doesn't have the bad manufacturing quality of the XBox 360 (lots of people are complaining that they have had to replace their XBox 360 several times).
So, how do you really justify the PS3 being more expensive than an XBox 360?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you make the systems comparable then the PS3 is the cheaper and more elegant solution. Obviously if you don't want to upgrade the 360 to match the features of the PS3 than the core 360 is cheaper than the PS3.
Also your argument about not needing an HD player for pure gaming is not entirely true. As I've stated previously Sony chose to include the HD player not only for being able to play movies but also so that when games require more space than a standard DVD disc can accommodate they will not have to go multi-disc. This will be a fault of the 360...albeit small since it's not too much of a hassle to get up and switch discs.
You are ignoring what I'm saying. I am only saying that to make the two systems comparable then you need to add components to the XBox 360. I am not saying a lamborghini is the best solution to America's driving needs.
What if you place no value in some of those 'features'? You can only make that comparison if all those features are wanted, or needed in a video game system. Do you want/need Wi-Fi? HD Movies? A card reader? Some want all, some want none. If the you buy a video game system for the puropse of playing Video games, then the $300 CORE 360 is just as viable a solution as the $600 PS3. Both (for example) will play Grand Theft Auto IV, and each version will look & play comparably.
Again, you are ignoring what I'm saying. If you add components to the XBox 360 to make the feature sets equivalent then the PS3 is the cheaper solution and more elegant since it is a bundled into a single package.
It would make it comparable because it syncs up their feature sets. Comparing the core XBox 360 with the PS3 is like comparing a Honda Accord with a lamborghini. You have to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
Not everyone who buys a 360 wants all the accessories you mentioned, nor are they required. An X-Box 360 Core system is $299 and comes with composite cables (just like the $600 PS3) and you can buy a 64 meg memory card for $25 if you want to play games in SD. $325 + tax and you are done*.
You're right, someone who wants just the base features has the right to choose that. And it is a nice feature of the XBox 360. But having the two consoles be comparable requires adding the additional components to the 360. So, if you want a system that isn't gimped and has all of the features, the PS3 is the cheaper and more elegant solution.
Sorry, was my first post. I know...there is a preview button...
The PS3 is $600 and includes a 60GB HDD, wireless and wired networking, and a blue-ray HD player (chosen for playing HD movies and for having a media type with enough storage space for games that will eventually exceed the storage of a standard DVD disc). The XBox 360 is $400 with only a 20GB HDD and to make it comparable to the PS3 you must buy a wireless adapter ($90.00), and an HD-DVD player ($190.00 and which Microsoft doesn't produce games on which means you'll be dealing with multi-disc games in the not too distant future). This brings the XBox 360 price up to $680. In addition the online play is not free ($40 for a year subscription), it is prone to overheating so an intercooler is almost a must (NYKO Intercooler $15). This brings the XBox 360 to $735. Furthermore, XBox 360 is going to increase the HDD capacity of the XBox 360 to 120GB to compete with the PS3 and since they use a proprietary drive this will cost you $180 whereas you can put any HDD in a PS3 (120GB HDD can be had for $53.00). This brings the XBox 360 to $915 and the PS3 to $653. If you decide the HD player really just isn't worth it then that still leaves the XBox 360 at $725 which is $72 more than the PS3. Then you add the fact that the PS3 is a single component vs. the now 4 components for the XBox 360 (The unit itself, intercooler, wireless adapter and the HD player) or 3 if you choose not to get the HD player. More components means more wires and more hassles and more space that is required. Plus, a single component looks a lot nicer in your living room rather than several. I realize the wireless adapter and intercooler actually connect to the XBox 360 but it is still more wires and more hassle and makes the console take up more space. Another nice feature of the PS3 is that you can install Linux on it making it a fully functional computer if need be. The PS3 is also quieter (barring the recent whine discovered in some of the new PS3s which will hopefully be fixed soon), a lot more backwards compatible and doesn't have the bad manufacturing quality of the XBox 360 (lots of people are complaining that they have had to replace their XBox 360 several times). So, how do you really justify the PS3 being more expensive than an XBox 360?