GREATMADMAN wrote:Clint wrote:PS3 is far better value for money mate.
Blu-ray, Wi-Fi and free internet.
In that order.
Yeah, crap internet, PSN is abysmal in comparison with live , and i've had a good experience with it too so its not just a biased opinion.
Plus, a Blu Ray playing Wi-Fi capable machine is great, if the PS3 actually remembers what it is for a second, its a games console, with no games, value for money? i think not.
Plus,
Arcade Bundle: £150 (People say its useless, but it plays games and saves data, its a fine starter pack if you want a games console to do its prim)
PS3: £299
Which is more appealing to your gamer in a shop? a gamer who just wants to play games?
Completely blinded opinion.
I will agree with you on PSN, but everything else is a load of bollocks.
360 is full of extra costs, i've had one, my mates have them, and worst of all, they fucking break. They are half-arsed, cheap consoles. End of story.
PSN is free, so let them work on that they've got. It's not like we have to pay for the service.
Saying the 360 is a better console than the PS3 is fucking laughable. It's about time people realise how much good technology costs, and stop fucking whining about nothing. The PS3 is not just a games machine, a good blu-ray player will set you back £150, that's half your cost right there.
I will agree that 360 has the better selection of games, but don't come to me saying it's a more stable or well-designed machine, because you're fucking kidding yourself.
No games? lol. You're a typical Sony-basher who clearly doesn't
own the fucking console. I've had a blast with the few games i've got. MGS4, GTA4, Uncharted, Resistance, Oblivion. 3 of those are exclusive.
Chances are, all your favourite games came from a Sony machine.