The lights are on
Let's say you're looking to buy a Xbox 360 Elite or a PS3 Slim, and let's go ahead and assume that you've got a nice HDTV, and a wireless router, which you intend to use for online gaming. Let's look at what you'll need and how much it'll cost you for each console.
If you get the Elite and you have a brain in your skull you'll also want to get a Play & Charge Kit for that wireless controller that comes with the 360. After one month, you'll also need to pay for Xbox Live. Since you want to use that wireless router of yours, you also have to get Microsoft's special wireless adapter for the 360. If you want the true HD experience, you'll want to pick up an HDMI cable (let's assume you manage to find one for $25). At least you don't have to buy a headset since the Elite comes with one. Suddenly, you've got a $300 console, an $80 wireless adapter, a $20 Play & Charge Kit, and a $25 HDMI cable. Holy crap, you're suddenly out $425 plus applicable sales tax and you haven't even bought a game yet! Then next month you'll have to pay $50 to keep Xbox Live Gold membership going, and that'll keep coming back year after year. Once you suck up the cost of that first $60 game and your first $50 Xbox Live fee, you've spent around $535 plus applicable sales tax. Ouch.
Now let's look at the PS3 Slim. The controller is already recharable and there's a USB cable there that you can use to charge it. No additional cost. The PS3 Slim has WiFi built in. No additional cost. You still have to pay $25 for that HDMI cable, and if you really want a headset you can get the official PS3 bluetooth headset for $50. Then you pick out a $60 game.You've got a $300 console, a $25 HDMI cable, a $50 headset, a $60 game. You've spent $435 + applicable sales tax. Look at that, you saved about $100 by getting a PS3 Slim instead of an Xbox 360 Elite, and on top of it you also have a blu ray player to boot! And there's no online subscription fees looming over your head either. Yeah, the PSN currently doesn't have all the features that Xbox Live does, but can you really complain when it's free?
To top things off, the PS3 is way less prone to suffer from hardware failure than the Xbox 360 is.
From a consumer's point of view, the PS3 is really looking better and better all the time. Now to clarify, I'm not a Microsoft hater, I'm not a Sony fanboy. I'm a consumer first and a gamer second, that's all there is to it. Now that the Xbox 360 Elite and the PS3 Slim are at the same price point, Microsoft really needs to do something to keep conscious consumers that haven't selected a PS3 or Xbox 360 yet coming to their side, or else they may find themselves in last place by the end of this generation of consoles.
If I was Microsoft, I would start making the 360 look more appealing outside of the United States. If VGchartz is accurate, then at the time of this posting the Xbox 360 has sold 32.64 million consoles worldwide, and the PS3 has sold 25.52 million consoles worldwide. At first glance it looks like Microsoft has nothing to fear, but let's take a closer look at the break down of those numbers.
Still referring to the numbers in VGchartz, in the United States, there have been 18.74 million Xbox 360s sold (about 57.4% of their total fan base) and there have been 9.86 million PS3s sold (about 38.6% of their total fan base). Looks good for Microsoft in the US doesn't it, with a ratio of 1.9 Xbox 360s to every PS3.
Now, let's go outside of the US. If you combine the numbers in VGcharz under Japan and Others, here's the break down: 13.9 million Xbox 360s sold (1.17 million from Japan and 12.73 from others) and 15.67 million PS3s sold (3.74 million from Japan and 11.93 million from others).
What's this? Tthe PS3 is actually outselling the Xbox 360 outside of the US, despite the fact that the Xbox 360 came out a year before the PS3 and that the PS3 has only seen a more manageable price point in the past 6 or 7 weeks. Now why is the console market so different in the US than it is outside of the US? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that question, but if I was Microsoft, I'd be worried about that. If the PS3 was already more popular outside of the US when the PS3 still cost $400, what will happen now that the PS3 Slim is only $300?
If Microsoft hopes to keep it's #2 slot in this generation, they need to do something to encourage people outside of the US to buy the PS3. It's not a good sign that 57.4% of their console fan base is in the US alone. Within the US, one of the biggest barriers that have kept people from picking up the PS3 was the price tag. That barrier has come down with last month's price drop putting it on equal footing (as far as the price tags are concerned) with the Xbox 360 Elite. It will be interesting to see what happens in the US console climate over the next year or 2.
The ball's in your court Microsoft. It's time to stop acting like nothing phases you and start making your accessories/online fees more affordable, otherwise I think it's highly likely that more and more people will jump ship to the PS3.
That's a pretty fair way of looking at things. I like your objectivity from a consumerist standpoint and I have to agree (which is why I bought a PS3).
Something else I also looked at was the quality of software on the XB360. Developers latch onto 'easy' seemingly fast in terms of consoles, but they stuff they put out seems to be more of a $60 'proof of concept' and 'market test idea' than it does actaul quality game. PS3 has some crappy games, don't get me wrong, but you don't really find things like "Spongbob" or "Miley Cyrus" on the PS3 and hey, if people want to buy those games then great, but the argument that it's for their kids doesn't make the game 'better' or 'of higher quality' anymore than it makes the system it's designed for more desirable in the long term.
To answer your question about the console market being different in the US you'll have to look at the games released. In the US a majority of popular games are FPS and MMORPG... outside of the US... not so much. So while the XB360 has more in the way of FPS and generally considered the console for smoother online play for MMO style games, the games for the 360 are geared towards a US market where the games for Wii and PS3 are geared towards an international market. I'll wait an extra 6 months or so to get a quality game that appeals to specifically what I want instead of a game that generalizes and gives a little bit of what I want at a faster rate - but that's just me.
Microsoft also needs, in my opinion, to drop Project Natal. I feel it's a waste that will ultimaely give them a copy cat gimmick appearance. No matter how intuitive or innovative the games are that will use the game, it's going to be percieved as gimmicky. That's part of the problem with the Wii right now - you can only design so much in a game around motion in a specific field and then you'll have a margin of error that within that range depending on angle, distance, and size. Who knows, it might be very sharp and precise, but that doesn't mean it isn't a gimmick. I believe the future of gaming is not headed in motion tracking peripherals. Could you imagine playing a driving game holding up two hands or playing an RPG where you swing the sword? Sure... but what about the menu interface in an active time battle, or the car custom paint and decal menu? Are they going to remove those options for the sake of 'hey now you can drive with your hands instead of a controller'? What about a second player? Can I mess the guy next to me up by waving in front if his 'space' or vice-versa? We'll see...
Well-done. You manage to point out the advantages and disadvantages of both consoles without coming across as a fanboy. Well, maybe a little bit on the Sony side, but still.
Shawn, I have to point out something about your take on Natal: Its extremely fresh, new, and original compared to what Sony is making for a motion controller. I'm not trying to be a fanboy, just pointing it out. Natal provides much more possibilities than what Nintendo and Sony offer/are working on. I, for one, can't wait to see what happens when it comes out.
I agree with your point about being a consumerist, not a gamer. Because the list of good games for the Xbox 360 right now is bigger than that of the PS3... not knocking on it or anything, but if you look at the top scores for games and the number of those games on each console, the xbox 360 wins.
You also compared the most expensive console on the 360 side to the least expensive on the PS3 side. If you really were coming from a consumerist, you'd compare the 60 GB or the Arcade to the Slim, since the average gamer does not need 120 GB. The Arcade is 200 dollars and the pro is 250. However, the slim is sony's cheapest console. So really, if you're going to buy an elite, then yes you'll pay more money. But a smart consumer would get a 60 GB, you really don't need that much space anyways.
Overall, good comparison. Just a few flaws with it.
P.S. It's a year for $50, not a month :P
Good points, I do agree that you should have added other xbox systems, but it was a good review. I think also you have to look at games also. Xbox provides games PS3 doesn't and the other way around. I really think PS3 this year has provided the better games and I haven't really seen much from xbox that I am like WOW that is so cool. Now xbox has had some games in the past that I have said WOW too so not saying they don't have great games. But this year PS3 in my opinion has had the better games of the systems.
I really think we should hold judgement of Natal until reviews come out, I have heard from people who got to try it and it didn't work as great as they made it seem during E3. So lets give that some time.
I know the wii is great with the motion controllers and sony's eyetoy is okay but not great, with there new controller I think it will add to the eyetoy and could make it better but I don't think Natal will be so great, but I will wait to see reviews and try it for myself before making judgement.
Yes, I know it's $50 for a year, I said you'd have to pay $50 after the first month. I know you get a free month of Xbox Live when you buy the console, that's what that was about.
I chose to compare the Slim and the Elite since the 2 are the same price out of the box, then I forced accessories onto both to make their feature set equal (i.e. rechargable controller batteries, wireless capabilities, headsets, and the HDMI cable). One of the points this was emphasizing was that the ultimate Xbox 360 model still needed to have some accessories added on to it to compare to the features that come with the base line PS3 Slim right out of the box.
Though supposing that you did pick up the Pro model, that's still $50 more overall and you have less hard drive space (whether you need that space or not varies from person to person, I know a few folks that have had to upgrade their 60 GB hard drives on either side of the console spectrum). Then if you go with the Arcade model, the cost evens out, but then you don't have a hard drive at all, which limits what all you can do.
And again, you essentially get a free blu ray player with the PS3. If I really wanted to be ugly I could've tacked on a stand alone blu ray player to the Xbox 360 side to even out that feature, however I felt that would have been grossly unfair.
If you want to bring games into the fray as well, I'm willing to dispute that. Yes, the 360 has a larger exclusive library of games, however a number of those exclusives have slowly crept there way to the PS3, sometimes with additional content. To name a few, Ninja Gaiden Sigma II (the PS3's answer to Ninja Gaiden II), Bioshock, The Orange Box (granted the PS3 version has many problems the 360 and PC version don't, but it's still on there), Eternal Sonata, and more recently Star Ocean 4 International has been announced for the PS3.
The other problem with the 360's exclusive titles is that many of them are M rated first/third person shooter titles. I also can't think of any kid friendly AAA exclusive titles on the 360 off the top of my head. The 360 is just not a particularly kid friendly console. At least children have games like LittleBigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank to play with on the PS3. Granted, the Wii is the best kid friendly console on the market, but at least the PS3 has a few good exclusive games to offer the little ones here and there.
Also, with the multitude of cross platform games that are basically identical on both consoles, I think a PS3 owner would be hard pressed to completely run out of good games to play. Because of this, I personally believe it's a moot point to try to stack the PS3's library of games against the 360's. Either way, gamers have more than enough good games to blow their hard earned cash on.
Very good point about the blu-ray as well... I dunno. I might have to stop saving for a Zune HD and get a PS3... truth is, I'm running out of reasons not to.
good review on both consoles. You can pick-up a really good hdmi cable on amazon for 10 dollars. as far as wireless adaptor just get a Ethernet cable and plug it into the router. that's what i did. my xbox is right next to my entertainment center. I would love to get a ps3 but i just bought a another xbox 360.
i can't let you do that dave.....
lol i love movie comparrisons
i agree...ps3 much better...only problem is those of us who bought the ps3 when it first came out and it was like $500 for a 60g. thankfully not one problem though which is more than my brother (which has gone thru like 5 360's) and the other xbox users can say.
i love you. amazing blog post 100% legit! ps3 FTW
I have to admit, I'm kinda surprised. I was half way expecting some serious backlash from the Xbox 360 community over this blog post, but it looks like it's been received pretty well so far.
I knew the first half was pretty harsh against the Xbox 360, so to avoid coming off as some rabid fanboy/hater I tried to balance things out by looking at what Microsoft could try to do to make their console look more appealing to consumers, and it looks like I did well in that regard. What a relief, I was nervous as heck when I posted this thing.
On most sites your head would have been put on a pike but it would seem only smart people comment on blogs.
I have seen many comparisons and reasons why I should get a 360 or a PS3 but in the end these types of blogs are for people who don't already own a next-gen console. I bought a 360 when it first came out and its still the one I got. At that time how could you not go for a 360 unless you were already comfortable with what Sony was offering. The only games I will buy will be for my 360 and the only accessories I have are for my 360.
The biggest deciding factor is what your friends have. I know its fun to game on your own but you can't pass up a night of gaming with the guys. If your friends have 360s, get a 360. If they have a PS3 then get a PS3. With the price the same, its as easy as that.
@ Shawn - Is that what you said about the Wii as well? I think Natal is an exciting new step in the gaming world and I think it will take awhile to catch on but it can't be that dumb of an idea if a less intricate version in the Wii took off and, IMO, saved Nintendo. Sony may have dropped the ball a bit on the PS3 Wand. Not as big of a forward step. If they wanted to reach more of the casual gaming market, which is what motion controls do, then a full mocap like Natal is the way to go. Only time will tell, but I have to support the progression of gaming. Thats why I bought my girlfriend a Wii awhile back............also to watch her do Yoga but thats not the point.
A couple points of contention. The wireless adapter is not a must for most people, an ethernet cable does the same thing for hardly any cost, say $10. That makes the difference between the systems only $30 (using your metric).
Personally, I don't think it's fair to compare xbox live to PSN. Live is so much faster and more reliable, it has more and better features, etc. I understand not complaining about what you get for free but that doesn't make the features comparible. I know when I get a PS3 if I want to play a game online I'll buy the 360 version. And if you don't like to play games online you just saved yourself $50 making the 360 cheaper. For me, the 360 is more expensive then that though because I think the plug and play stuff sucks, I'm into the quick charge kit and a couple battery packs which comes in at $40 minimum.
Now I'm gonna get called a fanboy for this, but I'm not sure it's safe to say the 360 has that much higher a failure rate than the PS3. According to some independent console repair sources, PS3's are starting to come in nearly as often as 360s. The biggest difference is that the 360's have been around for a year longer. And for both consoles, the failure rate is irrelevant as these price points represent new hardware, primarily the new chips, which we don't have any failure rates for yet.
When it comes to games, until this year PS3 couldn't compare to the 360. With games like Uncharted 2, Ratchet & Clank, and Infamous out and GOW3 on the way I think it'd be safe to say it's a fairly even ground at this point.
As to your sales numbers, the PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan but, from what you quoted, the 360 is a little ahead in the "other" catagory, so it's not that PS3 is ahead outside the US, it's that they're even in Europe and Aus while the PS3 is ahead in Japan. Now I'm not sure the 360 will keep its lead in Europe and Aus but if I had to choose between winning in the US or Japan I'd say it's a pretty easy choice. You mention price differences as a factor but you didn't examine what the prices of the consoles are outside the US. I understand not doing so but I think that will be significant. Since the 360 and PS3 parent companies are based in different countries pricing will be significantly different. The USD isn't worth much compared to Japan and Europe but that means it's easier to lower the price in those places. I don't know who has the price advantage in other areas, I'm just saying it's a pretty significant factor if we're gonna talk global sales.
To the person who mentioned Natal: the PS3 has just as much potential to be gimmicky and looks more like a copycat than Natal does. I don't know how either will turn out but they face similar challenges.
Great review!
I enjoy reading these kind of things when people are being as objective as possible instead of fanboys. Man, I almost regret having a 360 now that the DLC prices are rising and that Netflix is on the PS3. Not only that, but like all good game consoles, it's got some exclusive games that look like a blast, namely LittleBigPlanet (I like playing games with my siblings that everyone can enjoy, and platformers too) and MGS4. Mostly LBP though.
But who knows? Christmas is just around the corner, and my parents need something to replace cable with soon. Maybe I could get lucky...? :-)
On your first point rpm285sm, I added the wireless adapter on the 360 side to balance out the fact that the PS3 has wireless out of the box, and I likewise added the PS3 Bluetooth headset to balance out the fact that the 360 comes with a headset.
If I removed those 2 non-essential things from both sides of the equation and added a $10 ethernet cable to the 360 side like you suggest, the difference would still be $80, and that's just for the first 13 months of ownership. After paying for a second year of Live the difference becomes $130, the year after that, $180, the year after that $230. You can argue how superior Live is until you're blue in the face, the fact is you still have to pay for it year after year and that can be a major turn off from a consumer's point of view. That's one of the primary reasons why I personally chose a PS3 over a 360.
And again, there's the added value of having a blu ray player built into the PS3. Most stand alone blu ray players cost somewhere between $150 and $200, so that's a ton of extra value you're getting out of that PS3, while the 360 is still using last gen's media format, the DVD.
On you point about the games, yeah this year and into the first half of next year is really where the PS3 has gotten a lot of it's high profile games. But if you're a consumer and you haven't picked up a 360 or a PS3, do you really care how long each console has had a good line up of games, or do you care what's on it right now and what's coming out over the next couple of months? I'd say the latter. Between exclusives and cross platform games, both the 360 and PS3 have plenty of good games to choose from right now and even more to look forward to on the horizon.
Going back to the sales numbers thing. Yes, the 360 is ahead of the PS3 in the others region by 800,000 units, but again I'll emphasize that the 360 came out almost a year before the PS3. That means on average the PS3 has been selling more consoles per month since it's release in places like Europe and Australia than the 360 has since it's release. Give it a year at most, and I'll bet the PS3 will surpass the 360 in the others region given the rate it's been going, unless Microsoft does something to appeal to the other markets of the world.
Heck, Microsoft tried appealing to the Japanese market by putting a bunch of JRPGs on the 360 (some of which turned out to be timed exclusives, but exclusives nonetheless), yet the Japanese market still has a 3.197 PS3 to Xbox 360 ratio (again I'll emphasize that the 360 came out a year earlier). The big picture I'm trying to paint here is that the Xbox 360's primary audience is in the US, which is supported by the fact that 57.4% of all Xbox 360 sales have been in the US. If they want to keep their second place slot in this generation they need to appeal more to the other markets of the world.
I don't know how much each console costs in all places of the world, but I do know that the price points are about the same in the UK and in Japan in their own currencies. I also imagine that there's not that much of a difference between the 2 in other places of the world as well if Sony and Microsoft intend to stay competitive price wise with each other over the whole globe. It would be stupid marketing not to stay competitive with the competition's prices.
As I recall, Microsoft conveniently lowered the price of the Elite from $399 to $299 and announced they would be phasing out the pro model which used to be at the $299 price point at about the same time that Sony lowered the price of their entry level console from $399 to $299. It's marketing, that's how it works.
You're just a freaking fan...tastic blog writer. As a 360 owner, I completely agree.
As to the Blu-ray player, yes, that is additional value. I do have to question how many people have an HDTV though. The number is growing but there are still many gamers out there without which makes Blu-ray rather irrelevant. I do think a lot of this is subjective, but I do see the points you're trying to make. If I could only have one I'd choose the 360 but I can have both and will be buying a PS3 shortly.
I personally own a PS3 but I don't have an HDTV. But look around the market today; you go to Best Buy, Wal Mart, Target, etc looking for a new TV, and I can tell you that you'll be hard pressed to find a standard definition TV anywhere. Sooner or later a HDTV is pretty much guaranteed to end up in our households, so I'd say it's still quite relevant.
makes sense. Honestly, the best place to purchase a game console is at costco. If it ever breaks you can turn it back in and get a new one and you'll never have to go through that crappy Microsoft Service