Since when was the PS3's GPU upgradable? The RSX is weaker than the Nvidia cards coming up in the next few months. You fail.
Again, you presume to act as if this comparison was made to equalize the feature sets. The features on both platforms in this scenario posed by Sony are GREATLY favoring 360.
How much does it cost to play a game on 360? $340+tax. On PS3? $500+tax. If you want to compare both low end versions, you need a goal. In this case, the goal is to play a game.
In Sony's comparison, it seems to be whatever it takes to make the PS3 less pricey than the 360.
For starters, they claim these things are required. They aren't remotely close to that.
Also, they use the PS3 as the base of the comparison. How much for a better GPU like the Xenos to be added to the PS3? How much to add rumble to the controllers? How much for as many demos and trailers etc as I could ever want on the PS Online Network? How much for the better developer support? How much for the headset that comes with the Premium? How much for the MU adapter for the low end PS3? How much for the HD cables for PS3 that are free with the Premium?
Add all of those in, and then MAYBE you can find a point where each console has equal feature sets from one end of the spectrum to the other. You don't see Microsoft making charts outlining the fact that PS3 "requires a $2500 Westinghouse HDTV for 1080p-via component input" to fully enjoy the games.
Sony doesn't make any distinction between what the goal is. Such and such "is required" to do this and that. But wtf is the 'this and that' part? Definitely not gaming as thsoe things aren't needed for gaming.
Basically they say customers need to buy all thsoe items on 360 if they were to meet or exceed all PS3's represented advantages while they make sure there are no comparisons representing how much it costs to make a PS3 meet 360's advantages.
If this doesn't fit your definition of misleading, you are a moron.
Sony claims Xbox 360 requires HD DVD, etc., thus costs $700
Oct 20th 2006 12:33AM (Engadget)Again, you presume to act as if this comparison was made to equalize the feature sets. The features on both platforms in this scenario posed by Sony are GREATLY favoring 360.
How much does it cost to play a game on 360? $340+tax. On PS3? $500+tax. If you want to compare both low end versions, you need a goal. In this case, the goal is to play a game.
In Sony's comparison, it seems to be whatever it takes to make the PS3 less pricey than the 360.
Sony claims Xbox 360 requires HD DVD, etc., thus costs $700
Oct 20th 2006 12:28AM (Engadget)Also, they use the PS3 as the base of the comparison. How much for a better GPU like the Xenos to be added to the PS3? How much to add rumble to the controllers? How much for as many demos and trailers etc as I could ever want on the PS Online Network? How much for the better developer support? How much for the headset that comes with the Premium? How much for the MU adapter for the low end PS3? How much for the HD cables for PS3 that are free with the Premium?
Add all of those in, and then MAYBE you can find a point where each console has equal feature sets from one end of the spectrum to the other. You don't see Microsoft making charts outlining the fact that PS3 "requires a $2500 Westinghouse HDTV for 1080p-via component input" to fully enjoy the games.
Sony doesn't make any distinction between what the goal is. Such and such "is required" to do this and that. But wtf is the 'this and that' part? Definitely not gaming as thsoe things aren't needed for gaming.
Basically they say customers need to buy all thsoe items on 360 if they were to meet or exceed all PS3's represented advantages while they make sure there are no comparisons representing how much it costs to make a PS3 meet 360's advantages.
If this doesn't fit your definition of misleading, you are a moron.