[quote name='whoknows'][quote name='gizmogc']6. 360 Core = $300. PS3 Core = $500. Big difference in money.[/QUOTE]
Not really a fair comparison since the PS3 "core" is closer to the 360 Premium than it is to the 360 core in features.[/QUOTE]
I just told you what the discussion was about. This is what started the whole comparison thing. We were saying that the PS3 core comes close to matching the Premium in features, with only a few differences. One of them being the "play and charge kit". To which you responded that the controllers needed to be replaced. Which, I still don't see the relevance of that statement. Its not like the fact that you have to replace them is going to somehow change the fact that it is no longer an extra feature you get with the PS3, which the 360 charges you for.
And, as far as giving you choices goes. For the most part, I really don't think the "choices" MS gives us are that great. The choice to go with HD-DVD or not was a great one. This choice of using standard batteries or buying a play and charge kit isn't that great, in my opinion. Maybe if the controller was cheaper without the play and charge kit, it would've been better, but because a 360 controller + play and charge kit will be quite a bit more than than the PS3 controller, I have to go with that one. I realize we don't get a choice to use batteries, but personally, I can't see any advantages to using a battery. Don't know of many people who would opt for batteries over rechargeable if the price is the same. I do realize that these things do die out after some time, but I also understand that the time it takes for that to happen, I may not even be using the controllers any more. I'm not exactly sure on the time frame though.
The 360 also doesn't give us any choices as to what OS we want to use, or what accessories we use. By that I mean that only 360 brand accessories will work on the 360. The PS3 allows the use of almost any keyboard, mouse, headset, and harddrive.
The 360 also gives us the choice of buying a harddrive or not. I honestly think this was a mistake though. I could see why they did it, since they were afraid of pricing themselves too high, but looking back, it would've been better to have a standard hdd. I would rather have a higher rate of HDD owners to ensure that the HDD gets used to the fullest. I realize that the number of users who own the HDD shouldn't determine its support from developers, but judging from what I have seen so far, it seems like developers are more inclined to use the PS3 HDD, which may be attributed to the fact that it is standard. We are seeing several PS3 games allowing gamers the option to install on the HDD to reduce load times, whereas none of the 360 games allow this. I realize that 360 games COULD do this, but for some reason, they choose not to. I believe, had the 360 HDD been standard, it would've been a different story.
