This argument is really one of symantics. Reading through the full ASA Ruling clearly states the following:
1. The ASA are not technical experts
2. The ASA rely on unbiased, independent verification of claims
3. The ASA found no 'direct' evidence (simply put: straight quotations) to support the claims
4. On pure technicality found the advertising rulings to have been breached and thus found in favour of the complainants.
I think MS clearly wanted to avoid raising this matter themselves for obvious and logical reasons. I agree that any consumer should dispute advertised claims if they feel they're false - doesn't matter whether it's 'XBox 360 fanboys' trying to justify their purchases, disgruntled 'PS3 fanboys' that can't afford R6300, or simply a concerned consumer on the street. The merits of claims that are reported should be investigated and treated fairly.
Before anyone starts labelling me, let me state that I've weighed the pros and cons of both the PS3 and XBox 360 and went for the latter. I'm not a console player traditionally and still prefer a PC for FPS games but I am a fanboy for
games not platform.
That should shed some light on my following comment: Reading through the technical specs from IBM, it does state that the CELL BE has
8 times more SIMD capability than traditional processors - purely because of the CELL's parallel architecture. Does this mean it's 8 times
faster? Not necessarily, but it does mean accurate performance benchmarks should be run before making such blatant claims as advertised by SK Games / CNA. Had such tests been done, it could very well have proved the cell is indeed 8 times faster than standard single-core CPUs - but the advertising should then clearly state that and not generalise 'most computers'.
On the otherhand, it is indicative of the short-sighted mentally which could produce statements like "There's no proof that Telkom ADSL is expensive" as clearly it boils down to a lack of understanding the facts presented and laziness to dig deeper to determine the truth.
This ruling is a victory for consumerism - not for XBox 360 vs PS3. United we stand, divided we fall and then continue to bicker among ourselves while we're being forced to pay more than we really should. Always try to look at the bigger picture. Not everything in life is a competition. If you're happy to spend R6300 on a PS3 with all the trimmings built-in then good for you. If not, spend less on what you need and add the rest later if need be. The true potential for all 3 current generation consoles is still to be exploited and all consumers stand to gain. Diversity afterall is a good thing
Without competition, Sony would most likely not have been forced to reduce costs for the PS3 and take a $300 knock on the manufacturing costs - they'd simply sell it at full cost as there'd be no alternative in the market for consumers to purchase.
