Now, it says "Console Price Comparison" but it does indeed leave off the "...for equivalent console experience" subtitle. That's pretty shady, but in the context of "getting what you pay for" it makes sense. To get what comes in the PS3 box, you do have to get all this extra junk for the 360. However, the "Wireless Controller" for the 360 is moot -- doesn't one come with the better SKU? Anyway, that aside, to get an equivalent experience, you do need to get the $399 model, a $199 HD-DVD drive (not for gaming, just to equate to getting a Blu-ray) and the Gold subscription.
The PS3 (lower model) comes with all that, even a wireless controller (which should have been built in to the XBox 360 cost, so more accurately read, it would be $50 for the HDD and $50 for the controller). The free online is debatable, although Sony has said they would give free service for regular online multiplayer, but subscription fees for MMO's and the like will still apply, via the developer, etc. Is this misleading and worthy of a lawsuit? It's slightly misleading, but not worth the trouble of legal action. Microsoft needs to relax -- so they misquoted you $50, which is understandable if you build up from the junk core system. Whatever. Now, let PS3Fanboy set up its barricades to defend against all the flaming about to occur.