TIME magazine deems PS3 a bust.

[quote name='rickonker']There are a few but the market is very small for them.[/QUOTE]

What are they? In any case, if they are for a niche market, then you surely want the PS3 to shoulder the brunt of development costs. It's just silly to say that it shouldn't.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Do you have a link for the R&D costs? I'm not saying you're wrong but I would be seriously surprised if Nintendo spent more on R&D than even MS. My guess is that R&D costs for the 360 were much more than the Wii's, because of the CPU and GPU. And even for Sony, you'd have to count at least a part of the Cell development costs towards the PS3.

Did the Wii Remote really cost more to develop than the 360's brand new CPU and GPU? I know Nintendo didn't invent the motion sensing technology.[/QUOTE]

While Nintendo isnt the easiest person to trust, I trust Shiggy. Miyamato was the one that said that when he started work on the Wiimote their intent was to make a $100ish system that was very cheap and fun. However again as time went on expenses went up including all the extras they put in the system untill it became $200 to make a profit on. You have to take into consideration that other companies sell their systems at a loss. Sonys PS3 is supposed to cost around $700 I believe meaning they are loosing $100 on every system. Nintendo isnt the market leader nor are they MS and they just cant afford to do that.

Again with R&D and the extras I think $200 was the best price for the system, however $250 while pushing it is acceptable. I also again think its unfair for you to complain about that price when you think the 360 has an acceptable price or atleast you have implied so. That makes me question if this for you is more of a matter of preffrance then going on actual logic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What are they? In any case, if they are for a niche market, then you surely want the PS3 to shoulder the brunt of development costs. It's just silly to say that it shouldn't.[/QUOTE]
Some high end servers, stuff like that which very few people will use compared to the PS3. And yes, that's my point too...most of the Cell's development costs should be counted as part of the PS3's.

Also Toshiba wants to put them in TVs...yes that sounds stupid to me too.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']While Nintendo isnt the easiest person to trust, I trust Shiggy. Miyamato was the one that said that when he started work on the Wiimote their intent was to make a $100ish system that was very cheap and fun. However again as time went on expenses went up including all the extras they put in the system untill it became $200 to make a profit on. You have to take into consideration that other companies sell their systems at a loss. Sonys PS3 is supposed to cost around $700 I believe meaning they are loosing $100 on every system. Nintendo isnt the market leader nor are they MS and they just cant afford to do that.

Again with R&D and the extras I think $200 was the best price for the system, however $250 while pushing it is acceptable. I also again think its unfair for you to complain about that price when you think the 360 has an acceptable price or atleast you have implied so. That makes me question if this for you is more of a matter of preffrance then going on actual logic.[/QUOTE]

It's nice that you trust Shiggy but that's not much of an argument. You have to remember that so far it looks like the Wii's CPU and GPU look like they haven't been improved over the Gamecube at all except for clock speed.

I think all 3 consoles should be cheaper, but the 360 is less of a ripoff right now than the other 2.

Also it's strange that you're accusing me of using preference over logic when you start your post with "I trust Shiggy"...
 
This weekend, one of my friends opened up a PS3 from his wife on Saturday. He was psyced. I already had my Wii since launch, and he tried it and wanted to see what the PS3 offered. He got the 60GB model. But lo and behold, he doesn't have an HD TV. He plugs in the regular composite cables, and the system looks like shit. His glee turns to gloom. He plays Fall of Man, which looks ok; but been there done that ( Half Life, Doom 3, ect) After one hour, he says "forget this, lets get back to Madden on Wii." Guess what he sold on ebay and picked up at Target. Lol, yup, a brand new Wii. Guess who also has been sleeping on the couch the last few nights since then!
 
I think that's going to be a lot of people's experience. Buy a PS3 because of the initial hype, and brand name, sell it later when they realize what they paid for, and what they got, and when they get bored.

That was the case with the PSP when it launched.. decent sales, a few months of ownership, and they started popping up used EVERYWHERE. I was working retail at this time and all the GameCrazy chains in southeastern wisconsin were seeing this.

Kayden really pisses me off, because he's obviously blind to what everyday, normal people do and how they use technology. It's funny that the guy showing of the "specs" of his PC in his signature, and how he "builds" PCs for a living is the one making fun of someone for a FFX tattoo. Grow up, already.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I think that's going to be a lot of people's experience. Buy a PS3 because of the initial hype, and brand name, sell it later when they realize what they paid for, and what they got, and when they get bored.

That was the case with the PSP when it launched.. decent sales, a few months of ownership, and they started popping up used EVERYWHERE. I was working retail at this time and all the GameCrazy chains in southeastern wisconsin were seeing this.

Kayden really pisses me off, because he's obviously blind to what everyday, normal people do and how they use technology. It's funny that the guy showing of the "specs" of his PC in his signature, and how he "builds" PCs for a living is the one making fun of someone for a FFX tattoo. Grow up, already.[/QUOTE]

Shouldnt insult him, especially nto on my part...just brings you to his level. Anyways I agree though that this is probally going to be somewhat similar to the PSPs where the sales go in spikes...bad sadly for Sony so do returns. However, I think that the Playstation name is huge and Sony is still getting some awsome exclusives. I think that unlike the PSP we will see the Playstation 3 eventually be top dog. Not by nearly as large of a margin as last gen, but it will still happan.
 
I see it becoming just like the PSP. The PSP was $250 (PS3 = $600) at launch and sold extremely well. The DS was $150 (Wii = $250) at launch and also sold well. Both had shitty launch games (for the most part) but the DS came back the next year with one solid title after another. While the PSP, being the more powerful and more expensive system, had unoriginal Ps2 ports and had owners (like myself) saying "I'll wait for the good games to come out." Then hardware sales dwindled for the PSP and there was talk of the PSP being outsold by the DS by a slight margin. Then used PSPs popped up everywhere.

If we were to go back to 2004 when the DS and PSP were announced, most people were already convinced that the PSP would completely outsell the DS and stomp it into the ground. fast forward to now... The DS lite nailed the PSP coffin shut this xmas. The DS, a two year old system, was sold out everywhere this xmas but you could walk into any store and see PSP upon PSP collecting dust. Not only that, but every movie company dropped the UMD format.

It's sad but true for the PSP. The expensive, hyped, beautiful, advanced, huge screened, mp3 playing, UMD watching, internet browsing, E-mail checking system (sound familiar? PS3 *cough*). Sure it has it's few devoted fans (although i don't know why) but I cringe when someone asks me "Hey what's a good PSP game?" knowing that I can only respond with maybe 3 - 5 titles.

What I'm trying to say is the PS3 is a big PSP and the Wii is a big DS. People will buy both but only question one of those purchases a year from now. But unlike the DS and PSP battle, it wont be lack of good games that drive the PS3 into dead last. It will be the lack of exclusive games. Remember the 360 had a one year head start to be America's next PS2. Which means most people own one already and wont feel the reason to purchase another console for a game they can play on their 360.

Im trying to make this make sense but I'm retarted and tired, so it's kind of hard. Just want to say I'm not a fanboy. I love the PS2 it's one of my favorite game consoles ever. The XBOX was a paperweight in my house and the Cube was barely above that (smash and zelda got tons of love). But i do love my 360, and i do love my Wii, I just don't see what there is to love about a PS3.
 
Don't worry. The Sony damage control will come along and accuse you of being a fanboy, no matter how much you previously liked the PS1 and PS2. There's no way you could just be smart enough to see that the PS3 isn't worth it.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Don't worry. The Sony damage control will come along and accuse you of being a fanboy, no matter how much you previously liked the PS1 and PS2. There's no way you could just be smart enough to see that the PS3 isn't worth it.[/quote]

They won't come to call us fanboys. They are too busy taking pictures and listing an eBay auction for their PS3. After all, everyone deserves a fresh start for the new year...a second chance to make good choices

*cough* X360 *cough*

:lol: :applause:
 
[quote name='nintendokid']They won't come to call us fanboys. They are too busy taking pictures and listing an eBay auction for their PS3. After all, everyone deserves a fresh start for the new year...a second chance to make good choices

*cough* X360 *cough*

:lol: :applause:[/QUOTE]

No offense but since you want to promote your system as the best. Lets look at the facts.

1. Alot of Xbox 360 games are available on the PC
2. Alot of the ones coming out, especially big games are again going to PC but worse now the PS3 as well.
3. While cheaper then the PS3 you have to pay for extras like online and the system is $150 more then the Wii($200 if yuo count that you have to pay $50 to get it online).

Id say its easy to say that the PS3 is the stupid choice for a system to buy right now. But id say there is no clear cut winner, if I HAD to argue one being the best though id say Wii for the simple fact its $150 cheaper, guranteed atleast Nintendo exclusives and comes with a free game and online.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Didn't Time magazine also deem the N64 a bust?[/QUOTE]

Not sure, but while that system made alot of money it ended up being a bust.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Not sure, but while that system made alot of money it ended up being a bust.[/quote]

If N64 had released with only one game, Super Mario 64, and nothing else, it would've still been the game system to redefine games as we know. Everything we know today - 3-D environments, control, camera, and gameplay - was reinvented and refined by the N64 launch. Not one day afterward, not one month, not one year. On launch day, every other game that came out used N64's backbone.

3-D analog control? N64. Two analog sticks? N64 promoted the growth of duality control and console shooters with the C-buttons. Rumble? Rumble-Pak introduced controller feedback for consoles. Lock-on target gameplay? Z-targeting.

...Bust...yeah, right....
 
[quote name='nintendokid']If N64 had released with only one game, Super Mario 64, and nothing else, it would've still been the game system to redefine games as we know. Everything we know today - 3-D environments, control, camera, and gameplay - was reinvented and refined by the N64 launch. Not one day afterward, not one month, not one year. On launch day, every other game that came out used N64's backbone.

3-D analog control? N64. Two analog sticks? N64 promoted the growth of duality control and console shooters with the C-buttons. Rumble? Rumble-Pak introduced controller feedback for consoles. Lock-on target gameplay? Z-targeting.

...Bust...yeah, right....[/QUOTE]

There were 3D games before the N64 and there would have been 3D games afterwards(while The Saturn was being hyped as the ultimate 2D machine Sony was showing off 3D vids for the PSX). Its similar to making an argument that Chrono Trigger created TV marketing for RPGs...its just not true. Most of the things it gave us it does deserve credit for.....but most of it was happaning anyways...hell alot of it the N64 and its games didnt invent they just popularaized.

And a bust is different from revolutionary. The N64 did do some good things. But so may the PS3 which your bashing in this topic. Blu Ray and many other things could go on to change the industry yet your bashing it. Regardless it doesnt matter, a bust is more about succese. Yes the N64 was a finacial succese but only because Nintendo was happy to make profit while loosing the market. When it comes to general opinion, systems sold, control of the market etc etc....the N64 flopped. I dont see how you can try to argue otherwise when the system took Nintendo from king of the hill to struggling for third.
 
Do you mean NiGHTS?! LOL!

You refuse to acknowledge how N64 revolutionized gaming because of your own biases - that's it. It's like if I stood in front of you saying something like:

"Well, Albert Einstein isn't that great of a genius because there could have been people who were smarter but where never discovered or never had the chance to develop because they grew up in bad homes. I'm sure if someone else sat long enough in a chair they could've came up with the theory of relativity."

OR

"Benjamin Franklin was alright, but I'm sure someone else could've invented the harmonica and bifocals even if he didn't invent them."
 
WTF are you even trying to say now Nintendokid? How could you NOT consider the N64 a bust when it took Nintendo out of its top spot and they lost multiple exclusives?
 
Lol, the N64 wasn't a bust? Come on, lets be rationale. It WAS a bust. Nintendo did do some good things with the N64 but the weaker third party support is the reason Sony began their dominant rise to the top. Deserving rise to the top? Maybe not.

TIME magazine isn't exactly the best judge of whether the PS3 is going to be a "bust" or not. The better question is, has it so far lived up to the hype? The answer is to me a clear no.

I own a PS3, a 360 and a wii. The PS3 does have potential, though, so do not count it out so quickly. Its largest issue will be getting the exclusives it was able to get on its previous systems. With the high development costs for games for the PS3, third party support will still be there but will likely not be exclusive in most instances.

Right now, we have 3 great systems with a lot of potential. Its too early to call the Playstation 3 a bust or the wii a massive success. The wii has lived up to the hype so far according to the mainstream gamers while the Playstation 3 has not. Lets revisit the topic 12 months from now and then you can get a better (but still not complete) view on the topic.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Do you mean NiGHTS?! LOL!

You refuse to acknowledge how N64 revolutionized gaming because of your own biases - that's it. It's like if I stood in front of you saying something like:

"Well, Albert Einstein isn't that great of a genius because there could have been people who were smarter but where never discovered or never had the chance to develop because they grew up in bad homes. I'm sure if someone else sat long enough in a chair they could've came up with the theory of relativity."

OR

"Benjamin Franklin was alright, but I'm sure someone else could've invented the harmonica and bifocals even if he didn't invent them."[/QUOTE]

First off im not saying that the N64 wasnt revolutionary because it was. Howver as I said it was stuff that was already in the processe of happaning. We had already seen 3D games, we had already seen targeting etc etc. Nintendo was like Sony and disk based games. Yes they did it....but it was a direcetion the industry was heading anyways. Other people may have invented things like the light bulb if Edison wouldnt have done it....but it wasnt an invention that alot of people were already working on.

All this is besides the point though. The basic point is the system was a bust. It doesnt matter if something is revolutionary. If its ass is kicked in both sales and content then well it was a bust.
 
I'm still chuckling over the talk of PS3 being DOA. Moreover, I think the "PS3 is overpriced" argument is incorrect and trite at best, and people foolishly desiring to see Sony overthrown at worst (with no proper logic behind that, of course).

Now, let me suggest something rarely mentioned: all the talk of the "overpricing" of the PS3 centers around the controversial decision to include the Blu-Ray drive. Simply put, I think that's overstated. Let me form my reason in the phrase of a question: what do you think the cost of the Xbox 360 would be if it included the original Xbox chipset on board in order to be 100% backwards compatible?

BC, in my opinion, is lost in the discussion. Sony has designed the PS3 to not only play your PS2 games, but PS1 games over a decade old. On Microsoft's end, they went with an entirely new chipset that makes Xbox gameplay only possible via software emulation. As a result, I argue, they have cost themselves revenue in the form of software support for the Xbox in the year 2006, and into 2007. It had, with few exceptions, been dead for this whole year.

With the Xbox, it is a crapshoot (1) if a game you want to play will work on the 360, and (2) if not, when (if ever) it may work. We've already seen rumblings of MS discontinuing support of increasing the BC list for the 360, and can any of you truly claim that you would be surprised to see MS cease supporting new titles in the future (at any point)?

In the last generation, I would, without fail, buy the Xbox version of a multiplatform title. All my Splinter Cells, Princes of Persia, Atari Anthology, Mega Man Collection, (ad nauseum) were the Xbox versions. Now I have to look and see if it works before playing it. I've since placed all my non-BC Xbox games in a large box (perhaps more than one, embarrassingly enough) to be looked at or sold later. When I go into a store I don't give the Xbox shelf so much as a glance. Instead, I'm looking at the PS2 games now, because I can be assured that they will work (and the criteria Sony uses for "nonworking" PS2 games is quite generous, as the vast majority of those "nonworking" titles would easily pass Microsoft's "BC" testing, based on the paltry problems they exhibit).

So, when I want to buy a game, I can buy a new or used PS2 title. That's money in Sony's pocket. A revenue source that Microsoft has completely abandoned, in fact. I don't begrudge MS for their choices, as, truth be told, as time goes on the market for last-gen titles will become solely the domain of used games, which they make no money on. But, my major point is that the PS3 is more than "$100 more than the 360 for a glorified movie player." I can fire up Bully when I want, Sega Genesis Collection, Capcom Classics Volume 2, SFA Collection, God of War, or any of my previous PS2 games. I can even plow through that metaphysical nightmare Xenogears again, should I desire.

What's that worth to you as a gamer? It's hard to quantify, I reason; nevertheless, as we consider the PS3 for what it does offer that the other consoles do not, the "it's overpriced" argument becomes more and more tenuous. This does not mean, of course, that it is a bargain value bonanza for what it offers. There is a median between those extremes under which "it is a fair price for all that it offers" falls.

The other arguments against it (it doesn't upscale PS2 titles or regular DVDs, it doesn't allow for background downloads, etc.) are understood, but they are also problems that Microsoft encountered and tangled with upon the release of the 360. It would be a shame to see these problems not dealt with in future software updates, but they can assuredly be handled that way.

Also, let me reiterate something I said earlier, just to be clear: the PS3 is $500 if you want to argue on certain elements of functionality. The 60GB model includes features that are unrelated to the aspects of the console being debated in this thread, so with that being the case, let's discuss the system as costing $500. Considering what it offers that the 360 does not, it's little more than hyperbole and unnecessary outrage to claim that Sony is ripping people off. eBay sellers sure may try to, but Sony itself is not, again, in my opinion.

And before you decide to label me as a fanboy, please be assured that, if you name a console, I do own it (well, perhaps not N-Gage). I'm not paid by anybody to stand behind a console and support it, and I do so on its own merits. I think the 360 has done things, as a console, leaps and bounds above the PS3 thus far, and most of it has to do with what it offers in the online store, friends lists, achievements, and the online community - all related to its connectivity. I think the Wii is also a fine system. I just happen to think this Sony-bashing is a bunch of poorly-thought out nonsense based on nothing more than (1) the desire to see Sony be put out of first place in the console wars (I'm not quite sure why that is the case), and (2) the fact that it is chic amongst hardcore gamers to dislike Sony. I hope I've offered some reasonable explanation as to why I don't think the PS3 is either a bargain or overpriced. I hope that you agree.
 
You can justify the price a million different ways but in the end $500/$600 for a PS3 is still too much money for most normal people. Even the 360 is pushing it at $400, although the 360 isn't really $400 any more since there is a significant deal almost every week now.

If you don't think the prices are too high for the mainstream than you need to look back to the last generation. The PS2 and Xbox were fairly successful at the $299 price point but the sales numbers didn't start to get huge until both systems hit $199. Thats because even $299 was too much for the mainstream. How long do you think it's going to take the PS3 to get into that price range? Maybe never. That might not be that big of a deal if they were making money on the hardware but with the amount of money they lose on each system they need to get them in as many homes as possible to drive software sales. Their whole business model seems broken this gen but I guess we will see.

The same goes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They can have outstanding quality and a million features but until they are $150 or less they will be nothing more than a niche.
 
[quote name='Puzznic']You can justify the price a million different ways but in the end $500/$600 for a PS3 is still too much money for most normal people. Even the 360 is pushing it at $400, although the 360 isn't really $400 any more since there is a significant deal almost every week now.

If you don't think the prices are too high for the mainstream than you need to look back to the last generation. The PS2 and Xbox were fairly successful at the $299 price point but the sales numbers didn't start to get huge until both systems hit $199. Thats because even $299 was too much for the mainstream. How long do you think it's going to take the PS3 to get into that price range? Maybe never. That might not be that big of a deal if they were making money on the hardware but with the amount of money they lose on each system they need to get them in as many homes as possible to drive software sales. Their whole business model seems broken this gen but I guess we will see.

The same goes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They can have outstanding quality and a million features but until they are $150 or less they will be nothing more than a niche.[/QUOTE]

Good point. Last gen while the PS3 and Xbox did sell at $300 it wasnt till after price drops that they really took off. If people just a few years ago were not willing to pay $300 how can we expect them to pay $600 now. I think that if MS would drop to $300(or if Nintendo would have started at $200)they would make a killing since it is more like a proper price in alot of peoples views.

As for HD-DVD/Blu Ray again I think the issue is not only that people are not willing to drop that price on the player itself but also people dont want to have to restart their DVD collections. The difference between VHS and DVD was HUGE. Videos went from crappy and huge lines in the screen, videos that could break easily and videos that you had to physically FF/RW through to ones that were near realistic with no lines, wouldnt break and you could skip scenes. People were ready and down for that. But what are HD-DVD and Blu Ray really offering? Ya not much, let alone enough to justify the price AND restarting your DVD collection.

I know alot of people like my neighbors, my parents and my aunt who just got a DVD player in the last year or two. How are you going to justify to them the price of a new format that doesnt support their old purchases?
 
If Blu-ray wasn't competing with HD-DVD and it was as big of an improvement as DVD was, then maybe the PS3 would be worth it. But even then only if you wanted a Blu-ray player.

mykevermin it sounds like your main reason for thinking the PS3 isn't overpriced is the backwards compatibility. I agree that MS messed up on that, but it's not worth paying so much more just for BC. BTW, Sony wanted to use the same method MS is using for BC, but they couldn't get it done in time. The PS2 chip is not that expensive either.
 
How long do you think it's going to take the PS3 to get into that price range? Maybe never.

This is a good point. Let's say that we see a $100 price drop every 'holiday season', starting with 2007's. That means that the 20GB version would take a minimum of three years to hit that 'magic' price point, and the 60GB version obviously four. Problem is, Sony hasn't made such drastic cuts so quickly, so for now, that timeline seems likely to remain strictly hypothetical. The PS2 in six years has seen its MSRP lopped by $170 dollars, or by roughly 57%. For the 20GB version alone, to get to $199.99 would be about the same percentage cut, but would take forever at the rate they've established.

To say that they're going to have to be far more aggressive in this area is a safe bet for "Understatement of This Generation", even if people are willing to accept $299.99 as the new 'mass market' price tag.
 
[quote name='Puzznic']You can justify the price a million different ways but in the end $500/$600 for a PS3 is still too much money for most normal people. Even the 360 is pushing it at $400, although the 360 isn't really $400 any more since there is a significant deal almost every week now.

If you don't think the prices are too high for the mainstream than you need to look back to the last generation. The PS2 and Xbox were fairly successful at the $299 price point but the sales numbers didn't start to get huge until both systems hit $199. Thats because even $299 was too much for the mainstream. How long do you think it's going to take the PS3 to get into that price range? Maybe never. That might not be that big of a deal if they were making money on the hardware but with the amount of money they lose on each system they need to get them in as many homes as possible to drive software sales. Their whole business model seems broken this gen but I guess we will see.

The same goes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They can have outstanding quality and a million features but until they are $150 or less they will be nothing more than a niche.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate your points, but you're responding to a different argument than the one I made. There's two lines of thought here: (1) the PS3 is overpriced based on what the system is comprised of, and (2) the PS3 is overpriced based on what the public will pay. I was only making arguments with regard to the first point, as that seems to be the center of the argument here; there's a great deal of speculation that the BR drive is the lone factor that made the PS3 go from a good system capable of competition with the 360 to an overpriced hunk of junk. I think it's more complex than that.

As for if people will continue to pay $500-$600 for it, well...that remains to be seen. If eBay is an indication, people sure aren't willing to pay much more than that. This means either that the price of the PS3 is more than people are willing to pay, or that the price of the PS3 is just *at* the peak of what people want to pay, and will balk at any price over that. Again, my previous arguments were based not on this, but on what is in the box.

I'm sure that systems sell more when they hit $199, but seeing as what the relative cost of $200 systems were 21 years ago when the NES was released, or in 1991 with the SNES, a "$200 sweet spot" is becoming a bigger and bigger bargain for gamers as a result of inflation. Nevertheless, that point would suggest that all three current-gen systems are overpriced, even the Wii. A few people would agree that it's expensive, but many also see its cost relative to the 360 and PS3 and consider it cheap (though it is more expensive at launch than many other Nintendo consoles).

Lastly, I want to keep things consistent, so please don't try to bring a "the 360 is on sale here and here and here" argument. I'm talking from the perspective of comparing the MSRP for each console. Sales are intermittent and highly variable; unless it is a producer-end temporary or permanent price drop, I'm not considering it.

[quote name='rickonker']mykevermin it sounds like your main reason for thinking the PS3 isn't overpriced is the backwards compatibility. I agree that MS messed up on that, but it's not worth paying so much more just for BC. BTW, Sony wanted to use the same method MS is using for BC, but they couldn't get it done in time. The PS2 chip is not that expensive either.[/QUOTE]

It's one of a number of reasons, but the crux of the discussion here tends to focus on what Sony is doing wrong or what people think Sony is doing wrong. Perhaps I just enjoy playing devil's advocate (or perhaps there's no 'perhaps' needed), but I don't see things quite that way. There are superior aspects of the PS3 that don't reside on the BR drive.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I appreciate your points, but you're responding to a different argument than the one I made. There's two lines of thought here: (1) the PS3 is overpriced based on what the system is comprised of, and (2) the PS3 is overpriced based on what the public will pay. I was only making arguments with regard to the first point, as that seems to be the center of the argument here; there's a great deal of speculation that the BR drive is the lone factor that made the PS3 go from a good system capable of competition with the 360 to an overpriced hunk of junk. I think it's more complex than that.[/QUOTE]


No argument there. For what you are getting, both PS3 models are a good value if you want everything that it contains. They are pretty much selling you a $100 bill for $70.
 
I think the time article wasn't calling the PS3 a bust, but a let down considering all the hype sony promised (in thier mind). Sony claimed that this machine was going to redifine customers expectations and in TIME's opinion it didn't live up to thay hype from day one as suggested by Sony.
 
The price of the PS3 makes the other two next gen systems look very nice to the mainstream casual gaming market. The Wii is a spontanious buy, much like a greatest hits game. Most people, like myself, have to make sure they can afford a PS3 before even thinking about getting one. That's what's going to hurt it in 2007. It's not that people wont want it, it's that a lot of people just can't seem to afford it. Especially when the mainstream isn't used to dropping 600 bones on a gaming system.
 
[quote name='xrickyb86x']The price of the PS3 makes the other two next gen systems look very nice to the mainstream casual gaming market. The Wii is a spontanious buy, much like a greatest hits game. Most people, like myself, have to make sure they can afford a PS3 before even thinking about getting one. That's what's going to hurt it in 2007. It's not that people wont want it, it's that a lot of people just can't seem to afford it. Especially when the mainstream isn't used to dropping 600 bones on a gaming system.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. RIght now alot of people will simply not want a PS3 because the library is lacking and looks to be lacking for quite awhile. However even if the system was to hit its stride in the next year or so it still is going to cost far to much for most people to afford. $250 with the constant inflation of our economy is still small enough that people can save for a few months and buy one. Even poor college kids like myself can save up over time and get one. May take a year but we can. A $600 purchase is $100s more then anyone can afford.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm still chuckling over the talk of PS3 being DOA. Moreover, I think the "PS3 is overpriced" argument is incorrect and trite at best, and people foolishly desiring to see Sony overthrown at worst (with no proper logic behind that, of course).

Now, let me suggest something rarely mentioned: all the talk of the "overpricing" of the PS3 centers around the controversial decision to include the Blu-Ray drive. Simply put, I think that's overstated. Let me form my reason in the phrase of a question: what do you think the cost of the Xbox 360 would be if it included the original Xbox chipset on board in order to be 100% backwards compatible?

BC, in my opinion, is lost in the discussion. Sony has designed the PS3 to not only play your PS2 games, but PS1 games over a decade old. On Microsoft's end, they went with an entirely new chipset that makes Xbox gameplay only possible via software emulation. As a result, I argue, they have cost themselves revenue in the form of software support for the Xbox in the year 2006, and into 2007. It had, with few exceptions, been dead for this whole year.

With the Xbox, it is a crapshoot (1) if a game you want to play will work on the 360, and (2) if not, when (if ever) it may work. We've already seen rumblings of MS discontinuing support of increasing the BC list for the 360, and can any of you truly claim that you would be surprised to see MS cease supporting new titles in the future (at any point)?

In the last generation, I would, without fail, buy the Xbox version of a multiplatform title. All my Splinter Cells, Princes of Persia, Atari Anthology, Mega Man Collection, (ad nauseum) were the Xbox versions. Now I have to look and see if it works before playing it. I've since placed all my non-BC Xbox games in a large box (perhaps more than one, embarrassingly enough) to be looked at or sold later. When I go into a store I don't give the Xbox shelf so much as a glance. Instead, I'm looking at the PS2 games now, because I can be assured that they will work (and the criteria Sony uses for "nonworking" PS2 games is quite generous, as the vast majority of those "nonworking" titles would easily pass Microsoft's "BC" testing, based on the paltry problems they exhibit).

So, when I want to buy a game, I can buy a new or used PS2 title. That's money in Sony's pocket. A revenue source that Microsoft has completely abandoned, in fact. I don't begrudge MS for their choices, as, truth be told, as time goes on the market for last-gen titles will become solely the domain of used games, which they make no money on. But, my major point is that the PS3 is more than "$100 more than the 360 for a glorified movie player." I can fire up Bully when I want, Sega Genesis Collection, Capcom Classics Volume 2, SFA Collection, God of War, or any of my previous PS2 games. I can even plow through that metaphysical nightmare Xenogears again, should I desire.

What's that worth to you as a gamer? It's hard to quantify, I reason; nevertheless, as we consider the PS3 for what it does offer that the other consoles do not, the "it's overpriced" argument becomes more and more tenuous. This does not mean, of course, that it is a bargain value bonanza for what it offers. There is a median between those extremes under which "it is a fair price for all that it offers" falls.

The other arguments against it (it doesn't upscale PS2 titles or regular DVDs, it doesn't allow for background downloads, etc.) are understood, but they are also problems that Microsoft encountered and tangled with upon the release of the 360. It would be a shame to see these problems not dealt with in future software updates, but they can assuredly be handled that way.

Also, let me reiterate something I said earlier, just to be clear: the PS3 is $500 if you want to argue on certain elements of functionality. The 60GB model includes features that are unrelated to the aspects of the console being debated in this thread, so with that being the case, let's discuss the system as costing $500. Considering what it offers that the 360 does not, it's little more than hyperbole and unnecessary outrage to claim that Sony is ripping people off. eBay sellers sure may try to, but Sony itself is not, again, in my opinion.

And before you decide to label me as a fanboy, please be assured that, if you name a console, I do own it (well, perhaps not N-Gage). I'm not paid by anybody to stand behind a console and support it, and I do so on its own merits. I think the 360 has done things, as a console, leaps and bounds above the PS3 thus far, and most of it has to do with what it offers in the online store, friends lists, achievements, and the online community - all related to its connectivity. I think the Wii is also a fine system. I just happen to think this Sony-bashing is a bunch of poorly-thought out nonsense based on nothing more than (1) the desire to see Sony be put out of first place in the console wars (I'm not quite sure why that is the case), and (2) the fact that it is chic amongst hardcore gamers to dislike Sony. I hope I've offered some reasonable explanation as to why I don't think the PS3 is either a bargain or overpriced. I hope that you agree.[/QUOTE]

Okay, you make a good point and all, but you do relealize that the PS3 isn't 100% BC, right? For one, no game that needs a gimmick controller works (so no GH 2). Even then, a good percentage of PS2 and PS1 (especially PS2) games suffer from things as small as graphical glitches, to being out & out broken.

As for price, if the 360 being 100% BC meant raising the price one cent I would be completly against it. Likewise, if Stripping BC out of the PS3 would lower the price in any way I would support it. Hell, if Sony wouldn't have gambled away their future in Blu-Ray and just released it with a standard DVD drive and released it at $400 I would probably actual buy one.

Truth of the matter is that Sony had an insane lead in the console wars, so it decided that it could probably give up a small percentage of their position to push Blu-Ray down our throats and make even more money. PS3 was never really meant to do as well as PS2, just to push BD and make it what PS2 made DVD, the industry standard.

It was a pretty good plan but two things happened:

1) They screwed up the PSP launch.

2) Nintendo's DS & Wii systems becomes the new hot item.

Both were very unexpected and both had a hand at Sony being in dead last (for now at least).
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']Okay, you make a good point and all, but you do relealize that the PS3 isn't 100% BC, right? For one, no game that needs a gimmick controller works (so no GH 2). Even then, a good percentage of PS2 and PS1 (especially PS2) games suffer from things as small as graphical glitches, to being out & out broken.

As for price, if the 360 being 100% BC meant raising the price one cent I would be completly against it. Likewise, if Stripping BC out of the PS3 would lower the price in any way I would support it. Hell, if Sony wouldn't have gambled away their future in Blu-Ray and just released it with a standard DVD drive and released it at $400 I would probably actual buy one.

Truth of the matter is that Sony had an insane lead in the console wars, so it decided that it could probably give up a small percentage of their position to push Blu-Ray down our throats and make even more money. PS3 was never really meant to do as well as PS2, just to push BD and make it what PS2 made DVD, the industry standard.

It was a pretty good plan but two things happened:

1) They screwed up the PSP launch.

2) Nintendo's DS & Wii systems becomes the new hot item.

Both were very unexpected and both had a hand at Sony being in dead last (for now at least).[/QUOTE]

Regarding your last sentence, you certainly seem to be counting your chickens before they are hatched, no? You have good company amongst others in this thread.

Now, I respect your indifference towards BC, but the precedent set by the PS2, GBA and DS in prior years, as well as the fact that all consoles this gen are in some way BC (360 is limited BC, PS3 is fully BC w/ PS2 and PS1, and the Wii is fully compatible with GC, and the VC can be seen as an extension, in a sense, of the BC promise), suggests that BC matters a great deal. I agree with the "just keep your old systems and play the games on them" mentality, but that doesn't mean I don't want BC. Its proliferation seems to suggest that other gamers want it too. Think about it in terms of Nintendo's decision to not include DVD video playback on the Wii - this is only a major problem to people who only own a Wii and no other console from the past 6 years, and also do not own a DVD player. Having DVD playback would be redundant an unnecessary for some people, yet there was a smattering of controversy (not much by any stretch) over the fact that it can not play your videos.

I think we're having this discussion as nuanced gamers: BC doesn't matter much to you, and it matters a great deal to me. To be fair, I also play a number of import games, so the decision to enforce region coding for PS1/2 games was a *major* let down for me, and one I hope will either be rescinded in a future update, or circumvented with a custom OS for the PS3.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the BC of the PS3 makes or breaks the system; merely that it is something other than the beaten-to-death Blu-Ray drive that can be considered as placing it above and beyond its similarly-priced competition. As for the "broken" games on the PS2, I'm confident a fix will come around soon enough for Guitar Hero (it's a disappointment to me, too) - the 360's operating system was not anywhere near as nice as it is now last November, so I'll give Sony the benefit of the doubt - and with three software updates so far, they certainly seem to be working on aspects of it.

What I would like to challenge you on is the "broken" BC games on the PS3. Please direct me to a list of nonplayable games on the PS3. This does not include, of course, games that were a problem on the PS2 (such as the myriad problems with some of the 2-D Final Fantasy remakes). It's not "100%" compatible, that much I'll give you. With thousands of titles available for the system (over 4000, I believe), you'll find that those "broken" games are quite a paltry sum of the available titles, as compared with the 60+% of Xbox titles I have that don't work on the 360.
 
Anyone compairing PS3 backwards compatability with 360 backwards compatability and concluding that the 360 wins is delusional. The PS3 still has a lot of issues it needs to address, particularly the upscailing issue, but Sony's bc is leagues ahead of Microsoft's. While, like myke, I was very disappointed in seeing that the PS1/2 games would be region locked. Still, it's not as insane as the 360 adding in twenty games here and there every four months. As it stands right now, the 360 is without some of its best titles. I cannot go into an EB today and buy a game I really want released in 2003 and know with great confidence that it'll work on my 360. With a PS3 I can. When you strip away everything going on with the argument, it's that simple. I can walk into a used game store, buy any PS2 game, and be sure it'll work on my PS3 with 98% certainty. I can't do that with a 360.

Myke is also right on one other point. I was an adamant blaster of backwards compatability being a feature of the PS2. The core PS2 audience already owned a PS1, so why did they need another thing to play their old games. It wasn't until I realized that it's simply more convient to have one system playing all of your games that the whole appeal of bc made sense to me. It simply isn't practical to have 7 game systems hooked up when you should be able to play all those games on 3 in a near perfect, backwards compatible world.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Agreed. RIght now alot of people will simply not want a PS3 because the library is lacking and looks to be lacking for quite awhile. However even if the system was to hit its stride in the next year or so it still is going to cost far to much for most people to afford. $250 with the constant inflation of our economy is still small enough that people can save for a few months and buy one. Even poor college kids like myself can save up over time and get one. May take a year but we can. A $600 purchase is $100s more then anyone can afford.[/quote]

Yup. Same here. Then you factor in an HDMI cable, one game, an extra controller to play with your buddies, and it's like... Why? That's the point I'm at now. It's not that I don't want one. I would love to have one and rock some Resistance on my HDTV, but the price totally sucks the hype out of me.

On the other hand, I have friends who havn't owned a gaming console since psone or 64 and have either bought a Wii or plan on buying one as soon as they can find one. Working at a gamestore you also see these kinds of people come in all the time. They don't play much, if at all, but find the Wii (and the DS) adoring and want to buy it. That's a big stride for the industry (that was needed) and it's exactly what Nintendo wanted.

IT PRINTS MONEY.
 
[quote name='furyk']Anyone compairing PS3 backwards compatability with 360 backwards compatability and concluding that the 360 wins is delusional. The PS3 still has a lot of issues it needs to address, particularly the upscailing issue, but Sony's bc is leagues ahead of Microsoft's. While, like myke, I was very disappointed in seeing that the PS1/2 games would be region locked. Still, it's not as insane as the 360 adding in twenty games here and there every four months. As it stands right now, the 360 is without some of its best titles. I cannot go into an EB today and buy a game I really want released in 2003 and know with great confidence that it'll work on my 360. With a PS3 I can. When you strip away everything going on with the argument, it's that simple. I can walk into a used game store, buy any PS2 game, and be sure it'll work on my PS3 with 98% certainty. I can't do that with a 360.

Myke is also right on one other point. I was an adamant blaster of backwards compatability being a feature of the PS2. The core PS2 audience already owned a PS1, so why did they need another thing to play their old games. It wasn't until I realized that it's simply more convient to have one system playing all of your games that the whole appeal of bc made sense to me. It simply isn't practical to have 7 game systems hooked up when you should be able to play all those games on 3 in a near perfect, backwards compatible world.[/QUOTE]

But that doesnt justify the price. As time goes on hardware costs go down. Sony is selling PS2s for $130 new right now so there is no reason that this should drive up the cost of the PS3 an extra $200. Last gen Sony fans defended BC saying that the PS1 did not drive up the price $100 on the PS2.....this gen they are saying that BC DID drive up the price. Cant have it both ways. I dont know for a fact if BC was a pricing issue or not. BUt given that Blue Ray players are selling for $750 cheapest I can find and $1000 on average from what im seeing....again my guess is BC played little to no factor in driving up the price. The system is supposed to cost like $700 to make.....blu ray players go for about $700.....if BC was an issue then chances are the cost would be $800 or 900 not $7.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']But that doesnt justify the price. As time goes on hardware costs go down. Sony is selling PS2s for $130 new right now so there is no reason that this should drive up the cost of the PS3 an extra $200. Last gen Sony fans defended BC saying that the PS1 did not drive up the price $100 on the PS2.....this gen they are saying that BC DID drive up the price. Cant have it both ways. I dont know for a fact if BC was a pricing issue or not. BUt given that Blue Ray players are selling for $750 cheapest I can find and $1000 on average from what im seeing....again my guess is BC played little to no factor in driving up the price. The system is supposed to cost like $700 to make.....blu ray players go for about $700.....if BC was an issue then chances are the cost would be $800 or 900 not $7.[/QUOTE]

Considering that the PS1 was software emulation on the PS2, and the PS2 on PS3 is the actual chipset, your comparison is night and day.

The fact that you're still claiming the system is "$200 extra" shows your allegiances blind you to reality, when a fully BC system with a fully compatible Blu-Ray drive is $100 more than the Premium 360. You just want to be outraged for the sake of being outraged, don't you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Considering that the PS1 was software emulation on the PS2, and the PS2 on PS3 is the actual chipset, your comparison is night and day.

The fact that you're still claiming the system is "$200 extra" shows your allegiances blind you to reality, when a fully BC system with a fully compatible Blu-Ray drive is $100 more than the Premium 360. You just want to be outraged for the sake of being outraged, don't you?[/quote]
But that doesn't change the FACT that there was a second shooter on the grassy gnoll! Its you're classic strawman argument; build a man out of straw and if he catches on fire, he wans't rly a man!


Seriously, Myke. Just let it go. The don't have a clue. This is worse than .99999=1 or 0=1 arguments. Atleast there you get people who can actually back up their claims with some kind of proof beyond "EVERYONE TOTALLY HATES THIS. If you don't ur obciously a fanboi!"

Save your fingers for the game, mon ami.
 
[quote name='xrickyb86x']The price of the PS3 makes the other two next gen systems look very nice to the mainstream casual gaming market. The Wii is a spontanious buy, much like a greatest hits game. Most people, like myself, have to make sure they can afford a PS3 before even thinking about getting one. That's what's going to hurt it in 2007. It's not that people wont want it, it's that a lot of people just can't seem to afford it. Especially when the mainstream isn't used to dropping 600 bones on a gaming system.[/quote]


Bah hahahahahhahahahh! That's funny. The Mainstream isn't used to dropping $400 bones on a console either, but 360 was sold out all over the place last winter (and people bought it to actually PLAY). The thing is, even if it's $600, if people really want it that bad they will work for it somehow. Nobody who is intending to buy the PS3 would ever say "Well, I love the PS3 but since I can't afford the PS3 for now, I'll just grab the 360/Wii with all I have and save all over again for the PS3 when it's lower priced." I rest my case.
 
[quote name='nintendokid']Bah hahahahahhahahahh! That's funny. The Mainstream isn't used to dropping $400 bones on a console either, but 360 was sold out all over the place last winter (and people bought it to actually PLAY). The thing is, even if it's $600, if people really want it that bad they will work for it somehow. Nobody who is intending to buy the PS3 would ever say "Well, I love the PS3 but since I can't afford the PS3 for now, I'll just grab the 360/Wii with all I have and save all over again for the PS3 when it's lower priced." I rest my case.[/QUOTE]

You keep turning this into a 360 debate. I know you have already admitted your bias but come on let it rest. Your honestly debating with people on the same side as you at times to make the 360 look better.

As for the 360 your talking about Christmas. The 360 is doing well for itself but considering reports have the Wii almost already caught up in World Wide sales the 360 could do ALOT better.

And you shouldnt rest your case. Why wouldnt somebody buy a Wii or 360 but not a PS3 if they have the money? A deals a deal and people, especially parents can appreciate that. Alot of people will probally have an intial $200 and say hey I can put $30 a month aside and in a year or so get a PS3. However after a few months of no new games it will be mighty tempting to not buy a 360 which plays alot of the same games as a PS3. I mean your sitting there watching friends and family play their new systems and you got enough to afford one alot of peole will probally cave and buy one vs waiting another 7 months to buy a PS3.

Alot of others will probally do similar but grabbing a Wii. You can take that intial $200 you have saved and within 2 months buy yourself a Wii which comes with a free game.....or you can wait a year and a half and get a PS3.....

Some people will just save for a PS3 no matter how long it takes....but ALOT of people will just say **** it and either buy one of the other systems or get tired of waiting surronded by those that have systems and buy a 360 or Wii.

I am deffintly going to want a PS3. It probally will still end the top system this gen....though there is now a possibilty it wont. However even with wanting one and knowing it will probally be the top system... I wont drop $600 on it, and I doubt many others will.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Considering that the PS1 was software emulation on the PS2, and the PS2 on PS3 is the actual chipset, your comparison is night and day.

The fact that you're still claiming the system is "$200 extra" shows your allegiances blind you to reality, when a fully BC system with a fully compatible Blu-Ray drive is $100 more than the Premium 360. You just want to be outraged for the sake of being outraged, don't you?[/QUOTE]

I didn't now it was an actual PS2 chipset on board. Why is the video quality so much lower on certain titles (From all reports) and why are there compatability issues, if it's a PS2 chipset on board?

I don't see PS2 parts costing sony any more than $50, at max. Those parts have been mass produced for years. Even then, I bet a lot of the sound, I/O, Network, and CPU is integrated into the PS3's hardware. Not to mention there isn't the cost of a DVD drive, since that's already in the system. The EE chipset is probably onboard, though.

The majority of the extra cost comes from blu-ray. There's no way that PS2 parts cost more or even close to half the price of that drive.

Getting off the topic of Blu-Ray, another thing that I question about the PS3 is with it's less developer friendly architecture, how many developers outside of sony studios and Squaresoft/Konami are going to really push the system past 360 limits, which are, from all indications, much more developer and cost friendly.
 
[quote name='jer7583']I didn't now it was an actual PS2 chipset on board. Why is the video quality so much lower on certain titles (From all reports) and why are there compatability issues, if it's a PS2 chipset on board?

I don't see PS2 parts costing sony any more than $50, at max. Those parts have been mass produced for years. Even then, I bet a lot of the sound, I/O, Network, and CPU is integrated into the PS3's hardware. Not to mention there isn't the cost of a DVD drive, since that's already in the system. The EE chipset is probably onboard, though.

The majority of the extra cost comes from blu-ray. There's no way that PS2 parts cost more or even close to half the price of that drive.

Getting off the topic of Blu-Ray, another thing that I question about the PS3 is with it's less developer friendly architecture, how many developers outside of sony studios and Squaresoft/Konami are going to really push the system past 360 limits, which are, from all indications, much more developer and cost friendly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. With PS2s costing $130 in store for the whole system I doubt its going to cost Sony much to add the hardware to make the PS3 play PS2 games. And, if it did then they shouldnt have had BC since while its a nice feature its not worth paying almost double the cost to buy a PS2(360 runs $400, PS2 is $130 so a $200 price difference equals almost twice PS2 cost). Regardless again I highly doubt PS2 parts are costing the $200 extra bucks especially since Blu Ray players themselves go for ATLEAST $700 as I said before.

The bottom line is tha as almost every single person in this topic has said. It doesnt matter WHY the system is overpriced....it IS overprieced by $200 if not $300.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Exactly. With PS2s costing $130 in store for the whole system I doubt its going to cost Sony much to add the hardware to make the PS3 play PS2 games. And, if it did then they shouldnt have had BC since while its a nice feature its not worth paying almost double the cost to buy a PS2(360 runs $400, PS2 is $130 so a $200 price difference equals almost twice PS2 cost). Regardless again I highly doubt PS2 parts are costing the $200 extra bucks especially since Blu Ray players themselves go for ATLEAST $700 as I said before.

The bottom line is tha as almost every single person in this topic has said. It doesnt matter WHY the system is overpriced....it IS overprieced by $200 if not $300.[/QUOTE]

Your logic is retarded simply because I have no idea what you're arguing. Part of your post says the PS3 is overpriced by $200-300 yet you say a low end Blu Ray player costs at least $700 meaning even the high end PS3 is a value at $600. Make up your mind... wait, no. Make up your mind and wander off into the sunset without posting again. You'll be a hero to all of CAG kind fending off us from yourself and your unique style of brain cancer.
 
[quote name='furyk']Your logic is retarded simply because I have no idea what you're arguing. Part of your post says the PS3 is overpriced by $200-300 yet you say a low end Blu Ray player costs at least $700 meaning even the high end PS3 is a value at $600. Make up your mind... wait, no. Make up your mind and wander off into the sunset without posting again. You'll be a hero to all of CAG kind fending off us from yourself and your unique style of brain cancer.[/QUOTE]

So you dont understand what im saying....so I must be an idiot. God some people at this board are just such jackasses.

Just because the PS3 costs $100 under standard Blu Ray costs doesnt mean we are getting a deal. For someone who wants a Blu Ray player hell ya its a deal. but for us gamers its twice the standard cost of consoles.

Again, im sorry that your such a fucking moron that you cant understand that just because its a cheap blu ray player its not a cheap console. That was the whole point of the post. Blu Ray drove up the price.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Seriously, Myke. Just let it go. The don't have a clue. This is worse than .99999=1 or 0=1 arguments.[/QUOTE]

0=1, eh?

[quote name='MSI Magus']The 360 is doing well for itself but considering reports have the Wii almost already caught up in World Wide sales the 360 could do ALOT better.[/QUOTE]

It appears that you're either wrong or a prophet (that pretty much covers all corners, no?). While your hypothetical "0=1" was said surely in jest, here we have MSI arguing that 2 million = 9 million.




While NexGenWars is based on market predictions (true sales numbers aren't yet publicly available, especially for the just-released consoles), it is based on solid estimations, unlike, I argue, MSI. After all, when Nintendo has manufactured fewer consoles than Microsoft has sold thus far by a 2:1 ratio, such a statement is a testament to his foolishness.

I do it because I like telling people they're wrong; that's not the entirety of this thread (as much of it is my opinion); but when people make dipshit statements like "the Wii has almost sold as many as the 360," or "the PS3 isn't selling out anywhere," I feel compelled to challenge the fools on that. They may pretend to ignore me, and they may not respond, but I can enjoy the fact that they read my posts, and my challenges to their claims, and they can do nothing more than say to themselves "fuck that guy for questioning my claim that I cannot back up."

[quote name='jer7583']I didn't now it was an actual PS2 chipset on board. Why is the video quality so much lower on certain titles (From all reports) and why are there compatability issues, if it's a PS2 chipset on board?

I don't see PS2 parts costing sony any more than $50, at max. Those parts have been mass produced for years. Even then, I bet a lot of the sound, I/O, Network, and CPU is integrated into the PS3's hardware. Not to mention there isn't the cost of a DVD drive, since that's already in the system. The EE chipset is probably onboard, though.[/quote]

I think it's due to having the PS2 architecture arranged differently on the PS3 board - it has to share some components with the PS3, so that might explain some difficulties. I'm not that technically savvy, but I figure that must be the case; the same can be seen in the small number of PS2 games that will not work on the slim PS2 (and others that won't work on later revisions of the slim PS2 - such as the silver one). When you alter the architecture of a console, you're bound to have some problems.

Other games' issues are hardware related: while Guitar Hero technically works on the PS3, only a damn fool would want to play it with a controller. That's something that can be worked on as they allow PS2 controllers to be connected via USB, and one that I hope comes soon (though, to be fair, it is making my decision to wait for 360 GHII a MUCH easier one).

The majority of the extra cost comes from blu-ray. There's no way that PS2 parts cost more or even close to half the price of that drive.
Click to expand...

I'm not making the argument that BR drives are cheap; not at all. My argument was, and remains, that there is more to the PS3 that separates it from the 360 than "BR drive." BC is one aspect, online is another, its media playback yet another. They don't necessitate that $500 is a price you should get on your knees and praise Jesus for, because $500 is still $500. It does, however, make the "PS3 is crazy overpriced compared with the 360" argument more and more tenuous and absurd, iin my opinion.

Getting off the topic of Blu-Ray, another thing that I question about the PS3 is with it's less developer friendly architecture, how many developers outside of sony studios and Squaresoft/Konami are going to really push the system past 360 limits, which are, from all indications, much more developer and cost friendly.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point, and one we saw last generation: software developers often take a "lowest common denominator" approach to games, ensuring that they are all comparable to each other, and that one version does not stand out as being too good or too bad (that would ruin the incentive to buy those versions of the game). Most sports games were just like this, though the PS2 graphics would be a touch below the Xbox (only that a stickler would notice), and the GC wouldn't have online capability. They were 90% (not a real number) identical. EA didn't want you to think "oh, that's the shitty version of "Sports Game 2005"; I want the PS2/Xbox/GC version."

That "lowest common denominator" approach might happen again this gen. Developers don't want one version of a game to apprear clearly inferior to another, and going that route also helps development costs because they don't have to spend oodles of money taking advantage of this system or that system's hardware. That having been said, the Wii might fuck that up entirely. Not because it isn't graphically comparable to the 360 and PS3 (it clearly isn't), but because it controls so differently as well. There are two dimensions that differentiate games on respective consoles before they're even begun developing them. Now, Ubisoft seems to be making a shitty precedent with a lousy port of Splinter Cell and a rehash of Prince of Persia for the Wii - but EA seems to be really excited and intrigued by developing for it. I don't know that it will be such a "all console versions are essentially identical" kind of thing this gen.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So you dont understand what im saying....so I must be an idiot. God some people at this board are just such jackasses.

Just because the PS3 costs $100 under standard Blu Ray costs doesnt mean we are getting a deal. For someone who wants a Blu Ray player hell ya its a deal. but for us gamers its twice the standard cost of consoles.

Again, im sorry that your such a fucking moron that you cant understand that just because its a cheap blu ray player its not a cheap console. That was the whole point of the post. Blu Ray drove up the price.[/QUOTE]

Stop getting your panties in a bunch sunshine. You're an idiot for not being able to simply state:

1. The PS3 is too expensive.

or...

2. The PS3 is not too expensive.

and then expanding on it with reasons why.

Someone needs a fucking Rosette Stone to gain any clue what the hell you're saying. Pull your head out of your ass for one second and try reading a post outloud. Rather then saying A or B, you're saying Blu Ray drives up the cost, but it's cheap for a Blu Ray player but not as a game console but the PS2 backwards compatability drove up the costs too but only a little. That's as clear as mud.

The fact is that the PS3 is not being marketed as just a game console. It is just as much a Blu Ray player as it is a PS3. Seeing as how several people have bought the PS3 simply as a Blu Ray player, and every CAGer that I've seen has used their PS3 to play Blu Ray movies. Even if people think that it's hiked the price up significantly, they're still using the stupid thing as a Blu Ray player. It has value to that person as soon as they pop a Blu-Ray film in, regardless of whether or not they would have prefered it to be Blu-Ray or not Blu-Ray.

As it stands, the core PS3 is a $100 more then the premium Xbox 360. The Xbox 360's HD-DVD drive costs $200 seperately. The Blu Ray drive will eventually be used for expanded content in games, not just movies as well to justify the cost even more.

Unless you plan on arguing that the 360 is way overpriced too (which I think is a perfectly valid argument), the PS3 is a better value then the 360 in today's current market. The extra $100 more then justifies the extra stuff you get out of the box in terms of added features and gaming content. It's a value if you consider the 360 $399.99 price tag fair.
 
[quote name='furyk']Stop getting your panties in a bunch sunshine. You're an idiot for not being able to simply state:

1. The PS3 is too expensive.

or...

2. The PS3 is not too expensive.

and then expanding on it with reasons why.

Someone needs a fucking Rosette Stone to gain any clue what the hell you're saying. Pull your head out of your ass for one second and try reading a post outloud. Rather then saying A or B, you're saying Blu Ray drives up the cost, but it's cheap for a Blu Ray player but not as a game console but the PS2 backwards compatability drove up the costs too but only a little. That's as clear as mud.

The fact is that the PS3 is not being marketed as just a game console. It is just as much a Blu Ray player as it is a PS3. Seeing as how several people have bought the PS3 simply as a Blu Ray player, and every CAGer that I've seen has used their PS3 to play Blu Ray movies. Even if people think that it's hiked the price up significantly, they're still using the stupid thing as a Blu Ray player. It has value to that person as soon as they pop a Blu-Ray film in, regardless of whether or not they would have prefered it to be Blu-Ray or not Blu-Ray.

As it stands, the core PS3 is a $100 more then the premium Xbox 360. The Xbox 360's HD-DVD drive costs $200 seperately. The Blu Ray drive will eventually be used for expanded content in games, not just movies as well to justify the cost even more.

Unless you plan on arguing that the 360 is way overpriced too (which I think is a perfectly valid argument), the PS3 is a better value then the 360 in today's current market. The extra $100 more then justifies the extra stuff you get out of the box in terms of added features and gaming content. It's a value if you consider the 360 $399.99 price tag fair.[/QUOTE]

Welp seems like your just another jackass who
1. Likes tossing insults at others
2. Loves his own opinion so much he cant appreciate anyone elses.
3. Has no sense of the middle ground and must go to one extreame or the other.

The middle is usually right. Thus I like being in the middle. The truth is that PS3 is cheap as a Blu Ray player but expensive as a gaming console. Im sorry your not smart enough to understand it. Dont bother responding, after seeing your insults and your point 1 and 2 I stopped reding your post and you now are on ignore as well. Again, I aint wasting my time on kids who cant act like adults. Disagreeing with others is fine, but tossing insults from the start and refusing to even look at others point of views makes you just that.

In the future try talking to others if you dont understand what they have to say. It beats insulting them and assuming they must be an idiot.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Welp seems like your just another jackass who
1. Likes tossing insults at others
2. Loves his own opinion so much he cant appreciate anyone elses.
3. Has no sense of the middle ground and must go to one extreame or the other.

The middle is usually right. Thus I like being in the middle. The truth is that PS3 is cheap as a Blu Ray player but expensive as a gaming console. Im sorry your not smart enough to understand it. Dont bother responding, after seeing your insults and your point 1 and 2 I stopped reding your post and you now are on ignore as well. Again, I aint wasting my time on kids who cant act like adults. Disagreeing with others is fine, but tossing insults from the start and refusing to even look at others point of views makes you just that.

In the future try talking to others if you dont understand what they have to say. It beats insulting them and assuming they must be an idiot.[/QUOTE]

ostrich.jpg
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I gotta a PS3 and it's the 2nd best purchase I made all year (after a PSP). It's far from being a bust in my eyes. Definitely worth $500.[/QUOTE]

No offense but wernt you the guy that was running the system up the last several months defending it and insisting how great it is? Not trying to start a fight but your name seems really familar and im almost positive you were the guy defending it at all costs.

Also, might I ask why you think it was a great purchase? I cant see why people at this point in time would since Resistance is the only game thats a stand out and not on the 360(and most seem to be saying the 360 versions are better). And what was your first best purchase?
 
glad to have a little civil discussion here. I can admit, the PS3 is worth it, if you really want that kinda stuff.

I want games, though. Personally, that $500 is a huge waste if you're looking for something to play games on. The 360 (high end, HD/online gamers) and the Wii (Low end, family, nintendo loyal gamers) have that market cornered.

I can admit that the PS3 is worth it, as a blu-ray/media player, with some gaming functions. That's something that I have zero interest in personally. Sony had better hope that i'm in the minority on that opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top