$400 80GB PS3 Bundle w/ Motorstorm & Resistance coming soon to Target

[quote name='elwood731']There's also the fact that the Saturn was never the underdog--at least not initially. The Genesis even dominated most of the 16-bit era, though was eventually surpassed by the SNES. It was also their third system, after one failure and then one success. Sony had none of this going for them. In fact, with Nintendo's Project Reality and Sega's Saturn, most expected the PS1 to be a flop. Of course, then games started to be shown and the Saturn had its disastrous surprise launch and it sort of turned into the underdog, but most in the industry expected it to beat the PS.[/quote]

word. And the surprise launch was also in the midst of the flops that were the Sega CD and the 32X(which may have been the biggest fuck you to gamers ever at a retail level, IMO). The Genesis was such a success that Sega didn't know what to do or where to go next. Seriously, if they'd have built a better programming package for the saturn from the start, the whole thing may have turned out differently...
 
Man, I love the Saturn. They should NEVER have released the 32x (I actually called to ask if it made the system compatible with Saturn games, back 'in '94, and told them that was nuts when they said it wouldn't).

They needed to continue focusing on the Genesis (and SegaCD) heavily through at least 96, and launch the Saturn at the same time as the Playstation. They needed to try to get the price down if possible, and desperately needed better tools.

I mean the Saturn was NOT bad hardware at all compared to the other two. It could do some visuals the other systems couldn't (and still destroys the DS...and heck, Nights 1 looks WAAAAAAAY better than the hideous Wii sequel), but it was hard to code for.

What's kind of funny too is that it's multiple CPU set up is actually standard now. The DS, PSP, 360, PS3, PC, ALL have multiple CPUs! But developers really had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the multi-CPU era, and the Saturn's 3 CPUs (and 2 GPUs) in 94 was too much for most of them. (I think it had two sound processors too? Hee hee)

Dang, stuff that used it well could look SO good.

Anyway, the Saturn (and Gamecube) really taught me that popularity had nothing to do with whether a system was any good or not, and whether it was worth owning. That thing had buckets of buckets of great games, and no matter how many people based it (them) it was still well worth the price.

I mean if I could only own ONE system in a generation it would have been the PS1, just 'cause it had the most games and most variety, but the Saturn was well worth it (same with the Gamecube).
 
[quote name='81dollars']not a bad bundle....not bad at all...if it's true or not...[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me???? these games are old and not too mention there isnt much multiplayer left with the new versions available. This is a gay marketing move for them they should of just bundled Little Big Planet with it instead. This is not gonna help move consoles im sorry not at 400 dolars!!
 
[quote name='akokonas']Are you kidding me???? these games are old and not too mention there isnt much multiplayer left with the new versions available. This is a gay marketing move for them they should of just bundled Little Big Planet with it instead. This is not gonna help move consoles im sorry not at 400 dolars!![/QUOTE]

Ooookay.

  1. "Gay"? Stupid as an insult anyway, and of course it's insulting to use it, just not for the reasons you're using it
  2. How is getting two free games in a system that used to have none a bad deal?
 
Two free games are two free games. I don't remember anyone crying when Microsoft stuck Sega Superstar Tennis in with the Arcade...a game that GameStop was basically trying to give away at last year's Game Days sale.
 
Is it? I don't know, I see $400 as not that bad considering it's a current gen game system AND Blu Ray player.

(EDIT: This was in response to a couple of posts up)
 
I can understand when someone says the PS3 is expensive, especially in these tough economic times. It is a lot of money to spend. But I just hate when people say the PS3 is "overpriced." $400 is a great deal for what you're getting.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Two free games are two free games. I don't remember anyone crying when Microsoft stuck Sega Superstar Tennis in with the Arcade...a game that GameStop was basically trying to give away at last year's Game Days sale.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point. And I see these games as being kind of "higher class" than most of what Microsoft's been including (Resident Evil excluded of course).

I just don't see why people are acting so upset. It's not like they raised the price...they just are giving you something extra.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']I can understand when someone says the PS3 is expensive, especially in these tough economic times. It is a lot of money to spend. But I just hate when people say the PS3 is "overpriced." $400 is a great deal for what you're getting.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and I mean is it really more expensive than a 360 or Wii? 360's just $100 cheaper, and doesn't have Blu Ray (or any games with it for that price now). Wii is a complete rip off for $250. IMO it's WAAAAAAY more expensive at $250 than a 360 or PS3 is at $400.
 
wowz at the console talk here.

so does this mean the price drop is not coming any time soon?

anyways, the ps3's sales performance can be said in anyway you like, depending on your angle.
if you look at it as a expensive, high tech console that never did well in history of gaming, it's not doing that bad. Heck, this might be the best "most powerful" console in any generation, beats xbox, saturn and neo geo...

But if you look at it as a "playstation", the brand that has dominated gaming console for two generation, being stuck in 3rd place is mega fail.
 
Well, it's kind of hard to label it a failure when the console generation isn't even over, yet. Plus, even if Sony ends up in third, it accomplished another of its goals with the PS3, and that is helping Blu-ray to win out over HD-DVD. At the end of the day, Sony can bounce back, the same way Nintendo bounced back from getting smashed in two straight generations.
 
Hopefully not with the same methods though!

At any rate, at worst the PS3 is more successful than the Gamecube and Saturn, and both of those were must-buy unless you were cash strapped.

EDIT: On top of that, the PS3 has most games the 360 has...so it would be pretty easy to get by with just a PS3 if you had to.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Well, it's kind of hard to label it a failure when the console generation isn't even over, yet. Plus, even if Sony ends up in third, it accomplished another of its goals with the PS3, and that is helping Blu-ray to win out over HD-DVD. At the end of the day, Sony can bounce back, the same way Nintendo bounced back from getting smashed in two straight generations.[/quote]
Okay, I'll bite on this...Blu won out over HD-DVD by PURSCHASING exclusivity contracts with film studios. The only role the PS3 had in that whole thing was for Sony to go "look, we have similar numbers of players sold" for the studios, because the Blu standalone player sales were behind HDDVD.

And the reason no one complained about the 360 pack-ins is because no one cared, as it was in addition to a price drop.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']Okay, I'll bite on this...Blu won out over HD-DVD by PURSCHASING exclusivity contracts with film studios.[/quote]

Not that I remember. As far as I know, it was the other way around. The HD-DVD group bought a deal with one of the studios. Otherwise it looked like HD-DVD was dead, but that kind of threatend to keep this alive even longer, until Warner went the other way (intentionally to try to kill off HD-DVD so they could actually start moving discs).

And thank goodness, since I can finally buy discs again. I just can't go back to DVD after ATSC and Blu Ray.

And the reason no one complained about the 360 pack-ins is because no one cared, as it was in addition to a price drop.

When? I don't know that pack ins had anything to do with price drops. They just pack stuff in around Christmas.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what he's talking about. Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD had exclusivity deals with studios. Problem was, HD-DVD was getting beat, and the studios either got out or were looking to get out.
 
It's well known that Warner was considering going HD only, and Sony bought them AND Fox for Blu exclusivity just before the CES.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']It's well known that Warner was considering going HD only, and Sony bought them AND Fox for Blu exclusivity just before the CES.[/QUOTE]

This is well known? In what circles? Sony had deals with Fox and Disney, and Toshiba had a deal with Paramount. Warner's looked at the state of high-def content and decided to go Blu-ray because it looked as though it would end the war and be better for studios. Once they went Blu, it left Paramount as the only HD-DVD exclusive studio, while Blu now had Warners (and all that includes, such as New Line), as well as Columbia. HD-DVD couldn't compete, and finally Toshiba threw in the towel which allowed Paramount to jump ship as well.
 
[quote name='MSUHitman']How do I do that?[/quote]

Really simple. Save the picture to your desktop or my pictures or something. Go to imageshack.us, browse for the photo and select upload. Find the direct link, copy it, and choose reply on the forums. Select the icon that looks like a sun rising over a hill (bottom row above text box, 6th from right) and paste link in there. Voila!
 
[quote name='Anexanhume']Really simple. Save the picture to your desktop or my pictures or something. Go to imageshack.us, browse for the photo and select upload. Find the direct link, copy it, and choose reply on the forums. Select the icon that looks like a sun rising over a hill (bottom row above text box, 6th from right) and paste link in there. Voila![/quote]

Thank you. I'll have to do this later tonight as I'm at work right now. I uploaded the photo from my IPhone to Facebook thinking it would be visible that way, sorry about that.
 
[quote name='elwood731']This is well known? In what circles? Sony had deals with Fox and Disney, and Toshiba had a deal with Paramount. Warner's looked at the state of high-def content and decided to go Blu-ray because it looked as though it would end the war and be better for studios. Once they went Blu, it left Paramount as the only HD-DVD exclusive studio, while Blu now had Warners (and all that includes, such as New Line), as well as Columbia. HD-DVD couldn't compete, and finally Toshiba threw in the towel which allowed Paramount to jump ship as well.[/quote]

Look, at CES, Toshiba was to announce that they were locking up Warner exclusives. They had it planned for their big CES presser that they would announce a big deal...Then they went to Sony after the deal, and toshiba basically announced they were done.
 
[quote name='WuGgaRoO']A lot of comparisons can be made between the PS3 and Saturn

1) They both have hardware that was/is difficult to use

The Saturn utilized 2 CPUS.. which was very rare at the time..most systems utilized only 1 CPU to do all their processing.. Most programmers had no idea hot to effecitevely utilize the Saturn's power.
IE) Alien Trilogy was a game that appeared on both the PSone and the Saturn. However, there was a huge difference between the two versions because the company who developed the game for the Saturn, only utilized one 28.6MHz cpu (AS opposed to the 2 CPUs that were equipped on the Saturn).. The PS1 version on the other hand utilized one CPU at 34MHz.. The full capabilities of the Saturn can be seen in Virtua Fighter 2, where each of the 28.6CPU were utilized to process each character.

The PS3 on the has a similar issue because it uses the CELL PROCESSOR, which includes a total of 7 CPU's on it.. all working at 3.2Ghz.. now similiarly to the Saturn, a lot of companies are having a very difficult time harnessing the TRUE power of the PS3, much like companies had a difficult time harnessing the true power of the Saturn

2) Both systems were more expensive at the time of release
With Inflation taken into account, the Saturn premiered at $572 and the PS3 was released at 600...

3) Both systems were the underdog even though they had higher graphical capabilities...

4) Both were colored black (couldn't help myself)


5) They could both easily import games

As we all know the Blu-ray is not region locked. The SATURN was region locked, but an action replay 4 in 1 could remedy that quite easily.. it allowed those with a US Saturn to (1) play import games, (2) added 1 or 4 megs of ram, (3) gave us a way to store saturn games, and (4) served as a gameshark/genie/action replay... All the other systems, you have to jump through hoops to get them to play imports

6) They both had die hard fanboys which hated the other systems and felt that their system was cool or 1337...

7) This is just a comparison between SEGA and SONY, but both utilized a special type of compact disc in their systems which allowed for higher capcity (GD-ROM for Dreamcast and Blu-Ray for PS3)



HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME STARK CONTRASTS

1) SONY is not foolish... it will not pull the plug prematurely on the PS3.. that means that the system can reach its full graphical potential.

One of Saturns main downfalls was the ditching of the Saturn and then making the Dreamcast.. Saturn btw.. had A LOT of Japanese support... it sold horribly in America, but not that bad in Japan. When the plug was pulled people were pretty upset, which helped lead to the downfall of the dreamcast.. that and i would consider it an "in between generation" system.. it looked a lot better than the PSone, but got its ass handed to it by the PS2.

2) SONY had much more success than SEGA... Let's be honest here.. the genesis was all right... but all the money it made from the PS2 sales allows SONY some wiggle room with its current counsel.. SEGA did not have this cushion so support the Saturn.. For instance, the successor of the PS1 (THE PS2) is still being sold at a decent rate.. and where is the successor of the Saturn? On ebay for 25 bucks...

3) Third-Party Support
As mentioned before, PS3 has MUCH more third party support than the Saturn... I reference my previous point of Alien Trilogy where it looked like crap on the Saturn because the developers didn't utilize the systems full capabilities. However, if you look at the PS3, there are a TON OF GAMES that work equally well across the board (PS3, 360, and PC) This defiantly helps boost up SONY's sales and will help prevent it from tanking.

4) FREE Network capabilities
The whole point behind this is that SONY has a faily decent internet service with built-in wireless.. the Xbox 360 has neither of these.. long story short.. the Saturn had little to nothing above their competion.. the PS3 on the other hand, has this,



So long story short, it seems that while there are some similarities between the two systems, one must keep in mind that the company has an important say about whether or not a video game system will become popular or not. There is marketing, first-party games, as well as the company's "financial abilities"....

To be honest, up until recently, I have thought that the PS3 was going to tank terribly. I was afraid it was going the way of the Saturn and fast. However, seeing games like Killzone 2 and MLB The Show '09, and God of War 3... one must realize that SONY has gone through great lengths to make sure that this system will make them money..[/quote]
Just some Devil's Advocate to your similarities:

1) Keep in mind that multicore CPU's are far more present in PS3's generational time, than dual processors were in Saturns. Referring to in general tech and PC. Developers are far more aware and capable of developing for multicore today than they were for dual processors in 1995.

2) Factor in that Saturn was around during an economy doing very well, PS3 when the economy doing horribly bad.

4) Means nothing.

5) I think this might actually help a console. Didn't the GC also allow for playing imports with an Action Replay?

6) Every system has those.

7) Stick to Saturn-PS3, not Saturn and Dreamcast separately to PS3.
 
[quote name='Ronin317']Look, at CES, Toshiba was to announce that they were locking up Warner exclusives. They had it planned for their big CES presser that they would announce a big deal...Then they went to Sony after the deal, and toshiba basically announced they were done.[/QUOTE]

ROFL. So bitter. HD DVD NEVER had a chance. EVER. PERIOD. You need to accept that and move on. Its cool man, you can buy your favorite movies on a dead format for pennies on the dollar, what are you crying about!
 
Some more info, may not state everything or omit stuff though. Just as I thought I recalled, Toshiba also paid money for exclusivity. Not saying Sony did not. They both did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_optical_disc_format_war

Studio, distributor alliances

Studio alliances shifted over time. Before October 2005 and the release of either format, each had the exclusive support of three of the Big Six. Blu-ray Disc started out with Sony (Columbia TriStar and MGM), Disney (Buena Vista), and Fox. Disney and Fox were both impressed by the extra DRM (BD+ and region coding) that the Blu-ray Disc format provided on paper (ironically, BD+ and region coding were both cracked in their first year). Then HD DVD supporters Warner Bros. and Paramount added support for Blu-ray.[41] But in August 2007, after supporting Blu-ray for over a year, Paramount announced it would release all high-definition content (except titles directed by Steven Spielberg) exclusively on HD DVD. At the same time, DreamWorks Animation SKG, which had not released any high-definition discs, announced it would release exclusively on HD DVD. Explaining their decisions, the companies cited perceived advantages to HD DVD's technology and lower manufacturing costs. The companies together received about $150 million in cash and promotional guarantees, including a Toshiba HD DVD marketing campaign with a tie-in to Shrek the Third.[42][43]

From August 2007 HD DVD had a promising future, was seeing its highest sales (though still substantially lower than Blu-ray), had support from major big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart due to low prices, and had the exclusive support of studios such as Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks SKG/Animation, Universal Studios and several Indie film studios. The format also had non exclusive though favourable support (through occasional HD DVD exclusive titles) from Warner Bros., the largest home video releaser.

The tipping point came on January 4, 2008 when Warner Bros., which has the largest market share of DVDs, announced plans to drop HD DVD support completely as of the beginning of June 2008. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, some HD DVD-related events and private meetings with analysts and retailers were canceled, including an event scheduled for the eve of the show sponsored by the North American HD DVD Promotional Group. Toshiba management expressed disappointment over Warner's decision but said that Toshiba would continue promoting the competing format.[44][45] The following Monday, Toshiba reduced the price of its HD DVD players by 40 to 50 percent, calling price a "deal breaker for the mainstream consumer".[46] At the time, analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates likened the price cut to the high-stakes Blackjack bet of "doubling down" in an effort to increase market share and "win back the studios".[47] Richard Greenfield of Pali Capital called the move a gimmick and predicted that HD DVD would not become widely adopted.[48] Gartner analyst Hiroyuki Shimizu predicted that while the price cut might extend HD DVD's life somewhat, the limited title library would ultimately "inflict fatal damage on the format", leaving Blu-ray the victor by the end of 2008.[49]

Warner Bros.' sister studio New Line Cinema followed suit, canceling tentative plans to release titles on HD DVD.[50][51] Other small studios and producers moving exclusively to Blu-ray included National Geographic Society, Constantin Film, and Digital Playground.[52][53][54][55]
Warner's move also caused a chain reaction among DVD distributors, most prominently in the form of Wal-Mart's February 15, 2008 decision to phase HD DVD out completely by June 2008.[56] Wal-Mart is the largest DVD retailer in the United States, and its decision prompted the New York Times to run a mock obituary for the HD DVD format. The newspaper quoted technology analyst Rob Enderle's contention that if Wal-Mart "says HD DVD is done, you can take that as a fact."[57] Four days earlier, Best Buy began recommending Blu-ray Disc as the customer's digital format choice,[58] and Netflix, the largest online video rental service, began phasing out its HD DVD inventory after stocking both formats since early 2006.[59][60]

These shifts were preceded by Blockbuster, the largest U.S. movie rental company, which in June 2007 had moved to Blu-ray exclusively in 1450 stores after test-marketing both formats at 250 stores and finding that more than 70% of high definition rentals were Blu-ray discs.[61][62] In July 2007, Target Corporation, began carrying only Blu-ray standalone players in its stores, promoting them with end cap displays featuring Blu-ray Disc movies from Sony and Disney.[63] In January 2008, UK retailer Woolworths Group plc said it would stock only Blu-ray discs in its 820 stores beginning in March 2008.[64]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ronin317']Look, at CES, Toshiba was to announce that they were locking up Warner exclusives. They had it planned for their big CES presser that they would announce a big deal...Then they went to Sony after the deal, and toshiba basically announced they were done.[/quote]

Exclusivity was PART of the reason Blu-ay won. In the end it was sales, which the PS3 was/is in the center of, that mattered. The PS3 was the trojan horse that got blu-ray into people's living rooms. People who were grappling the "HD fence" didn't need to anymore because they could buy a console that came with a HD format and other benefits. Include the fact that studios were worried of consumer confusion, they made the choice to jump and stick to the better selling format.

Edit: For anyone expecting a price drop soon, don't hold your breath. Here's a link to what they said http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=3193 (not a direct comment though)
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']Ooookay.

  1. "Gay"? Stupid as an insult anyway, and of course it's insulting to use it, just not for the reasons you're using it
  2. How is getting two free games in a system that used to have none a bad deal?
[/QUOTE]

First off buddy they have had about 6 different SKU since it was released in nearly 2.5 years ago, and they cant make up there mind on what they want to sell people. These games you can get for 10 each used at gamestop and have been available since launch day. I dont know about you but if this is gonna make you want to buy a PS3 then you must be crazy. I would rather not take these games and and have a 50 price cut from thie system so i can then go buy a recently released game that has an online community with people still playing the game.
 
[quote name='akokonas']First off buddy they have had about 6 different SKU since it was released in nearly 2.5 years ago, and they cant make up there mind on what they want to sell people. These games you can get for 10 each used at gamestop and have been available since launch day. I dont know about you but if this is gonna make you want to buy a PS3 then you must be crazy. I would rather not take these games and and have a 50 price cut from thie system so i can then go buy a recently released game that has an online community with people still playing the game.[/quote]

Umm, the 360 has multiple SKUs as well. And small correction, those games aren't 10 dollars each at gamestop, motorstorm is 15 bucks used and resistance is 27 bucks used. Heavy emphasis on the word "used" since this bundle offers UNUSED games. This is a DEAL, but not necessary the best of them. If I were you guys, i'd check out the Dell thread and look into getting a system from there (20% or 23% off).
 
What does different SKUs have anything to do with what Wolfpup said? Besides, the 360 has had a ton of SKUs, too. Core, Arcade, Premium/Pro, Elite, and various limited editions, as well. I don't see how any of that determines whether or not this is a good deal.

Also, while you are almost right about Motorstorm ($15 used at GameStop), Resistance is $27.

EDIT: Well, someone beat me to it. That's what you get for not refreshing your page.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can y'all seriously shut the fuck up and talk about whether this bundle is a deal or not?[/quote]

Nope. Next question.
 
wait...coming to Target? I guess they feel they're unstoppable after that Shaun White snowboarding exclusive!! Too soon? :whistle2:#
 
[quote name='akokonas']First off buddy they have had about 6 different SKU since it was released in nearly 2.5 years ago, and they cant make up there mind on what they want to sell people. These games you can get for 10 each used at gamestop and have been available since launch day. I dont know about you but if this is gonna make you want to buy a PS3 then you must be crazy. I would rather not take these games and and have a 50 price cut from thie system so i can then go buy a recently released game that has an online community with people still playing the game.[/quote]
Well you have to factor in that they had to push the Bluray factor earlier in order to win the format war. Now that, that has been achieved they will focus mostly on the games aspect. As others have said, that is not the price for these games, and that is used prices. And Motorstorm has not been available since launch either.

This won't make your avg CAG buy a PS3 unless they were almost ready to get one at this point in time, but it will help your avg Joe consumer who knows that this is better than a PS3 with no games included and doesn't know a lot beyond that in terms of deals and when a price cut will happen.

Yes, everyone would rather have a price cut, but its most likely not economically feasible right now. Just because we all want one doesn't mean they should be forced to have one when they cannot afford it. This is a decent deal, $60 new worth of games (great games). If you want a price cut take the Dell deal $319 right now or the next giftcard deal. Otherwise just wait a few months.
 
[quote name='MSUHitman']Fenton, MO Target had this out in the PS3 section of the case. See it: [/quote]

25971108184269270136672.jpg
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']I can understand when someone says the PS3 is expensive, especially in these tough economic times. It is a lot of money to spend. But I just hate when people say the PS3 is "overpriced." $400 is a great deal for what you're getting.[/quote]

Lets do some math:

PS3 = $400

360 (Arcade) = $200
Wii = $250

Wii + 360 = $450 (shipped from amazon.com)

For $50 more you can have both a 360 and a Wii than a PS3.

A PS3 for most people is overpriced because it is still considered a Blu-Ray Player that also plays videogames. As simple as that.

I know 3 casual gamers that bought a PS3 because first and foremost they needed a Blu-Ray player and as a bonus this machine also played some games so they saw this as a way of saving $300 on getting a 360 or $250 on getting a Wii for their gaming needs.
 
[quote name='oasisboy']Lets do some math:

PS3 = $400

360 (Arcade) = $200
Wii = $250

Wii + 360 = $450 (shipped from amazon.com)

For $50 more you can have both a 360 and a Wii than a PS3.

A PS3 for most people is overpriced because it is still considered a Blu-Ray Player that also plays videogames. As simple as that.

I know 3 casual gamers that bought a PS3 because first and foremost they needed a Blu-Ray player and as a bonus this machine also played some games so they saw this as a way of saving $300 on getting a 360 or $250 on getting a Wii for their gaming needs.[/quote]

Well, I know 3 casual gamers who only own a PS3, and use it for games, not movies.

So, my 3 cancels out your 3.

Good day.
 
[quote name='oasisboy']A PS3 for most people is overpriced because it is still considered a Blu-Ray Player that also plays videogames. As simple as that.[/quote]

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. To many people, even a 360 Arcade is over-priced, because they don't play games. A certain group's opinion...in this case, people who don't want high-def movies...isn't going to formulate the perception of a product. You need to take the entire market into consideration. And when you do, the realization hits that $400 for what you're getting is a very good deal, considering you're getting a Blu-ray player (and a good one, at that) and a game console in one.
 
[quote name='oasisboy']Lets do some math:

PS3 = $400

360 (Arcade) = $200
Wii = $250

Wii + 360 = $450 (shipped from amazon.com)

For $50 more you can have both a 360 and a Wii than a PS3.

A PS3 for most people is overpriced because it is still considered a Blu-Ray Player that also plays videogames. As simple as that.

I know 3 casual gamers that bought a PS3 because first and foremost they needed a Blu-Ray player and as a bonus this machine also played some games so they saw this as a way of saving $300 on getting a 360 or $250 on getting a Wii for their gaming needs.[/quote]

You conveniently leave out a few details...

-- The PS3 comes with an 80 GB hard drive. Neither the 360 nor the Wii has a hard drive. You cannot add a HDD to the Wii. If you want to add a 120 GB HDD to the 360, add another $135 to your total.
-- The PS3 comes with a wireless adapter. The 360 does not come with a wireless adapter, the Wii does. If you want to add a wireless adapter to the 360, add another $87 to the total.
-- You want to watch hi-def movies. The Wii cannot play DVD's nor blu-rays. The 360 can play DVD's. You better add an additional $200 for a blu-ray player.
-- You want to play games online. The Wii's online gaming is a joke. And you need to pay for the 360. You better add another $30 a year to the total.

So a more realistic comparison would be:
Your previous total: $450
360 120 GB HDD + $135
360 wireless + $87
blu-ray player + $200
1 year XBOX Live + $30
-------------------------
Total = $902

Just for fun, let's take out the Wii. So $250 come off that total. It is still $652

Seems like the PS3 is the better deal to me.
 
I own a PS3 (two 60 GB models), and both of these games. Here's my take :

Resistance is a GREAT game, and IMO one of the most underrated (or maybe under appreciated) games in years.

Motorstorm is a great idea, and looks pretty good, but has one major problem - IT'S NOT FUN. That's why this game is available so cheap used, and Resistance is not.

PS3's seem to be available from Dell for $319 all the time, so the price drop has already happened, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217963

One other comment: because of the scratch resistant coating on PS3 games (and all Blu-ray disks), used PS3 games are a much safer bet than any other system.

(I also own a 360 and a Wii, and play the 360 more than anything because of Live)
 
[quote name='Hocus Cadabra']
Resistance is a GREAT game, and IMO one of the most underrated (or maybe under appreciated) games in years.

Motorstorm is a great idea, and looks pretty good, but has one major problem - IT'S NOT FUN. That's why this game is available so cheap used, and Resistance is not.

PS3's seem to be available from Dell for $319 all the time, so the price drop has already happened, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217963

One other comment: because of the scratch resistant coating on PS3 games (and all Blu-ray disks), used PS3 games are a much safer bet than any other system.

(I also own a 360 and a Wii, and play the 360 more than anything because of Live)[/quote]
Thought the same about Resistance. Motorstorm became fun for me only when I reached 30% complete through the end of game, but online was awesome. I think a major reason for its low used price is that it was in a bundle. Yup, people should just use Dell as so many of us have suggested. Great point about the coating. I used to play 360 the most but haven't touched it since I got a PS3.

Who compares the value of 360 Arcade to a PS3...

Fair comparison:
360 Arcade--- $200
60 gb or 120 gb HDD--- $100-135(deal)-160
Xbox Live---$30(deal)-50
= $330-410 (deal vs msrp)
Or add 87-100 for possible Wifi, & no ability to view Bluray, Add a Wii.
= $667-760

VS

PS3--- $319-400
HDMI---$4
=$323-404 (deal vs msrp) Or Add a Wii...
= $573-654
 
[quote name='Rouzhokuu']Well, I know 3 casual gamers who only own a PS3, and use it for games, not movies.

So, my 3 cancels out your 3.

Good day.[/quote]

Wow, those 3 people need to buy some Blu-Ray movies otherwise they are wasting a big feature of this console :lol:
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']

1. To many people, even a 360 Arcade is over-priced, because they don't play games.

2. the realization hits that $400 for what you're getting is a very good deal, considering you're getting a Blu-ray player (and a good one, at that) and a game console in one.[/quote]

1. The fact is that the 360 arcade is the cheapest next gen videogame console you can buy. If you dont want to spend $200 on a console, then probably you just dont want to play videogames . Your argument that a 360 is over-priced for people that dont play videogames does not make any sense... people dont buy a 360 to watch DVD movies (if that is the case then buy a cheap $30 DVD player!)

2. Why is $400 such a good deal when you can buy a Magnavox Blu-Ray player for $200 at Wal-Mart? Do you think everyone cares enough about all the extra features that a PS3 has compared to this cheap Magnavox Blu-Ray player? You think a 55 year old female wants to spend an extra $200 for a PS3 because it has more Blu-Ray features and plays games?
 
[quote name='blitz6speed']ROFL. So bitter. HD DVD NEVER had a chance. EVER. PERIOD. You need to accept that and move on. Its cool man, you can buy your favorite movies on a dead format for pennies on the dollar, what are you crying about![/quote]
I'm not even close to bitter. I have both blu and HD...and there's no reason to not buy HDDVDs for pennies on the dollar when I have the chance - they're hidef, they play fine, and are loads cheaper than the Blu equivalents. All the new stuff i get is in blu...I've done sid0by side comparisons of the Transformers discs, and they're identical. Price is like $5 for HD, and $25 for blu - it's a no brainer. Dead format or not.

And the timeline really worked like this, without pulling numbers - HD was pissing on Blu, Blu catches up, Toshiba price drop, HD spike, CES debacle, Blu wins. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but there was a hidef digest article claiming that minus PS3 sales, at one point, HDDVD standalone players outsold blu standalone players 6:1 (150k install base vs. 25k).

Regardless...I'm actually kinda glad blu won out, BUT the prices have sucked for a while still. The deals on new discs BLOW.
 
[quote name='J7.']

Who compares the value of 360 Arcade to a PS3...

Fair comparison:
360 Arcade--- $200
60 gb or 120 gb HDD--- $100-135(deal)-160
Xbox Live---$30(deal)-50
= $330-410 (deal vs msrp)
Or add 87-100 for possible Wifi, & no ability to view Bluray, Add a Wii.
= $667-760

VS

PS3--- $319-400
HDMI---$4
=$323-404 (deal vs msrp) Or Add a Wii...
= $573-654[/quote]

Or you can buy a 360 console for the dentist office for $199.99 and let the 6-8 year old kids playing Sega Tennis while they wait for their dentist as compared to spending $400 for a PS3.

My point is, you dont need all this wireless adaptor, Blu-Ray player, online play, Hard drive, etc. As the example mentioned above, I have been to dentist offices and haircut places for kids that have a 360 because its the cheaper GAME console. If you just want a game console without the fancy add-ons, the 360 is the best value out there.
 
[quote name='oasisboy']1. The fact is that the 360 arcade is the cheapest next gen videogame console you can buy. If you dont want to spend $200 on a console, then probably you just dont want to play videogames . Your argument that a 360 is over-priced for people that dont play videogames does not make any sense... people dont buy a 360 to watch DVD movies (if that is the case then buy a cheap $30 DVD player!)[/quote]

:roll:

Do you actually read people's posts and think about them before you respond? My argument makes perfect sense. You're trying to say that if people don't want a Blu-ray player, then the PS3 is "overpriced." The same goes with any product that people don't want or need the features of. So, to a person who doesn't want a game console, they could look at the 360 and tell you, "That's overpriced. You shouldn't waste your money on that." The point...again...for those in the class who weren't paying attention...was that you need to look at the total market, not one segment of it.

2. Why is $400 such a good deal when you can buy a Magnavox Blu-Ray player for $200 at Wal-Mart? Do you think everyone cares enough about all the extra features that a PS3 has compared to this cheap Magnavox Blu-Ray player? You think a 55 year old female wants to spend an extra $200 for a PS3 because it has more Blu-Ray features and plays games?
Well, you pretty much answered my question from before. You don't actually read and think. You just respond. I'm not saying someone is just going to buy the PS3 for Blu-ray. I'm saying that total package is a great deal. Compare Sony's $400 console to Microsoft's $400 console. Wow...

That being said, I know plenty of people who paid more for the PS3 over a standard Blu-ray player, even though they aren't really into games, simply because the PS3 affords them more options, like use of the PSN Store and the ability to install Linux as a Sony-supported feature...or the choice to play a game or two in the future, if they so desire.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']:roll:

1. Do you actually read people's posts and think about them before you respond? My argument makes perfect sense.

2. You're trying to say that if people don't want a Blu-ray player, then the PS3 is "overpriced."

3. The same goes with any product that people don't want or need the features of. So, to a person who doesn't want a game console, they could look at the 360 and tell you, "That's overpriced.

4. Well, you pretty much answered my question from before. You don't actually read and think. You just respond.

5. I'm not saying someone is just going to buy the PS3 for Blu-ray. I'm saying that total package is a great deal. Compare Sony's $400 console to Microsoft's $400 console. Wow...

[/quote]

1. Are you wearing a Sony Playstation baseball cap right now?

2. Take off that Sony baseball cap and read carefully. The PS3 is overpriced because there are cheaper Blu-Ray players out there that cost half the price of the console. From my neighbors, acquaintances, friends etc that bought a PS3, they bought the console mainly because it plays Blu-Ray movies and is also a gaming console. I am talking about casual gamers that would only buy $30 games. In my opinion the console is overpriced, it should cost $300 and thats the price most analysts say is the sweet spot for high sales of consoles (I am too tired to look for a link).

3. The same goes for people that only want a Blu-Ray player, they would say the PS3 is over priced.

4. And you just defend Sony to its death no matter what.

5. Yes, Microsoft has a $400 console that does not play Blu-Ray, nobody is forcing people to buy the elite console. If you are broke, you can afford a $199 arcade console and play games (pac-man, sport titles, etc) without a hard drive. Or you can buy a Pro for $299 and get the 60 gig hard drive plus some games with it. Sony is forcing you to buy this $400 package and how about if you dont care about online or Blu-Ray, tough luck champ.
 
My 360 arcade was $160, the 60gb live kit gave me a headset and 3 months of live for $70. So for $230 I was set.

I don't need blu-ray, I don't need wifi. I'm a gamer. I want a gaming system.

I'm not touching a PS3 for more than $250. I did before, I ended up reselling it. The Metal Gear Solid 4 movie, Ratchet & Clank and Resistance weren't enough to get me to keep the system.

I tried the Bluray approach, I wasn't impressed enough to keep the system just for that.

So yes, the PS3 is over-priced for a gamer who just wants to game. It's a game console. There should be a version of it that's targeted to people that just want to game.

I hate how extreme Sony fanboys are. If you say the PS3 is overpriced, they act like you are either too cheap to be a gamer or to ignorant to appreciate "HD Movies". Did it ever occur to you guys that some people just want to play games on their consoles?
 
bread's done
Back
Top