Total Launch Cost Of Xbox One: $591, Total Launch Cost Of PS4: $460

Gaming Blend "A lot of times gamers are sold on the media pitch of a game console's price. During the initial announcement of the device or at the following E3 event, we usually get a rough window of what the pricing structure will be for the console and the console alone. Well, as you all know, a console without games or a controller or a charge kit is a useless console. So now it's time to add up all necessary accessories and features so you have a working, usable console at launch."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
insomnium21705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

Costs more and is supported waaaaaaay less after the console hits 2yo. The initial amount of games is due the fact that they did this very thing with X360. They starved the players for years and it will happen again. It's only a matter of time when it will happen.

I wonder how short sighted people will be this time around. Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice......

GarrusVakarian1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

Short sighted and forgetful of past events go hand in hand when Xbox fans are involved. 2 of their launch exclusives are only launch exclusives because they are scrapped 360 titles (DR3 and RYSE). I remember 2010 when the Kinect dropped, the support for the core gamer was virtually non existent, while the PS3 was pumping out exclusives left right and centre....and still is.

The expression "don't count all of your chickens before they have hatched" or "its a marathon, not a sprint" have never been more true than they are for this gen.....or last gen with the PS3, but as i said, they for get that. All the devs who made all those great PS3 exclusives, they are still there doing what they do X1 fans think they have just quit or something?

darthv721705d ago

i really miss the days of the pack in game. I would gladly take a full game included with the system instead of the AA batteries in the XB1 (I can supply my own) or the cell phone earpiece in the PS4 (better headsets on the market).

As to this comparison, lets not kid ourselves. no-one buys just a month of the service. The year sub is where its at. And if you are already a member of either/both then what do you do with those complimentary subs? It's not like i would let my ps+ run out just to use the 1 mo free.....i would resub before that happens.

i could give it to a buddy of mine who just got a PS3. i usually give him my free trial cards for live anyway. He could put the ps+ trial to good use.

Mystogan1705d ago

Lol hypocrite.

did you forgot how Sony now makes you pay 2 play online? I guess you forgot that They wanted you to pay $600 for a console too. And also that they let your credit cards get stolen. And shut down PSN for a month.

Like I said. Hypocrites.

mhunterjr1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

I think the early ps3 adopters are forgetful too. The first couple of years were pretty barren and they wanted $600. Since the system selling games didn't come until after a couple price drops, wouldn't it have made sense to skip launch?... You would have gotten more bang for your buck that way.

With the 360, early adopters had plenty exclusives and better looking multiplats for the first half of the generation. By the time roles started shifting, the ps3 was cheap enough to justify owning both consoles.

I think it's best that we just treat this like a new generation. I'm not saying forget the last 8 years, just recognize that there's nothing to suggest that the next 8 years will play out the same when it comes to exclusives.

alexkoepp1705d ago

Not to mention, at least according to vgchartz, on average 360 users got 11 games, ps3 only 9.

so for the claim that ps3 games are better, well, 360 users on average found 2 more games worth buying over playstation users...

Xbox wins in games, and its shaping up to be similar this new generation

Darrius Cole1705d ago


When the PS3 launched the comparison was not launch titles vs. launch titles. The comparison was PS3 launch titles vs. 360 2nd year titles. So, that wasn't a fair comparison. Still, with the PS3 vs. the Xbox 360 you got something objectively extra for your other $200. You got better hardware, you got free online multiplay, you got blu-ray playback.

mhunterjr1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

@darrius cole,
It was a perfectly fair comparison because that was the landscape of the competition. Sony was asking you to pay $600 for a console that had crappy 1st party launch titles and little third party support. The third parties that did show up had games that ran better on 360. Meanwhile, the competition was cheaper and had better games. The typical consumer doesn't care if it was launch titles vs 2nd wave, they just want the one that offers the most entertainment at the time of purchase.

It's funny that you say the ps3 offered something objectively better at that price, then you mention 1) the hardware which wasn't taken advantage of until 2.5 years after purchase (it was smart to wait until then), 2) the free online, which was slow, insecure, and had horrendous outtages, and 3) the blu-Ray drive which early on, did little to affect gameplay (beyond increasing load times)

You are pretty are helping to prove my point. From a gaming POV, The 360 was the better console to own early on. Later in the generation the ps3 was better of clearly better value.

Darrius Cole1704d ago (Edited 1704d ago )

My point is that when you bought a PS3 even at $600 you could objectively point to something that added value, that was not present on the other side. Some people, like you, may subjective decide that this added value IS NOT enough to justify the extra $200 added to the price tag. Some other people, like me, may subjectively decide that this added value IS enough to justify the extra $200 added to the price tag. But no one could objectively disagree with the fact that there was something there that the 360 did not have.

And I'm not proving your point, you are proving my point. You are subjectively devaluing and overlooking the objective advantages the PS3 had over 360 at launch. Like your points...

"1) the hardware which wasn't taken advantage of until 2.5 years after purchase (it was smart to wait until then)"

There is more to "better hardware" than just the power of the hardware. The 360's failure rate had to be about 30%-40% over about the first 3 years of its life. The PS3' failure rate had to be at least 10 times less that the 360's. That's an objective observation. But you subjectively overlook that.

Moreover, the PS3 hardware was more powerful. Whether or not MGS4 justified that or not is an opinion.

I should also add that a launch PS3 had 4 USB slots, a wireless wifi card, an SD card reader, and memory stick reader, an HDMI slot and a fiber-optic surround sound jack. It also played every PS2 game and you could out Linux on it. On the other hand the X360 just had 2 USB slots, a wired network card, only played a few Xbox 1(the real Xbox 1) games, and required AA batteries for the controller.
When you add the 2 together, you get an irrefutable reality, a PS3 at launch was better hardware than a 360 at launch or even a 360 at 2 years. It was both more powerful and more reliable at the same time.

---"2) the free online, which was slow, insecure, and had horrendous outtages,---

Again whether the PS3 online was slow, insecure, and horrendous to the point of being intolerable is your subjective opinion. Whether the PS3 online was free is not up to your opinion. Deciding to go with a launch PS3 instead of a 360 and pay $200 more up front meant that I saved $50 - $60 per year for each year that I played online. That objectively is about $250 cheaper over the life of the generation. ($450(XBL) - $200(xtra PS3 price)) = $250

To close a longer than intended post, this is all in contrast to the XB1 vs. PS4. My real point was that with the PS3 you could point something as say "I got this for spending the extra money". The XB1 has nothing you can point to over the PS4 where you can say "well at least you get this". There is literally no value given for the extra price, other than brand loyalty. The PS4 less even if you include the camera.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1704d ago
MizTv1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

2005 till the end of 2007 was a great time to have a 360
Very good games but after that it just wasn't as good
I need more than 3 games a year
Halo gears and fable are fun games but I just played them out
I needed something more
Ms always top loads there console

Volkama1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

I bought a 360 at launch. I do not regret that in the slightest, I played plenty of fantastic games and it proved good value.

I have an XBox One now, and it's nothing to do with being short-sighted.

Besides, surely if MS release all their best games early then this is a great time to get a One.

infectedaztec1705d ago

Ill buy a ps4 when there's exclusives worth buying. Titanfall will keep me fixed until then

flyingmunky1705d ago

Others may have pointed this out as well but the reason why the xbox one has so many launch titles lined up was because they were holding back games for the last couple years.

Meanwhile Sony has been cranking out awesome ps3 games instead of forcing developers to port their work to the ps4. They still have about as many launch games as xbox one too, which is pretty telling as to how many quality studios Sony owns.

jb2271705d ago

Well said...too many people disregard the fact that Sony has always done well by their consumers by ensuring that their prior consoles have plenty of life still left after they launch their new ones, Microsoft have only ever shown the complete opposite, they did it w/ the original Xbox, they are doing it w/ the 360...they coast on multplat releases that tend to dry up quicker and quicker, but they make better money when all of the risk is on the third party to make content for their system, all the while they end up releasing decent, yet buggy and flawed games that end up making up the xbox "classics" of the generation because it's the only time they can ever be bothered to put any effort into creating something for their like Halo 4 & Gears Judgment have been nice flukes because they come from new studios trying to prove themselves, w.o those two games the 360 would've been dead years ago for all intents and purposes, whereas Sony have been willing to take chances through the whole life's not for their own good will, because lord knows these games fail commercially more than they succeed, even when the games themselves are amazing. At the end of the day, they are both companies out to make a buck, i've just always felt that at least there are people at Sony who truly care about the genre and are a bit more honorable in their practices....maybe that's down to the company existing in a culture that holds honor in a much higher esteem than we do in the U.S.....our nations anthem should be changed to Bone Thugs N Harmony's "For the Love of Money"

avengers19781705d ago

I clicked thinking the article be about how much each company spent to launch the new system.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1704d ago
1705d ago Replies(3)
MizTv1705d ago

You should take out the camera on ps
It's not needed or forced on you
So you can take off that exta 55

H0RSE1705d ago (Edited 1705d ago )

Why do people keep insisting that the Kinect is "forced" on people? Not only is a hostile word to you, creating a less than desirable mental image, it is also misleading. It isn't forced on you - it is part of a packaged deal, like all those extra channels you get in your cable package that you never watch but still have to pay for. And like those channels, you don't have to use the Kinect if you don't want to.

For it to be "forced" on you, would require that it's use is mandatory or....forced... If you are arguing that it is "forced" in the sense that you have to pay for it whether you want it or not, well then that is an issue with the added cost, and not the device itself.

Without going too far off topic, your very reasoning for wanting to exclude the cost of the PSeye, can actually be used as a reason why it should be included.

You say the PSeye isn't needed - well, the Kinect isn't needed, it's simply included, which increases the initial cost of the X1, and since the Kinect adds functionality and features to the X1 and/or the games played on it, you would need the PSeye to match (as best it can) this functionality.

ironmonkey1705d ago

people know sony has a very good record for supporting their system. the games show. that is! the only reason why i bought a ps4.

Show all comments (33)