Sony theory: From PlayStation to Wii and back again

by James Ransom-Wiley { Apr 23rd 2009 at 1:18PM }

SCEA marketing whiz Peter Dille has pitched the company's new game plan, and Wii's the bait, according to a recent interview with Gamasutra. Opting for more concession speech than victory declaration, Dille offers a "hats off" to Nintendo and its Wii for "doing something that hasn't been done" by expanding and diversifying the demographic of game console owners. Dille proposes that if this new class of gamers gets "hooked," then PS3 is in position to fulfill the next logical acquisition in their newfound "gaming habit."

Dille suggests that the prospect of a "high-definition gaming experience" might drive a Wii family to invest in a PS3 as their living room "centerpiece," but doesn't specifically suggest why Sony's console might be favored over the other high-def game platform currently on the market. Still, Dille clearly understands the strength of the PlayStation brand, established by the ridiculously pervasive PS2 (which is still pervading in certain markets) and, likely, rightfully assumes that a significant chunk of Wii converts were once PS2 owners. Do you see the plan coming together now? "So we think that over time all those folks will migrate back to the PlayStation 3 -- when I say 'back,' that takes the view that they were PS2 gamers, went to the Wii, and then would come back."

Tags: business-strategy, family-friendly, inclusivity, marketing, peter-dille, wii

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

skyzbig @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:22PM

That's a MILF right there.

D_Average @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:57PM

barely..

Snakku @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:07PM

milfylicious ?

JWC @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:18PM

you need to get out more

PedoJokerBear (aka Deeznuts) @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:45PM

My god man....

CJLopez @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:10PM

dude, i invite you to a TD, lets see if a LD changes your mind

Dave @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:16PM

I have to admit, I'd hit it too.

@CJLopez: What's a TD? LD?

Roofie @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:23PM

Well I was a N64 person, then an Xbox/GC person, now I'm an Xbox360/Wii person, but I might eventually be a PS2 person with those prices being so good. I'm still not sold on the PS3, though. There are some games that interest me on that system, but the PS2 has a lot more good games and the price is definitely more reasonable.

So I guess that is me going back to them, but it's for the first time... and not to the PS3.

Archon @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:25PM

Yeah, this whole SNES has so many cool games. I might pick one up, as the games are like $5. I'm not really sold on the PS3 though, it costs more and has less games.

Of course there are less games and it is more expensive. It's a newer system. Captain obvious.

D_Average @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:59PM

I went nes - snes- n64 - 10 year break - Wii - DS- PS3.

So yeah, this logic is true for some people, but I'd be shocked to see any kind of mass exodus.

Snakku @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:06PM

@ D_Average

I went nes - snes- break DS- Wii - PS3.

The wii I find it more for casual play with a bunch of friends. ps3 games are my more umm don't know the word I'm looking for ...hardcore ?

Jonathan @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:09PM

Well seeing as he is already Wii/360, he doesn't see the need to drop big bucks on a PS3 right now. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

D_Average @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:42PM

@Snakku

Same here, I rarely play the PS3 with humans in the same room. I bought it so I could indulge in long gaming sessions that weren't as satisfying as what the Wii was offering. Though I'm glad I have both as Boom Blox is the shiznit.

Gun Barrier @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:01PM

i did snes-nes-n64-sega genisis-ps1-dreamcast-gc-ps2-xbox-360-wii-ps3

yea... im spoiled

daniel @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:06PM

I rocked the Atari 2600 - NES - SNES - Genesis - N64 - 3DO (yea I went there) - PS2 - Wii - and now PS3 ....God I played too many video games.

CJLopez @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:12PM

nes-snes forced break by father PS2-Wii-PS3

In the meantime of the forced break, my lil bro received a GBC and then a GBA

Roofie @ Apr 23rd 2009 4:30PM

I only went to N64 because that was a console competing against a Sony console... I had no idea that they were producing consoles that went against the NES. >_>

MarioSpitza @ Apr 24th 2009 12:58PM

A Microsoft/Nintendo man, eh? Being the cheap gamer I am, I always had a type of philosophy regarding game consoles ownership. First, I must own two consoles. Second, one must be for Nintendo games, and second must be for Third Party games (because Nintendo hasn't had good third party support since the SNES).

I owned: N64/PSX, GCN/PS2, and now a Wii.

I almost skipped this generation, but luckily, I was offered a Wii for extremely cheap, and jumped on it. I also hope to own a 360 eventually. It's kind of funny how things change. Back in 2006, I originally intended to own a Revolution/PS3. Then Sony announced the $600 pricetag and that went up in flames. Man, lucky Microsoft has such awesome third party games this gen or I'd be screwed.

Archon @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:23PM

Well, that does make some sense. I bought a Wii first, because it was cheapest, also by THE GREAT NINTENDO. Then, I bought the PS3 because I owned the PS1 and loved it. So my first thought was: console = Playstation. Now I am a happy owner of all 3 systems (yay).

I can understand where he is going with that.

SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread - XBL: SoCoolCurt) @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:49PM

i did the same thing. i've always been a Playstation fan and i've had all of the PS consoles (even turned down getting a Dreamcast to wait for PS2 back in the day). when this gen started i had just started college and moved out so i could afford to buy more than one console. i got the Wii first at launch cause it was cheapest, then i got a PS3 the next August, then i just bought a 360 in October.

anyway, i could see people progressing to PS3 from Wii in order to have that living room console since it has high def and blu-ray of course. plus i feel like even the media streaming capabilties work better on PS3 as opposed to 360. only downside is that it cost more than the 360.

Archon @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:09PM

I paid £299 for the PS3+game+250GB hard drive (special offer). I paid £290 for an Elite XBox bundle + wireless adapter. (too many wired internet sucking devices) :/

I never considered getting an Arcade (waste of money). I was stuck between the 60GB and the Elite, but seeing the Elite bundle was only £40 more expensive, I went with it.

Huh. But it's probably just me. I always figure: If I want to buy something, I'd rather spend the extra money for something really good, than spend less and fix it every week (too many crappy Chinese gadgets I had problems with).

Jonathan @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:11PM

It doesn't make sense. He says that Nintendo does something that has "never been done" and brought new people into gaming, but then says these people will all "come back" to Playstation since they had a Playstation before the Wii.

Well...if they had a PS2, then what's the whole "Nintendo is doing something that's never been done" by getting nongamers into gaming about?

It's like if your first fruit you ever tried was an apple and then I said "Well since he's into fruit now, he's obviously going to return to eating bananas!" You never ate those before if apples were your first.

He's saying Wii is their first...what "returning" is there to do..

Archon (PSN: Archonik, XBL: DarkARHN) @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:16PM

Jonathan, read the article again. Those are two separate paragraphs.
The first one states that, people who are new to gaming, thanks to the Wii's broad demographics might, and who want to stay gamers might try the PS3, because "PS3 is in position to fulfill the next logical acquisition in their newfound "gaming habit.""

On the other hand, gamers who were PS2 gamers and tried the Wii, will probably upgrade... because they are gamers and they want more and more from their console.

Araskaz @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:36PM

I'm just going to say this right here and plain.
What? The PS3 can play DVDs... :|
It has a Blu-ray player... but guess what? IT PLAYS DVDS.\

Trust me - I used to think that it didn't. But my cousin made me put a DVD in and try... and it worked. Just add that out of the arguement if you are going to start that.

Archon (PSN: Archonik, XBL: DarkARHN) @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:40PM

Wait... Somebody really thought that PS3 DOESN'T play DVDs?...

Wow... Wow... wow... I don't even know what to say to that.

That only means that Sony should outline what the PS3 CAN do, I guess.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:25PM

Right, because the logical progression is the lowest price console to the highest for family entertainment.

No one buys this crap, do they?

Archon @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:33PM

Well, that was the case with me. For my new flat (apartment, for you US guys) I bought a Wii, because it was cheapest and I wanted to be able to play ANY games. Then, I saved some cash for my entertainment living room place and bought a PS3 to have an all-in-one Blu-Ray/Gaming/Streaming/TV (PlayTV in UK)/Music rig. It was good value for money.

So he's theory was right. I wasn't into console gaming at all since the PS1 era, then I bought a Wii just for fun and economic reasons, it reminded me of the good times so I got a PS3 for the ultimate experience.

I'm not saying it's true for everyone but it definitely is a possibility.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:40PM

@Archon

Not saying it's impossible, but I would guess that you are in the minority. I have all 3 current-gen systems, and by far the 360 is the better value for the money (Netflix, DVD player, and more games than the other systems).

My personal opinion from experience is that if someone has only has a Wii I would estimate at least 80-90% of those buying another console after it would get a 360 before a PS3. The current market seems to reflect this also.

ArchGamer @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:41PM

Same goes for me. My parents originally got the SNES, then the PS1 because of how much fun we had with the SNES. The same scenario happened with the GC and PS2. So what Peter Dille said is not much a strecth.

Jack Spicer @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:50PM

Ok BunnySlapper, you just said "the logical progression is the lowest price console to the highest for family entertainment.

No one buys this crap, do they?"

Then said "My personal opinion from experience is that if someone has only has a Wii I would estimate at least 80-90% of those buying another console after it would get a 360 before a PS3. The current market seems to reflect this also."

So yes, the logical progression if from lowest to highest.

You contradicted yourself, thats all im saying.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:59PM

@Jack Spicer

Semantics? Really? I said originally that you don't go from A immediately to C - you are more likely to go from A to B to C. Do you see the difference?

I find it absurd to suggest that the average consumer would go from the most family friendly (and cheapest) console to the least family friendly (and most expensive) console.

The logical progression would be to see a gradual increase in price slope with a gradual decrease in breadth of influence. No one is claiming that the PS3 is more family friendly than a 360, are they?

Archon @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:01PM

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, except for:
"by far the 360 is the better value for the money (Netflix, DVD player, and more games than the other systems)."

That's just not true.

a) Netflix is US only. Also, you can stream it to the PS3 too if you really want to for free. To counter that argument, the PS3's got the BBC iPlayer (there's a special PS3 version) in the UK and it plays Flash Videos too (including youtube and movie streaming sites) pretty much flawlessly.

b) "More games than the other systems". That's nothing to be proud of *cough*Wii/DSshovelware*cough* . There's as many good games on the PS3 as on the XBox. There's plenty good ones for the Wii too. Just not a lot released recently. If you are a new Wii owner, there's tons of good games to play. And I don't understand the whole "MORE GAMES" argument. Are you really gonna play every of those 800 games? And it's so much worse that the other consoles only have 750?

c) No way to copy your music/videos to the 360? Really Microsoft? Really? My answer to "Stream from your PC" is "Turn your PC's speakers on for the same effect". Also, PS3 streams music as well. And you can store it on the HDD.

d) "DVD player"... Ditto.

I'm not starting a flame war . Just highlighting that your point of view depends on the console you own. That's it. I own both, love both. But saying that console X is better value than Y is, well... Biased. Share the love, not misinformation. They are different entertainment devices, targeted at different audiences. You can tell. Even from the looks of the interface.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:11PM

@Archon

I haven't played much with the ripping music on 360, but I'm fairly certain you can (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I remember briefly messing with this when I first got the console. I believe you can plug in a USB stick and play from that as well.

My wife uses media streaming all the time to play music from the external HDD in my den on the 360 in our bedroom though. Can the PS3 do the same - I dunno, never even tried. My PS3 constantly loses connection, I can't stay online for more than 5 minutes so attempting to do so isn't even on my radar at the moment.

I'm not attempting to start a flame war either, I'm just saying in my opinion that the 360 is better for the money. Am I right? Who cares, it's just my opinion :). It'd be an interesting survey to see what features/consoles people prefer and why based on where they live.

Ashitaka @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:21PM

WOW, A DVD PLAYER? Wait, didn't the PS2 have that? Crap.

Also, concerning the argument of having more games.. quantity != quality.

Archon (PSN: Archonik, XBL: DarkARHN) @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:23PM

The 360 can only stream music from an external device/drive or rip CD-Audios.

The PS3 does all that but allows you to copy the music/videos to the HDD as well. It supports a WIDE array of video and audio formats and the rest can be transcoded AND downloaded on the fly. It supports video downloading and streaming through the browser.

After all the praise for the 360 I heard I was VERY surprised that it doesn't support any of that, well, basic stuff. There's no way to transfer your music to the HDD other than rip CD-Audios. Not even copying MP3s is supported, which was, for me, a let down.

That's why I use the 360 as a gaming/online play rig, while my PS3 is used as the imedia magica-thingy, including karaoke cdg files for added party fun!

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:45PM

@Ashitika

Is more than a DVD player necessary right now? I'll admit, I like blueray...but I buy blueray movies knowing that the format is likely to become moot in the near future also. The industry is trending more towards downloadable content...not more antiquated physical format wars. So were I to choose between a higher price console with blueray and a lower price console without, I'd go with the latter.

As to 'quality over quantity' - yes I agree. The 360 has a higher number of games reviewed over 80% than the PS3, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/08/edge-analyzes-wii-ps3-review-scores/

Archon (PSN: Archonik, XBL: DarkARHN) @ Apr 23rd 2009 2:59PM

@BunnySlapper

I started writing a long paragraph about how I just don't get what you are complaining about. And even linked to a couple articles, namely:

news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10222241-1.html
"Blu-ray sales nearly double from a year ago"

www.techspot.com/news/34333-bluray-sales-on-significant-rise.html
"Blu-ray sales on significant rise - TechSpot News"

but I realized that whatever I say, you will respond again with a new claim or a different, another offtopic approach. I'll just say: If you don't want Blu-Ray, fine. Just don't say that the PS3 is not good value for people who want hi-def gaming and blu-ray. Because that's basically what you are saying.

My comment to your comment is: I bought a HDTV+Sound Sytem so I can enjoy HDTV. Digital Distribution might be the next big thing. But we had On Demand TV for years and DVD is still alive and kicking and doing fine.

TregGert @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:26PM

@ BunnySlapper:

1) Did you read the article you posted or did you just post it?

From that article: "17 percent of PS3 games have scored 85 or higher, while 30 percent are rated below 65. This compares favorably with the Xbox 360, which saw 13 percent of its titles above 85"

The article you posted says the PS3 has a higher percentage of games rated over 85 than the 360, and doesn't mention anything about raw numbers of games. You also provided no further evidence to support it, so essentially you invalidated yourself, because the only information you provided says the PS3 has a higher percentage of good games than the 360.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE... You should have learned critical thinking in grade school! You can't make a claim, then cite a source which in no way contains evidence to support your point.

2) The 360 isn't more expensive than the PS3, please don't let yourself get drug into Business-Spin 101. The amount a system costs is completely relative, my 360 cost me almost 100 dollars more than my PS3 because I don't have wired internet in my house anymore... so I bought an Elite + Wireless Adapter, which rang in at 569 + tax when I bought it. My 60 GB PS3 only cost 499 + tax.

Even now if you want to compare them under similar terms you would go with the 60 GB Pro at 300 + 100 for the adapter, so a 60 GB 360 with wireless and HD cables costs 400 dollars.

80 GB PS3 (which has wireless built in) costs 400 + 15 for the HD cables (component), so an 80 GB PS3 with wireless and HD cables costs 415 dollars.

Two comparable systems with comparable accessories, and the price difference is 15 dollars (using prices from Best Buy). I am sorry, but for a family upgrading to HD/Highly Connected gaming, I don't see a real price difference.

@ Everybody else:

Seriously, this is a SONY spokesperson here making a completely logical and brilliant statement. In no way is he bashing the 360, he just isn't going to mention his competitor in the same point. Just as GM isn't going to talk about how the "going green" movement benefits them AND Honda... He is only going to talk about how it benefits them. THINK!

The point made here is completely brilliant. The Wii is bringing in new gamers, but the PS3 (AND 360! GET THE POINT HE IS MAKING!) can benefit from it because the next logical step from a platform that doesn't support HD gaming and has pitiful online MP capabilities (Worst by far of the 3 available... by far) is to progress to a true HD gaming platform which supports high amounts of connectivity. Which is what Sony offers in the Playstation (and Microsoft in the 360, but remember here... this is Sony talking, Microsoft wouldn't mention Playstation either)... So they are in good position to support their media.

Seriously, guys, I get that about 75% of you define yourselves by what 3 letters you abbreviate your console gaming experience with, and can't deal with anything other than those 3 letters, because it is of dire importance to everything you consider entertainment, but there isn't any reason for any reaction like this. Sony is talking business, Microsoft does it too, as does Nintendo.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 3:38PM

@TregGert

You're an idiot. Did YOU read the source article at all beyond the 'we have better percentages!'? Yes the PS3 has a higher percentage - because there are FEWER games in the category. Read the actual numbers rather than the percentages man.

As to your experience with the price tag between 360/PS3 -

Elite bundle with 2 of the most popular games for $399:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/20/shock-ms-reveals-new-xbox-elite-bundle-with-halo-3-fable-ii/

360 Wireless adapter for $99:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=wireless+adapter&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=&qp=crootcategoryid%23%23-1%23%23-1%7E%7Eq776972656c6573732061646170746572%7E%7Encabcat0700000%23%232%23%232&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&iht=n

PS3 with zero games for $399:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8982988&type=product&id=1218005635152

So factor in the fact that you get two $60 games for free and which is cheaper?

TregGert @ Apr 23rd 2009 4:09PM

@ Bunny-Slapper:

Yeah... and I said in my post that the article you posted just mentioned percentages, there wasn't anything in there that gave numbers.

Percentages refer to how many objects satisfy some constraint out of some sample set. In this case, the article you posted compared how many games are rated about 85/100 on each system. The PS3 clocked in at 17 percent, the 360 clocked in at 13 percent.

Thats all the article said in regards to good games. The problem with your logic is in the next step (as I mentioned). You are saying that because the sample set being PS3 games and 360 games, because the 360 has more, the fact that their percentage is lower doesn't matter. The problem is that is not true on its own, its only true if 13% of the 360 gaming library is greater than 17% of the PS3 gaming library.

If the PS3 has 250 games available for it, and the 360 has 320 games available for it, that satisfies the original statement that the 360 has more games than the PS3, but 17% of 250 = 42 (rounding down) and 13% of 320 = 41 (rounding down), so even though the 360 has more games, the PS3 still has more good ones in terms of numbers. This right here is the last piece of evidence you need to support your point, because your post doesn't provide it.

If we go by VGChartz now (which doesn't work, we don't know when the study was done), the PS3 has 458 games available on it, 17% of that 458 is 77 (rounding down). The 360 has 604 games available on it, 13% of that 604 is 78 (rounding down). So even if we go by the numbers now... you are talking about the difference of 1 game, both systems still have a monster library of good games, not to mention the majority of those are multiplatform.

Lastly, before you freak out with the whole price point thing... I said WHEN I BOUGHT THEM in the first part. When I bought the Elite, neither system came with games, and I did indeed spend more on my 360 than my PS3, the point I was making (if you read the first part of my post) is that how much you spend on a system is RELATIVE, so you can't really just nail down X is more expensive than Y! You are letting yourself be lead by Business men spinning the facts, instead of thinking for yourself.

That was what my next example was trying to point out. If you head to BBY right now and try to put the PS3 and 360 on equal footing, the price difference ends up being 15 dollars, something that isn't really significant when you are facing costs of 400+ in the system and 60+ in games.

Lastly, I get what you are trying to say with the games, but the problem is you are assuming that the prospective buyer likes them. Its why I didn't mention Kung Fu Panda and Lego IJ in the comparison (which is what BBY currently has bundled with their Elite), because not everybody likes those. Even if its Halo 3 and Fable, how do you know who is buying it even likes either of those games, maybe they are a JRPG fan and only care about those, then neither game is a price point for them. Bringing me back to the original point that its relative.

Also, you also still only have a price difference of 35 dollars even with your comparison.

80 GB PS3 is 415 with HD Cables and Wireless Internet.
120 GB Elite is 500 with HD Cables and Wireless Internet.
You said it includes 2 games at 60 dollars, so thats 120 dollars, if we knock that off the Elite's price... it becomes 380.

Thats still only 35 dollars...

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 4:20PM

The aformentioned article clearly lists the number of titles in each category on the graph. Yes, you will have to click the 'Xbox 360 Review Scores' to view them as it was a seperate article.

48 360 titles were above 85%.
36 PS3 titles were above 85%.

Which number is bigger? You claimed I 'invalidated' myself.

As to price difference, it comes down to this simple point: There are far more lower price options for a 360 than a PS3. Is an Arcade 360 console the same in power as a PS3? No. But not every family needs an HDMI console with wireless internet and 80GB of HDD.

If a family is going to move from a low priced broad audience console, they are likely going to preference something with more choices than the most expensive system.

master811 @ Apr 23rd 2009 4:35PM

@ BunnySlapper

"The industry is trending more towards downloadable content...not more antiquated physical format wars."

Yeah cos EVERYONE has fast enough (and enough bandwidth to do so) internet connections in order to download 50GB films......oh wait....

They may want to, but they are living in a dream-world if they think they can get full HD and with uncompressed audio content available to everyone at least in the near future.

BunnySlapper @ Apr 23rd 2009 4:44PM

@Master

I don't think we're there yet, but I think we're closer than a lot of people think. Cable internet and DSL are more and more becoming 'the norm', and it's already possible to stream HD movies over them.

Will downloadable media be in 100% of households? No of course not, and physical media will be here for awhile...but I think downloadable media will be the leader in the next 2-5 years max.

I never said anything bad about blueray, I have blueray movies myself...but I don't see any more physical media formats on the DVD/VHS scale coming out after this personally.

We're all about instant gratification in the US, and if we can stream a movie from the internet as opposed to having to go out and buy a disc or wait for one to be shipped to us, a LOT of people are going to jump on that bandwagon. Even if the movies aren't 1080i to start with.

TregGert @ Apr 23rd 2009 5:03PM

1) Really? I didn't believe those were the numbers for the actual ratings at first because then the percentages don't match up... The article clearly says they used Metacritic scores, but for those percentages to be right, that means each system has to have a library of about 200-350 games, something that hasn't been true for quite some time for either system.

They had to have done some finageling then to get those, either restricting regions or dates, the problem is if we go by that, and go to Metacritic. If you do a search (http://apps.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=0&game_platform=xbox360&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=85&metascore_e=&x=28&y=4) for games over 85, we get 45 games, less than they listed. Thats ok! Problem is metacritic lists 608 games available for the 360... thats less than HALF of the 13%.

If we do the same to the PS3 (http://apps.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=0&game_platform=PS3&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=85&metascore_e=&x=38&y=1) we get the 35, which is one less than they listed, but they have 432 games listed... again, less than HALF of the 17%.

So... I don't see how they could have gotten those numbers, because I can't believe the last 200+ games released for EACH system scored lower than 85 on Metacritic, and a couple of the good games have since been UNreleased, and unfortunately (like any poorly published study) they didn't include the parameters they used. Something isn't right if those really are the numbers.

So you have my apologies in regards to the article did indeed have numbers, but now you have a new problem in the sense that I don't see how they possibly could have gotten them.

I still, however, point out that you are still speaking about insignificant differences (like the 15 dollars point, 15 dollars isn't a lot when you are spending 400+). The PS3 and the 360 have the same number of good games coming out each year (about 9 or so), and there is not a significant difference between the quality of games released (the point the aforementioned article actually made), and both systems have a very large library of quality games (30+), MOST of which are multiplatform.

The point is... the PS3/360 is not the Wii, which has only 16 games scoring higher than 85 (http://apps.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=0&game_platform=wii&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=85&metascore_e=&x=37&y=8). That is a SIGNIFICANT difference, when you consider the PS3 and 360 more than double the library of quality games.

2) You didn't make your Arcade point in your first post, and for good reason, you know as much as anyone that it is a prime example everything being relative in terms of pricing.

I also think you are, again, being a bit facetious in regards to having cheaper options. The 360 just has one cheap option, and its if you are of a breed that doesn't care about a Hard Drive or LIVE service, which is why they released that... to compete with the Wii, not the PS3. I have never once had a customer pick up a 360 Arcade in lieu of a PS3, the customers debating between 360s and PS3s typically compare the 80GB/160GB with the Pro/Elite bundles and decide from there.

I didn't mention it either because, again, I didn't want to get in a big scuffle over a bunch of BS about game quality/service. The point was there is no fair comparison between a PS3 and a 360 which will result in a major price difference, its all in what you buy and what you care about. There are plenty of things to consider, even now, which make the PS3 less expensive, and there are plenty of things to consider, even now, which make the 360 less expensive.

Saying anything else is, again, letting yourself be lead by the Business-spin.

Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 23rd 2009 5:19PM

Wow! BunnySlapper has been completely PWNED by everyone who has replied to him in this mini thread.

McWilly @ Apr 23rd 2009 5:54PM

And thus concludes the great wall of text war of the 21st century.

The End

Slaziman @ Apr 24th 2009 12:00AM

TregGert:
Couldn't you have connected your Xbox 360 to your PC, which I assume has wireless connection as well as an ethernet port, and have it share the connection? Would've been a lot cheaper. My PS3's wireless wasn't working very well because my router is 2 stories away, so that's what I did.

Mr. L @ Apr 23rd 2009 1:27PM

I as I said in response to yesterday's post of the Wii selling "It's over 8 million!!!" units in Japan.....The PS3 is intert!

mgsrocks1 @ Apr 24th 2009 8:06AM

The majority of those who bought a Wii (including me) got it for novilty of having a motion sensing console and don't play it all. My uncle bought one for himself and his wife and they play only Wii sports exclusively. They don't even know the company that made it. It's sad to see people walking into Game Stop not knowing what games are for what system. Some of them want that Uncharted game for their Wii not knowing it's for PS3 only. Nintendo might have a problem with their next system.