Comments on: The Xbox 360 should win this console war

The console's price cut will propel Microsoft to the top of this generation's console war. Will Nintendo have something to say about that?

[xXThe_RemedyXx]

WOW Don!! I never thought I would see the day where the Queen XBOX Fangirl would show her face, she has! Her name...


Don Reisinger

This is the most biased article I have ever read. Can I have my 5 minutes back??

[dd13reis]

Oh please. This is the most common complaint from anti-Microsoft zealots like yourself. Do a little research into me and you'll find that I beat up on Microsoft just as much as any other company.

Think before you write something that doesn't make sense.

-Don

[Cyborganizer]

"Let's face it--the Wii isn't something you play on a daily basis"? What? I do not play it on a daily basis not because I am in school, but played it all of the time during my summer break. The Wii has several great titles that XBOX 360 and PS3 lack. I prefer my Wii to my friend's XBOX 360 or PS3 and I would play my WIi even if I own both other systems.

[dd13reis]

I think you're the exception, then, and not the norm. The Wii isn't built for the single-player in mind.

-Don

[Cyborganizer]

"Let's face it--the Wii isn't something you play on a daily basis"? What? I do not play it on a daily basis not because I am in school, but played it all of the time during my summer break. The Wii has several great titles that XBOX 360 and PS3 lack. I prefer my Wii to my friend's XBOX 360 or PS3 and I would play my WIi even if I own both other systems.

[Dazzastar]

Interesting article, but with many, many flaws.

I don't think consumers are that stupid to accept that the Xbox360 is cheaper alternative. I think the majority can see that both equate to nearly the same amount, at least over here in the UK anyway. Both are expensive systems, only difference is how much you pay at the beginning and then over a period of time. I'd even go as far to say that even buying the arcarde model, and using Xbox Live Gold for two years, you would have almost reached the same price point as a PS3, and a PS3 is a one off fee that comes with alot more things than the Xbox360 arcade.

And judjing from alot of forums, it seems that the only place consoles matter these days is in the United States, where the Xbox is currently outselling the PS3. Now i dont mean to be rude, but there is alot more to the world than just the US sales. Taking into account Europe and Asian territories, the gap between the two is alot closer than people think. Its also worth noting the PS3 launched a year after the 360 in the US and Asia, and around 16months or so in Europe. We should also look at it being regarded that the PS3 outsold the 360 for 2007, and currently is doing aswell in 2008 when looking worldwide. Sadly, not enough people look outside their own countries when talking about popularity and sales.

As for content and games, both have outstanding line ups, both now and in the future. It could be argued that Sony has more 'big name' games yet to come, and while Mr Reisinger is under the illusion that first party games don't seem to matter as much as third party, i'd argue that Sony probably have the correct stance on it. Creating a strong first party can reep huge rewards, for both Sony and the consumer, just look at Nintendo down the years. And while Sonys third party exclusives aren't their in high numbers, they do still have amazing quality of games, whether that be Metal Gear Solid 4 or any other game.

And lets face it, no console 'should' win it. The 360 has been plagued with that many issues it shouldn't even be on retail shelves, let alone win anything. Which remains to this day my only real gripe about the Xbox360. The whole 'RRoD', 'Disc Scratching', 'Over-heating' etc problems have been swept under the carpet far too much. Surely we as consumers should have the best possible product that a company can release? I don't get why people have allowed Microsoft such an easy passage on this issue. Any other company in any other walk of life would have been severly punished.

[Laserdisc]

I'm sorry to tell you this but you don't need to be the best to be on top. Microsoft of all companies proved this with Windows. However I'm with you on your comment but history shows if you have enough money, you can accomplish almost anything. Past products that should have dominated the market failed... Dreamcast, Commodore Amiga... need I go on? heh.

[kcotton314]

Sorry but I have to agree with the posts regarding xbox price. I know VERY few people with an ethernet cable sitting by the TV. So spend your $200.00 for a REALLY limited XBOX, then your 150 for the wireless, and finally 50 for online gaming and you are already even with the PS3 cost. Still, no Hard Drive, no blue tooth, a system that will wake the neighbors, and a contoller you're going to be feeding batteries to for the a few years, until the new xbox comes out. And don't defend it with the, "M$ is giving me a choice to buy what I want." M$ is screwing you by striping down a system and making the intial expense look appealing. If you want it to be good you're going to need to turn around and spend HUNDREDS of dollars, far exceeding the cost of a PS3. Lastly, the XBOX is really, in no way, inovative. It's just a powerful desktop with off the shelf parts, been physically crippled so you have to buy THEIR aftermarket add-ons as well as keeping you from using it as a PC. I'm not even going to list ALL of the inovations in the PS3.
All in All, the XBOX is MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE PS3. I wish people would stop pretending that it isn't. I would love to see a study of the average consumers investment in their game system (games aside).
"Oh, and don't forget that the PS3 doesn't not include HDMI or Component cables out of the box so there is an extra charge just to watch a Blu-ray movie on day one. " -- Give me a break!

[brianpemberton]

The Xbox 360 wireless adapter is $90 not $150.

There is a lot of misinformation in the comments here regarding the Arcade model also. For example the Arcade model does have ethernet, it does have HDMI, and it does have a wireless controller.

[danielgrant612]

A year of xbox live is only $40

[joed5122]

As an owner of both a PS3 and Xbox 360 I have experienced playing games with both and used the online functionality of both. XBox360 wins hands down.
XBox Live may cost $50 a year but we're talking about just over $4 a month for a much better online service. XBox Live is much easier to navigate, has way more options, and the online game play is much smoother. Xbox live is much more attractive to look at. Even on my HDTV I still have a hard time seeing things on the Playstation store.
I personally don't like the bluetooth portion of the PS3. It's not compatible with my Universal Remote that works my XBox 360 and every other piece of equipment I have in my entertainment center. Bluetooth is limited to about 30 feet or you'll lose your connection. With my XBox I can be having a conversation with my friend and walk to another part of the house and it still works. Try doing that with a bluetooth headset connected to a PS3. Not to mention interference you'll get from any other bluetooth device that happens to be nearby.
The Blu-Ray functionality of the PS3 is overrated. I was watching 21 the other night, hardly a special effects masterpiece, and I saw a lot of jitter in the picture. Granted part of that is the TV but not all of it. I also believe in the next few years we're going to be downloading movies and games anyway. I, like a lot of people, just bought the PS3 because it's the cheapest Blu-Ray on the market.
I don't like how light the six-axis controller is and I really don't like the 3 foot cable that came with it for charging the controller battery. I don't know how many people sit that close to the PS3 when they're playing so there's a definite limitation there.
You don't have to buy the $100 wireless adapter if you don't want to. There are 3rd party adapters out there certified for 360 that are cheaper.
Very few PS3 games are actually certified for 1080p. What's up with that? They use Blu-Ray format to make the games and then don't even make them compatible with the highest resolution available. Xbox games on the other hand are almost all 1080p. Tiger Woods 09 is a perfect example of this - 720p on PS3 is the max but 1080p is there for the 360 version.

Bottom line, both players have good points but I think the XBox 360 is definitely the better of the two right now.

[ssean227]

Are you stupid the 360 is dvd based and dvd does not have the capacity for full 1080p the xbox upconverts to 1080p.

[RompStar_420]

I still have the original Xbox, but I sold and got rid of the xbox 360, network access should be free, then it would make sense. I kept PS3 - great machine, graphics are amazing, I can play DVDs, BLueRay, I got Linux running on it as well (only no flash support yet)... I love it.

I have the Wii too, I like it a lot, graphics not as good, but it's a totally different machines and I have the Wii fit, too!!!! great...

[elguerojose]

Cheerist, another Redmond lackey chimes into the echo-chamber-of-creating-perception.

You don't question Microsoft's sales numbers, because you are willfully ignorant of their previous attempts to jack up sales numbers. You think product or pricing differentiation are the only keys to success because you choose to overlook where the 360 fails miserably - you know, a product that actually WORKS.

It's beyond me why anyone would cheerlead for Microsoft in the videogame business, given that they seem hell-bent on bringing the same crappy product standards that they have to PCs and other markets.

[joed5122]

Oh and the "Oh, and don't forget that the PS3 doesn't not include HDMI or Component cables out of the box so there is an extra charge just to watch a Blu-ray movie on day one." is nothing to sneer at. HDMI cables are expensive. Cheap ones are $30 up to expensive ones that cost around $80 or more so it's a valid point to mention the PS3 does not come with HDMI cables. 360's come with HDMI cables.

[withyouieat]

Wrong. I can get a HDMI cable from monoprice for $3.19 + shipping. And trying to talk about cheap cables vs. expensive (read overpirced) cables is moot. There is no difference as the signal is pure digital. A higher quality cable is not going to make a difference. I would rather have to pay 3 bucks for a high definition cable than pay upwards of 50 for a wireless network adapter.

[JonathonStriker]

I've only heard of 2 people in my entire life who has owned both the 360 and PS3 and said PS3 was better. It offers blu-ray, but that only matters to a movie buff. It has built-in wi-fi and bluetooth, but LAN cable is faster and bluetooth is rarely used besides for the controller. Meanwhile, Sony screws you by having so many games only doing 720p and not nearly taking advantage of the capacity of a blu-ray disc (25GB). It also has to "install" which makes me think I should just by a PC version when available. And their servers are not as powerful, which Konami dropped a bigger ball with their own server problems for Metal Gear Online. And they removed backwards compatibility to "reduce the cost for consumers", so now I gotta keep my PS2 to play my older games. Oh, BTW, did you know Sony will not work on you PS3 without the hard drive if it crashes. Prepare for system wipe.

Meanwhile, Xbox has better online service, reduced prices, a 3 yea-warranty (HDD not needed so feel free to buy an 360 Arcade as a backup), and has taken some exclusive companies while also putting out new J-RPGs, something not done in the previous generation. Sure the system specs aren't as powerful as the PS3, but the world really isn't ready for a more expensive console that means more expensive movies. Ever heard of the Panasonic 3DO?

[elguerojose]

The "world isn't ready"? Which world - the same one that wasn't ready for HDMI because MS said so, or the same one that had "clearly" selected HD-DVD as the HD format of choice? Or the world where the PS3 has been outselling the 360 for quite a while now, in spite of these supposed features that no one needs/wants, or price points that are supposedly higher, if you massage the numbers enough? Enough with the wishful thinking already, let's give consumers a chance to vote with their wallets, before we declare what a success this latest (desperate?) move is.

[smist08]

If Microsoft is losing money on these now, then isn't it exploiting its monopoly position in Windows to unfairly compete with Nintendo and Sony? I suspect more anti-trust lawsuits on the way.

[jon_cnet]

With articles such as "It's time for Sony to downsize" and "Why the Sega Dreamcast won the last console war", I wonder about his credibility and question his bias towards Sony. I mean, the article is clearly written with Xbox goggles on. Did you know that the PS3 has been selling more consoles per month than the 360 has in the US and EU? There are estimates out there that the 360 is at around 20million consoles sold (which in itself is questionable as MS use to count returns as sales) while the PS3 is at around 15million. The 360 sold 11million or so in the first year it was out without ANY competition. In the following two years, it has sold 9 million or 4.5million average each year. That is a substantial decline in sales year-over-year. It clearly draws a picture of decline for the 360 while the PS3 is ramping up.
As far as value is concerned, I agree with the other posters on here about how you easily disregarded the blu-ray feature. Sure the 360 gives you "options" if you want to add things later, but you will NEVER EVER be able to add a blu-ray option that will allow you to play games. NEVER!! Games are already maxing out at 9GB. How can you get better, more detailed games in the future? Can you imagine Fallout 3 without the restriction of having to fit on DVD9? We could possibly have several major cities instead of just one city in the game.
As as far as price, sure you could pay $199 for the new arcade system, but without a hard drive. Even though MS has touted its great Live with downloadable content. And if you wanted a hard drive, you would have to pay like $150 for a mere 120GB hard drive. For $109, I could get a WD 320GB at NewEgg.
Some people had the nerve to say that you don't get an HDMI cable with the PS3. Umm... for the $50 that you have to pay PER YEAR for Live, I can get a nice HDMI cable. In fact, I can get a really good HDMI cable online for about $15 if you know where to look.
And how about a wireless network adapter, $100.
Hmm... now adding all these up. $199+150+100+(50+50+50+50+50...) = $700 for an Xbox360 with a 120GB hard drive, wireless adapter, and 5 yrs of online play. HMMM... how do you like the value now?
And guess, what? Did I mention, YOU STILL DON'T HAVE A BLU-RAY PLAYER!!!
'Nuff said!!!

[dd13reis]

Oh please. All I keep reading is this value idea. It sounds like the Sony fanboys have come out in droves to protect their favorite product. The reality is this: the PS3 isn't tops on any category. If you're clinging to Blu-ray, you've already lost.

"Nuff said"? Yikes.

-Don

[ronuds]

Did I stumble into the Sony Defense Force website or something? Wow! Way to try and completely discredit an article based on your personal preferences.

[danielgrant612]

I couldn't agree more

[jon_cnet]

By discredit, you mean, stating facts? Sure.

[dd13reis]

I'd like to see some real evidence showing exactly HOW the PS3 will win out.

Thanks.

-Don

[DoodManGuy]

First off, shame on you for trusting Microsoft figures. These are the guys that lied about the massive failure rates of initial production units, and then threw a curve ball bend when their red-ring-of-death numbers were reported (less than half of what values really were). Take a dozen steps back and really examine what's going on here. The HD switch is coming up - they're essentially out of that game - Sony's playing it smart and IS NOT LOWERING THE PS3 PRICE UNTIL FEBRUARY, that is because, in February the HD switch is going to kick in, and suddenly the masses are going to be looking at a combination game player/HD source/BluRay player. PS3's price drop at this point will push sales to values that are still up in the air, but can't be bad - especially if they aren't lowering the price until then. That shows confidence, not stupidity or arrogance, unlike Microsoft, which has a history of rolling in those business attitudes religiously.

Microsoft's only option right now is to make the early jump for a price cut before the Thanksgiving (As Lewis Black states, "Christmas Part 1") holiday sales, and start pushing the consoles out so by the time the HD switch occurs, loses over the PS3 won't hurt so badly.

As far as software titles go, it's pretty even ground. Microsoft has its exclusives, as does Sony. Neither has really blown people away, and developers are still getting used to fine tuning next gen development methods. Also, quite a few of the best games aren't handled by publishers without a broader audience and mind - many are multi-console releases. There may be differences between gameplay from one console to the other (IE: handhelds differing from console counterparts), but the title is what sells. Not the console.

That in mind, Sony's got the 1UP. If the console is going to sell itself without the full support of exclusives, Sony's already won with Blu Ray.

Microsoft's next step: Admit defeat in February, or decide to adapt a BluRay feature for Xbox units.
There will likely be a charge at the user-end for the feature.

[brianpemberton]

You are misunderstanding the switch to digital cable. It is not a switch to HD it is merely a switch in the broadcasting method. Nothing will change in terms of HD, the vast majority of people will still be watching SD signals on their old SD TVs like they are now. Tech oriented people usually have incorrectly skewed perceptions of how popular and important HD is when it comes the mainstream.

[dd13reis]

I agree that Blu-ray needs to be included in the Xbox 360 -- should have been added as soon as HD DVD died. Also, you're sorely mistaken over this so-called "HD switch." Gaming has nothing to do with the switchover and I don't even understand your logic.

-Don

[Zoobie]

This is a cheap way to get eyeballs and clicks. It doesn't take a genius to see that the stripped down arcade model is a waste of money. No hard drive, no cordless controllers, no ethernet... Will someone explain to my why my Wii has a built in wireless connection, but Xbox wants another $100 for that feature? For that matter, even my kids DS systems can connect to my wireless router and it barely costs more than $100.

The fact that the arcade SKU exists limits all Xbox systems, even the pro, because the software companies want to make sure everyone can save their games and all to a memory card. If they didn't, the oh-so-important install base shrinks.

Next, let's all give up the important attachment rate figures. Fine, Xbox owners buy more games per person. But Wii game sales are higher overall. Are some of the games lousy? Absolutely, but that's the risk software developers are willing to take. They don't need 1 out of every 50 console owners buying their game to be profitable. With the lower development costs and larger install base of the Wii, they probably only need 1 out of 500 console owners buy a game before they turn a profit.

Finally, ignoring the overseas market is ridiculous. Once upon a time, before global trade was so large, US only sales mattered. But last I checked, this is the 21st century and every large company I can think of is concerned with global reach. And PS3 is outselling Xbox worldwide by a significant amount. Pent up demand will cause a spike to Xbox, but it will be temporary at best. Xbox is showing its limitations while PS3 is just barely starting to tap into its abilities and no where nearing maxing out.

[dd13reis]

Your baseless accusations lead me to believe you're nothing more than yet another Sony apologist. Do the math, look at the facts, and then try to find me one differentiating factor that makes people want the PS3 over the Xbox 360 (or the Wii for that matter). Yes, I know you'll probably make the mistake of mentioning Blu-ray or this notion of "value", but neither holds any water. I need cold, hard facts to show me exactly why you think the PS3 will win out.

-Don

[danielgrant612]

First off, the arcade comes with a wireless controller, and ethernet. The wireless adapter is $90 not $100

[Laserdisc]

I gotta be the only Playstation3 owner who bought it "NOT" for it's ability to play BluRay movies. In any case the Wii will win the console war. Why? It will be the only console not plagued with technical problems. Xbox360 with it's HIGH failure rate and Sony's inability to make the different revisions of PS3s compatible with each other... it just seems Nintendo has it's act together.

[dd13reis]

That's a really interesting point and I applaud you for bringing that up here. Will the reliability of consoles have an impact on the outcome of this generation?

Thanks very much for the comment!

-Don

[Nick.Kentros]

I certainly hope that the PS3 is winning in Japan. As a PS3 owner, I'm a big fan of what sony is doing with it, and being a rather casual gamer, I generally prefer the types of games on the PS3, such as God of War, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, etc...

I do find, however, that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are a lot more different than most people think. The types of games and the types of gameplay provided by the respective consoles is very representative of the countries they come from, as in, I fell the Xbox has a much more American game feel (halo, gears of war, mass effect, etc...) while the great Japanese style games, such as Metal Gear and Ico and such are still on the Playstation.
So I doubt that sony will flat out lose this generation, because the PS3 is a great piece of hardware. Their software is catching up, and it has the HD advantage (built in HDMI and Blu-Ray on all tiers of the console) and I think its a great console for the people who understand the type of games that are available. I feel like its the most Mature of the consoles, cause the Wii is quite kiddy (or senile, haha), and the Xbox 360 just screams 14 year old Kid who is level 60 in Halo 3 and can play Dragonforce on Expert on Guitar Hero 3. The Playstation3 feels more like the artsy games to me, and those are my favorite.

[dd13reis]

Well thought-out comment. And for once, a Sony fan that doesn't try for baseless accusations and poor logic.

Thanks for the comment -- it was a good read!

-Don

[brianpemberton]

I don't see how the 360 could ever overtake the Wii. Wii sales would have to slow down so far so fast with a coinciding massive upturn in 360 sales that I think the idea is unrealistic. Had Microsoft not had to splash out a billion dollars for the RROD fiasco they would have dropped the price months back if not last year and had a better chance of it, but the repair cost nightmare has caused them to be conservative with price cutting.

As for the idea a commenter mentioned that the 360 will be replaced by a new console in the next couple years I think that is also very unlikely. The first Xbox had a short 4 year lifespan because they wanted to be first to market this gen, but now they are in it for the long haul. The new 360 won't hit until 2012 at the earliest.

[dd13reis]

I think we have some time left in the console cycle and Microsoft can catch up. I don't think it'll be easy, but I do think it could happen.

-Don

[joed5122]

If Microsoft does decide to add a Blu-Ray add on like they did with HD-DVD then I will be the first to sell my PS3 and get that add-on.
I don't think Microsoft will do that. I think they're going to move ahead and just expand their downloadable movie selection. You can already download HD movies like Transformers on a rental basis. With their new partnership with Netflix it's going to allow people with Netflix subscriptions to stream movies out of the Watch Instantly section right to their 360. That selection is getting bigger and bigger everyday with HD options to come soon. Microsoft has repeatedly said they will not add Blu-Ray functionality to the 360 and I tend to agree. Sony owns the Blu-Ray standard so I don't think Sony would even let them anyways because it would hurt PS3 sales.

[dd13reis]

But don't you think Microsoft should add a Blu-ray player? I certainly do.

-Don