Can we now say the 20GB is history?

[soonersfan60]

It seems that even the Sony online store is not carrying the 20GB model anymore. I know Sony has been trying to spin this as stores not wanting that model, but I can't help but feel that Sony pushed things along because they were losing more money on the 20GB model.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13454

[blackjaw]

Odd that they would give it up so soon; even MS has kept up with their Core systems.

[RedvsBlue]

Something we've known for a while but this was pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

[Sarang01]

Now it's going to be even harder to push it with MS having a system $200 less.

[Rig]

My local K-Mart had a few left a couple weeks back. Methinks it's probably because very few people shop there. I should check and see if they still have them.

[Monsta Mack]

So this means the PS3 is officially $200 more then a 360 if it dissapears from all the B&M stores? I mean it has blu-ray still.

[DomLando]

So this means the PS3 is officially $200 more then a 360 if it dissapears from all the B&M stores? I mean it has blu-ray still.
If you compare it to the Elite it's more like $120 more. I think thats a more fair comparison. But yeah I guess right now it's $200 more.

[Monsta Mack]

If you compare it to the Elite it's more like $120 more. I think thats a more fair comparison. But yeah I guess right now it's $200 more.

Good point. I just think this doesn't bode well for price drops in the near future.

[Sarang01]

So this means the PS3 is officially $200 more then a 360 if it dissapears from all the B&M stores? I mean it has blu-ray still.

Not EVERYONE likes BR who have watched movies on both. I've read some saying they think HD DVD looks better in comparison with a few BR movies like "Crank" which match it.

[Zoglog]

glad I got a 20GB while I still could. Way better deal for me. That $!00 I save in the future is going towards a 200GB HD lol...

[paz9x]

damnit, im planning on buying a 20gb.
i need a couple more weeks and ill have the $

[panasonic]

Built in wifi and enough hdd size for linux FTW!

[panasonic]

Not EVERYONE likes BR who have watched movies on both. I've read some saying they think HD DVD looks better in comparison with a few BR movies like "Crank" which match it.

Those where early blu ray movies, the new ones look good. Xbox games improve in graphics over time, playstation games do, and gamecube games do. Don't base it on the first batch.

[gofishn]

All signs point to yes.

[GizmoGC]

Don't worry, Sony fanboys will still claim the built-in WiFi, extra HDD Space, and BR makes the 360 REALLY $250 more. They fail to understand not everyone has a need for those items, Sony just forces you to pay for them.

[dpatel]

Don't worry, Sony fanboys will still claim the built-in WiFi, extra HDD Space, and BR makes the 360 REALLY $250 more. They fail to understand not everyone has a need for those items

Sony fanboys said that? I don't see any saying that.

Sony just forces you to pay for them.

True. MS gives us choices. Like the freedom to choose what lube to use when you sell your premium and happily buy the Elite.

[H.Cornerstone]

Don't worry, Sony fanboys will still claim the built-in WiFi, extra HDD Space, and BR makes the 360 REALLY $250 more. They fail to understand not everyone has a need for those items, Sony just forces you to pay for them.

Yeah, I would much rather be given the choice to pay for overpriced accessories then to just have the stuff when I first buy the system.....










NOT!

[GizmoGC]

True. MS gives us choices. Like the freedom to choose what lube to use when you sell your premium and happily buy the Elite.

Sadly I have to hold onto my premium. There is no way to hack the newer 360s so the Elite would be useless for me :cry:

[GizmoGC]

Yeah, I would much rather be given the choice to pay for overpriced accessories then to just have the stuff when I first buy the system.....
NOT!

You would? I'd rather spend $400 for a Premium and decide if I need WiFi. Decided if I need a bigger HDD, Decide if I need a memory card reader. Decide if I think Sony will win the next format war. Nahh, I'd rather stick with my $200 less system and have the choice. And Rumble. And better Online. And not 10 games ports from the "past gen" system as Sony calls (Since the are the next-next generation). Whatever.

[dpatel]

Sadly I have to hold onto my premium. There is no way to hack the newer 360s so the Elite would be useless for me :cry:

What sort of 'hack' are you looking for? To play imports? If so, I'm sure it will come. Just give it time. Everything is 'unhackable' at some point.

[GizmoGC]

What sort of 'hack' are you looking for? To play imports? If so, I'm sure it will come. Just give it time. Everything is 'unhackable' at some point.

Uhh, if 'imports' mean 'backup' copies, then yes. Systems after December of 06 can't be 'hacked' to play backups. Until that comes out I'll stick with my jet-engine Premium.

[gofishn]

Sony fanboys said that? I don't see any saying that.



True. MS gives us choices. Like the freedom to choose what lube to use when you sell your premium and happily buy the Elite.

Where have you been the last 6 months? There have been dozens of threads about the "true" costs of a 360 since the PS3's price was revealed.

Also, your second statement contradicts itself. MS does give you a choice, the choice not to buy the Elite for those of us who are happy with the Premium.

[GizmoGC]

Also, your second statement contradicts itself. MS does give you a choice, the choice not to buy the Elite for those of us who are happy with the Premium.

What? I thought we were forced to upgrade since all games after 06/07 need to be put into a black 360 and not a white one. Damn MS!

[dpatel]

Uhh, if 'imports' mean 'backup' copies, then yes. Systems after December of 06 can't be 'hacked' to play backups. Until that comes out I'll stick with my jet-engine Premium.

Oh, I gotcha. Well, it'll happen to systems after Dec 06, it's just a matter of time.

Where have you been the last 6 months? There have been dozens of threads about the "true" costs of a 360 since the PS3's price was revealed.

I realize that it has been said before. I just didn't see the point in bringing up such a fanboy claim in this topic. I mean, if you are looking to start a flame war, then I guess you could go ahead and pull out that statement.

Also, your second statement contradicts itself. MS does give you a choice, the choice not to buy the Elite for those of us who are happy with the Premium.

I should've specified. The Elite isn't really bad. Personally, I don't like it, but I just won't buy it. I was just poking fun at the fact that gizmogc was so eager to sell his current premium (which he paid extra to have modded) and rebuy the elite all so he can enjoy HDMI. Yet, was complaining about the lack of $8 HDMI cables in the PS3. I wasn't talking about people as a whole.

[dpatel]

What? I thought we were forced to upgrade since all games after 06/07 need to be put into a black 360 and not a white one. Damn MS!

Nah. I think I wasn't clear on my point. I was just referring to your specific situation.

[GizmoGC]

I was just poking fun at the fact that gizmogc was so eager to sell his current premium (which he paid extra to have modded) and rebuy the elite all so he can enjoy HDMI. Yet, was complaining about the lack of $8 HDMI cables in the PS3. I wasn't talking about people as a whole.

Not including such a cheap cable with a $500/$600 item is just so damn cheap of Sony for such a "next-next" generation system. Atleast MS has the balls to include it with their Elite.

[gofishn]

I should've specified. The Elite isn't really bad. Personally, I don't like it, but I just won't buy it. I was just poking fun at the fact that gizmogc was so eager to sell his current premium (which he paid extra to have modded) and rebuy the elite all so he can enjoy HDMI. Yet, was complaining about the lack of $8 HDMI cables in the PS3. I wasn't talking about people as a whole.

Definitely not trying not trying to start a flame war, just wanted to clarify that first statement. I didn't realize the second part was GizmoGC specific. Unfortunately, he'll probably make a hefty profit unloading his modded Premium and all his "backup" copies. I have no respect for pirates.

[dpatel]

Not including such a cheap cable with a $500/$600 item is just so damn cheap of Sony for such a "next-next" generation system. Atleast MS has the balls to include it with their Elite.

I agree with you totally about Sony being cheap about it. I can understand why they did it, but it also does suck from a consumer standpoint.

I just find it funny that you think that buying an Elite for HDMI is better than buying a cable for HDMI. You'll probably end up spending about the same amount in both situations. But, in the end, you end up getting more for your money with the PS3. I could see your argument if you did not use the blu-ray player, or had you bought an Elite initially (instead of a premium and selling it), but, honestly, I don't see how you can be happy about your situation.

[dpatel]

Definitely not trying not trying to start a flame war, just wanted to clarify that first statement. I didn't realize the second part was GizmoGC specific. Unfortunately, he'll probably make a heft profit unloading his modded Premium and all his "backup" copies. I have no respect for pirates.

It was my fault. I should've clarified. I figured Gizmogc picked up on the cheap shot, but others probably didn't recognize it. I'm not fond of pirating either, but I'm not going to try and convince people otherwise. I just like the games I enjoy to come out with sequels, so I buy them at full price if I feel they deserve it.

[dallow]

Not including such a cheap cable with a $500/$600 item is just so damn cheap of Sony for such a "next-next" generation system. Atleast MS has the balls to include it with their Elite.
Probably because MOST of the people buying the Elite are getting it simply for the HDMI connect. The Elite model appeals to people with HDTVs.

The PS3 is sold to everyone, it's universal. So lowest common denominator cable it is.

[dpatel]

Atleast MS has the balls to include it with their Elite.

Well, after buying 2 360s from them, that's the least they can do for you :D

[H.Cornerstone]

You would? I'd rather spend $400 for a Premium and decide if I need WiFi. Decided if I need a bigger HDD, Decide if I need a memory card reader. Decide if I think Sony will win the next format war. Nahh, I'd rather stick with my $200 less system and have the choice. And Rumble. And better Online. And not 10 games ports from the "past gen" system as Sony calls (Since the are the next-next generation). Whatever.
Ahhhh, Oblivion, motorstorm and Resistance are ports from the last gen? You had me fooled.

And btw, I had to have Wireless, so that is 500$ right there, and I wanted HD movies, so that is another 200, plus the 50$ xbox live so that is 750$, so yes, I rather have the choice to NOT have to pay for over priced accessories, compared to the 610 I paid for all of that with PS3 and a hdmi cable. Now I know the xbox live is better, but is it 50$ better? Not to me.

Plus, as been stated before, Blu-ray will be needed this gen. just look at gears of war, crackdown and lost Planet, those were all extremely short games.

[dpatel]

You would? I'd rather spend $400 for a Premium and decide if I need WiFi. Decided if I need a bigger HDD, Decide if I need a memory card reader. Decide if I think Sony will win the next format war. Nahh, I'd rather stick with my $200 less system and have the choice.

What if you decide you want HDMI, what if you don't want to spend $180 on a 120GB HDD, what if you don't want to spend $100 on wi-fi, what if you don't want to use the standard 360 OS, what if you want to import?

[GizmoGC]

The PS3 is sold to everyone, it's universal. So lowest common denominator cable it is.

Oh! So thats why everyone bitched and Sony included HDMI in there $500 system...but they are catering to to the lowest of lows, right? The $400 Premium Xbox had Component cables right in the box....interesting....

[gofishn]

Ahhhh, Oblivion, motorstorm and Resistance are ports from the last gen? You had me fooled.

And btw, I had to have Wireless, so that is 500$ right there, and I wanted HD movies, so that is another 200, plus the 50$ xbox live so that is 750$, so yes, I rather have the choice to NOT have to pay for over priced accessories, , compared to the 610 I paid for all of that with PS3 and a hdmi cable. Now I know the xbox live is better, but is it 50$ better? Not to me.

Well then it works for you, but everyone's needs are different. In my case, I'm using a wireless bridge that I got for free, the 20 gb hard drive is more than enough storage for me, and I have no desire to watch HD movies right now (especially when I can get them on demand from Comcast). BTW, I've used both and Xbox Live is definitely $50 better (although I got a whole year for $18).

BTW, Oblivion is a "last gen" port.

[dpatel]

Plus, as been stated before, Blu-ray will be needed this gen. just look at gears of war, crackdown and lost Planet, those were all extremely short games.

I have to disagree. Blu-ray will be utilized, but not needed. Game length doesn't equate to more space either. Oblivion was pretty long and fit on one disc. More disc space basically means more breathing room for developers, and the potential for a bigger variety of textures, more audio, and more video. It's more of an advanatage for developers. With more breathing room, they may be willing to exceed the 9GB mark. With DVD, they technically CAN exceed 9GB, but that would complicate the development process further. Plus, with more space, developers are more efficient leading to potentially better looking games, more content in games, and/or a game being released sooner.

[Apossum]

You continue to sore to new heights of trolldom Gizmogc :applause: this thread is a particularly fine example of sublime idiocy. Ok, we get it, you love your 360 and you really felt it was a worthwhile investment. that's nice.

[dpatel]

Oh! So thats why everyone bitched and Sony included HDMI in there $500 system...but they are catering to to the lowest of lows, right? The $400 Premium Xbox had Component cables right in the box....interesting....

Serious question here, and try not to ignore it like usual:

Why do you complain about things that don't affect you, and don't complain about things that do affect you. You said you 'saved' $200 with the premium, completely neglecting the fact that you are now forced to be without HDMI, or to take a loss and upgrade to the Elite.

And you were complaining about the $200 extra the PS3 costs, yet you make good use of the blu-ray player (the main cause for the price difference).

[GizmoGC]

Ahhhh, Oblivion, motorstorm and Resistance are ports from the last gen? You had me fooled.

And btw, I had to have Wireless, so that is 500$ right there, and I wanted HD movies, so that is another 200, plus the 50$ xbox live so that is 750$, so yes, I rather have the choice to NOT have to pay for over priced accessories, compared to the 610 I paid for all of that with PS3 and a hdmi cable. Now I know the xbox live is better, but is it 50$ better? Not to me.

Plus, as been stated before, Blu-ray will be needed this gen. just look at gears of war, crackdown and lost Planet, those were all extremely short games.

Sony Fanboy, front and center!

Oblivion = a Year old 360 Port. How is Shivering Isle by the way? Oh wait....
Motorstorm = Yawn. SHORT.
Resistance = A somewhat decent FPS only so "great" because there was nothing else to play at launch.

So because YOU have to have wireless does not mean EVERYONE does. Look at the Wii, people were bitching they couldn't use it until Nintendo sold an extrernal adapter so they could wire it to a router. Not EVERYONE wants WiFi. Xbox Live is debatable. The PS3 online interface sucks. Anyone that says its better then XBL is full of crap.

Don't give us the BR is needed crap either. Just because games are 'short' is not because limited disc size. You really do eat all the PR crap Sony feeds down your throat?

[Apossum]

Serious question here, and try not to ignore it like usual:

Why do you complain about things that don't affect you, and don't complain about things that do affect you. You said you 'saved' $200 with the premium, completely neglecting the fact that you are now forced to be without HDMI, or to take a loss and upgrade to the Elite.

And you were complaining about the $200 extra the PS3 costs, yet you make good use of the blu-ray player (the main cause for the price difference).


because he's a complete troll (or he's...got a...disability.)

[dpatel]

You really do eat all the PR crap Sony feeds down your throat?

Even though I agree that Blu-ray is not needed. You making this statement is just laughable.

[dpatel]

because he's a complete troll (or he's...got a...disability.)

Careful. Soon he'll call us all fanboys because he can't find another way to logically retort. Sorry for derailing this topic, but when it's late at night, it's amusing to watch Gizmogc use his 'logic' (or lack thereof). It's sorta like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[GizmoGC]

Why do you complain about things that don't affect you, and don't complain about things that do affect you. You said you 'saved' $200 with the premium, completely neglecting the fact that you are now forced to be without HDMI, or to take a loss and upgrade to the Elite.

And you were complaining about the $200 extra the PS3 costs, yet you make good use of the blu-ray player (the main cause for the price difference).

1. HDMI was not readily available on TVs when the 360 came out. They were still in the 1.5/2k range. DECENT LCDs with HDMI are as low as $700 WITH HDMI ports. Might as well be pissed off that my VCR did not have component cables back in 95. As said before, unless a hack comes by I will stick with my hacked Premium.

2. I bought a PS3 only for Blu-Ray. The format war will not be over anytime soon. Its the cheaper Blu-Ray player and the 'safest' as it seems the 1k 1st Gen ones will pretty much be crippled once Blu-Java comes out and they may start having issues with them. Since the PS3 accounts for 95+% of all Blu-Ray player sales, I figured it was a decent investment. Had PS3 not included Blu-Ray I would have never purchased it, Period.

[Apossum]

Careful. Soon he'll call us all fanboys because he can't find another way to logically retort. Sorry for derailing this topic, but when it's late at night, it's amusing to watch Gizmogc use his 'logic' (or lack thereof). It's sorta like watching a train wreck in slow motion.


or a guy trying desperately to prove that his favorite game system is the best. both are equally cringe-worthy...actually the train wreck would be a little less awkward to watch :lol:

[GizmoGC]

because he's a complete troll (or he's...got a...disability.)

Yes, I'm a troll. Please see the Elite thread to see all the Sony trolls.
Enjoy the 360 ports guys!

[H.Cornerstone]

Sony Fanboy, front and center!

Oblivion = a Year old 360 Port. How is Shivering Isle by the way? Oh wait....
Motorstorm = Yawn. SHORT.
Resistance = A somewhat decent FPS only so "great" because there was nothing else to play at launch.

So because YOU have to have wireless does not mean EVERYONE does. Look at the Wii, people were bitching they couldn't use it until Nintendo sold an extrernal adapter so they could wire it to a router. Not EVERYONE wants WiFi. Xbox Live is debatable. The PS3 online interface sucks. Anyone that says its better then XBL is full of crap.

Don't give us the BR is needed crap either. Just because games are 'short' is not because limited disc size. You really do eat all the PR crap Sony feeds down your throat?

Becuase you know Oblivion wasn't developed on the PC first... ohh wait it was, that makes the 360 version a port as well. And Oblivion isn't a standard port, it's got less loading time and was optimized for the PS3. And the only reason SI isn't released yet is becuase wouldn't it be stupid to release the expansion pack WITH the game? Yeah, and not everyone might not need wireless now, but in the future it might be needed and not having to pay 100$ for a wireless router would be a very handy feature. And no, I don't read that PR sony crap, I use logic and listen to developers. Logic tells me you can put more levels into a 50gb disc compared to a 9gb.

And Thank you, I will enjoy my Lair, Heavenly Sword, NGS, Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Warhawk, Killzone 3, Calling All Cars, Eye of Judgement, Whtie Knight Story, Hot Shots Golf 5, Final Fantasy XIII, MGS 4, Motorstorm and Resistance 360 ports. I just hope you enjoy your Assassin creed port as much As i will enjoy those ports.

And you mean MS didn't put a HDMI port in because that would of future proofed their system? Whats that! Realizing that needs could change and adding that to your system to not make it outdated in a year... Who does that?

And you say Blu-ray isn't needed, but as Bill Gates said "I don't think anyone will ever need more than 256kb of ram."

[dpatel]

1. HDMI was not readily available on TVs when the 360 came out. They were still in the 1.5/2k range. DECENT LCDs with HDMI are as low as $700 WITH HDMI ports. Might as well be pissed off that my VCR did not have component cables back in 95. As said before, unless a hack comes by I will stick with my hacked Premium.

Not good future proofing, in my opinion. And :lol: at your VCR analogy, that's not even close to being a good analogy.

2. I bought a PS3 only for Blu-Ray. The format war will not be over anytime soon. Its the cheaper Blu-Ray player and the 'safest' as it seems the 1k 1st Gen ones will pretty much be crippled once Blu-Java comes out and they may start having issues with them. Since the PS3 accounts for 95+% of all Blu-Ray player sales, I figured it was a decent investment. Had PS3 not included Blu-Ray I would have never purchased it, Period.

So, again, why are complaining about the PS3s price, versus the 360? Sounds to me like you got a bargain. Cheap blu-ray player now, possible console in the future.

[GizmoGC]

Becuase you know Oblivion wasn't developed on the PC first... ohh wait it was, that makes the 360 version a port as well. And Oblivion isn't a standard port, it's got less loading time adn was optimized for the PS3. And the only reason SI isn't released yet is becuase wouldn't it be stupid to release the expansion pack WITH the game? Yeah, and not everyone might not need wireless now, but in the future it might be needed and not having to pay 100$ for a wireless router would be a very handy feature. And no, I don't read that PR sony crap, I use logic and listen to developers. Logic tells me you can put more levels into a 50gb disc compared to a 9gb.

Yes, developed on a PC...great. Did the PS2 have it? Nope. Did the 360? Yes. At the same time? Yes. Oh, ok. Shivering Isle is not available yet because Sony has not yet 'mastered' downloadable content like Microsoft. Good luck getting it anytime soon.

Stop assuming everyone needs Wireless. Just like you assume that Gears of War. Crackdown, and Lost Planet are short because they are not using a Blu-Ray disc. Logic tells me you seem to think because its a 50GB disc that developers will now sink 3-4x more money into a game just so they can use all the space. They will also now take 3-4x longer developing a game because they want to use up all that sweet space.

[dpatel]

Yes, I'm a troll. Please see the Elite thread to see all the Sony trolls.
Enjoy the 360 ports guys!

Good for you, you've spotted some PS3 trolls. I never would've known that they existed. Are you seriously justifying your fanboyism by their fanboyism? Sad man. I will enjoy my ports. Enjoy your 360 that, apparently, doesn't entertain you as much as it should, otherwise you would've be on here trolling all the time.

or a guy trying desperately to prove that his favorite game system is the best. both are equally cringe-worthy...actually the train wreck would be a little less awkward to watch :lol:

:lol: very true.

[gofishn]

Why do people constantly bitch and argue about this? It's all a matter of personal preference. If you want a "cheap" high definition movie player, enjoy the games Sony has to offer, and have some money to burn, then by all means get a PS3. Why is this so complicated? Spend your money how you please and let others do the same.

[GizmoGC]

So, again, why are complaining about the PS3s price, versus the 360? Sounds to me like you got a bargain. Cheap blu-ray player now, possible console in the future.

Possible Console :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, Devil May Cry 4 now on 360. Thats it. Thats the ONLY game I actually wanted for the PS3. PS3 is now 100% a Blu-Ray player.

[GizmoGC]

Why do people constantly bitch and argue about this? It's all a matter of personal preference. If you want a "cheap" high definition movie player, enjoy the games Sony has to offer, and have some money to burn, then by all means get a PS3. Why is this so complicated? Spend your money how you please and let others do the same.

Duhh, the Elite sucks and the $600 PS3 is the way to go! All hail 360 ports!

[dpatel]

Shivering Isle is not available yet because Sony has not yet 'mastered' downloadable content like Microsoft.

:lol: And you were making fun of people for buying into PR bullcrap. You do realize the only reason we don't have SI is so they can charge us for it later. They needed an excuse not to include it on the disc, so they claimed it was due to 'hardware limitations' (which is crap seeing as how the game got an unnecessary upgrade. Had it really been to hardware limitations, then they would've kept the port on par with the 360 version and included SI). I can guarantee SI will be available for a price a couple of months down the road.

[dpatel]

Possible Console :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, Devil May Cry 4 now on 360. Thats it. Thats the ONLY game I actually wanted for the PS3. PS3 is now 100% a Blu-Ray player.

Which is what you paid for. So, again, why complain about price? Are you complaining that you got one of the better blu-ray players on the market for a bargain?

[GizmoGC]

:lol: And you were making fun of people for buying into PR bullcrap. You do realize the only reason we don't have SI is so they can charge us for it later. They needed an excuse not to include it on the disc, so they claimed it was due to 'hardware limitations' (which is crap seeing as how the game got an unnecessary upgrade. Had it really been to hardware limitations, then they would've kept the port on par with the 360 version and included SI). I can guarantee SI will be available for a price a couple of months down the road.

Sure....Just like all those wonderful March PS3 titles that were 'guaranteed'. Sure, we Saw Motorstorm and Oblivion...but not Enchanted Arms and Heavenly Sword.
If Sony wanted $30 for SI they would have had it Day 1, just like the PC and 360.

[gofishn]

Duhh, the Elite sucks and the $600 PS3 is the way to go! All hail 360 ports!

What the hell are you talking about? I don't even own a PS3 and have absolutely no interest in buying one anytime soon. You're just here to stir up trouble. Get lost fanboy.

[GizmoGC]

Which is what you paid for. So, again, why complain about price? Are you complaining that you got one of the better blu-ray players on the market for a bargain?

I'm not complaining at all about it being a Blu-Ray player. As a game console it sucks. If I wanted to play 360 games I would. I don't need a PS3 to do that.

[dpatel]

Sure....Just like all those wonderful March PS3 titles that were 'guaranteed'. Sure, we Saw Motorstorm and Oblivion...but not Enchanted Arms and Heavenly Sword.
If Sony wanted $30 for SI they would have had it Day 1, just like the PC and 360.

Strawman Fallacy! :D

[GizmoGC]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't even own a PS3 and have absolutely no interest in buying one anytime soon. You're just here to stir up trouble. Get lost fanboy.

Great. I own all 3. I will discuss how much the PS3 sucks if I want to. Maybe you should step put of this thread since you don't even own one.

[dpatel]

I'm not complaining at all about it being a Blu-Ray player. As a game console it sucks. If I wanted to play 360 games I would. I don't need a PS3 to do that.

So, you got your money's worth, correct? And, with the 360, you sorta did (minus HDMI).

[dpatel]

Great. I own all 3. I will discuss how much the PS3 sucks if I want to. Maybe you should step put of this thread since you don't even own one.

Just because you own a console, doesn't mean you still can't be a fanboy.

[hiccupleftovers]

This has to be one of the worst "real" threads I've seen on CAG in a while. An absolute flame and troll battle/war.

Anyway and on topic, no 20GB mean not nearly as likely for a pricedrop anytime soon and no chance of me buying it for a very long time. Another brilliant move on Sony's part. I like how they lie and say that no stores want to order more. Seriously laughable.

[GizmoGC]

So, you got your money's worth, correct? And, with the 360, you sorta did (minus HDMI).

Yes. HDMI was not available so I'm not pissed it was not included.

[GizmoGC]

This has to be one of the worst "real" threads I've seen on CAG in a while. An absolute flame and troll battle/war.

Anyway and on topic, no 20GB mean not nearly as likely for a pricedrop anytime soon and no chance of me buying it for a very long time. Another brilliant move on Sony's part. I like how they lie and say that no stores want to order more. Seriously laughable.

I'm just having fun. You can't have a serious conversation with anyone who feels a $600 PS3 is justifiable. This thread is all for fun.

[H.Cornerstone]

Great. I own all 3. I will discuss how much the PS3 sucks if I want to. Maybe you should step put of this thread since you don't even own one.

Gee you mean the game system that has been out 1 year longer has more games than the system that's been out 6 months?! I am shocked!

I would sit here and justify the PS3 being 600, but instead I will let 1up do it for me: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158279

[dpatel]

If Sony wanted $30 for SI they would have had it Day 1, just like the PC and 360.

It's not up to Sony. It's up to Bethesda. And you can bet there would be an uproar for only including certain downloadable content after waiting a year, and making us pay for the rest.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/games/shiveringisles_faq.htm
Will it be available for the PLAYSTATION®3 system?
It is our intention to make it available for PLAYSTATION 3 this year, but no release date has been set.

[GizmoGC]

Gee you mean the game system that has been out 1 year longer has more games than the system that's been out 6 months?! I am shocked!

I didn't know I was bitching about that. Enjoy all the 360 ports though. Oh wait, you can't afford a PS3.

[dpatel]

Yes. HDMI was not available so I'm not pissed it was not included.

It was available. It was just not that common. It still isn't that common.

[GizmoGC]

It was available. It was just not that common. It still isn't that common.

It was available on 1.5/2k TVs. If you buy just about any new TV today, it comes with HDMI.

[dpatel]

I'm just having fun. You can't have a serious conversation with anyone who feels a $600 PS3 is justifiable. This thread is all for fun.

I think $600 is high, but I bought it anyway. I'm happy with it, but still think it was too much money. If I were like you and used it solely for blu-ray, then it would be a bargain for me.

[H.Cornerstone]

I didn't know I was bitching about that. Enjoy all the 360 ports though. Oh wait, you can't afford a PS3.

Actually, I do own a PS3, hence my PSN NAME! and the fact I own oblivion Motorstorm and Resistance, and but the PS3 because Sony has better first party developers, and I deemed it has a better value with the blu-ray player, and wireless, which it is.

Anyways, I think sony realizes they are in trouble at it's current state, and will do something soon, whether it's including more with the 60gb or dropping it's price somewhat.

[dpatel]

It was available on 1.5/2k TVs. If you buy just about any new TV today, it comes with HDMI.

And how many people are rushing out to buy TVs? HD is still a small market, and will be for a while. It's a shame MS didn't have the ability to forsee 1 year into the future. Would've saved you a lot of money.

[dpatel]

This has to be one of the worst "real" threads I've seen on CAG in a while. An absolute flame and troll battle/war.

Anyway and on topic, no 20GB mean not nearly as likely for a pricedrop anytime soon and no chance of me buying it for a very long time. Another brilliant move on Sony's part. I like how they lie and say that no stores want to order more. Seriously laughable.

Judging from the Wii being overpriced and the Elite, everyone will be enjoying these high prices for a while. I honestly thought the $600 would not catch on, and MS/Ninty would pressure Sony with price drops. Can't see that happening until next year now.

[GizmoGC]

And how many people are rushing out to buy TVs? HD is still a small market, and will be for a while. It's a shame MS didn't have the ability to forsee 1 year into the future. Would've saved you a lot of money.

Seems like alot of people are replacing bulky TVs with Flat screens.
Yes, Stupid MS! It should see into the future, much like Sony. Oh wait, they didn't until people bitched to get HDMI included in the $500 version. Still no "$8" cable. Thanks Sony!

[GizmoGC]

Judging from the Wii being overpriced and the Elite, everyone will be enjoying these high prices for a while. I honestly thought the $600 would not catch on, and MS/Ninty would pressure Sony with price drops. Can't see that happening until next year now.

$250 for a Wii is alot? Wow

[dpatel]

Seems like alot of people are replacing bulky TVs with Flat screens.

Yes, but we early adopters are in the minority.

Yes, Stupid MS! It should see into the future, much like Sony. Oh wait, they didn't until people bitched to get HDMI included in the $500 version. Still no "$8" cable. Thanks Sony!

Better to include HDMI before launch, than a year later. Although, that is irrelevant now since the 20GB is dead, but at least those with it won't have to buy a premium in the future to enjoy HDMI.

[H.Cornerstone]

$250 for a Wii is alot? Wow

Yes, 250$ for an xbox with Motion controls is a lot IMO. And Sony did see in the future, allowing you to use ANY 2.5 hard drive in the ps3, HDMI cables, and I don't remember anyone complaining about HDMI not being in the 20gb version... And yes people are replacing Bulky T.Vs with flat screens, however most of those are the 480p ones that most people buy on sale for about 300$.

[dpatel]

$250 for a Wii is alot? Wow

Yes it is. Overpriced =/= expensive. When the hardware you offer is closer to last gen than this gen, yet your prices are closer to this gen than last, you are overpriced. When the GCN, which was on par with the competition, was able to launch at $200, but the Wii, which was supposed to be 'cost friendly by sacrificing said hardware' launches for $50 more, it is overpriced.

[Ugamer_X]

Why you people even bother to engage gizmo in conversation is beyond me.

He's a huge fanboy and he's just not very smart.

Way to sidetrack an entire thread.

[torifile]

I actually think killing the 20gb model makes a price drop on the 60 gb MORE likely. With the 20 gb model there, it would have made pricing the 60 gb any lower difficult because it would have either 1) cannablized the 20 gb's sales or 2) forced Sony to drop the price on the 20 gb, possibly causing them to lose even MORE money on the PS3 than they already are.

I predict a $50-$100 price cut by November. Especially as BR components get cheaper. Ironically, the way for the PS3 to get cheaper will be for more people to buy it. Economies of scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) at work.

[Indiana]

This is sad that the 20GB PS3 is gone. So much for choices! I really think this hurts Sony more than it helps them. Oh well, there is one positive they only have one model of the console, here's to hoping they cut the price.

[cheapfrag]

And you say Blu-ray isn't needed, but as Bill Gates said "I don't think anyone will ever need more than 256kb of ram."
I think it was 640K.

[Wolfpup]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6836

I wonder if stores really aren't reordering the 20GB model? If so, I wonder if it's really due to greater demand for the "you know what" pack, or if it's the stores being stupid?

I know I haven't seen a PS3 in a store except once months ago-everything's just been the $600 "you know what" pack. I've asked quite a few places, and it's never in. It's harder to find than a Wii.

I've got a huge backlog and don't need one now, but I would consider buying a 20GB model, but no way am I throwing away $100.

[magiic]

Our futureshop has had sixties for about a week. No twenties though

[H.Cornerstone]

I think it was 640K.


Thanks for the correction. ;)

[dallow]

So about how many 20GB PS3s exist out there?
I'm glad I kept mine.

[captmurphy]

There's one at my local Fred Meyer... I wonder if I should go buy it now instead of waiting....

[dallow]

There's one at my local Fred Meyer... I wonder if I should go buy it now instead of waiting....

I would. It's a better deal than the 60GB unless you really care about wireless, and don't want to use an adapter like me.

ALTHOUGH, price might drop by the end of the year on the PS3.

[Monsta Mack]

The wii is overpriced when it comes to hardware, but the millions of people wanting a Wii doesn't seem it overpriced... just check out the eBay prices. The PS3 was underpriced at launch since they made so few of them, but now that a PS3 can be easily purchased It's overpriced. Make sense?

Now that Sony has ridden their cheaper option, you have to justify a $200 difference between the premium (or $120 or whatever for the "elite") which imho is impossible for me right now since I already own a PS2 and can play all my PS1 and PS2 games, and PS3 has little to nothing in terms of "exclusives" except for Motorstorm and Resistance. When the holidays roll around this can be argued, but game wise theres no arguement. The 360 had the same weakness when it first came out, and now the PS3 has to share it by having just as few games.

[Wolfpup]

Ya know, even if I did use wireless, which I don't, I'd still want to use an external wireless card that would get better reception, fully support and current and future security protocols, could be replaced with faster models, etc. :)

[Sarang01]

Those where early blu ray movies, the new ones look good. Xbox games improve in graphics over time, playstation games do, and gamecube games do. Don't base it on the first batch.

Did I bloodly well SAY the first batch?! I think I heard someone say "The Prestige" didn't look too good.

[zewone]

The Prestige didn't look bad at all.

[dpatel]

This is sad that the 20GB PS3 is gone. So much for choices! I really think this hurts Sony more than it helps them. Oh well, there is one positive they only have one model of the console, here's to hoping they cut the price.

Personally, I'm all for 1 SKU, but they chose the wrong SKU to go with. When people complain about the price, the smarter thing to do is to phase out the more expensive one.

Ah well, hopefully the price drop theories are true. I really can't see the PS3 dropping any time this year. The only thing that I think would've caused this was a price drop from the 360. But, with the release of the Elite, I doubt that will happen soon.

[dpatel]

The wii is overpriced when it comes to hardware, but the millions of people wanting a Wii doesn't seem it overpriced... just check out the eBay prices. The PS3 was underpriced at launch since they made so few of them, but now that a PS3 can be easily purchased It's overpriced. Make sense?

Not that this is too important, since I see your point, but I was judging how 'overpriced' a console was based on what is given for your money. So, in my opinion, the Wii is overpriced, the PS3 is not. The PS3 is still really expensive, and not worth it for those not wanting to use every bit of hardware in there, but it still is a good deal for what you get.

[zewone]

Personally, I'm all for 1 SKU, but they chose the wrong SKU to go with. When people complain about the price, the smarter thing to do is to phase out the more expensive one.
They phased out the 20GB because they lose less money on the 60GB.

/threadover as they say

I'm happy I stuck with my gut feeling and bought one when I did, or I would have had to pay about $200 more.

(Even though there isn't any games I want to play yet)

[dpatel]

They phased out the 20GB because they lose less money on the 60GB.

/threadover as they say

I'm happy I stuck with my gut feeling and bought one when I did, or I would have had to pay about $200 more.

(Even though there isn't any games I want to play yet)

Of course. But the 20GB, seems like a better deal to me, and when consumers are complaining about price, it would've been smarter to go with the 20GB. Although, at that pont, the 360 could've dropped in price, causing the Wii to drop in price shortly after.

[Gentlegamer]

Is this really a big deal? Haven't about 95% or more of PS3 purchases been the 60GB model?

As for price drop: this could mean the 60GB gets a drop or even than even more "tricked out" PS3 model could come out (not sure what it would have since the HD is not proprietary).

[Zoglog]

It makes sense considering the demand for the higher model.

The one thing this might hinder is if we will ever be able to add wifi to the 20gb versions. But yeah 20GB much better for my needs than the 60GB one.

One thing people often overlook is this

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5194&Itemid=2
Sony loses considerably more money on the 20GB PS3 compared to the 60GB model. Supply chain research firm iSuppli’s November 2006 analysis said that the hardware maker loses $306.85 per 20GB model sold versus $241.35 for the 60GB PS3.

I think that explains everything

[torifile]

It makes sense considering the demand for the higher model.

The one thing this might hinder is if we will ever be able to add wifi to the 20gb versions. But yeah 20GB much better for my needs than the 60GB one.

One thing people often overlook is this

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5194&Itemid=2


I think that explains everything
I actually wanted the 60gig version. But I didn't pay retail for it either. But I had an Xbox 360 and I was completely frustrated by the fact that 1) it didn't have rechargeable controllers out-of-the-box and 2) that wifi would have been an extra $80 or so. My house is wireless, my router was upstairs out of sight. I had to re-jigger everything to get it on the network. What a royal pain. "next gen" consoles should not be wired. Nintendo and Sony got that right.

[mtxbass1]

picked up by joystiq.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/11/r-i-p-playstation-3-20gb-is-officially-no-more/

[Zoglog]

picked up by joystiq.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/11/r-i-p-playstation-3-20gb-is-officially-no-more/

fuck joystiq, they're just linking to the real news sources.

figures those douche's would leave the most important comment about cost when they're stealing from other news sources.

[The Mana Knight]

To an extent I'm upset with Sony because the 20GB is the cheaper, somewhat better deal IMO (personally, I think the SD, Compact Flash, etc. slots are stupid). Also, many people just won't pay $600, but may give $500 a shot.

When I thought about it, If the 60GB really is only ~$40 more, then it would make sense to do a pretty big price drop on that (since I only see the cost between 60GB and 20GB becoming closer) because it eliminates confusion between two SKUs.

[zewone]

When I thought about it, If the 60GB really is only ~$40 more, then it would make sense to do a pretty big price drop on that (since I only see the cost between 60GB and 20GB becoming closer) because it eliminates confusion between two SKUs.
They won't drop the price until 2008 at the earliest.

[dpatel]

The one thing this might hinder is if we will ever be able to add wifi to the 20gb versions. But yeah 20GB much better for my needs than the 60GB one.

That's the main reason I got the 60GB. I own a PSP and want to make use of the PSP-PS3 connectivity. I realize 3rd party wi-fi adapters work, but I was afraid that if some games used the PSP-PS3 connectivity function, that 3rd party adapter might cause problems. In general, they do work just as well as 1st party, but I had a 3rd party multitap not work for 1 PS2 game last gen. Not a big deal, since a 1st party multitap was cheap. With wi-fi, its different. If the 3rd party adapter doesn't work, i'm screwed.

Is this really a big deal? Haven't about 95% or more of PS3 purchases been the 60GB model?

True, but early adopters tend to go for the 'premium' systems, since they are the ones that like to spend a lot of video games to get the latest and greatest. I know plenty of people who want a 20GB, but can't find one, and therefore, have not gotten a PS3.

They won't drop the price until 2008 at the earliest.

Yea, most likely. I originally thought we might see a price drop around xmas, if the 360 dropped, pressuring the PS3. But, with the elite out, I can't see them dropping the 360's price.

[The Mana Knight]

They won't drop the price until 2008 at the earliest.No, they will have to drop the price in late 2007, or Sony is fucked big time.

[dpatel]

No, they will have to drop the price in late 2007, or Sony is fucked big time.

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can continue the $600 price tag and still sell decently. They won't be taking first or second any time soon, but they won't be failing either. Right now, with a high price tag, little justification for blu-ray, and lack of games, they are still managing to keep up in terms of total sales. Add in some more blu-ray movies, more HDTV sales, more big hitters (MGS4, DMC4, GTA4), and some possible new IPs that could be big hitters (Uncharted, Lair, Heavenly Sword). PS3 won't be fucked if they stay at that price point. However, if the 360 gets a price drop, then, yes, they would be fucked.

[Apossum]

No, they will have to drop the price in late 2007, or Sony is fucked big time.


while it would certainly help to have a price drop, they will probably see how well things go this Xmas season then decide on whether they should drop it or not. You can't say they're fucked if you haven't seen how people react after a bunch of AAA titles from popular franchises and new IP come out for the system. dropping it before even one fleet of good games or one Xmas season has passed will tell people they aren't confident in the system. a bundled in game would be more wise.

[panasonic]

ps3 mem card slots are a must for me :-)

[panasonic]

I'm not so sure about that. I think they can continue the $600 price tag and still sell decently. They won't be taking first or second any time soon, but they won't be failing either. Right now, with a high price tag, little justification for blu-ray, and lack of games, they are still managing to keep up in terms of total sales. Add in some more blu-ray movies, more HDTV sales, more big hitters (MGS4, DMC4, GTA4), and some possible new IPs that could be big hitters (Uncharted, Lair, Heavenly Sword). PS3 won't be fucked if they stay at that price point. However, if the 360 gets a price drop, then, yes, they would be fucked.

360 getting a price drop is doubtful until 2008 imo. they don't need it yet so they shouldn't want to hurt the amount of money they are making. Elite is near $500 so if premium drops then would be fighting $200 war with their own console.

[dpatel]

360 getting a price drop is doubtful until 2008 imo. they don't need it yet so they shouldn't want to hurt the amount of money they are making. Elite is near $500 so if premium drops then would be fighting $200 war with their own console.

Yea. Sure they could gain a lot of ground and pressure Ninty and Sony by dropping the price. But they could also rake in a lot of cash this year with Halo 3/GTA4/DMC4 coming out. Much smarter for them to stay at the current price. And, yes, the Elite coming out just proves that. It would not be wise to have a premium/core price drop shortly after the Elite is released as that would make the Elite look like a rip-off. At the same time, it would not be wise to drop the price of the Elite shortly after release.

[jer7583]

Sucks that the PS3 20GB is officially no more. If I had ever purhchased one, it would have been the 20GB model, because it's better for pure gaming use. Microsoft should be feeling pretty lucky right now, because Sony just justified their pricing for the Elite model.

[Apossum]

Sucks that the PS3 20GB is officially no more. If I had ever purhchased one, it would have been the 20GB model, because it's better for pure gaming use. Microsoft should be feeling pretty lucky right now, because Sony just justified their pricing for the Elite model.


I'm not sure if you were planning on buying one, but a big part of the argument is that the PS3 is forcing extra, non-game related stuff on people and imo, if a company is going to force non-game related components on you, they should at least make it worth it.

The elite is anything but worth it or justified. otoh, the ps3, while still pricy and out of many people's range, it is still very justified (and while I'm of the opinion that it's worth it as well, I'm not going to get into that, since that's all very subjective.) I'm talking purely about adding up the value of the components in the box. the extra stuff on the ps3 is also very useful...but I guess that's subjective as well.

I would think that anyone out to get a system would inform themselves enough to see this, but we'll see if that's the case during xmas 2007.

[snowsquirrel]

Just this week, I decided that my savings fund was going to go towards a ps3 20GB, instead of a 360. Wal-Mart has a couple 30GB's for $550 CDN or about $480USD, but I won't be able to afford anything until July or so. I have no need for wi-fi (I know how to run cable, less lag, and more reliable), and I have no use for flash card reader (and if I ever do, I have a usb one). Looks like I potentially have just jumped back in the MS camp.
~S

[Dead of Knight]

All that I have to say is that Sony is so dumb.

So incredibly dumb.

[Thongsy]

I was going to hopefully pick up a 20gb when MGS4 came out, but now I think I'll take a wait and see approach as $600 is way too much, not that $500 was cheap, but at least that seem a bit more reasonable. The true test of whether the PS3 "fails" will be when MGS4 and all these other AAA titles come out and if the system sales go up or just stay flat.

[dpatel]

Wonder if this is a sign of a price drop. Sony could drop the premium about $65 and still end up losing less than what the 20GB was losing them (if that analysis of price was correct). Sure, it'll still be more than the 20GB, but more appealing.

Personally, I'm all for a one SKU approach, but Sony chose the wrong SKU to go with.

[jer7583]

There's no way Sony would do a price drop. look how long it took for the PSP.

I'm saying that Sony justified MS's pricing by distancing themselves by another $100 from the Elite. Microsoft can position themselves as being beyond HD media with their HD download service and having a Hard Drive twice the size of PS3's for much less. (no, joe public doesn't care about replacing the PS3's hard drive)

If I was Microsoft, thats what I'd be doing. Along with a $400 elite unit/$300 premium, and this marketing message, plus pushing their software lineup, I don't see how they couldn't stay ahead of Sony.

[dpatel]

I don't think we could gauge the PSP to judge when a PS3 price drop will come. Circumstances are completely different and so many variables that come into play.

And the discontinuation of the 20GB does make the Elite look better. However, the PS3 was sort of always being touted as being a $600 system. At least that is what I have noticed. People know there is a $500 version, but choose to see the PS3 as a $600 console, so keeping the 20GB wouldn't might not have helped the price gap, unless Sony dropped the 60GB. So, I don't think it makes the Elite look like a better deal, but they missed an opportunity to push the 20GB and put some pressure on MS.

[dpatel]

As for the HDD advantage. That will definitely help. I know casual consumers put a lot of focus on GBs, whether or not they use it. Which is why retail computers often advertise large HDDs and big GHz numbers. Just to get the non-techie consumers to buy into these numbers.

The 120GB HDD is definitely a plus, but I am curious as to what they will offer that will justify it. From what I understand, they have plans to start a digital distribution tv service. Not sure how many people will pay for more HDD space for that extra feature. I would definitely make use of a large HDD, but I'm not sure the same can be said about the general gaming community.

[suko_32]

Remember when people were saying $489 for the Elite was stupid since you can buy a PS3 for $10 more? Do you think Microsoft saw Sony dropping the 20GB, thus making Microsoft confident in their $489 Elite version price?

[hiccupleftovers]

Judging from the Wii being overpriced and the Elite, everyone will be enjoying these high prices for a while. I honestly thought the $600 would not catch on, and MS/Ninty would pressure Sony with price drops. Can't see that happening until next year now.

Uhh right, 250 compared to the other consoles is really expensive :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: Sheesh. I realy don't see your logic, but whatever. It must be so overpriced that that is the reason why it's outpacing the PS3 right now.l

[hiccupleftovers]

They phased out the 20GB because they lose less money on the 60GB.

/threadover as they say

I'm happy I stuck with my gut feeling and bought one when I did, or I would have had to pay about $200 more.

(Even though there isn't any games I want to play yet)

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. And as I learned with my mistake of buying the PSP, expect a great long while until you see anything actually good for the system. My PSP, $200 wasted dollars for two games and a half.

[hiccupleftovers]

There's no way Sony would do a price drop. look how long it took for the PSP.

I'm saying that Sony justified MS's pricing by distancing themselves by another $100 from the Elite. Microsoft can position themselves as being beyond HD media with their HD download service and having a Hard Drive twice the size of PS3's for much less. (no, joe public doesn't care about replacing the PS3's hard drive)

If I was Microsoft, thats what I'd be doing. Along with a $400 elite unit/$300 premium, and this marketing message, plus pushing their software lineup, I don't see how they couldn't stay ahead of Sony.

All valid points. Still, logic and reason, as well as just plain simple economics, don't work well towards the Sony fanboy or girl or to those with the Sony bias.

[NamPaehc]

Remember when people were saying $489 for the Elite was stupid since you can buy a PS3 for $10 more? Do you think Microsoft saw Sony dropping the 20GB, thus making Microsoft confident in their $489 Elite version price?

No. I don't see how they could have been developing the Elite and then unveil it just at the same time Sony drops the 20GB. I don't think MS has that much planning. It is sort of weird how we always tack their name next to Sony as we try to figure out what they are doing. The Elite I think is something they are doing on their own really.

All in all, I just think we need to wait and see what Sony is up to. I mean look at Home. They are great about keeping this hush hush until the last minute. The tiny bits of info we have about the "new" ps3 and the removal of the 20gb aren't enough for me to worry about right now.

And for the 20GB owners... Feel lucky that Sony took the chance to try and appeal to you. They didn't have to make the stripped down version. I think it was a way to try and reach out to people who "just wanted a gaming system". Guess it turns out there are a lot more people who want "more" in their system this time around. I don't think it is fair to be down on Sony for dropping the 20GB (not saying anyone around here is, but I've seen it), but they did at least attempt to give everyone options. Options seems to be their main focus this go, so I'm sure we will se plenty more in the future.

[hiccupleftovers]

No. I don't see how they could have been developing the Elite and then unveil it just at the same time Sony drops the 20GB. I don't think MS has that much planning. It is sort of weird how we always tack their name next to Sony as we try to figure out what they are doing. The Elite I think is something they are doing on their own really.

All in all, I just think we need to wait and see what Sony is up to. I mean look at Home. They are great about keeping this hush hush until the last minute. The tiny bits of info we have about the "new" ps3 and the removal of the 20gb aren't enough for me to worry about right now.

And for the 20GB owners... Feel lucky that Sony took the chance to try and appeal to you. They didn't have to make the stripped down version. I think it was a way to try and reach out to people who "just wanted a gaming system". Guess it turns out there are a lot more people who want "more" in their system this time around. I don't think it is fair to be down on Sony for dropping the 20GB (not saying anyone around here is, but I've seen it), but they did at least attempt to give everyone options. Options seems to be their main focus this go, so I'm sure we will se plenty more in the future.

Yes, more people wanted a stripped down or "real gaming system" and that's why the 20GB are sold out every where while the 60GB are accumulating in the distribution chain. Stockpiles at my Walmart, BB, Kmart, Target, and CC speak volumes if you ask me.

[NamPaehc]

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/705/imageslw4.jpg

[snowsquirrel]

Sony claims that the demand for the 60GB version was 10 to 1. I would have to call BS here. I suspect it is because they lost less money on the 60GB version...

Maybe there will still be a 20GB around when I get my income tax back....

~S

[Wolfpup]

I'd like to point out that this is NOT an official thing at all. In fact Sony officially denies it.

I also have a VERY hard time believing that most people would rather spend an extra $100 on basically nothing. I really don't know who's to blame for not ordering the good model, but I ask for it all the time, and no one has it. I've heard other people ask for it too, and walk away with nothing when they can't get it.

[snowsquirrel]

I believe it is official as of today:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158656

I am worried that this may make it even harder to find a 20GB, as people scramble to snap the last ones up.

~S

[dallow]

It was official yesterday when Sony said so publicly.


Also, the 20GB will still be available in Japan.

[snowsquirrel]

Is there a way to put Japanese PS3 in English mode (not Engrish)..
~S

[daroga]

I'd be interested to know the truth of events. Did Sony not make any 20 GB devices because retailers didn't order them. Or was it, as I suspect, a way to make the console cheaper and take the bite out of the $600 pricetag, but was destined to be temporary from the get go.

It's a shame, too. The 20GB PS3 was actually approaching a decent value, unlike the core 360.

[dallow]

You can select English in the menu. Should the same as US models.

Plus, import games aren't region blocked (so far), and Japan and US share the same BD movie region, so no problem there either.

[Apossum]

You can select English in the menu. Should the same as US models.

Plus, import games aren't region blocked (so far), and Japan and US share the same BD movie region, so no problem there either.


PS2 and PS1 imports are blocked.

[The Mana Knight]

From someone I know with insider info at Sony, he said the the entire reason Sony went with two SKUs initially was because they really weren't sure which SKU the market would prefer. The initially thought the 60GB would be discontinued; however, the initial PS3 preorders from retailers showed a much greater demand for the 60GB, which is why they went with it.

I put the blame on people who assumed the 20GB was a tard pack, all because of the fucking stunt MS pulled. If anything, MS are the ones who screwed up console price viewing by the public.
Uhh right, 250 compared to the other consoles is really expensive :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: Sheesh. I realy don't see your logic, but whatever. It must be so overpriced that that is the reason why it's outpacing the PS3 right now.lYes its expensive because you're paying $250 for dated hardware, that's on par graphically with PS3/Xbox/GC, which retail for $100-$130.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. And as I learned with my mistake of buying the PSP, expect a great long while until you see anything actually good for the system. My PSP, $200 wasted dollars for two games and a half.No, PSP is definitely worth $200. It's an awesome deal for an awesome handheld with the best games period.

[guyver2077]

glad i got my 20gb at a real good price from a friend.. i cant believe they are phasing out the cheaper version...

at the very least ppl were buying the 20gb version to have a br player...

[dallow]

PS2 and PS1 imports are blocked.

Yes, though I meant PS3 games.

[snowsquirrel]

what about the ps1/2 games downloaded from the sony store?
~S

[botticus]

From someone I know with insider info at Sony, he said the the entire reason Sony went with two SKUs initially was because they really weren't sure which SKU the market would prefer. The initially thought the 60GB would be discontinued; however, the initial PS3 preorders from retailers showed a much greater demand for the 60GB, which is why they went with it.
That's all well and good, but did they take into account the fact that they went to market with an 80/20 split of 60GB and 20GB? When you start off with supply that's 4:1, demand that's 10:1 doesn't seem so unusual. Curious what the retail markup was on each one, if that swayed the retailers toward the 60GB.

[dallow]

what about the ps1/2 games downloaded from the sony store?
~S

The only thing that matters is where your credit card is from.
Since you're in the US (i assume), anything you buy from the US store is fine.

(you can't buy anything from the other stores anyway)

[The Mana Knight]

That's all well and good, but did they take into account the fact that they went to market with an 80/20 split of 60GB and 20GB? When you start off with supply that's 4:1, demand that's 10:1 doesn't seem so unusual. Curious what the retail markup was on each one, if that swayed the retailers toward the 60GB.I'll put it this way, from what I heard once (don't remember where it came from):

20GB costs $494 to retailers, therefore they make a $5.99 profit.

60GB costs $489 to retailers, therefore they make a $10.99 profit.

[jer7583]

Gonna call bullshit on the idea that pre-orders determined the death of the 20GB. It was economics, pure and simple. The 20GB had to be costing Sony more. And with the sales numbers and bad press, they figured they would cut the sku that lost them more.

I know many people who don't care about PS3 right now would have picked up a 20GB down the road, myself included. This is nothing but a bad move.

[NamPaehc]

I mean, we've seen reading that the retailers had been saying the 60GB was in demand more and that is what they were ordering for a LONG time now. That didn't come out of no where.

Again, I think Sony tested the waters and the 20GB lost out. I was surprised there was even a cheaper version in the first place.

[Wolfpup]

I'll put it this way, from what I heard once (don't remember where it came from):

20GB costs $494 to retailers, therefore they make a $5.99 profit.

60GB costs $489 to retailers, therefore they make a $10.99 profit.

You mean $589 right? That would sort of make sense then.

But still the $500 model leaves people with $100 to spend on games and accessories.

I wish they'd ditch the $600 model, and just add a memory stick slot to the $500 model (and maybe a PS2/1 slot too). I never understood why they didn't do that to begin with.

[dpatel]

Uhh right, 250 compared to the other consoles is really expensive :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: Sheesh. I realy don't see your logic, but whatever. It must be so overpriced that that is the reason why it's outpacing the PS3 right now.l

No need to get smart with me. Let me explain (ill just copy my previous post explaining myself):
Yes it is. Overpriced =/= expensive. When the hardware you offer is closer to last gen than this gen, yet your prices are closer to this gen than last, you are overpriced. When the GCN, which was on par with the competition, was able to launch at $200, but the Wii, which was supposed to be 'cost friendly by sacrificing said hardware' launches for $50 more, it is overpriced.

So yes, the Wii is terribly overpriced.

[dpatel]

Yes, more people wanted a stripped down or "real gaming system" and that's why the 20GB are sold out every where while the 60GB are accumulating in the distribution chain. Stockpiles at my Walmart, BB, Kmart, Target, and CC speak volumes if you ask me.

You forget the fact that Sony shipped a lot more 60GBs than 20GBs. But, you're probably still right about the demand for 20Gb being more.

[dpatel]

I mean, we've seen reading that the retailers had been saying the 60GB was in demand more and that is what they were ordering for a LONG time now. That didn't come out of no where.

Even if true, which I kinda doubt, that demand represents the early adopters who are always more willing to spend the extra money to get the latest and greatest. Had you asked all PS2 owners which one they would prefer (if they HAD to get one), most would probably say the 20GB, seeing as how most of them bought hte PS2 at $200 or less. Sony is basing the demand on a couple million early adopters, while ignoring the hundred million budget/casual gamers.

[Wolfpup]

No need to get smart with me. Let me explain (ill just copy my previous post explaining myself):
Yes it is. Overpriced =/= expensive. When the hardware you offer is closer to last gen than this gen, yet your prices are closer to this gen than last, you are overpriced. When the GCN, which was on par with the competition, was able to launch at $200, but the Wii, which was supposed to be 'cost friendly by sacrificing said hardware' launches for $50 more, it is overpriced.

So yes, the Wii is terribly overpriced.

That's a really good point. The Gamecube was a VERY nice piece of hardware, especially for the price. It was better hardware than the Playstation 2, at a cheaper price.

Now 5 years later they're charging 25% more for hardware that's basically just 50% faster-hardware that could have been released back then for maybe $300.

By that measure, it really is overpriced. Of course so is the DS, yet $130 isn't bad, and it has a good library, so it doesn't feel terrible.

At least Nintendo should have all kinds of room to cut the Wii's price. Wouldn't surprise me to see it hit $200 this year-maybe drop Wii sports to "justify" the price drop the way Sony did with the PSP.

[torifile]

No need to get smart with me. Let me explain (ill just copy my previous post explaining myself):
Yes it is. Overpriced =/= expensive. When the hardware you offer is closer to last gen than this gen, yet your prices are closer to this gen than last, you are overpriced. When the GCN, which was on par with the competition, was able to launch at $200, but the Wii, which was supposed to be 'cost friendly by sacrificing said hardware' launches for $50 more, it is overpriced.

So yes, the Wii is terribly overpriced.
The Wii is actually under-priced. The market determines what an item should cost and new Wiis can fetch far more than the $250 Nintendo is asking.

[NamPaehc]

Focus people- Focus! This aint no Nintendo board. /agrees with DPatel still though. :razz:

[torifile]

Focus people- Focus! This aint no Nintendo board. /agrees with DPatel still though. :razz:
Sorry! I think the Wii discussion does bear on the PS3 topic, though. If people are buying more of the 60gig version than the 20gig, it's probably viewed as the better option. In the day of online shopping, there's no reason for local scarcity to keep you from getting what you think of as a better deal. People probably looked at the 20gig version, saw the 60gig version and realized that what they were getting for an extra $100 was worth it to them. Whether the actual components that went into the $100 premium cost that isn't really relevant.

Again, the market decides what it wants and what it's willing to pay for it. People far smarter than us have figured that out.

[dpatel]

Sorry to turn in this into a Wii debate. Someone just questioned my reasoning, and I had to explain myself.

The Wii is actually under-priced. The market determines what an item should cost and new Wiis can fetch far more than the $250 Nintendo is asking.

Yea. I see why Nintendo priced it at that. They knew it would sell, and they were right. Essentially, we are both right, we just both have different ways of looking at it. I think we both agree the Wii is too much for the hardware it offers, but is fair when you look at the demand for it. I just consider 'overpriced' to refer to spefically what is being offered for the price. Of course, I'm not factoring in how 'fun' an individual thinks it is because that is going to vary. So, while demand may dictate whether or not it is 'overpriced', that demand is not universal, which is why I used hardware as the sole basis for my 'overpriced' statement. (I feel like I just rambled on something that might not even make sense).

Anyway, I think we both agree on the same points, we just have different ways of looking at what 'overpriced' means.

[dpatel]

Sorry! I think the Wii discussion does bear on the PS3 topic, though. If people are buying more of the 60gig version than the 20gig, it's probably viewed as the better option. In the day of online shopping, there's no reason for local scarcity to keep you from getting what you think of as a better deal. People probably looked at the 20gig version, saw the 60gig version and realized that what they were getting for an extra $100 was worth it to them. Whether the actual components that went into the $100 premium cost that isn't really relevant.

Again, the market decides what it wants and what it's willing to pay for it. People far smarter than us have figured that out.

Keep in mind that this demand is coming from a very small group (PS3 owners). This small group will consist of the hardcore gamers, early adopters, and diehard Sony fans. These are the same people who are more than likely to go with the premium. Other gamers who are on the fence, or who find next-gen too expensive would probably tell you the opposite.

[torifile]

Sorry to turn in this into a Wii debate. Someone just questioned my reasoning, and I had to explain myself.



Yea. I see why Nintendo priced it at that. They knew it would sell, and they were right. Essentially, we are both right, we just both have different ways of looking at it. I think we both agree the Wii is too much for the hardware it offers, but is fair when you look at the demand for it. I just consider 'overpriced' to refer to spefically what is being offered for the price. Of course, I'm not factoring in how 'fun' an individual thinks it is because that is going to vary. So, while demand may dictate whether or not it is 'overpriced', that demand is not universal, which is why I used hardware as the sole basis for my 'overpriced' statement. (I feel like I just rambled on something that might not even make sense).

Anyway, I think we both agree on the same points, we just have different ways of looking at what 'overpriced' means.
I agree. For what's actually in the Wii, it's overpriced. But don't forget about the R&D money that Nintendo spent on developing it. That's expensive stuff.

[torifile]

Keep in mind that this demand is coming from a very small group (PS3 owners). This small group will consist of the hardcore gamers, early adopters, and diehard Sony fans. These are the same people who are more than likely to go with the premium. Other gamers who are on the fence, or who find next-gen too expensive would probably tell you the opposite.
I don't think so. If I had decided on a PS3 because I thought it was $499 and got to the store and realized that for $100 more I could get wifi and a larger hard drive built-in, I'd seriously consider it. I'm a computer geek and I have no problem tinkering, adding hardware, connecting network peripherals at all but I value my time over the $20 or so I'd save by adding that stuff after the fact.

I also want to reinterate my point that I think that dropping the $499 PS3 will give Sony more room for price cuts down the road when the components aren't so expensive.

[Dr Mario Kart]

more room for price cuts? shouldnt it be the exact opposite? This move completely nullifies their first price drop, by reintroducing a price point that used to exist.

[NamPaehc]

more room for price cuts? shouldnt it be the exact opposite? This move completely nullifies their first price drop, by reintroducing a price point that used to exist.

Who thinks like that? The 60GB never cost the what the 20GB did, so even if they drop it to that price you are getting more for less in every sense of the word.

[torifile]

Who thinks like that? The 60GB never cost the what the 20GB did, so even if they drop it to that price you are getting more for less in every sense of the word.
^^

What you said.

[dpatel]

I also want to reinterate my point that I think that dropping the $499 PS3 will give Sony more room for price cuts down the road when the components aren't so expensive.

True. I guess, in the long run, when prices come down quite a bit, this move will be better.

[Dr Mario Kart]

The people who think like that are the people who didnt particularly care about the extras between the two SKUs, and only wanted the minimum that would get them gaming. When the 60 GB goes down to $499, they'll be getting extras they didnt care about in the first place.

In this case, the minimum entry price is what matters.

[torifile]

The people who think like that are the people who didnt particularly care about the extras between the two SKUs, and only wanted the minimum that would get them gaming. When the 60 GB goes down to $499, they'll be getting extras they didnt care about in the first place.

In this case, the minimum entry price is what matters.
To be honest, I think that even a $499 price point is too high to get those who don't game buying a PS3. Don't get me wrong, it's worth that much given what you get, but once you get over the $300 or so point, you've left the realm of impulse purchase. That's one of the reasons the Wii is doing so well.

[Dr Mario Kart]

That may be. The people that are complaining about it may not even really be in the market.

[zewone]

Here's a question I didn't think about:

What happens if you have a warranty on your 20GB, do you get a 60GB replacement?

[Apossum]

To be honest, I think that even a $499 price point is too high to get those who don't game buying a PS3. Don't get me wrong, it's worth that much given what you get, but once you get over the $300 or so point, you've left the realm of impulse purchase. That's one of the reasons the Wii is doing so well.

That brings up an interesting point about longevity of a console. It'll be interesting to see if the millions of casual gamers who bought Wiis on impulse will still be as interested in 3 years or so.

Sony has said they are taking a slow approach to the system. It might end up that just when the PS3 is hitting it's stride (or really begins to take off, depending) the Wii will have had it's run..

[Dr Mario Kart]

Console longevity and "future proofing" doesnt matter if Sony has to respond when either one of the other 2 players launch another console.

They'd be setting up the then strong PS3 to cannabalize PS4 sales, in the same way that the PS2 just keeps chuggin along.

[RAMSTORIA]

if i had the money, id try and buy a 20gig right now. i dont want to spend 100 bucks for the "extras" but i guess ill have to now

[dpatel]

Here's a question I didn't think about:

What happens if you have a warranty on your 20GB, do you get a 60GB replacement?

That's what I want to know. I have a 60GB, so it doesn't affect me, but I am curious. They can't force you to pay the difference, but they do have to honor the warranty. I'm guessing you get a free upgrade.

[dpatel]

They'd be setting up the then strong PS3 to cannabalize PS4 sales, in the same way that the PS2 just keeps chuggin along.

Are you saying that the PS2 is hurting the PS3 sales? If so, that is not true. They are aimed at two entirely different markets. People buying PS2s right now won't be going next-gen for another 4-5 years.

[dpatel]

That brings up an interesting point about longevity of a console. It'll be interesting to see if the millions of casual gamers who bought Wiis on impulse will still be as interested in 3 years or so.

Sony has said they are taking a slow approach to the system. It might end up that just when the PS3 is hitting it's stride (or really begins to take off, depending) the Wii will have had it's run..

I think, until about the beginning of 2009, it will look like the Wii won this 'console war'. It is cheaper, fresh/new, and has a lot of hype, and will benefit in the short tun. 360/PS3 are expensive, haven't shown too much of their potential at this point, and take a while to actually tap into their true power. So, initially, the Wii will come out quite a bit ahead, but that will be short lived, and the 360/PS3 will be about even and just push right ahead of Nintendo.

EDIT: and damn you for bringing up the Wii again! Now I have derailed the topic once again!

[Apossum]

Console longevity and "future proofing" doesnt matter if Sony has to respond when either one of the other 2 players launch another console.

They'd be setting up the then strong PS3 to cannabalize PS4 sales, in the same way that the PS2 just keeps chuggin along.


The PS2 outsold all the next gen consoles this past Christmas and last Xmas if you count the 360 "launch." Sony didn't really need to respond in any way because the PS2 had momentum. Just as the Ps1 sales were still booming when the PS2 launched as well, it only served to make the Ps2 better in the long run (more $$$ to promote it in various ways.) They probably want the PS2 to cannabalize PS3 sales to make up for manufacturing costs--so their new system has a presence, but they don't have to make too many (so losing $300 on each one is nicely offset by ps2 sales.)

I can't say history will repeat it's self, but longevity plays an important role when a system is successful--MS and Nintendo had to kill off their systems early while the PS2 prints money. That's the coveted position, imo (or what the console war is fought over, you could say.) it'll be different now that there are two formidable competitors for sony (which there hasn't been for the past 2 gens.)

It's very possible that all 3 will enjoy enough success to not have to kill off their system (which is when EA enters and says "hay guyz, room for one more?")




EDIT: and damn you for bringing up the Wii again! Now I have derailed the topic once again!

This topic was permanently fucked on the 1st page. :lol: with post #9, to be exact.

[botticus]

I think, until about the beginning of 2009, it will look like the Wii won this 'console war'. It is cheaper, fresh/new, and has a lot of hype, and will benefit in the short tun. 360/PS3 are expensive, haven't shown too much of their potential at this point, and take a while to actually tap into their true power. So, initially, the Wii will come out quite a bit ahead, but that will be short lived, and the 360/PS3 will be about even and just push right ahead of Nintendo.

EDIT: and damn you for bringing up the Wii again! Now I have derailed the topic once again!Even if that's true, the 360 is in no way intended as the "ten year" device that the PS3 supposedly is. And once the 720 is out to respond to the Wii2, the PS4 can't be far behind or in two or three years, the system will seem be vastly inferior. The cycle will continue.

Interesting to ponder what the industry would look like if the systems didn't run in set "generations." If it were like most products, where they came out on their own schedule. Multi-platforming would be a lot more interesting. And the "war" would be gone.

[Apossum]

Even if that's true, the 360 is in no way intended as the "ten year" device that the PS3 supposedly is. And once the 720 is out to respond to the Wii2, the PS4 can't be far behind or in two or three years, the system will seem be vastly inferior. The cycle will continue.


I don't think Nintendo would be so quick to replace the Wii if it was still a smash, but with their possible "resurgence" in the console market, I guess anything goes.

[botticus]

I don't think Nintendo would be so quick to replace the Wii if it was still a smash, but with their possible "resurgence" in the console market, I guess anything goes.Well, if it remained a hot item for the next 4 years, yeah, that would be true, but this is operating under the general forum consensus that it won't have the shelf life of the usual console, for one reason or another.

To keep this on topic: the Wii2 will have a 20GB hard drive. Correlation to thread title complete.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Things are always unprecedented these days, but I dont think theres a history of a significant momentum change that LATE in the race. Theres a few bumps at the start since they dont launch at the same time, then the big guns battle it out the 2nd Christmas that they are all out, and then thats that.

[dpatel]

This topic was permanently fucked on the 1st page. :lol: with post #9, to be exact.

:lol: True. I didn't help at all either.

Even if that's true, the 360 is in no way intended as the "ten year" device that the PS3 supposedly is. And once the 720 is out to respond to the Wii2, the PS4 can't be far behind or in two or three years, the system will seem be vastly inferior. The cycle will continue.

Definitely. But, even with Wii being #1 until the beginning of 09, I think there is still quite a bit of this gen left for 360/PS3 to show their stuff.

Interesting to ponder what the industry would look like if the systems didn't run in set "generations." If it were like most products, where they came out on their own schedule. Multi-platforming would be a lot more interesting. And the "war" would be gone.

It's possible that it could happen in the future. I like the way things are now. The console race is always exciting. But, I could see consoles slowly trying to stray away from the 'norm' and start working on their own schedule. The Wii could definitely pull it off since it has its own niche. MS and Sony continue to clash heads, so, unless something changes, they will probably be one upping each other for a while.

[dallow]

As far as "future-proofing" goes.

It's not JUST to compete with future consoles, it's to get the most out of the system you bought.

I don't have an HMDI 1.3 receiver yet, but I am glad the PS3 will support it when I buy one in the next couple of years.

[dpatel]

Things are always unprecedented these days, but I dont think theres a history of a significant momentum change that LATE in the race. Theres a few bumps at the start since they dont launch at the same time, then the big guns battle it out the 2nd Christmas that they are all out, and then thats that.

True. With the Wii, its a bit different. It's such a unique console, which is why i believe my prediction will happen. Right now, its cheap, accessible, and is hyped to hell. This attracts consumers, which, in turn, attracts developers. Both consumers/developers' main complaint with the PS3/360 is the price. Once price comes down and is less of a factor, I could see consumers/developers shifting their focus to the power houses 360/PS3. The reason a momentum change hasn't happened late in the game before, is because, in the past, all consoles were playing the same game. Wii seems to be going for short term success, and is doing well at it, and the 360/PS3 seem to be going for long term.

Of course, I could be wrong and it's possible Wii keeps all developers and consumers, but I imagine that since the gap between Wii and PS3/360 is close to a full gen gap, developers will be eager to stretch their legs with these consoles once they are more appealing to consumers (i.e. lower price).

[Dr Mario Kart]

If the Wii can build formidable marketshare early on, then this supposed lower development cost really starts to matter.

It wouldnt be enough for the 360/PS3 to be a little ahead in marketshare, once you factor in the dev costs. They've got to be way, way ahead.

Because of this, I dont see a late momentum shift. Once you're on the Wii money-making bandwagon, its gonna be hard to get off.

[dpatel]

Because of this, I dont see a late momentum shift. Once you're on the Wii money-making bandwagon, its gonna be hard to get off.

Same could be said about the PS2. It has a huge fanbase, and cheap development costs, which can lead to quick easy money. Yet developers are leaving it. I view the Wii as a sort of intermediate console. It is different enough to warrant the purchase and the development of games from developers. Cheap enough to get quick sales and entice developers. But I really feel the limited hardware will be a factor really soon. And when it does, the 360/PS3 will be waiting.

With the PS2, there wasn't anything significantly better, which is why consumers and developers didn't really switch to a different console. The xbox and GCN were more powerful, but not enough to justify a jump. As soon as there was something better, developers quickly jumped ship to the newer platforms.

With the Wii, the 360/PS3 offers quite a bit more. The main thing stopping developers/consumers from jumping to the 360/PS3 is price. As time progresses, that will be less of a factor. So, while the Wii wil always be cheaper, the gap between the two might shrink. Once price is less of a factor, I can see everyone wanting to take advantage of the increased hardware.

[uncle5555]

Well, if it remained a hot item for the next 4 years, yeah, that would be true, but this is operating under the general forum consensus that it won't have the shelf life of the usual console, for one reason or another.

The thing you have to remember here is that some console cycles were artificially limited the Xbox was cut short (3 1/2 - 4 years tops)and died early because MS wanted to get that years head start on the next gen, at any cost. (which in this case was telling current owners to shove off, because all support for it is pulled uncerimoniously)

Nintendo did this with the GC, when the Wii took off all the planned last GC titles (ex. Super Paper Mario) were dropped, revamped and brought back as Wii games, when they COULD have been launched on both systems (ala Zelda) if Nintendo had felt any respect to their loyal fans.

Sony is the only one who (for the lack of a better term) kept the faith and knew where the money was (the real intention) with the 120 million PS2 owners, and with GoW2, Persona 3, Mercs 2 and other fairly big titles still coming out this year, have far from abandoned it...yet.

Let's not say this won't happen but A-class quality titles are going to start drying up by the end of the year, irregardless of the PS2's sales and if they continue on the pace they did last year and this past holiday season.

There's always lots of factors to consider, but manufacture euthanasia is something I personally hate and is a slap in the face of any console supporter/owner, since it shows that the company doesn't respect you enough to throw you a few bones before shilling you and asking you for your hard earned money big time when the new system launches. And then asking if you're willing to get screwed by them again, if they decide on a whim that they want to abandon all support for the new platform.

And on that note, I really hope that the PS3 can last 10 years, with all the high quality, last cycle games still coming out on the PS2, there is really no reason that the system couldn't last 10 years, but unfortunately I think software support is going to die on the vine probably sometime in the beginning of the next year, so in this case it's more of a matter of the product not being there instead of the company bailing on a proven product.

[dpatel]

It all depends on the success of the console. PS2 is a huge success, which is why Sony still supports it. If the xbox and GCN were successes, they would still be getting games. From what I understand, xbox was still incurring a loss when they killed it.

[Indiana]

Sony claims that the demand for the 60GB version was 10 to 1. I would have to call BS here. I suspect it is because they lost less money on the 60GB version...

Maybe there will still be a 20GB around when I get my income tax back....

~S

Well sales were 10 to 1 because you could not find a 20GB model. Sony shipped 10 to 1 so sales were 10 to 1. Then the 20GB is now gone. I think Sony planned this all along. They were only releasing the 20GB temporarily so that people would say it's only $500 for an HD player / game system. Now that the $500 model is gone...what's a $100 more!!!

[Indiana]

That brings up an interesting point about longevity of a console. It'll be interesting to see if the millions of casual gamers who bought Wiis on impulse will still be as interested in 3 years or so.

Sony has said they are taking a slow approach to the system. It might end up that just when the PS3 is hitting it's stride (or really begins to take off, depending) the Wii will have had it's run..

The problem with that theory is that MS and nintendo will have made their money and be releasing new consoles that will be many times better than the current PS3. (well maybe not nintendo they seem to march to a different drum)

[Indiana]

Are you saying that the PS2 is hurting the PS3 sales? If so, that is not true. They are aimed at two entirely different markets. People buying PS2s right now won't be going next-gen for another 4-5 years.

This gen will be dead in 5 years. Look at Xbox and Gamecube. Only the PS2 exists because it dominated the market. No one is going to have that great of a hold this round.

[Indiana]

Even if that's true, the 360 is in no way intended as the "ten year" device that the PS3 supposedly is. And once the 720 is out to respond to the Wii2, the PS4 can't be far behind or in two or three years, the system will seem be vastly inferior. The cycle will continue.

Interesting to ponder what the industry would look like if the systems didn't run in set "generations." If it were like most products, where they came out on their own schedule. Multi-platforming would be a lot more interesting. And the "war" would be gone.

Agreed if you do not respond the year of your competitor you allow your competitor to take the whole market. Sony had to go show off the PS3 that wasn't ready in order to slow down sales of the 360. The same will be true again. If a console isn't replaced after 5 years, gamers will wonder back to their pcs that have much faster processors and graphics cards. 5 years is a long time for a processor and video card. The 10 year span that sony has envisioned only works if they have no competition.

[dpatel]

This gen will be dead in 5 years. Look at Xbox and Gamecube. Only the PS2 exists because it dominated the market. No one is going to have that great of a hold this round.

Even though it will be 'dead', people will still be buying the consoles. The people still buying PS2s now will be buying next-gen consoles close to or after this gen is 'dead'. And even when the gen is 'dead', the consoles will still be around for a whlie for people to buy.

[Apossum]

The problem with that theory is that MS and nintendo will have made their money and be releasing new consoles that will be many times better than the current PS3. (well maybe not nintendo they seem to march to a different drum)


the 360 was several times better than the PS2, but things didn't really pick up for it until this past xmas, a year later. and it still didn't sell as many as the ps2. a core group of people care about system launches, the rest go for the cheap system with the large library of cheap games. I don't think new systems have ever completely stolen the thunder of the market leader...

anyway, history isn't too reliable at this point. the "winner" probably won't be ahead by as many systems sold as the PS2. and it'll be interesting to see who releases what first.

I'd love to see what a system "several times better" than the PS3 would look like. The next next gen systems will have graphics that are a smidgen better by a smaller margin than the PS2 gen to this gen, but a shitload of extra media and online features to make you think it's worth it. at least, that's my prediction ;)

[Wolfpup]

I'd love to see what a system "several times better" than the PS3 would look like. The next next gen systems will have graphics that are a smidgen better by a smaller margin than the PS2 gen to this gen, but a shitload of extra media and online features to make you think it's worth it. at least, that's my prediction ;)

I don't know, a high end PC already makes the PS3 look quaint. There's not too much yet that looks better than what the consoles can do, but Crysis in Direct X 10 mode is one thing. You just look at it and know it's beyond anything they'll be doing.

You know, what you said about how most people go for a cheaper console with lots of cheap games...don't you think the publishers would at some point figure that out? But no, instead they RAISE prices...

[Apossum]

I don't know, a high end PC already makes the PS3 look quaint. There's not too much yet that looks better than what the consoles can do, but Crysis in Direct X 10 mode is one thing. You just look at it and know it's beyond anything they'll be doing.

You know, what you said about how most people go for a cheaper console with lots of cheap games...don't you think the publishers would at some point figure that out? But no, instead they RAISE prices...


I can't really get into this since I hardly know what I'm talking about in tech terms, but aren't there things a cell chip can do that your normal one or two processor PC can't? Something about each cell core handling it's own set of tasks... Anyway, I don't think any game has really pushed the PS3's hardware yet.

they raised prices because development costs are higher. and because they can.

[H.Cornerstone]

I can't really get into this since I hardly know what I'm talking about in tech terms, but aren't there things a cell chip can do that your normal one or two processor PC can't? Something about each cell core handling it's own set of tasks... Anyway, I don't think any game has really pushed the PS3's hardware yet.

they raised prices because development costs are higher. and because they can.

Well considering how the Cell has 7 cores, where as the most a PC can have right now is 2, and the Cell was designed by IBM to be used in their super-computers and medical imaging equipment, one would have to assume yes.

[torifile]

Well considering how the Cell has 7 cores, where as the most a PC can have right now is 2, and the Cell was designed by IBM to be used in their super-computers and medical imaging equipment, one would have to assume yes.
Not exactlly true. Apple's put out an 8 core Mac. It's not exactly for ordinary "people" but it can be used to play games, if you wanted to. But I get your point.

[daroga]

I don't know, a high end PC already makes the PS3 look quaint. There's not too much yet that looks better than what the consoles can do, but Crysis in Direct X 10 mode is one thing. You just look at it and know it's beyond anything they'll be doing.The difference being there will probably be games on the PS3 worth playing that aren't MMOs or WWII simulations. What good is Vista and DX10 when no one is making games that have much appeal for the PC anymore, save for maybe some of the Xbox or 360 ports.

I'll be interested to see how Microsoft's initaive to make the PC a viable game platform again goes. I have a feeling, though, that the consoles garner very little competition at this point from the PC.

Your thoughts on game costs are interesting in this discussion, too. If I want to get a top-of-the-line video card, I'm going to shell out the same amount as I would for a 60 GB PS3. $600 for a game system is insane. $600 for a single component of a game system is playing-in-leaking-batteries stupid.

[Wolfpup]

I can't really get into this since I hardly know what I'm talking about in tech terms, but aren't there things a cell chip can do that your normal one or two processor PC can't? Something about each cell core handling it's own set of tasks... Anyway, I don't think any game has really pushed the PS3's hardware yet.

Cell (and 360's Xenon) are in many ways extremely primitive chips. Cell's SPEs are very primitive CPUs that are really only good at very predictable code-something like decoding video, or applying a photoshop filter. Something that can rely heavily on SIMD type instructions and is very predictable. They have literally no branch prediction at all, and neither the Cell as a whole nor Xenon have any out of order execution at all-basic features in CPUs since the mid-90's.

So while Cell may be able to beat a Core 2 at certain tasks, overall a single Core 2 core is going to destroy Cell. This is why early on some developers were complaining that Xenon really only had double the performance of the 733Mhz Celeron used in the first X-Box, despite the more than quadrupoled clock speed.

they raised prices because development costs are higher. and because they can.

But isn't that backwards thinking on their part? They're CHOOSING to raise development budgets. If most people would rather play good but cheaper games, shouldn't someone be thinking along those lines? I think we might see more of that, as there was a lot of development on the PS1 after the PS2 came out, and will probably be even more on the PS2. That even seems to be Nintendo's whole strategy. But...you don't need last gen hardware to control development costs. There's no reason you can't spend the same money on a PS3 or 360 game. At worse you end up with basically a game that looks slightly better than an X-Box game, only with higher resolutions.

Well considering how the Cell has 7 cores, where as the most a PC can have right now is 2, and the Cell was designed by IBM to be used in their super-computers and medical imaging equipment, one would have to assume yes.
Not exactlly true. Apple's put out an 8 core Mac. It's not exactly for ordinary "people" but it can be used to play games, if you wanted to. But I get your point.

Also you can't just "count cores" and figure out performance that way. A single Core 2 core is going to DESTROY the entire Cell chip with all 8 of it's cores for a lot of types of code. Core 2 is an insanely modern, beefed up CPU with a crazy amount of execution hardware (FIVE integer units alone, versus just 1 on an SPE), and incredibly good branch prediction, out of order execution, pre-caching, etc. Stuff Cell is lacking entirely. Many of Cell's capabilities look like a Pentium 1. They've ditched over a decade of CPU design.
And yeah, as mentioned you can buy a PC with EIGHT Core 2 cores, each one of which is by itself destroys the entire Cell for many types of code. Quad core Core 2 CPUs are very mainstream now for a gaming system, and of course a Geforce 8800GTS (which can also run the kind of repetative code Cell is good at, but to it even better) starts at $260, and absolutely destroys the GPUs in either the 360 or PS3.

The difference being there will probably be games on the PS3 worth playing that aren't MMOs or WWII simulations. What good is Vista and DX10 when no one is making games that have much appeal for the PC anymore, save for maybe some of the Xbox or 360 ports.

That's completely uninformed. The PC has always had a vibrant game market. As console hardware has gained more RAM and hard drives, they've been more cross over than there used to be, but claiming all there is on PC is "MMOs and WWII games" is as silly as saying all consoles have is Halo and WWII games. There are frequently interesting PC games or entire classes of games that are never really represented on consoles.

Your thoughts on game costs are interesting in this discussion, too. If I want to get a top-of-the-line video card, I'm going to shell out the same amount as I would for a 60 GB PS3. $600 for a game system is insane. $600 for a single component of a game system is playing-in-leaking-batteries stupid.

A Geforce 8800GTS starts at $260, and destroys the GPUs in the 360 or PS3. The 8600 line launching in a week or two will be cheaper yet and still be more powerful. You don't need to spend $600 on graphics hardware unless you have money to burn. That's always been the case.

[Apossum]

But isn't that backwards thinking on their part? They're CHOOSING to raise development budgets. If most people would rather play good but cheaper games, shouldn't someone be thinking along those lines? I think we might see more of that, as there was a lot of development on the PS1 after the PS2 came out, and will probably be even more on the PS2. That even seems to be Nintendo's whole strategy. But...you don't need last gen hardware to control development costs. There's no reason you can't spend the same money on a PS3 or 360 game. At worse you end up with basically a game that looks slightly better than an X-Box game, only with higher resolutions.


I see what you mean, but that has nothing to do with pissing-contest games like GoW, MGS 4 and Heavenly Sword. People demand games with 20 million dollar budgets.

[daroga]

That's completely uninformed. The PC has always had a vibrant game market. As console hardware has gained more RAM and hard drives, they've been more cross over than there used to be, but claiming all there is on PC is "MMOs and WWII games" is as silly as saying all consoles have is Halo and WWII games. There are frequently interesting PC games or entire classes of games that are never really represented on consoles.Actually, it's not uninformed. It's pretty darn informed.

There was a time when I did all my gaming on the PC. It had that rich, vibrant, do-anything attitude going on. Then, sometime around the late PS1 era, it became just a place for shovel ware, poorly thoughtout console ports, and generic FPS games. In more recent days, the MMORPG has dominated the PC landscape and feels like every IP on earth is trying their hand and the online "world" concept.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. Some indie games (Especially the free ones) are quite entertaining. But what was the last big PC-only game that wasn't a WWII shooter or an MMO? Half-Life 2? Great game, but it's been years since that hit. (Incidently, HL2 was the last retail game I played on the PC, and had been the first in about 2-3 years when it hit.)

It's pretty pointless to defend the PC market right now. I know because I've tried. I love the PC and want it to be a viable game platform for unique ideas rather than cliches and sequels. There's just nothing defendable about it right now. I hope that changes, and soon.

A Geforce 8800GTS starts at $260, and destroys the GPUs in the 360 or PS3. The 8600 line launching in a week or two will be cheaper yet and still be more powerful. You don't need to spend $600 on graphics hardware unless you have money to burn. That's always been the case.Sure, there are cheaper alternatives, but for the real videophile (the one who thinks the PS3 and 360 GPUs are a joke), is the "mid-range" really going to suffice? I don't think so.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much horsepower a platform has, be it PC or consoles, if it doesn't have the software with that crucial "fun" aspect in it, money spent on hardware is wasted save for 3D Mark pissing contests.

[The Mana Knight]

Well sales were 10 to 1 because you could not find a 20GB model. Sony shipped 10 to 1 so sales were 10 to 1. Then the 20GB is now gone. I think Sony planned this all along. They were only releasing the 20GB temporarily so that people would say it's only $500 for an HD player / game system. Now that the $500 model is gone...what's a $100 more!!!No, Sony initially thought the 20GB model would be their main SKU, however, the preorders were showing the 60GB having a larger demand than the 20GB, which is why Sony released them on a 10 to 1 ratio. Also, since there is a good demand for the 20GB in Japan, they are still getting it (more like 50/50 there).

[daroga]

No, Sony initially thought the 20GB model would be their main SKU, however, the preorders were showing the 60GB having a larger demand than the 20GB, which is why Sony released them on a 10 to 1 ratio. Also, since there is a good demand for the 20GB in Japan, they are still getting it (more like 50/50 there).It's a "Chicken or the egg" scenerio.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and some one correct me if I am, but were the inital Gamestop / EB Games preorderes limited in how many of each system they had. So it wasn't like they said, "We'll get 40 units, what kind do you want?" and Sony shipped accordingly. It was "We'll have 10 60 GB and 4 20 GB." Thus, Sony decided the 60 GB was going to be the way to go before anyone preordered (or EB/GS decided for the consumers with Sony).

Anyone in the retail biz know if the store's profit was higher on the 60 GB vs. the 20 GB? I tend to believe this was more either Sony loses less on the 60 GB and the 20 GB or the stores make more money on the 60 over the 20 or both, rather than consumer demand dictating which one would be best.

[lanzarlaluna]

If they are stopping production of the 20GB system, then give me a 60GB PS3 without the lame chrome trim. Please, Sony. Please.

[dpatel]

It's a "Chicken or the egg" scenerio.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and some one correct me if I am, but were the inital Gamestop / EB Games preorderes limited in how many of each system they had. So it wasn't like they said, "We'll get 40 units, what kind do you want?" and Sony shipped accordingly. It was "We'll have 10 60 GB and 4 20 GB." Thus, Sony decided the 60 GB was going to be the way to go before anyone preordered (or EB/GS decided for the consumers with Sony).

Anyone in the retail biz know if the store's profit was higher on the 60 GB vs. the 20 GB? I tend to believe this was more either Sony loses less on the 60 GB and the 20 GB or the stores make more money on the 60 over the 20 or both, rather than consumer demand dictating which one would be best.

That and early adopters have a tendency to go with the premium systems. They were basing this decision on the wrong demograph.

[thebob101]

So, is the 20 gig considered rare now?

[GizmoGC]

So, is the 20 gig considered rare now?

No.

[uncle5555]

Agreed if you do not respond the year of your competitor you allow your competitor to take the whole market. Sony had to go show off the PS3 that wasn't ready in order to slow down sales of the 360. The same will be true again. If a console isn't replaced after 5 years, gamers will wonder back to their pcs that have much faster processors and graphics cards. 5 years is a long time for a processor and video card. The 10 year span that sony has envisioned only works if they have no competition.
I don't agree with that at all.

It has and always will be software support that drives the life cycle of a system.

You know the old "if you build it they will come" thing. If what you said is true you wouldn't have a majority of gamers bitchin' about the price of the PS3 for the last 5 months, and continually asking when it's going to be cheaper.

And another fact look at 1st gen PS2 titles (or any system for that matter) and then look at later gen games on that same system, it's like night and day, I want anyone here to tell me they thought MGS3 could be pulled off on the PS2, even a game like Valkyrie Profile 2 which I played last night astounded me with it's graphical prowess, I was shocked the PS2 could pull off such things.

And that's just my point sure we've seen what is possible, but no one here can imagine just how good games will look in 5 years+ and as long as Sony doesn't buy into the NEED to kill this gen because people are just clamoring to GIVE them $600 out of pure NEED for a new system (I'm being facecious here) it won't happen.

The PC market is dead, I've followed it for over 11+ years and almost all game makers have either jumped ship to consoles where it's more profitable or changed their ways and are developing smaller less demanding games, something I've been seeing a lot is when PC games are announced by and large 90% (that aren't MMO's) read PC and X360/PS3/Next Gen consoles.

Thats' something you would never have imagined happening 5 years ago, yet here we are, and the signs were their for PC game makers testing the waters to open up new avenues of revenue for themselves, and that floodgate isn't going to close, it's too late. The PC as an exclusive platform is all but dead, for all but MMO games.

As everyone here has been saying the PS2 is outselling everything with only the cheaper Wii on it's heels, why well 2400+ software titles is a pretty good reason people are still buying it.

So again who's going to be having a fit because supposedly 3-4 years from now Sony hasn't announced a successor to the PS3, I for one would be super glad if we didn't hear anything about a new system by that time. The only one's interested in something like that would be MS, and the same people who NEED the latest and greatest gfx cards to make their eyes bleed, gfx whores and technophiles. And they have dispoable income and are not the general gaming community.

Time will tell what will happen, but if Sony sticks to their word on a 10 year hardware cycle (PS2 is in year 7, and who thought that would last that long) I think it can happen, the only thing that will topple this house of cards is the same thing every console with long shelf life faces, no software, it's going to be the same studios complaining about rising dev costs to stick with their guns and SUPPORT this current cycle instead of bailing and prematurely abandoning a platform, just because the newer models are on their way.

We will see who started the vicious cycle gamers demanding the latest and greatest tech here and now, or the console manufactures pushing out the new gear to rape your wallet every 4-5 years.

While I see your point, it is only the view of gfx whores, and tech nerds, not the general populace who games, and until you see it from the other side, again what you said is way off base.

But time will tell won't it, I'm just putting my money with a longer hardware cycle is all, as that's where the safe money is. 8-)

[uncle5555]

It's a "Chicken or the egg" scenerio.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and some one correct me if I am, but were the inital Gamestop / EB Games preorderes limited in how many of each system they had. So it wasn't like they said, "We'll get 40 units, what kind do you want?" and Sony shipped accordingly. It was "We'll have 10 60 GB and 4 20 GB." Thus, Sony decided the 60 GB was going to be the way to go before anyone preordered (or EB/GS decided for the consumers with Sony).

Anyone in the retail biz know if the store's profit was higher on the 60 GB vs. the 20 GB? I tend to believe this was more either Sony loses less on the 60 GB and the 20 GB or the stores make more money on the 60 over the 20 or both, rather than consumer demand dictating which one would be best.

I can simplify it even more so, it WAS consumer demand, but more specifically it was speculator demand aka Ebay relsellers looking to score a quick, fast easy buck.

It wasn't necessarily no one wanted the 20 GB system, out of curiosity, I would like to see sales figures on both models from Feb. on (after the speculator market was dead and we were seeing solid sales on both)

[uncle5555]

Actually, it's not uninformed. It's pretty darn informed.

There was a time when I did all my gaming on the PC. It had that rich, vibrant, do-anything attitude going on. Then, sometime around the late PS1 era, it became just a place for shovel ware, poorly thoughtout console ports, and generic FPS games. In more recent days, the MMORPG has dominated the PC landscape and feels like every IP on earth is trying their hand and the online "world" concept.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. Some indie games (Especially the free ones) are quite entertaining. But what was the last big PC-only game that wasn't a WWII shooter or an MMO? Half-Life 2? Great game, but it's been years since that hit. (Incidently, HL2 was the last retail game I played on the PC, and had been the first in about 2-3 years when it hit.)

It's pretty pointless to defend the PC market right now. I know because I've tried. I love the PC and want it to be a viable game platform for unique ideas rather than cliches and sequels. There's just nothing defendable about it right now. I hope that changes, and soon.

QFT...

Plus a small comment on the last sentence, I wish that would happen too, but as I said above, it's not going to happen, since PC only devs want a larger slice of the pie from console ports, you know it, I know it to be true.

That's why even with MS's push to make Games for Windows, the only reason they're doing that is they want more PC/X360 exclusives built for their software platforms, it wasn't done out of the goodness of their black hearts, that's for sure.

[panasonic]

lol

[Wolfpup]

Actually, it's not uninformed. It's pretty darn informed.

There was a time when I did all my gaming on the PC. It had that rich, vibrant, do-anything attitude going on. Then, sometime around the late PS1 era, it became just a place for shovel ware, poorly thoughtout console ports, and generic FPS games. In more recent days, the MMORPG has dominated the PC landscape and feels like every IP on earth is trying their hand and the online "world" concept.

There are of course exceptions to every rule. Some indie games (Especially the free ones) are quite entertaining. But what was the last big PC-only game that wasn't a WWII shooter or an MMO? Half-Life 2? Great game, but it's been years since that hit. (Incidently, HL2 was the last retail game I played on the PC, and had been the first in about 2-3 years when it hit.)

It's pretty pointless to defend the PC market right now. I know because I've tried. I love the PC and want it to be a viable game platform for unique ideas rather than cliches and sequels. There's just nothing defendable about it right now. I hope that changes, and soon.

That's pretty hard to believe that's an unbiased opinion coming from someone who loves their PC...maybe it's really what you think, but there's nothing wrong with the market. It's just as easy to say the same things about any of the platforms. You're not looking at all if you think the last good game was two years ago...

Sure, there are cheaper alternatives, but for the real videophile (the one who thinks the PS3 and 360 GPUs are a joke), is the "mid-range" really going to suffice? I don't think so.

My point was right now you can buy a much better GPU than what consoles have for less than half that supposed $600 price tag. And with the launch of the 8600 line, "mid range" will also be better than the best consoles have.

In the end, it doesn't matter how much horsepower a platform has, be it PC or consoles, if it doesn't have the software with that crucial "fun" aspect in it, money spent on hardware is wasted save for 3D Mark pissing contests.

True, it's a separate issue, but it DOES have tons of great games.

No, Sony initially thought the 20GB model would be their main SKU, however, the preorders were showing the 60GB having a larger demand than the 20GB, which is why Sony released them on a 10 to 1 ratio. Also, since there is a good demand for the 20GB in Japan, they are still getting it (more like 50/50 there).

Yeah, but does that have any bearing on reality? That just means stores ordered more 60GB units, not that people actually want them. It may just mean the people ordering them think the $500 console is the equivalent of the $300 360, rather than (if anything) the reverse of that.

That's what I was kind of saying before-I wonder if it's actually people being stupid, or just non-game-playing suits working for Best Buy?

I mean who's actually seen a 20GB model ANYWHERE? They sell out everywhere I go before they come in. They sold out on Amazon instantly-while the 60GB "you-know-what" pack just sits there.


The PC market is dead, I've followed it for over 11+ years and almost all game makers have either jumped ship to consoles where it's more profitable or changed their ways and are developing smaller less demanding games, something I've been seeing a lot is when PC games are announced by and large 90% (that aren't MMO's) read PC and X360/PS3/Next Gen consoles.

So because there's a lot of cross platform stuff PC is dead? By that logic, the 360 and PS3 are dead too. EVERYTHING is going cross platform when they can. There's still lots of exclusive stuff on PC, just as there is for the different consoles.

[daroga]

That's pretty hard to believe that's an unbiased opinion coming from someone who loves their PC...maybe it's really what you think, but there's nothing wrong with the market. It's just as easy to say the same things about any of the platforms. You're not looking at all if you think the last good game was two years ago...It is a subjective opinion, but one that myself and a good number of my friends who used to game on their PCs a lot hold at this moment. In fact, of all of them (10 or so), only one recently got a "game worthy" PC, and that was mostly to play console ports from consoles he doesn't own. Anecdotal to be sure, but there's a good bit of truth in there.

In the end, since Half-Life 2, nothing has interested me enough on the PC even to see if I could download a demo of the game to try out. Before HL2 the only thing that caught my eye was wanting to try out Halo to see how much they butchered it in the porting.

Out of curiosity (and to derail this poor PS3 thread even more!), what are some of your top PC-exckusive game picks from the last 5 years? If I missed something quality, I'd like to know about it. :)

[munch]

No, Sony initially thought the 20GB model would be their main SKU, however, the preorders were showing the 60GB having a larger demand than the 20GB, which is why Sony released them on a 10 to 1 ratio. Also, since there is a good demand for the 20GB in Japan, they are still getting it (more like 50/50 there).

Not that I don't believe you, but could you show a link or something proving that?

[Wolfpup]

Out of curiosity (and to derail this poor PS3 thread even more!), what are some of your top PC-exckusive game picks from the last 5 years? If I missed something quality, I'd like to know about it. :)

I'm about the last person who could come up with an extensive list-so I'm sure this is missing most games, but just off the top of my head (trying to cut off most games that are also getting ported to a console, unless there's a big delay or they're substantially dumbed down):

STALKER, The Sims 2, the Battlefield games, S.W.A.T. 4, Galactic Civilizations, Civilization 4, Supreme Commander, Sam & Max: Season 1, Command & Conquer 3, Black & White, Half Life 2: Episode 1, Company of Heroes, Freedom Force, Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich, Uru Live, Myst games (not sure if all of them hit consoles), Warhammer, Titan's Quest, Medieval II: Total War, Neverwinter Nights 2, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Sid Meyer's Railroads, Star Wars: Empire at War (personally I hated this, but...), DEFCON, Age of Empires III, Darkstar One (I still need to pick this up), City Life, The Ship, The Movies, Sin: Emergence, Rise of Legends, CSI 3, Space Rangers 2, X3, Darwinia, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, Puzzle Pirates, Flight Sim X...

That's ignoring expansion packs for some of those, plus ignoring the huge percentage of games that are multiplatform. A huge percentage of games target PC and one or two of the consoles, and typically the PC version will be the best or one of the best versions of the game. The one you want to buy if you have multiple platforms.

Plus, while you've written off MMORPGs, World of Warcraft is phenomenally good if you like RPGs, and the expansion pack is supposed to blow away the original game. Guild Wars has gotten fantastic reviews too.

[dallow]

Sorry Wolfpup, but most of those games are so blah.

This thread needs to be closed. It's over.

[Wolfpup]

Sorry Wolfpup, but most of those games are so blah.


That's an incredibly biased thing to say. If you think the PC isn't a great gaming system, your either uninformed or a fanboi (ditto for any established game platform).

[dallow]

That's an incredibly biased thing to say. If you think the PC isn't a great gaming system, your either uninformed or a fanboi (ditto for any established game platform).

No, just a lot of the games you listed are so blah.
I didn't say it wasn't a great gaming system if you're set up for it. (and have VERY specific tastes)

Of course it's all opinion, they're blah for me, cool for you.

[Wolfpup]

No, just a lot of the games you listed are so blah.
I didn't say it wasn't a great gaming system if you're set up for it. (and have VERY specific tastes)

Of course it's all opinion, they're blah for me, cool for you.

No more "VERY specific" than if you're an X-Box owner, or Playstation owner, or whatever. It would be impossible for a gamer to not find a ton of games they want on any established game platform.

[dallow]

No more "VERY specific" than if you're an X-Box owner, or Playstation owner, or whatever. It would be impossible for a gamer to not find a ton of games they want on any established game platform.

Sorry but I have to really disagree there.
You can have a lot of fun on a PC (i have), but consoles are by far a better source for *quality* gaming variety.

I can't imagine someone who enjoys games, to only play on a PC.
Gosh, they'd miss out on the majority of good stuff out there.

[Wolfpup]

Sorry but I have to really disagree there.
You can have a lot of fun on a PC (i have), but consoles are by far a better source for *quality* gaming variety.

I can't imagine someone who enjoys games, to only play on a PC.
Gosh, they'd miss out on the majority of good stuff out there.

That's utter nonsense. Try saying that on a PC Gaming board, and you'd be flamed to death by people who think the exact same thing about consoles. (Though I think that's also silly, as there are lots of games on consoles too.)

[dallow]

That's utter nonsense. Try saying that on a PC Gaming board, and you'd be flamed to death by people who think the exact same thing about consoles. (Though I think that's also silly, as there are lots of games on consoles too.)

PC gamers are the minority for a reason.
Better games elsewhere.

There's a few things/experiences you can only get on a PC and not on a console, but I can live without it if I had to.

Not the other way around though, and I strongly feel most everyone here would agree with that.

[Wolfpup]

PC gamers are the minority for a reason.

I minority compared to what? It has the largest market share for gamers, though a large percentage of that is probably casual gamers. Even still, it's EA's number 2 platform behind the Playstation 2.

Better games elsewhere.

Like what? That's an outragous statement.

There's a few things/experiences you can only get on a PC and not on a console, but I can live without it if I had to.

That can just as easily be said about any game platform.

Not the other way around though, and I strongly feel most everyone here would agree with that.

The only people who would agree with that...are, like I said, either biased fanbois, or uninformed.

[dallow]

1. Minority compared to pure console gamers.

2. Do I have to spell out the hundreds of great games that have come out on consoles over the past few years?

3. "That can just as easily be said about any game platform."
Yeah, you can say that about any platform, but it wouldn't be true.
Like I said, there's a few you'd miss out on if you never play on PC.
There's tons of things/experiences you'd miss out on if you only play on PC.

4."The only people who would agree with that...are, like I said, either biased fanbois, or uninformed."
Alright Wolfpup.

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm about the last person who could come up with an extensive list-so I'm sure this is missing most games, but just off the top of my head (trying to cut off most games that are also getting ported to a console, unless there's a big delay or they're substantially dumbed down):

STALKER, The Sims 2, the Battlefield games, S.W.A.T. 4, Galactic Civilizations, Civilization 4, Supreme Commander, Sam & Max: Season 1, Command & Conquer 3, Black & White, Half Life 2: Episode 1, Company of Heroes, Freedom Force, Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich, Uru Live, Myst games (not sure if all of them hit consoles), Warhammer, Titan's Quest, Medieval II: Total War, Neverwinter Nights 2, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Sid Meyer's Railroads, Star Wars: Empire at War (personally I hated this, but...), DEFCON, Age of Empires III, Darkstar One (I still need to pick this up), City Life, The Ship, The Movies, Sin: Emergence, Rise of Legends, CSI 3, Space Rangers 2, X3, Darwinia, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, Puzzle Pirates, Flight Sim X...

That's ignoring expansion packs for some of those, plus ignoring the huge percentage of games that are multiplatform. A huge percentage of games target PC and one or two of the consoles, and typically the PC version will be the best or one of the best versions of the game. The one you want to buy if you have multiple platforms.

Plus, while you've written off MMORPGs, World of Warcraft is phenomenally good if you like RPGs, and the expansion pack is supposed to blow away the original game. Guild Wars has gotten fantastic reviews too.

Out of the 37 games you listed, an astounding 23 are either FPS or RTS. The others are mostly dime-a-dozen sim and RPG games, many of which are spectacularly medicore. You "informed" me, and I'm still not impressed. Am I a "fanboi?"

[Wolfpup]

1. Minority compared to pure console gamers.

There are more people gaming on PC than consoles-and like I said before, I suspect a lot of those people are just playing casual games, but still, EA's number 2 best selling platform is the PC. It's hardly doing poorly. (And before you say it-no, I'm not going to look these figures up. They've been printed and discussed in magazines like PC Gamer, etc.)

2. Do I have to spell out the hundreds of great games that have come out on consoles over the past few years?

There are all kinds of great exclusives on any of the various game platforms. I suppose you could try to figure out if more "great games" come out on one particular platform than another but regardless every platform clearly gets a ton of great games, and more than the vast majority of us will ever have time to play through.

3. "That can just as easily be said about any game platform."
Yeah, you can say that about any platform, but it wouldn't be true.
Like I said, there's a few you'd miss out on if you never play on PC.
There's tons of things/experiences you'd miss out on if you only play on PC.

That's just not true. Probably the majority of experiences can be had on any gaming platform, for better or worse. But all have some great exclusives. Of course you can get buy without every single platform, but you will miss stuff.

Out of the 37 games you listed, an astounding 23 are either FPS or RTS. The others are mostly dime-a-dozen sim and RPG games, many of which are spectacularly medicore. You "informed" me, and I'm still not impressed. Am I a "fanboi?"

Actually only 11 of those games by my count is a straight RTS or FPS. And your so-called "dime a dozen" games are games getting 8s and 9s from major reviewers.

And yes, you are a fanboi if you think any established game platform doesn't have a ton of great games.

You can have a preference. As an example: you love Japanese style RPGs so prefer the Playstation 2 over the PC or X-Box. But if you claim the PC or X-Box isn't a good gaming platform, you're fanboi.

[dallow]

There are more people gaming on PC than consoles-and like I said before, I suspect a lot of those people are just playing casual games, but still, EA's number 2 best selling platform is the PC. It's hardly doing poorly.

2. Do I have to spell out the hundreds of great games that have come out on consoles over the past few years?

There are all kinds of great exclusives on any of the various game platforms.



That's just not true. Probably the majority of experiences can be had on any gaming platform, for better or worse. But all have some great exclusives.



Actually only 11 of those games by my count is a straight RTS or FPS. And your so-called "dime a dozen" games are games getting 8s and 9s from major reviewers.

And yes, you are a fanboi if you think any established game platform doesn't have a ton of great games.

You can have a preference. As an example: you love Japanese style RPGs so prefer the Playstation 2 over the PC or X-Box. But if you claim the PC or X-Box isn't a good gaming platform, you're fanboi.

My whole point is that are many, many, many, many MORE great exclusives only found on consoles (all of them) than there on a PC/Mac. And the computer gaming platform just isn't ever going to get them.

If that list you presented as top games for the PC as of late is any indication. It's really lacking. Between me and my friend, we've played all of them.
He still likes PC more because he just prefers RTS, FPS, and MMORPGs.
I like them too, but I'd much rather have the countless rpgs, music sims, platformers -2d and 3d, all those smaller niche and independant titles, NINTENDO titles, etc etc etc.

The sheer volume of things to play on pure consoles, is greater than the things to do on a PC (for games).

And for the last time, I'm not seperating consoles, I mean as a whole. Console and PC.

I'm informed, as I've played a lot of those PC games, and I'm not a fanboy either, as I think the PC is a good platform for games.
It's just simply not as good.

[Wolfpup]

My whole point is that are many, many, many, many MORE great exclusives only found on consoles (all of them) than there on a PC/Mac.

You don't get to arbitrarily lump a bunch of platforms against just one. That doesn't mean anything. I can arbitrarily do that with any of the platforms. Try comparing TWO platforms.

If that list you presented as top games for the PC as of late is any indication. It's really lacking. Between me and my friend, we've played all of them.

Keep in mind that 1) I don't buy many games at full price, so I'm not the person to come up with a great list for any platform, and 2) a huge percentage of the best games are cross platform-just like they are on the consoles, so I excluded them from the list. A lot of those excluded games look and play best on PC-that's the platform you'd want to buy them for if you have the choice.

The sheer volume of things to play on pure consoles, is greater than the things to do on a PC (for games).

That's quite simply not true. Not if you're comparing one platform to another at any rate. And you ironically mentioned smaller niche and independent games-that's an area the PC tends to absolutely dominate, as there aren't the same barriers to entry, and there are so many more methods of distribution.

And for the last time, I'm not seperating consoles, I mean as a whole. Console and PC.

I'm informed, as I've played a lot of those PC games, and I'm not a fanboy either, as I think the PC is a good platform for games.
It's just simply not as good.

And again, compare platforms, not one platform against six. That's hardly a valid comparison. I might as well start separating them by "platforms with bluetooth". Or "platforms with a black case".

[dallow]

PCs and Consoles are that different.

If we're just going to argue each one by whatever (sony vs ms vs nin vs pc vs mac), then this discussion is even more ridiculous than it already is.
And we should stop. So yes, I'm stopping.

[Wolfpup]

PCs and Consoles are that different.

If we're just going to argue each one by whatever (sony vs ms vs nin vs pc vs mac), then this discussion is even more ridiculous than it already is.
And we should stop. So yes, I'm stopping.

It's ridiculous to compare six platforms against one, and then say those six are collectively the "winner".

[dallow]

There's always been "console gaming" and then "PC gaming".
They each have their own universe. Consoles just have a lot more galaxies.

Damnit, I told myself to stop!

[GizmoGC]

New model of PS3?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/bloomberg/bloomberg-sony-considering-bigger-ps3-252711.php

Bloomberg is reporting that Sony is considering introducing a new Playstation 3 with a bigger hard drive in the wake of killing off their 20GB model.

``It's in line with our strategy as we had planed to choose models based on consumer needs,'' Fukuoka said. The larger model, which retails for $599 in the U.S. and is $100 more expensive than the smaller version, accounts for about 90 percent of sales, he said.

The company is also considering introducing the model with a bigger hard disk, Fukuoka said, without providing details.

I love that Sony seems so willing to shift around their model designs based on consumer demands, though I'd love to see a breakdown of how many of the 20GB PS3s went unsold. That 90 percent figure either means people didn't want the cheaper PS3 or they couldn't find them. I suspect the first, but I'd still love to see the hard numbers

Is there any reason right now to get a PS3 with a bigger HDD? So far all they have is a few demos, few 'arcade' games, and a few trailers. Whats the point of a bigger HDD? 360 has TV shows, Movies, IPTV...so I can see the need for a bigger HDD (barley as most of the big downloads are movies which go kaput after 24 hours, and TV shows are less then a 1GB each), but at this point for the PS3 is there ANY reason to have a HDD bigger then 60GB (even 20GB) at all? I see so many people who have put a bigger HDD in themselves but I wonder why.

[torifile]

New model of PS3?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/bloomberg/bloomberg-sony-considering-bigger-ps3-252711.php



Is there any reason right now to get a PS3 with a bigger HDD? So far all they have is a few demos, few 'arcade' games, and a few trailers. Whats the point of a bigger HDD? 360 has TV shows, Movies, IPTV...so I can see the need for a bigger HDD (barley as most of the big downloads are movies which go kaput after 24 hours, and TV shows are less then a 1GB each), but at this point for the PS3 is there ANY reason to have a HDD bigger then 60GB (even 20GB) at all? I see so many people who have put a bigger HDD in themselves but I wonder why.
Any *legal* reasons? Besides adding media to your PS3, I don't know of any. I can foresee a future in which backed up games could be played off the HDD. Not yet, miind you, but I can't imagine it's that far off.

[Apossum]

New model of PS3?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/bloomberg/bloomberg-sony-considering-bigger-ps3-252711.php



Is there any reason right now to get a PS3 with a bigger HDD? So far all they have is a few demos, few 'arcade' games, and a few trailers. Whats the point of a bigger HDD? 360 has TV shows, Movies, IPTV...so I can see the need for a bigger HDD (barley as most of the big downloads are movies which go kaput after 24 hours, and TV shows are less then a 1GB each), but at this point for the PS3 is there ANY reason to have a HDD bigger then 60GB (even 20GB) at all? I see so many people who have put a bigger HDD in themselves but I wonder why.


A 20gb hdd isn't sufficient. I have a bunch of game data and downloaded games on there and I've used more than 10gb already.

you wouldn't need more than 60gb right now, but if you accumulate a crapload of games, you'll need that space, since most games seem to load a gig or two of data (or 6 in oblivions case.) And there's no space limit for PSN games, so maybe more full featured titles like Tekken will come out. Then there's the movie theater in Home, but I think those may be streamed. also, you could store mpeg4 movies (but nobody has those.)

anything more than 80, will probably be useless. at that point, you'd have plenty of useless game data on there.

same goes for a 120gb hdd. as I've said though, if you buy 120gb worth of TV shows from live, then chances are you don't have to worry or care about money in the first place.


My question is why don't they stick to the one SKU and sell Sony-branded SATA drives instead? It seems like that would be more profitable. They shouldn't sell them for $100 for 20gb and $180 for 120 though :lol:

[dallow]

New model of PS3?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/bloomberg/bloomberg-sony-considering-bigger-ps3-252711.php



Is there any reason right now to get a PS3 with a bigger HDD? So far all they have is a few demos, few 'arcade' games, and a few trailers. Whats the point of a bigger HDD? 360 has TV shows, Movies, IPTV...so I can see the need for a bigger HDD (barley as most of the big downloads are movies which go kaput after 24 hours, and TV shows are less then a 1GB each), but at this point for the PS3 is there ANY reason to have a HDD bigger then 60GB (even 20GB) at all? I see so many people who have put a bigger HDD in themselves but I wonder why.

The 80GB model was confirmed some weeks ago, where have you been Giz?

My 20GB is down to 1.5GB of free space. That's with a few trailers, and every demo so far. No user created files or anything.

So yeah, if you like to keep it all, it adds up.
I'll be putting in a 120GB drive soon.

[jer7583]

With those files associated with each game, why does the PS3 need those, exactly? The 360 doesn't do any caching on that scale, and load times are comparable between the two systems.

Does the 6 gigs of hard drive space (and how long does that take to copy over to the HD?) really make the slightly better load times in oblivion worth it?

[RedvsBlue]

With those files associated with each game, why does the PS3 need those, exactly? The 360 doesn't do any caching on that scale, and load times are comparable between the two systems.

Does the 6 gigs of hard drive space (and how long does that take to copy over to the HD?) really make the slightly better load times in oblivion worth it?

That'd be because blu ray drives have a slower read time than DVD drives.

[GizmoGC]

The 80GB model was confirmed some weeks ago, where have you been Giz?

My 20GB is down to 1.5GB of free space. That's with a few trailers, and every demo so far. No user created files or anything.

So yeah, if you like to keep it all, it adds up.
I'll be putting in a 120GB drive soon.

So you don't delete demos? You would just keep them forever and ever?
I download demos from XBL, but after playing it, they get deleted. No need to play them again unless they are really great (Dead Rising comes to mind) until the game comes out.

Hopefully the time comes with games can be ripped to the HDD...then I may have a use for my PS3.

[zewone]

Hopefully the time comes with games can be ripped to the HDD...then I may have a use for my PS3.
That'd be nice, but with games going from 30-50GBs, shit would get filled too fast.

[Apossum]

So you don't delete demos? You would just keep them forever and ever?
I download demos from XBL, but after playing it, they get deleted. No need to play them again unless they are really great (Dead Rising comes to mind) until the game comes out.

Hopefully the time comes with games can be ripped to the HDD...then I may have a use for my PS3.


what use would that be? shitty games are shitty games, right? poor gizmo, so confused...

With those files associated with each game, why does the PS3 need those, exactly? The 360 doesn't do any caching on that scale, and load times are comparable between the two systems.

Does the 6 gigs of hard drive space (and how long does that take to copy over to the HD?) really make the slightly better load times in oblivion worth it?

the caching of all that data is very useful. Resistance has hardly any loading screens, Oblivion takes a few seconds to load in between spots, but it's noticeably much better than the 360 version. Ninja Gaiden Black will completely install to the hdd, which will probably eliminate most of the loading in that game as well.

the games are bigger, the drive is slower, so caching is a necessity. but it's an advantage, imho.

[zewone]

Resistance has hardly any loading screens.
I don't know about that. The loading does take a while on that game.

And what's with having to install every game to the HDD? I understand on the Blu-Ray games (even though a 50 second install is kind of akward. Never had to do that on the Xbox if I can recall), but even demos that are already on the HDD?

[Apossum]

I don't know about that. The loading does take a while on that game.

And what's with having to install every game to the HDD? I understand on the Blu-Ray games (even though a 50 second install is kind of akward. Never had to do that on the Xbox if I can recall), but even demos that are already on the HDD?


I don't know, i didn't build the thing. :lol: maybe the downloads are compressed...

you did have to do installs on the xbox, depending on which games you played. I forget the list of games that cached to the HDD, but I know Ninja Gaiden was one of them. it does it at the screen that scrolls the story down. it's extra long if you play it on the 360 (the whole story scrolls through twice :lol: ) and it needs to install about every time the game is loaded, not just in one shot. edit: the GTA games do it too.

resistance has one big install the first time you pop it in, then a loading screen between each chapter, which is kind of long, but you can play a whole chapter (many of which are pretty long) without any loading.

[dpatel]

Aren't installs optional? I know at least for some games they are.

[H.Cornerstone]

I know for Oblivion it is not.

[dallow]

Gizmo, I'm just a packrat, I like to keep demos.

[Wolfpup]

There's always been "console gaming" and then "PC gaming".
They each have their own universe. Consoles just have a lot more galaxies.

Damnit, I told myself to stop!

There have also always been "white consoles" and "black" consoles. That doesn't make it a meaningful distinction.

You had an ordinal point-and I guess just didn't realize how vibrant the PC gaming scene is. But then tried to say you get to compare every other gaming platform combined against it-and that's just silly.

[Wolfpup]

So does anyone know who still caries the good model? I might have bought one had I known stores like Best Buy were only going to carry the tard pack.

[dallow]

There have also always been "white consoles" and "black" consoles. That doesn't make it a meaningful distinction.

You had an ordinal point-and I guess just didn't realize how vibrant the PC gaming scene is. But then tried to say you get to compare every other gaming platform combined against it-and that's just silly.

It's not as vibrant as you think. My PC gaming friend knows that, but that's the way he likes it, his taste is centered around a few things. It's very East vs West. It's like comparing food choices between life in prison, and life outside it.
If those games you listed really show off the variety in PC gaming, that's sad.

Like I said, between my friend and I, we've played most of them.

ARGH!
Why must my job be so boring that I still argue?

[dallow]

So does anyone know who still caries the good model? I might have bought one had I known stores like Best Buy were only going to carry the tard pack.

Other than launch day, I've never seen a store carry the 20GB.

[mkda]

Other than launch day, I've never seen a store carry the 20GB.

I agree. It's quite impossible to find now, other than ebay.

[Wolfpup]

It's not as vibrant as you think. My PC gaming friend knows that, but that's the way he likes it, his taste is centered around a few things. It's very East vs West. It's like comparing food choices between life in prison, and life outside it.
If those games you listed really show off the variety in PC gaming, that's sad.

Like I said, between my friend and I, we've played most of them.



And again, you're either uninformed or a fanboi. You've provided no "proof" that any of the consoles have better games or whatever. You just keep saying "it's worse!" What amazing stuff is there for the 360 that blows away PC?

[dallow]

And again, you're either uninformed or a fanboi. You've provided no "proof" that any of the consoles have better games or whatever. You just keep saying "it's worse!" What amazing stuff is there for the 360 that blows away PC?

Wow man, let's not keep going in circles.
You already know I'm comparing the whole of PC gaming to the whole of Console gaming.

Not 360 vs PC. Or anything else similar.

Proof?
It's just plain to see. You can't deny that there's more of a variety of games to be had with consoles than with PCs, if you do, you're blind.

[Wolfpup]

Wow man, let's not keep going in circles.
You already know I'm comparing the whole of PC gaming to the whole of Console gaming.

Which is completely silly. You can't compare six platforms against one, and then declare those six platforms the "victor". That's...silly.

Not 360 vs PC. Or anything else similar.

Proof?
It's just plain to see. You can't deny that there's more of a variety of games to be had with consoles than with PCs, if you do, you're blind.[/QUOTE]

Huh? Like what? Since the 360 is the only established "next gen" platform, what does it have that swamps the variety on PC? (Or do it with the PS2, or whatever.)

[dallow]

Which is completely silly. You can't compare six platforms against one, and then declare those six platforms the "victor". That's...silly.

Not 360 vs PC. Or anything else similar.

Proof?
It's just plain to see. You can't deny that there's more of a variety of games to be had with consoles than with PCs, if you do, you're blind.

Huh? Like what? Since the 360 is the only established "next gen" platform, what does it have that swamps the variety on PC? (Or do it with the PS2, or whatever.)

We think very differently about games.

I come from the school that teaches that PC games are inherently different, to Console games. It's a different type of experience.
I was comparing the history of games for consoles vs that for PCs.
Not one stupid console to a specific PC gaming timeframe.

But no, it's ok, it doesn't matter.
We just feel differently.

[Wolfpup]

We think very differently about games.

I come from the school that teaches that PC games are inherently different, to Console games. It's a different type of experience.

Why? They're games. You buy them, stick them in your system and play them.

I was comparing the history of games for consoles vs that for PCs.
Not one stupid console to a specific PC gaming timeframe.

Well that's an arbitrary comparison that makes no difference if you're judging the PC as a gaming platform.

[dallow]

We're different Wolfpup, we're different.

Just curious, how old are you?
(though in this case I don't feel age makes a difference, but I'm still curious)