It doesn't, but it weakens the case of the HD-DVD attachment being necessary to compare the two systems, thus strengthening the 360's price case.
I utterly fail to see how it can't be taken into account when comparing the two, the PS3 can play Hi Def movies as standard, to allow the 360 to do the same you have to spec the HD-DVD drive. You may have no desire to play Hi-def movie and games from the same machine, but a lot of people will disagree with you. That makes the 360 a cheaper option for you and other with no interest in Hi-def movies, however on a spec for spec price comparison you have to look at package as similar as possible, if not then you are simply not comparing like for like.
That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time believing that anyone -- or at the very least, most people -- will use that space.
That's funny because I've heard exactly the same sort of sentiment about drive/storage space said so many times in the past, thing is in almost every case its been proven to be wrong. Hi-def visuals and sound require a much large amount of disc space, so downloading hi-def trailers, full games, etc will utilise far more of that space.
I could turn your statement around, too -- because you think you're going to use it, does that make it important for everyone? It's certainly nice to have, but then again, so is a 50-car garage, and not everyone owns or wants 50 cars.
As I already pointed out, for me it was a no brainer, price for price against a 360 the extra 40 gig effectively cost me nothing. I think the average gamer is much more likely to take advantage of a large disk space than the average driver is a 50 car garage, not the best analogy in the world. I honestly think that both MS and Sony are looking to offer an ever increasing range of products to download, making storage space a factor for most people (again I would mention that the latest announced 360 has a 120 gig drive).
Sorry Scaff, but everything here boils down to personal preferences. If it didn't, there'd be a crystal-clear winner and the thread discussion would be over.
Unless we set down strict guidelines as to what makes a console good or bad and what is to be included or excluded from the discussion (which is just silly), everyone is going to express their opinion from a different viewpoint, with different needs, different ideas of what makes a console good or bad, and different observations and experiences with said consoles.
To me, "why I believe the PS3 is not at the same level as the 360" is almost synonymous with "why I personally would not buy a PS3," and you said yourself that you can clearly see the latter in my words. If you're looking for something more comprehensive, I'm afraid I can't give it to you without extending beyond my own knowledge, observations, and experiences with each. I'm at the limit as it is, considering how little time I've personally spent on a PS3.
If you're wondering "why did you bother to post, then?" the answer is that I knew the 360 would get reamed (lol gran turismo website), and, since it's my preferred choice between the two, I decided to give it as much of a fighting chance as I could.
As I said I have no problem with a personal opinion and certainly many of the factors discussed have been based around that. Some however will be far more easily judged on an objective basis, for example a price comparison done on a spec by spec basis.
Your early posts on this subject read more as a point-by-point comparison of the two, and not from a personal point of view. Comments that the PS3 is known to be unreliable, which now appear to be based on a unit you have seen in a display case (for the record I've seen plenty of 360 that have overheated in these display/security cases - they are a poor option for almost all consoles). Your opinion was formed on the basis of this limited sample, yet presented in a manner which suggested it was a widespread issue. At the same time you were almost totally ignoring the issues the 360 has suffered from, saying it is as reliable as almost any MS product. Well as the 360 is independently believed to have had a fall out rate of around 10% for the first machines (and even MS friendly IGN put it as high as 15%) that does not bode well for any future MS products.
Joey D
I don't see how people are taking this into account. Everyone is pointing out flaws in the 360, mainly the lack of BluRay. As far as I know BluRay was very new at the time of the 360's release. Since they 360 is older, it's going to have slightly dated technology. If you are going to give lee way to the PS3 for not being out as long you must give lee way to the 360 for having a year's dated technology.
Actually I personally think that most people here have been quite fair to both machines, new tech is always going to have issue with it, particularly at launch. Note that I don't slam MS for having the Ring of Death issues, rather I simple point out that it occurs (because to try and deny that would be silly). I have also had nothing but praise for the way in which MS has actually handled the issue itself.
Yes the 360 is an older machine and as such is behind the PS3 in terms of high capacity storage for games, and as you rightly say that is because it launched to market first with its machine. Its a reversal of positions from the last round, when MS gained an advantage in technology by launching the Xbox after the PS2. By getting the 360 to market first MS gained an advantage in terms of customer base and volume of titles, but were always going to have to play catch-up on the tech front. Sony were in exactly the same position with the PS2, huge user base and range of titles already in place when the Xbox launched, but they never managed to come even close to developing the hard-drive (later dropped even as a consideration for the small PS2) and on-line was very poor (even after the network adaptor was standard on the small PS2. None of this stopped people comparing the PS2 and Xbox and now that the situation is effectively reversed I don't see why this should change. Both positions give pros and cons, and it will be very interesting to see how the two companies handle the reversed roles.
Regards
Scaff
