XBox 360 vs. PS3

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

Meh. They are pretty clear about it..... you want to go online, you have to pay to be gold member. They don't expect anyone to spend the money on an Xbox just to watch Netflix....or use whatever app they have. Same with PS3.....they don't expect you to buy a system just to watch Netflix.

The difference is that PS3 doesn't charge to go online, but when/if they do, you can rest assured that Netflix and every other online app will require their version of a gold acct to use it.

The ultimate appeal of the PS3 and XBox (and Microsoft has openly admitted this in interviews, etc.) is that a single box can service ALL of your home entertainment needs. That's why the next generation XBox not only has A/V out, it also has A/V IN.

The problem is that most of us see the all-in-one aspect as a CONVENIENCE and Microsoft seems to think that it's a PRIVELEGE, one you should PAY for. That's a poor view of things from a consumer perspective, but that's to be expected when it comes to M$.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The ultimate appeal of the PS3 and XBox (and Microsoft has openly admitted this in interviews, etc.) is that a single box can service ALL of your home entertainment needs. That's why the next generation XBox not only has A/V out, it also has A/V IN.

The problem is that most of us see the all-in-one aspect as a CONVENIENCE and Microsoft seems to think that it's a PRIVELEGE, one you should PAY for. That's a poor view of things from a consumer perspective, but that's to be expected when it comes to M$.

Sure, I understand and I don't disagree with you. Honestly, I'm surprised Sony hasn't gone the same route at this point, but I'd be equally surprised if they didn't at some point. Maybe with their next gen console.

I just personally don't have an issue with paying a little over $8/month for 4 live gold accounts and to be able to use a single device to play games online, purchase movies, use Netflix, etc etc etc. We get our moneys worth and then some, so it's not a big deal to me.

But, if you aren't going to use all of the features provided in a live acct, I fully understand that the cost outweighs the usefulness of it. If I didn't play online, or movies, or Netflix, I wouldn't want to pay for a gold acct just to do something I could get for free with another console.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

Sure, I understand and I don't disagree with you. Honestly, I'm surprised Sony hasn't gone the same route at this point, but I'd be equally surprised if they didn't at some point. Maybe with their next gen console.

I just personally don't have an issue with paying a little over $8/month for 4 live gold accounts and to be able to use a single device to play games online, purchase movies, use Netflix, etc etc etc. We get our moneys worth and then some, so it's not a big deal to me.

But, if you aren't going to use all of the features provided in a live acct, I fully understand that the cost outweighs the usefulness of it. If I didn't play online, or movies, or Netflix, I wouldn't want to pay for a gold acct just to do something I could get for free with another console.

That's what it boiled down to for me - the ONLY online feature I was using was Netflix and I couldn't justify doubling my Netflix costs that way.

Also, the straw the broke the camel's back was that I bought a game for couch co-op and it didn't work on the 360. On PS3, both accounts are "online" and off you go.

On 360, it required that both of us have a Gold account to play together on the same XBox, in the same room.

[007]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's what it boiled down to for me - the ONLY online feature I was using was Netflix and I couldn't justify doubling my Netflix costs that way.

Also, the straw the broke the camel's back was that I bought a game for couch co-op and it didn't work on the 360. On PS3, both accounts are "online" and off you go.

On 360, it required that both of us have a Gold account to play together on the same XBox, in the same room.

I have always felt that an XBOX Live subscription should be per xbox and not per person.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's what it boiled down to for me - the ONLY online feature I was using was Netflix and I couldn't justify doubling my Netflix costs that way.

Also, the straw the broke the camel's back was that I bought a game for couch co-op and it didn't work on the 360. On PS3, both accounts are "online" and off you go.

On 360, it required that both of us have a Gold account to play together on the same XBox, in the same room.

Whoa? What? What game was that? That's completely on the developer and not the Xbox. The vast majority of games can have a guest profile to be used online in matches and when it comes to playing offline on the same TV, you usually don't need one at all. That's so strange.

[UteChief]

Does either have the better online service? Less latency?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Pants

Whoa? What? What game was that? That's completely on the developer and not the Xbox. The vast majority of games can have a guest profile to be used online in matches and when it comes to playing offline on the same TV, you usually don't need one at all. That's so strange.

This game allowed for that too, but then you can't save your progress (since a Guest account doesn't allow for local storage of saved games on the XBox).

The game was Sacred 2. And yes, the developer is culpable. At the end of the day, Ascaron said that the M$ system was just too difficult to deal with and they couldn't get it to work the way they could on other systems.