Price of the 360 vs the PS3

thedoc46

thedoc46

thedoc46

Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2003
Posts
5,995
Location
Expat in the USA
Don't know about the UK, but in the US, the 360 is $299 for the vanilla 120gig no game and the PS3 is $250, no game etc.... or if you get lucky, there is a 160gig Blk Ops package at a major store for $250

Now is it me or is Microsoft being too damn greedy ?

Not only do they want an extra $50 for the console, but then they're gonna sting you for another $50 just to play online... Whereas the PS3, includes a decent bluray player, has some better media facilities when you include PS3 media server, and the online gaming is free.

I already have both, but wanted to get another 360 for my kid, so that he could have his own in his bedroom.. But TBH, I walked out the shop, and now I'll get him his own PS3 instead. Thing is he loves his Halo, so he's probably not gonna be over the moon. But what the heck.. It should be the lesser expensive of the two, when you add the pro's and con's.

Microsoft is being too greedy.
 
Quick Google;

Xbox 360 250GB £179.98

Sony PlayStation 3 160GB PS3 £189.99
 
I dont know how it is the US but in the UK online its cheaper to buy nearly 100% of the time as opposed to highstreet. Here I paid £160 for the 250 gb S xbox which is about the cheapest online at mo and seen the PS3 for something like £20 more.

Not sure what to say really, MS are a business and charge what people will pay. Plus hasnt the PS3 recently had a price cut?
 
Last edited:
Amazon UK:

PS3 160GB: £180 (£206rrp)
PS3 320GB: £230 (£250rrp)

360 4GB: £135 (£153rrp)
360 250GB: £180 (£205rrp)


Amazon US:

PS3 160GB: $250 ($260rrp)
PS3 320GB: $360 ($360rrp)

360 4GB: $199 ($199rrp)
360 250GB $300 ($300rrp)

I just picked amazon as they exist on both sides of the pond and they generally have good prices below most retail game shops. Seems the USA prices have barely any discounts (although they seem to have better value bundles than the UK).

On paper the PS3 seems better value for money, but obviously that is not taking into account online/game preferences/exclusives which vary between the consoles.


rp2000
 
thedoc46 said:
Don't know about the UK, but in the US, the 360 is $299 for the vanilla 120gig no game and the PS3 is $250, no game etc.... or if you get lucky, there is a 160gig Blk Ops package at a major store for $250

Now is it me or is Microsoft being too damn greedy ?

Not only do they want an extra $50 for the console, but then they're gonna sting you for another $50 just to play online... Whereas the PS3, includes a decent bluray player, has some better media facilities when you include PS3 media server, and the online gaming is free.

I already have both, but wanted to get another 360 for my kid, so that he could have his own in his bedroom.. But TBH, I walked out the shop, and now I'll get him his own PS3 instead. Thing is he loves his Halo, so he's probably not gonna be over the moon. But what the heck.. It should be the lesser expensive of the two, when you add the pro's and con's.

Microsoft is being too greedy.
Click to expand...

The PS3 has just had a price cut, I'd expect MS to follow suit before Christmas,

I've seen people on NeoGaf mention lots of deals in the US with $100 gift vouchers being offered on 360s to entice people, I guess you have to look around. The 360 has usually been cheaper then the PS3 throughout its lifetime, so not sure why you think they are being too greedy, if Sony could sell enough, they'd be charging double the price, they all work on supply and demand..
 
I don't know about the 360. But the other day you could get a 160gb PS3 for £160 from Tesco with a quidco voucher. I made a thread and everything.

EDIT:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18312092

Using that deal the two consoles come out at.

X360 250gb £194 - £10 = £184 - 6% cashback = £172.96
PS3 160gb £180 - £10 = £170 - 6% cashback = £159.80

On top of that are any tesco points you might get. £3.88 for the 350 or £3.60 for the PS3. More if you were to buy it on atesco credit card.

Regardless. £160 for a PS3 really is a good deal all things considered.
 
Last edited:
Alpherah said:
Except PSN is worse, in every way.
Is it £40 a year worse or so? .. maybe, maybe not. But well my details haven't been taken, and i can cross-game chat so it gets a thumbs up from me!
Click to expand...

Let me give you an example. I want to play Black Ops multiplayer, I put the disk in, load the game up, choose multiplayer from the menu, join a lobby and then the map loads. How is that instance 'worse in every way' when compared to the 360? You're hung up on cross game chat being the be all and end all...
 
Demon said:
The PS3 has just had a price cut, I'd expect MS to follow suit before Christmas,

I've seen people on NeoGaf mention lots of deals in the US with $100 gift vouchers being offered on 360s to entice people, I guess you have to look around. The 360 has usually been cheaper then the PS3 throughout its lifetime, so not sure why you think they are being too greedy, if Sony could sell enough, they'd be charging double the price, they all work on supply and demand..
Click to expand...

No way !!! Thoughout both of the console's life, Sony has been a lot more generous & typically given more. In way of being able to swap out HD's, bluray player, free online gaming, integrated wifi (until the slim came out) HUGE savings on multi-console ownership, including being able to re-download my games onto other profiles, without the extra subs.

With Microsoft, you were forced to buy their wifi adapter, and forced to give more money on top if you wanted to upgrade your puny 20gig HD. Plus, multi console ownership, this is a BIG one for me. as I have 3 ps3's, soon to be 4! Look at this another way, since owning an xbox, I've given Microsoft, $250 in subs JUST so I can play online.. Had I had two xbox 360's in my household, this would have doubled to $500, plus, it is made a chore to move profiles from one console to another. I do not chat to anyone.. Just goto multiplayer and look for human competition. Certain downloaded games would essentially be commited to that particular console. All an elaborate plan, to make you dip into your pockets even further. If your dumb enough (as i nearly was yesterday! cos my kid is a halo fan)

Whereas Sony, say hey we appreciate your business, here just log out and login and you're all set.

Hats off to Sony, in that respect.
 
thedoc46 said:
Whereas Sony, say hey we appreciate your business, here just log out and login and you're all set.

Hats off to Sony, in that respect.
Click to expand...

The 20gig launch PS3 was £425 without a HD cable and Sony recommended people get a second job for it.

Yeah, Sony are a philanthropic organisation unlike MS who are evil capitalists.
 
Abooie said:
The 20gig launch PS3 was £425 without a HD cable and Sony recommended people get a second job for it.

Yeah, Sony are a philanthropic organisation unlike MS who are evil capitalists.
Click to expand...

As were all stand-alone bluray players back then. Point not taken.
 
I bought my 360 S 250GB from John Lewis for £159 for what it's worth. And it's honestly the best £159 I've ever spent, especially when you look at its cost:hours of enjoyment/use.
 
Alpherah said:
Except PSN is worse, in every way.
Is it £40 a year worse or so? .. maybe, maybe not. But well my details haven't been taken, and i can cross-game chat so it gets a thumbs up from me!
Click to expand...

Well PSN does exactly what its meant to do, and be a free way to play games online. When you add up the cost of xbox live over the years, PSN is remarkably cheap in comparison.

You factor in the cost of buying an xbox 360 and then 2 – 3 years of xbox live gold, then the price of a PS3 with the extras such as a decent blu ray player and the exclusive titles (if you’re interested in them) then the price of the PS3 is in someway a complete steal..!!

Xbox live has its strengths, is it worthy of the price each year? To many it is, to some it not. A casual gamer who maybe ventures online once or twice a month could not justify the cost of xbox live. PSN therefore comes into its own when you compare it like for like for occasional online gaming.

The PSN network outage was an ugly fiasco. No doubt it caused a lot of upset, however it honestly could have easily been MS live that suffered, and if it had been PSN would have been a shiny example of how a free network is better.

As it happens PSN and live both have strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn’t say live is a total waste of money, or that PSN is complete garbage due to being free.

What I’d say is that PSN is perfectly acceptable as a fee platform (PSN+ is something else entirely and not to be included in the debate – it’s an additional content provider to an already free network) and live is perfectly acceptable as a paid for network, each offering something for both hardcore and casual gamers alike, its just how much do you place a value on online gaming.
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
Yeah, PSN is the devil isnt it. I heard you get cancer when you go online using a PS3.

Christ some people are morons... PSN works perfectly, It just lacks a feature or 2. How does that make it worse at what it DOES DO exactly?
Click to expand...

Because apparently not being able to talk to people in completely different games automatically makes the PSN rubbish.
 
thedoc46 said:
No way !!! Thoughout both of the console's life, Sony has been a lot more generous & typically given more. In way of being able to swap out HD's, bluray player, free online gaming, integrated wifi (until the slim came out) HUGE savings on multi-console ownership, including being able to re-download my games onto other profiles, without the extra subs.

With Microsoft, you were forced to buy their wifi adapter, and forced to give more money on top if you wanted to upgrade your puny 20gig HD. Plus, multi console ownership, this is a BIG one for me. as I have 3 ps3's, soon to be 4! Look at this another way, since owning an xbox, I've given Microsoft, $250 in subs JUST so I can play online.. Had I had two xbox 360's in my household, this would have doubled to $500, plus, it is made a chore to move profiles from one console to another. I do not chat to anyone.. Just goto multiplayer and look for human competition. Certain downloaded games would essentially be commited to that particular console. All an elaborate plan, to make you dip into your pockets even further. If your dumb enough (as i nearly was yesterday! cos my kid is a halo fan)

Whereas Sony, say hey we appreciate your business, here just log out and login and you're all set.

Hats off to Sony, in that respect.
Click to expand...

In some ways I agree with a lot of your points made.

Sony have made it incredibly easy to transfer profiles and games from one console to another, and with PSN+ cloud saving, even getting your saves to another console is now fairly simplistic.

Sony have provided core gamers with some rather niffy features over the years, and whereas MS could be argued looked to just line their pockets, however MS is a business and in business you’re looking to make money. MS has and will continue to do so, the 360 is a solid and valuable platform to them and gamers alike.

It was debated a while ago MS had gone off in search of casual gamers (kinect games etc) it’s a debate that’s maybe not suited to this thread, however MS would be well placed if looking for casual gamers to offer a live service that matches something of that like what Sony offer, hence a free network. However MS do not offer this, and treats both casual and hardcore gamers with the same stance – you want online you play the fee. I have to he honest never found this just. Paying the online fee if you’re just a causal gamer is bit harsh to many, however like I said, at what value do you put online gaming at?

I’m bound to be beaten down on this, however its just how MS operate, and making a lot of money by doing so, so why stop? Sony seem to have a different approach and offer more for free..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom