Everyone loves a good console war, and if you’re not one of the lucky/spendy gamers who can afford one of each console, then you are going to have to pick sides at some point.
When it came to my turn to pick up a current generation console I picked up a PlayStation 3 – it seemed a much better fit for the way that I like to play games and, over the long haul, it was a lot cheaper due to not having to shell out $50 every year to play the relatively few online games that I am interested in.
That decision is looking even better today with Microsoft’s announcement that they would be charging customers $60 per year for a gold account, up from $50 per year, without adding any real value to the package for gamers.
As a PS3 owner, I can’t help but feel a little smug…. it’s just part of my genetic make up.
7 Responses to “Ammo for the nerdwar”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
When Sony raises their price to match, I’ll be back to saw “ha ha!”
So far Sony’s price is “free”. ;) They have a long way to go to match the XBox rip off!
So, nyah! :P
Well Playstation Plus is $50/year, but I gather it’s not essential. Xbox Live has a free level (“Silver”) but it’s very limited, so most players are buying Gold. I give Sony credit, the PS3 seemed like a dog when it launched and it’s only gotten better over time.
Yeah – PlayStation Plus is a mess of a service. I talked about it here:
http://systemicbabble.com/videogames/playstation-plus-is-a-minus/
Thankfully it is totally optional, because it provides pretty much zero value.
I finally buckled a couple of months ago and bought a 360… mostly because I’m working on games for the system, and it sort of behooves me to understand my market and tools a bit better. Oh, and because I got it on a great sale. I still prefer the PS3 library and product, but couldn’t justify getting it.
…and just how I will not pay a subscription for an MMO, I’m not paying for Live. Stupid, stupid Microsoft.
The mind boggles that they continue to raise rates like that when their competition is free.
Particularly given that while the 360 came out of the gate ahead of the PS3 despite it’s inferior hardware, largely due to a better library, it’s falling behind now.
With the PS3′s game library catching up, supported by a better hardware platform, Microsoft should be working hard at reducing reasons for people to move over to Sony.
Their upcoming motion controllers are another good example. Microsoft’s Kinect will cost more, and most importantly is purely camera based: No buttons. This will hamstring game developers greatly limiting input options.
The PS Move, on the other hand, also allows full motion capture but provides a controller too, so developers have a great deal more input options.
Kinect looks great for silly Wii cake baking/dancing games, but the Move will allow more “hardcore” games to take advantage of motion controls.
… And at nearly half the cost.
Microsoft’s choices don’t make any sense to me at all, given the overall situation.
Yes – the PS3 has been doing much better of late, although it still has an enormous gap to close in terms of install base.
I would, however, caution against thinking that the Move is cheaper than the Kinect. For single player use maybe, but each additional move + nunchuck costs $39.99 + $29.99. (And you also have the initial cost of the camera, which is ~$20 iirc). For a typical two-player set up, the two systems come fairly close to each other in terms of price.
I do agree that Kinect doesn’t appear to have as many “hardcore” uses as the Move – the early game line-ups seem to bear that out.