What's everybody's gripe about the PS3?

[quote name='DarkNessBear']Why the hell not? Teens spend 1,000's on Airsoft guns or Paintball guns. Woman pay hundreds for clothes and purses. Men pay 1,000's on entertainment units. People spend hundreds on useless resturants.

Whats so wrong with paying alot for a gaming console? How can you justify $400 over $500? So at $500 it gets WAY to expensive? But $400 is just fine? Thats why I dont get.

And if the answer is, "I dont spend that much. Only 250 for the Wii". Then dont even bother.[/QUOTE]

Umm.. you do realize that "expensive" is a relative term. You may think the PS3 is worth the $500/600 but some other people might find it more satisfying to spend their money on paintball guns.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Umm.. you do realize that "expensive" is a relative term. You may think the PS3 is worth the $500/600 but some other people might find it more satisfying to spend their money on paintball guns.[/QUOTE]

or limited edition metallica cock rings.

Gamers tend to be very narrow minded when it comes to these things.

Just like the guy who wrote into EGM and asked what would happen to gaming if North Korea Nuked Japan.......... Priorities people
 
[quote name='imascrub']what is it that people who dislike the ps3 despise about it? Is it just futile protestation towards Sony the company itself?
Or do people actually think that the machine itself won't be able to handle the double teaming from the 360 and the Wii?[/quote]

mostly price and the fact that i'm not a HD freak as of yet, so i could care less about 1080p and super resolutions that sony thinks i can't live without

the PS3 frickin created a new cpu that may change computer processing in the future

umm...Toshiba, Sony and IBM created the cell processor

Sony and Nintendo had the balls to invest in new technology and thought out of the box to be able to create this stuff.

sony is pushing the tech because they want their proprietary movie format to be the standard format for high definition movies...many balls required to take such a loss on each unit sold when the rest of the company is sucking wind financially.

nintendo didn't have to invest much considering the wii is a tricked out gamecube...so not so much balls required for that investment, however going against the trend of high definition graphics ears them a set of normal sized balls


But even with Microsoft's advance release of their system, Sony and Nintendo will have a much easier time selling out systems because of their home soil.

its real easy to sell out when you ship less than 100K units in japan and barely double that for the us
i think this comic says it best


Week by week I think Sony and Nintendo will be able to catch up without difficulty in the timeframe that the 360 took to take an advanced lead.

true for nintendo...not so much for sony. missing this holiday season is going to be painful



Regardless of whether or not people are griping about the system or the company itself or price or whatnot, look at the Playstation 2. It isn't the highest selling and most popular game console for its generation for no reason. People will want it.

that's true, i think last week PS2 was still at the top of of some console sale charts. with all the competition and the PS3's high price i think it will be a while before we see it at the top of any sales list
 
1.) The price.

2.) Sony's flagrant arrogance.

3.) Over-promised features that were under-delivered, or not delivered at all.

4.) The games.
 
I think most here summed up the hatred nicely.

Sony thinks they are God of everything and come out with these crazy ass things "$600 is cheap! We should be charging well over a $1,000!" bullshit.

Sony has a history of making shity products, more so at launch. If they can't even make a laptop battery with tech that is over 10 years old what are the chances they will make this work?

The launch titles are horrible, just horrible but the fanboys don't seem to care. Why buy a system that has not games?
 
[quote name='gaelan']sony is pushing the tech because they want their proprietary movie format to be the standard format for high definition movies...[/quote]

I don't know how many times this exact same fact has been said, but people just tend to skip over this fact.

anybody have the numbers of how big ANY of the release games have been?


[quote name='gaelan'] its real easy to sell out when you ship less than 100K units in japan and barely double that for the us
i think this comic says it best
[/quote]

DUDE, that cartoon is frign awesome, and it drives the point home quite nicely :D

I wouldn't doubt if the PS2 is higher on the charts for quite some time... not only because of the low # of quality games for the PS3, but because of the small amount of consoles released, not as many people will be able to play.

If Sont had not invested so much time and $$$ into placing the blue-ray drive into there console, they would be able to

1) release more consoles
2) have had this console out earlier than they where able to.

These two points alone tell me the main reason for the drive being in there is to try and force the market to BD. This way they can say "we have this many more players in peoples living rooms", well DUH... because half those people bought a PS3.
 
The bottom line is nobody is forcing you to buy the console. If you think it's too expensive, amazing you know what you can do!? NOT BUY IT! OMG! Yes that's right, there's more to life than having to buy a video game console or harassing people who want to buy one!

Sony didn't rape your women or burn down your village. Get over it people.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']The bottom line is nobody is forcing you to buy the console. If you think it's too expensive, amazing you know what you can do!? NOT BUY IT! OMG! Yes that's right, there's more to life than having to buy a video game console or harassing people who want to buy one!

Sony didn't rape your women or burn down your village. Get over it people.[/QUOTE]

This is hilarious coming from the guy who bashed the Wii for months straight and constantly posted negative shit about it.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']This is hilarious coming from the guy who bashed the Wii for months straight and constantly posted negative shit about it.[/QUOTE]

I do it out of love ;)

but no really, these are feature gripes I have with the system as an owner, not as a bystander who goes "Lol Sony omg suxor" or "omg sony kill industry".
Paying $37 just so I can have a component cable at Launch? That's not very nice ;).

And just so you know, I've never once told anyone NOT to buy a Nintendo Wii.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']This is hilarious coming from the guy who bashed the Wii for months straight and constantly posted negative shit about it.[/QUOTE]

QFT
 
That's pretty lame if you don't buy a system just because what people in the company say.

Yeah PS3 has problems, but I mean PS1 and PS2 had problems as well. Right now I don't think either the Wii or PS3 is worth buying right now, and neither was 360 when that came out. Give it time. Hopefully Sony fixes those HDTV problems. Also I mean yeah the PS2 games can't play, but I know for me it's not a big deal. When I bought my PS2 I was so glad it was backwards compatible, and I thought I would continue to play PS1 games, which didn't happen.
 
If you added up every single gripe and bad news report about the system and threw it away I would be left with this:

I am a happy PS2 owner and I enjoy the system. The PS3 doesn't (at least right now) seem to build upon that system with anything extremely intriguing. I like good graphics as much as the next guy but they don't make up what I play or will play.

I didn't own the 1st XBOX but the 360 looks more interesting to me this time around when I compare it to the PS3. The interface, the demos, and the online all look top notch. I also kind of want to try out Ninja Gaiden, Halo, and some other XBOX games I didn't get to play the first go around.

All in all Sony looks to be behind in both online and in the innovation department. I'm sure the PS3 will have some great games but as it stands I'm just not that impressed.
 
Well the xbox360 has next to no innovation from the xbox. PS3 is more innovative then the 360 was hands down.

As far as people comparing Sony's online service to that of the 360 they need to freaking wait. Its been up for all of 3 days. Try comparing it to the first days of XBL instead of how XBL is now after 4 years.

Aside from that everyone is comparing the PS3 at launch to the 360 as it is now, instead of how it was at launch. 360 at launch didnt have many games and those that it did have were often ports or crappy titles.
 
[quote name='harrygetsoff']A men. The PS3 will be on top soon enough. I don't know why people judge it by the available games this early in the quarter. No system had "stunning" games the first few months of launch.[/QUOTE]

I loved CONDEMED and COD2 on 360 at launch
 
[quote name='Zoglog']wow do you also think we should massacre all the jews because you know, you don't like them?[/QUOTE]

Wow, kid, you read my mind ;)

I am not alone in thinking that Sony has fucked up left and right and I am not alone in waiting for their fall, and they will fall hard. Competition is a good thing, and we are seeing the results of it right now, the complacency of the leader(Sony) and the innovation/value of the competitors. (MS and Nintendo)

Maybe it'll result in better Sony product and a less arrogant tone in their corporate communication. I hope so. I miss the Sony of the PSOne days, when it was more about the developers and the consumer, than pushing some new media format on people.

You also missed my point about there being nothing I want to play on this "gaming system" which is another reason I don't like the PS3.
 
[quote name='Brian9824']Well the xbox360 has next to no innovation from the xbox. PS3 is more innovative then the 360 was hands down.

As far as people comparing Sony's online service to that of the 360 they need to freaking wait. Its been up for all of 3 days. Try comparing it to the first days of XBL instead of how XBL is now after 4 years.

Aside from that everyone is comparing the PS3 at launch to the 360 as it is now, instead of how it was at launch. 360 at launch didnt have many games and those that it did have were often ports or crappy titles.[/QUOTE]

Got a little late to the party, sorry for the double post. The 360's online is so much more innovative than ANYTHING going on with the PS3. Achievements alone add so much to the experience.

It's not Microsoft's problem that sony dragged their feet on the online stuff last generation. Now they're the follower, and MS is the leader. Sony had just as much if not more ability to build a quality online space. They just chose not to, and now it is biting them in the ass.

I enjoyed the heck out of Condemned, PGR3, Quake IV(don't have a recent PC) Call of Duty 2, and Geometry Wars at the 360 launch. That's a heck of a lot more than most people point out for PS3 (1, or none)
 
except all that is your opinion. So far i've seen just as many problems with the wii controlers and systems as I have with the PS3. More actually. All of my friends love Zelda but they all agree the wii controls feel like they were added on at the last minute (which they were). Red Steel which was hyped as the epitome of usefulness of the wiimote is a mediocre game plagued by a hit or miss control system.

I personally like all 3 systems and am waiting before I get any of them. They all have strengths but they are all also far from perfect.
 
Video Games
A Weekend Full of Quality Time With PlayStation 3

By SETH SCHIESEL
Howard Stringer, you have a problem. Your company’s new video game system just isn’t that great.

Ever since Mr. Stringer took the helm last year at Sony, the struggling if still formidable electronics giant, the world has been hearing about how the coming PlayStation 3 would save the company, or at least revitalize it. Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.

Put bluntly, Sony has failed to deliver on that promise.

Measured in megaflops, gigabytes and other technical benchmarks, the PlayStation 3 is certainly the world’s most powerful game console. It falls far short, however, of providing the world’s most engaging overall entertainment experience. There is a big difference, and Sony seems to have confused one for the other.

The PS3, which was introduced in North America on Friday with a hefty $599 price tag for the top version, certainly delivers gorgeous graphics. But they are not discernibly prettier than the Xbox 360’s. More important, the whole PlayStation 3 system is surprisingly clunky to use and simply does not provide many basic functions that users have come to expect, especially online.

I have spent more than 30 hours using the PlayStation 3 over the last week or so and may have played more different games on the system — 13 — than probably anyone outside of Sony itself. Sony did not activate the PS3’s online service until just before the Friday debut. Over the weekend a clear sense of disappointment with the PlayStation 3 emerged from many gamers.

“What’s weird is that the PS3 was originally supposed to come out in the spring, and here it came out in the fall, and it still doesn’t feel finished,” Christopher Grant, managing editor of Joystiq, one of the world’s biggest video-game blogs, said on the telephone Saturday night. “It’s really not the all-star showing they should have had at launch. Sony is playing catch-up in a lot of ways now, not just in terms of sales but in terms of the basic functionality and usability of the system.”

Sadly for Sony, the best way to explain how the PlayStation 3 falls short is to explain how different it is to use than its main competition, Xbox 360. When I reviewed the 360 last year, I wrote: “Twelve minutes after opening the box, I had created my nickname, was in a game of Quake 4 and thought, ‘This can’t be this easy.’ ”

I never felt that way using the PlayStation 3. With the PS3, 12 minutes after opening the box I realized that Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television. Keep in mind that one of Sony’s main selling points has been that the PS3 plays Blu-Ray high-definition movie discs. But high-definiton cables? Sold separately. The Xbox 360, by contrast, ships with one cable that can connect to either a standard or high-definition set.

Then, before you are even using the PS3, you have to connect the “wireless” controller to the base unit with a USB cable so they can recognize each other. If you bring your PS3 controller to a friend’s house, you’ll have to plug back in again. The 360’s wireless controllers are always just that, wireless.

If there is one thing one would expect Sony to get perfect, though, it would be music. Wrong. Sure, you can plug in your digital music player and the PS3 will play the tunes. But as soon as you go into a game, the music stops. By contrast, one of the things I’ve always enjoyed most on the Xbox 360 is being able to listen to my own music while playing Pebble Beach or driving my virtual Ferrari. Doesn’t seem too complicated, but the PS3 can’t do it.

In that sense it often feels as if the PlayStation 3 can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. In the PS3’s online store (which feels like a slow Web page) you can access movie trailers and trial versions of new games, but when you actually download the 600-megabyte files, you’ll be stuck watching a progress bar crawl across the screen for 20 or 40 minutes. Astonishingly, you can’t download in the background while you go do something that’s more fun (like play a game). On the Xbox 360, not only are files downloaded seamlessly in the background, but you can also shut off the machine, turn it on later, and the download will resume automatically.

The PS3’s whole online experience feels tacked-on and unpolished. On the Xbox 360 each user has a single unified friends list, so you can track your friends and communicate with them easily, no matter what game you are in. On the PlayStation 3 most games have their own separate friends list and some have no friends function at all. There is a master list as well, but in order to communicate with anyone on it, you have to quit the game you are playing.

There are some high points. The multi-player battles in Resistance: Fall of Man are excellent. The arcade-style action in the downloadable Blast Factor is suitably frantic.

But the list of the PS3’s disappointments remains, from its undersupported voice chat to its maddening cellphone-like text messaging system. (In frustration I ended up plugging in a USB keyboard.) Overall, Sony seems to have put a lot of effort into cramming as much silicon horsepower under the hood as possible but to have forgotten that all the transistors in the world can’t make someone smile.

And so it is a bit of a shock to realize that on the video game front Microsoft and Sony are moving in exactly the opposite directions one might expect given their roots. Microsoft, the prototypical PC company, has made the Xbox 360 into a powerful but intuitive, welcoming, people-friendly system. Sony’s PlayStation 3, on the other hand, often feels like a brawny but somewhat recalcitrant specialized computer. (Sony is even telling users to wait for future software patches to fix some of the PS3’s deficiencies.) The thing is, if people want to use a computer, they’ll use a computer.

Through the decades of the Walkman and the Trinitron television, Sony was renowned as the global master of easy-to-use, seamlessly powerful consumer electronics. But recently Sony seems to have lost its way, first in digital music players, in which it ceded the ergonomic high ground to Apple’s iPod, and now in home-game consoles. For now Sony’s technologists seem to have won out over the people who study fun.

As a practical matter, given the limited quantities Sony has been able to manufacture, the PlayStation 3 will surely remain sold out throughout the holiday season. If you can’t find one, don’t fret. Sony still has a lot of work to do. As Mr. Grant of Joystiq put it: “Maybe in six months it’ll be finished. Maybe by next fall I’ll be able to do all the cool stuff. I’m still kind of waiting.”
 
I think everyone knows that, XBL wasn't up and running at 100% on the first day microsoft touted it. It was full of bugs, glitches and it barely worked. It took 6 months to a year to get most of them worked out. No one here is saying that its currently better then the 360's, just that it has the potential to surpass it in the future.

its absolute idiocy to compare a 3 day old system to a 4 year old one and talk about which one performs better.
 
[quote name='Brian9824']I think everyone knows that, XBL wasn't up and running at 100% on the first day microsoft touted it. It was full of bugs, glitches and it barely worked. It took 6 months to a year to get most of them worked out. No one here is saying that its currently better then the 360's, just that it has the potential to surpass it in the future.

its absolute idiocy to compare a 3 day old system to a 4 year old one and talk about which one performs better.[/QUOTE]

I've had Xbox live since before it was available to the public and I know for a fact it worked from day one of release with everything they said it would feature. "Barely worked"? :roll: Any bugs that I can remember where all software bugs in the titles (Unreal chamionship,Wacked,etc).
 
[quote name='Brian9824']I think everyone knows that, XBL wasn't up and running at 100% on the first day microsoft touted it. It was full of bugs, glitches and it barely worked. It took 6 months to a year to get most of them worked out. No one here is saying that its currently better then the 360's, just that it has the potential to surpass it in the future.

its absolute idiocy to compare a 3 day old system to a 4 year old one and talk about which one performs better.[/QUOTE]

I don't ever remember Live barely working and I was a beta tester. They've definitely changed it a lot since the beginning and Microsoft does a great job of listening to the community and the changes they would like to see with Live. Hopefully, Sony will do the same and respond to the concerns of the users, but Microsoft has set a high bar on that front as well. I think a lot of it comes down to Microsoft having intensive knowledge on creating operating systems and user interactivity where Sony generally has no prior robust experience in this area.
 
hehe ok I did exagerate a bit but the point is still valid. Its going to take a little time to streamline the PS3's online system. What they have out now IS fully functional albeit with some annoying things. I've played some online matches of resistance at my friends and its worked flawlessly so far with no lag so small stuff like clunky interfaces don't bother me much.

I'd say wait for the first major update to the service which will probably be in a matter of weeks and then start talking about it. It just seems kinda silly to be talking like Sony's online system is going to destroy their company when its 3 days old and still being tweaked. Who knows where the system will be a year from now.
 
[quote name='Brian9824']hehe ok I did exagerate a bit but the point is still valid. Its going to take a little time to streamline the PS3's online system. What they have out now IS fully functional albeit with some annoying things. I've played some online matches of resistance at my friends and its worked flawlessly so far with no lag so small stuff like clunky interfaces don't bother me much.

I'd say wait for the first major update to the service which will probably be in a matter of weeks and then start talking about it. It just seems kinda silly to be talking like Sony's online system is going to destroy their company when its 3 days old and still being tweaked. Who knows where the system will be a year from now.[/QUOTE]

But it's almost like a ARMS race and MS is Cobra command with nuclear missles and jet planes and Sony is GI:Joe with vintage WWII planes and handguns, sure sony can upgrade their armory but Cobra commandsoft is building a death star.
 
It would be more akin to comparing Sony to China with a less developed military but a massive infrastructure poised for rapid advancement.
 
I don't like how Sony's Japanese management came across (though some of it may have been a language barrier).

But I am tired of hearing how much more "expensive" the PS3 is.

It's $500 (not $600, $500) compared to $400 for a 360...and on 360 if you're only a casual online gamer like me, you're still stuck paying $50/year for online. Over the course of 5 or 6 years, that makes 360 quite a bit more expsive than PS3.

And I love that the Playstation 3 has real backwards compatibility, and runs quite-too things that drive me nuts about 360. I also hate the horrible d-pad on the 360.

For now though, 360 has a lot more exclusive games I want (though the PS3 already has some too, and it's a year newer).
 
[quote name='Puppy']I don't like how Sony's Japanese management came across (though some of it may have been a language barrier).

But I am tired of hearing how much more "expensive" the PS3 is.

It's $500 (not $600, $500) compared to $400 for a 360...and on 360 if you're only a casual online gamer like me, you're still stuck paying $50/year for online. Over the course of 5 or 6 years, that makes 360 quite a bit more expsive than PS3.

And I love that the Playstation 3 has real backwards compatibility, and runs quite-too things that drive me nuts about 360. I also hate the horrible d-pad on the 360.

For now though, 360 has a lot more exclusive games I want (though the PS3 already has some too, and it's a year newer).[/QUOTE]

I'll disect that for you.

[quote name='Puppy']you're still stuck paying $50/year for online. Over the course of 5 or 6 years, that makes 360 quite a bit more expsive than PS3. [/QUOTE]

Instead of paying $50 for a year of service you wont use, buy a 1 month card at a store or at the dashboard. That way you can play title X for the month and if you want to continue to play online thats your choice OR you can have your service revert to silver in which case you would keep all your friends but lose the ability to play multiplay online, later when another title comes out that you want to try,you can repeat the process.

[quote name='Puppy']And I love that the Playstation 3 has real backwards compatibility, and runs quite-too things that drive me nuts about 360. [/QUOTE]

Do you even own a PS3? there are lots of big name titles that have problems playing.


[quote name='Puppy']It's $500 (not $600, $500) compared to $400
for a 360[/QUOTE]

Lets go into that a little more, With a $400 360 you get the system with harddrive,HIGH DEF CABLES/YRW cables,a wireless pad with USER REPLACEABLE BATTERY(AA or rechargeable), a headset for online play and chat. 3 months of live for up to 3 accounts. A full year of live is $50 for online play and first dibs demos and trailers, silver service which is free gets demos and trailers free but SOME may be available up to a week later then gold members

with the $500 PS2 you get the system with hardrive a control and regualr YRW cables, free online play at the cost of the developer, who are in full control of the life of connection servers, if they don't feel like paying to keep it up they can pull the plug anytime.

With a PS3 you have to buy highdef cables for your system and you have to buy a usb headset if you plan to get the full online experience. any time the battery is low you have to deal with your short 3 ft usb charging cable and if the battery dies all together you have to send it to sony if still in warranty or buy a new one, either way your still down a control due to the fact you cant swap the batterie on a whim.

PS3 and Xbox bith have + and -'s which is going to make for a great console war but the "Gripe" is Sony talked this and that, that the PS3 would blow our socks off and showed title after title that just didn't appear for launch. The portions of the online service wasnt fully ready for launch,units were not ready for launch. The fact remains that even the 360 launch went more smoothly then this with a higher amount of available units and promised features online and off ready for launch.
 
Well the market is shifting, most TVs for sale are HDTVs, plus in within the next 5 years all TV transmissions are going to be in HD. The playstation 3 is a system for the future. At heart it's just a computer, but it's good for homebrew,someone already had fedora running on the system w/ MAME emulators, the system is backwards compatible (a promise unfufilled from the 360), Upgradable hard drive.... I've never seen a system get so much flak for every little thing. PS3 does have a blue ray drive that if it was seperated from the system, would be at least 199.99 (similar to 360 HD-DVD)
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']
Instead of paying $50 for a year of service you wont use, buy a 1 month card at a store or at the dashboard. That way...[/quote]

That doesn't work for me. I'm not going to play one game heavily for a month, I'm going to want to jump on every once in a while. Buying it by the month is an even worse deal for me.

Not to mention, I'll usually want to mess around for a bit with online features, and then usually never give them a second thought. I'm not going to do that if I have to plunk down the price of a new game just to try something I know I probably won't use for longer than a few minutes to a couple of hours.

Do you even own a PS3? there are lots of big name titles that have problems playing.

Bogus argument for two reasons. First, most of the games on Sony's incompatibility list on both the Playstation 2 and 3 actually run just fine, and have the equivalent of an occasionally weird looking menu or distorted sound effect or something like that. Even games on the list usually run fine for the most part.

Secondly, nearly every game going back 11 years on the Playstation platform works-compared to the majority of games on the X-Box, a system that's only 5 years old and has a far smaller library than the PS1 or 2, NOT working on the 360.

Lets go into that a little more, With a $400 360 you get the system with harddrive,HIGH DEF CABLES/YRW cables,a wireless pad with USER REPLACEABLE BATTERY(AA or rechargeable), a headset for online play and chat. 3 months of live for up to 3 accounts.

No, you get a month of Live free, not three months, but continuing...

with the $500 PS2 you get the system with hardrive a control and regualr YRW cables, free online play at the cost of the developer, who are in full control of the life of connection servers, if they don't feel like paying to keep it up they can pull the plug anytime.

Same with Live, developers can stop supporting games at any time. That's no different.

With a PS3 you have to buy highdef cables for your system and you have to buy a usb headset if you plan to get the full online experience. any time the battery is low you have to deal with your short 3 ft usb charging cable and if the battery dies all together you have to send it to sony if still in warranty or buy a new one, either way your still down a control due to the fact you cant swap the batterie on a whim.

Geez, there's so much wrong with this entire post...
The cable is 5 feet, not three, and it's just a USB cable that can easily be expanded.

No, the PS3 doesn't come with a headset, but it does come with the equivalent of a play and charge kit which the 360 lacks, making that basically a draw. Plus it has more options for headsets, and the controller has a lithium battery rather than NiMH. It does stink the controller is sealed, but at least it'll work as a wired USB pad.

PS3 and Xbox bith have + and -'s which is going to make for a great console war but the "Gripe" is Sony talked this and that, that the PS3 would blow our socks off and showed title after title that just didn't appear for launch. The portions of the online service wasnt fully ready for launch,units were not ready for launch. The fact remains that even the 360 launch went more smoothly then this with a higher amount of available units and promised features online and off ready for launch.

You're joking, right? The 360 launch was smoother? Umm...it was just a year ago. I'm pretty sure I can remember that far back :D It was just as bad. Just as impossible to walk into a store for one until April or May (we'll see if Sony can do any better).
 
I love the 360 fanboys who are bitching about the $600 price of the PS3 yet they'll go out and spend $400 on a 360 and then buy the $200 HD-DVD add-on.
 
[quote name='Setzer']I love the 360 fanboys who are bitching about the $600 price of the PS3 yet they'll go out and spend $400 on a 360 and then buy the $200 HD-DVD add-on.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and they also keep insisting it's $600 when it's $500.
 
[quote name='Setzer']I love the 360 fanboys who are bitching about the $600 price of the PS3 yet they'll go out and spend $400 on a 360 and then buy the $200 HD-DVD add-on.[/quote]

At least 360 owners had the choice.
 
Yup, just wait until the HD-DVD games start coming out. So much for choice then. I'd rather get it all in one package for $600 now and have an HDMI connection.
 
[quote name='Setzer']Yup, just wait until the HD-DVD games start coming out. So much for choice then. I'd rather get it all in one package for $600 now and have an HDMI connection.[/QUOTE]

What HD-DVD games?
 
There aren't any HD-DVD games. It would be nuts for Microsoft to ever allow that.

And again, the PS3 is $500, not $600. That's a $100 price difference, and it's actually cheaper depending on your online use.
 
[quote name='lordwow']What HD-DVD games?[/quote]

They're not out yet....I said "just wait". Eventually in a year or so, you're going to start seeing HD-DVD games for the 360 and if you don't spend the $200 for the add-on then you won't be able to play them. It's pretty much just for watching videos right now but MS does have plans for it.
 
[quote name='Puppy']There aren't any HD-DVD games. It would be nuts for Microsoft to ever allow that.[/quote]

Why would it be nuts? It would be nuts for them to release an HD-DVD add on just so you could use it to watch movies.

There aren't any games right now, no one said there was, but there will be in the future and at some point people will have to get the add-on if they want to play games that are on HD-DVD.
 
[quote name='Setzer']They're not out yet....I said "just wait". Eventually in a year or so, you're going to start seeing HD-DVD games for the 360 and if you don't spend the $200 for the add-on then you won't be able to play them. It's pretty much just for watching videos right now but MS does have plans for it.[/quote]I highly doubt this:roll:
 
[quote name='Puppy']

And again, the PS3 is $500, not $600. That's a $100 price difference, and it's actually cheaper depending on your online use.[/QUOTE]

You really are that ignorant?

That's like saying "The Xbox 360 isn't really $400, it's $300".

So the price difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is still $200.

Learn how to fucknig do math instead of playing shity overpriced games.
 
look I bought a tape player with a cd player so I can play both... but everything went to cd.. it's not like dvds are going anywhere yet..but soon blu ray and hd-dvd are going to be the norm...
 
[quote name='Setzer']We'll see. :roll:[/QUOTE]

....if the PS3 ever makes enough systems to become a true system or if it will fail like Bush in Iraq.
 
[quote name='David85']You really are that ignorant?

That's like saying "The Xbox 360 isn't really $400, it's $300".

So the price difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is still $200.

Learn how to fucknig do math instead of playing shity overpriced games.[/quote]

$300 for the Core system, which is a fucking waste of money compared to what you get with the premium package. You'd be a fool to buy the Core package when for $100 more you get a 20gb HD, Wireless controller, Component cables, a Headset and Xbox Live Gold. At least the $500 PS3 comes with a 20gb HD, Blue Ray and you still have HDMI & wireless controller - a much better "core" package than what Microsoft is offering.
 
[quote name='David85']Learn how to fucknig do math instead of playing shity overpriced games.[/quote]

Overpriced games? Last I checked PS3 games were going for $60 ea., same as what you pay for 360 games.
 
[quote name='Setzer']Why would it be nuts? It would be nuts for them to release an HD-DVD add on just so you could use it to watch movies.

There aren't any games right now, no one said there was, but there will be in the future and at some point people will have to get the add-on if they want to play games that are on HD-DVD.[/QUOTE]

No there won't. Microsoft has already said they won't allow HD-DVD games, and even if they did, no publisher would support it (unless they released games in both formats).

It's taken more than half a decade for publishers to switch to most games coming on DVDs on PC, precisely because they're not going to give up any profit if people don't have a DVD drive.

That's why claiming you have to add a $200 drive to the 360 to make it comparable to the PS3 is silly. The correct comparison is by adding Live service to the $400 model compared to the $500 PS3-not an apples to apples comparison, but it makes more sense than adding in a movie player.
 
[quote name='Kingjay89']360 is better for me right now. Better games (as of now), can offer HD movies (HD-DVD attachement), less price, no worry about attainging one, and as good if not better graphics/gameplay (on multiplatform games). While the PS3 does look intriguing, it just does not make much sense to drop that much money on it right now for me. Now in the future, if BR succeeds as the domination format, I may look into getting one.[/quote]

"drop that much money on it"

so you're saying 360 + HDDVD is less than $500? or are you saying $500 is cheap for a 360+hddvd but too expensive for a ps3? I don't get your argument...
Plus, the hddvd is optional. I hate when ppl say 360 plays hddvd when they try to compare it to ps3's blu-ray, but they don't add the $200 price tag...

Anyway... HDMI cable are $5 online... so that don't add much too the "PS3 cost more" argument.
 
[quote name='David85']You really are that ignorant?

That's like saying "The Xbox 360 isn't really $400, it's $300".

So the price difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is still $200.

Learn how to fucknig do math instead of playing shity overpriced games.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no, YOU do the math. The minimum realistic configuration for the 360 is $400, either buying a core + a hard drive, or buying the regular system. The minimum config for the Playstation 3 is $500.

You have heard the term "'tard pack", right? The $300 360 isn't a real price point, it's just a gimmick to make the system look cheaper than it is.

And like Setzer says, the 360 games are just as overpriced. I'm not buying any $60 games, thank you very much.
 
[quote name='DarienW']Anyway... HDMI cable are $5 online... so that don't add much too the "PS3 cost more" argument.[/QUOTE]

Everything gets knocked down in the price department online(except PS3's which would be the other way around) that could be used either way. Brings a 360 premium to $350 at amazon or a 1yr live subscription to $20 on ebay, thats silly to say HDMI cables are $5 online, because it disrupts the price argument too much. If your going to argue price MSRP in a retail store where the average joe buys shit is what should be argued.



Either way the thread is "What's everybody's gripe about the PS3?" and some people don't want to hear it's not as good as 360 as a answer. Why isn't as good as 360 IMO? Because Sony over promised and undelivered from what was presented at this last years E3 and beyond(killzone anyone?). All the vague promises that where made came out partly but not to the extent of calling it a fulfillment . I know PS3 just came out, but answer me this, What adjustments,improvements,1ups where they doing the entire time the Xbox 360 was out? For the $600 that I paid + my time to acquire it, the PS3 should have came ready to play ball NOT ready for updates at a future time and promises of a better game line up at a later time,because thats the only excuse I'm hearing Later Later later. Thats just my opinion and you might not agree and thats fine but to get mad about PS3 bashing in a thread titled "What's everybody's gripe about the PS3?" is stupid
 
Why do people despise the PS3? ONE WORD:

Killzone.

The best thing is, plenty of fanboys still think Killzone will reach the level of the CGI teaser. ROFLCOPTER.

Sony's self-created hype is incredulous even to me. This system was supposed to come out earlier this year and the games look like this? The graphics were supposed to blow away the 360. The gameplay was supposed to be revolutionary. Blu-Ray's 1080P was supposed to be "True HD". I've seen Blu-Ray at the store on a decent set and to say I was disappointed is the understatement of the year. I've always been an early adopter, and would have gladly plunked down $1k+ for the blu-ray drive had the quality been there. I did it for DVD but there was no way I was going to buy what looked like an upscaled DVD.

Honestly though, Sony is in a tough position. By the time a real AAA title comes out the 360 will have Halo 3 ready to counter. A lot of people think the PS3 will still win this war. Well, if losing a TON of marketshare = winning, then I guess so.

For now, I'll stick to my PS2, 360, and DS.
 
bread's done
Back
Top