XBOX 360 vs. PS3 price

wait, you really need to pay for both wifi and online gameplay on the 360?

wtf?


Well, I can't afford either, so it make no difference to me. at least they both have full backwards compatability, though, so I could sell an old system to help pay for it...
 
Something that rarely gets mentioned in these types of comparisons is the fact that when the PS3 comes out, the X360 will have been out for a year. I think that should be taken into account somehow.

By the time the PS3 launches, at the very least there will be Xbox 360 bundles that include a game, so comparing the launch prices of both systems when they came out a year apart from one another is a little unfair. So value is added to the 360 since people have been able to get a year's worth of next-gen video games out of it already. It's not an easy thing to put a monetary value on, but it factors in.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Something that rarely gets mentioned in these types of comparisons is the fact that when the PS3 comes out, the X360 will have been out for a year. I think that should be taken into account somehow.

By the time the PS3 launches, at the very least there will be Xbox 360 bundles that include a game, so comparing the launch prices of both systems when they came out a year apart from one another is a little unfair. So value is added to the 360 since people have been able to get a year's worth of next-gen video games out of it already. It's not an easy thing to put a monetary value on, but it factors in.[/quote]

Yea... That worked out so well for the Dreamcast. :lol:

The Dreamcast had:
Free online play out of the box
Better graphics
4 player support out of the box
more multiplayer games
a year lead
20 Years of SEGA know-how

And it still lost to Sony's ugly black box.


Sony has the library. There are literally thousands of games the PS3 will be able to play out of the box. Microsoft- for the most part- has a few gems and then a lot of multi platform trash. Nintendo's first party library is solid gold for the most part, but they still lack the overwhelming thrid party support Sony had with both the PS1 and PS2.

Most importantly of all, Sony has Square. With 4 Final Fantasy properties coming out in the next year, Sony's market share will probably not change much. RPGs will hold the Asian market for sure.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Yea... That worked out so well for the Dreamcast. :lol:

The Dreamcast had:
Free online play out of the box
Better graphics
4 player support out of the box
more multiplayer games
a year lead
20 Years of SEGA know-how

And it still lost to Sony's ugly black box.


Sony has the library. There are literally thousands of games the PS3 will be able to play out of the box. Microsoft- for the most part- has a few gems and then a lot of multi platform trash. Nintendo's first party library is solid gold for the most part, but they still lack the overwhelming thrid party support Sony had with both the PS1 and PS2.

Most importantly of all, Sony has Square. With 4 Final Fantasy properties coming out in the next year, Sony's market share will probably not change much. RPGs will hold the Asian market for sure.[/QUOTE]

This guy thinks the DC = 360. Could someone please post the standard Satrurn/32x/Sega CD/ PS2 Hype/DVD player reply ?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Yea... That worked out so well for the Dreamcast. :lol:

The Dreamcast had:
Free online play out of the box
Better graphics
4 player support out of the box
more multiplayer games
a year lead
20 Years of SEGA know-how

And it still lost to Sony's ugly black box.


Sony has the library. There are literally thousands of games the PS3 will be able to play out of the box. Microsoft- for the most part- has a few gems and then a lot of multi platform trash. Nintendo's first party library is solid gold for the most part, but they still lack the overwhelming thrid party support Sony had with both the PS1 and PS2.

Most importantly of all, Sony has Square. With 4 Final Fantasy properties coming out in the next year, Sony's market share will probably not change much. RPGs will hold the Asian market for sure.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't really talking about anything but price comparisons. Comparing the Xbox 360 to the DC is pretty ludicrous though and I'm not sure why it was brought up in a discussion about pricing/value.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I wasn't really talking about anything but price comparisons. Comparing the Xbox 360 to the DC is pretty ludicrous though and I'm not sure why it was brought up in a discussion about pricing/value.[/quote]

I was just making the (tenuous) connection through the fact that you made the year headstart a good thing.

All I'm saying is I'm just sayin... if you know what I'm saying.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I was just making the (tenuous) connection through the fact that you made the year headstart a good thing.

All I'm saying is I'm just sayin... if you know what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

You're saying the Xbox 360 is shit and the PS3 is awesome. Yea, I got it.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']You're saying the Xbox 360 is shit and the PS3 is awesome. Yea, I got it.[/quote]

Not at all. I have a 360 and I'm not real sure when I'll get a PS3.

I'm just stating that the future is anything but easy to predict.

I loved the DC and it still got the shaft even though it had all that stuff going in its favor.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']wait, you really need to pay for both wifi and online gameplay on the 360?

wtf?


Well, I can't afford either, so it make no difference to me. at least they both have full backwards compatability, though, so I could sell an old system to help pay for it...[/QUOTE]

Where have you been since november? Seeing as how the 360 has no built in wi-fi and MS makes you buy a gold subscription to play online, yes both cost you money (although only a fool or very rich guy would pay the full $150 IMO).

Also the 360 is not fully backward compatabile yet, they're not even remotely close.
 
I'd hold off on saying Sony will give us online play for free until I see it in writing...unless I missed some recent announcement.

What they said at E3 doesn't count.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Yea... That worked out so well for the Dreamcast. :lol:

The Dreamcast had:
Free online play out of the box
Better graphics
4 player support out of the box
more multiplayer games
a year lead
20 Years of SEGA know-how

And it still lost to Sony's ugly black box.


Sony has the library. There are literally thousands of games the PS3 will be able to play out of the box. Microsoft- for the most part- has a few gems and then a lot of multi platform trash. Nintendo's first party library is solid gold for the most part, but they still lack the overwhelming thrid party support Sony had with both the PS1 and PS2.

Most importantly of all, Sony has Square. With 4 Final Fantasy properties coming out in the next year, Sony's market share will probably not change much. RPGs will hold the Asian market for sure.[/QUOTE]

I agree with pretty much all of that. While obviously I don't think that there's any chance the 360 will be the next Dreamcast, I do think that Sony's ridiculously huge library of games is going to sway a ton of people regardless of the price. It's just not there for MS yet.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']I agree with pretty much all of that. While obviously I don't think that there's any chance the 360 will be the next Dreamcast, I do think that Sony's ridiculously huge library of games is going to sway a ton of people regardless of the price. It's just not there for MS yet.[/QUOTE]
I fell for the PS2 this gen because of the huge amount of games. Everything I wanted on the Xbox was on the PC or PS2...anything I wanted for the PS2 was well...only on the PS2 for the majority of games. It looks like its going to turn out the same way next gen with the PS3 from looking at the 360 library so far.
 
After reading the link, I think the article has some inaccurate info/speculation too. HD-DVD add on will probably be closer to at least $150 than $100 and the $600 PS3 will have a 60gb HDD, not 40.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']Something that rarely gets mentioned in these types of comparisons is the fact that when the PS3 comes out, the X360 will have been out for a year. I think that should be taken into account somehow.

By the time the PS3 launches, at the very least there will be Xbox 360 bundles that include a game, so comparing the launch prices of both systems when they came out a year apart from one another is a little unfair. So value is added to the 360 since people have been able to get a year's worth of next-gen video games out of it already. It's not an easy thing to put a monetary value on, but it factors in.[/QUOTE]
Also from a CAG perspective, it's worth noting that by the PS3 launch, the 360 will have a nice sized library of cheaper games from both price drops and preowned games as well as downloadable games on Live Arcade. PS3 games will be full-priced for at least a couple months after launch.
 
It depends on how you look at it. If you are looking for just a game machine then 360 is a better buy price-wise (360 Core $299.99 vs PS3 Core $499.99). If you are looking for a bunch of other stuff on top of a video game system then PS3 is a better buy price-wise (360 has DVD player, 20gb hdd, etc. while PS3 has Bluray/DVD player, wifi, 60gb hdd, etc.).

But this whole price justification crap is just the SDF spin on trying to make $599.99 look good for a videogame console.
 
I love the "additional hard drive/$100 wireless adapter" argument to bounce the 360's price up $200 in these arguments. Thank you for pointing out how utterly ludicrous that argument is.

On a completely unrelated topic, the PS3's online play is free, but I heard that there'll be an additional fee to download extras for a game in addition to the micropayment (or at least that's how I read it off of Wikipedia). Can someone clarify this?

Edit: [quote name='Morpheus']But this whole price justification crap is just the SDF spin on trying to make $599.99 look good for a videogame console.[/QUOTE]

I think the article does a good job of addressing this in a non-fanboy fashion saying here's the breakdown of getting your 360 up to what the PS3 has (while lowballing the HD-DVD add-on) and then saying here's some of the flaws with this argument. It's as balanced an article as I've read on comparing bang for your buck.
 
[quote name='furyk']On a completely unrelated topic, the PS3's online play is free, but I heard that there'll be an additional fee to download extras for a game in addition to the micropayment (or at least that's how I read it off of Wikipedia). Can someone clarify this?
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't trust anything in Wikipedia unless Sony has said it in a press release.

I'll still try to answer what you asked though. From what you say it sort of sounds like there will be a subscription fee for the "marketplace feature". Or like it says an additional fee (like a tax) on top of the price of the content.
 
[quote name='radjago']Also from a CAG perspective, it's worth noting that by the PS3 launch, the 360 will have a nice sized library of cheaper games from both price drops and preowned games as well as downloadable games on Live Arcade. PS3 games will be full-priced for at least a couple months after launch.[/QUOTE]

By the same perspective though I could say that I'd have a bigger total playable library on the PS3 at launch than the 360 due to backwards compatibility.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']By the same perspective though I could say that I'd have a bigger total playable library on the PS3 at launch than the 360 due to backwards compatibility.[/QUOTE]

Well, people are going to want to play next gen games on their shiny new system (especially after shelling out $600.) In that respect, the Xbox 360 will have the clear advantage for a little while since they will have a few good games out. We still don't know what the PS3's going to have at launch... probably Heavenly Blade and then an onslaught of games that are either shitty or forgettable (y'know... the Fantavision type.) In that case, the 360 has a big advantage for the next 6-12 months because next gen software is what the consumers are going to be interested in.

...Though when MGS 4 and DMC 4 hit... god damn will things turn around quick.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Well, people are going to want to play next gen games on their shiny new system (especially after shelling out $600.) In that respect, the Xbox 360 will have the clear advantage for a little while since they will have a few good games out. We still don't know what the PS3's going to have at launch... probably Heavenly Blade and then an onslaught of games that are either shitty or forgettable (y'know... the Fantavision type.) In that case, the 360 has a big advantage for the next 6-12 months because next gen software is what the consumers are going to be interested in.

...Though when MGS 4 and DMC 4 hit... god damn will things turn around quick.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily though, if it's a person who doesn't play FPS or sports/racing games at all (which make up around half of the 360 stateside library), he probably won't be that impressed by the 360 lineup. Next gen or not the game has to one you'll like to play (you'd think at least). If this is the case and the PS3 musters up at least 10-15 titles at launch (though unlikely) that aren't in the same genre lines they'll be behind but somewhat even, a tleast in that person's eyes. Besides you want buy anymor than 3 maybe 4 games top when you purchase the system. IMo like the rest of the debate here it all comes to how you plan to use the system...
 
Duo_Maxwell, you should look at the list of 360 games that are out and that will be released by the time PS3 hits stateside. Theres even going to be a JRPG released by then. O_O Along with a bunch of other genres (other than FPS/Sports/Racing). When PS3 and Wii launch the fact is 360 will have more next-gen games available to purchase for its userbase. That's a fact and not an opinion. However long that lead of games lasts who knows.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']By the same perspective though I could say that I'd have a bigger total playable library on the PS3 at launch than the 360 due to backwards compatibility.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you could just buy a PS2 and save $400. I'm assuming you're buying a next-gen system to play games designed for that system.

Also:

Total 360 games available, including Arcade titles: 77
FPS titles: 7
Sports titles: 16
Racing titles: 6

% of FPS, Sports, and Racing titles: (7+16+6)/77 = 38%

By comparison,

Total PS2 games available: ~1300
FPS titles: 57
Sports titles: ~295
Racing titles: ~210

% of FPS, Sports, and Racing titles: (57+295+210)/1300 = 43%

I'm not saying that the 360 couldn't use more diversity in its library, but perceptions often overshadow the truth.
 
Here is a simple rule of thumb,

Something is not cheap if it's fans continuously try to show how, in reality, the competitors product actually costs more money.

I don't see any comparisons from Xbox 360 fans showing how, in reality, it costs less than the Wii.

I don't care, I'm holding to what I've said for a few months now. I don't care if you can show me that the PS3 is worth $2,000 in reality, I won't spend $500 or $600 on it at launch. I don't know what price I'll jump on board at, but I'm guessing it's far closer to $300. Heck, if I get a 360 soon and I get a Wii in a year or so, it might be quite awhile before I jump for a PS3 (which is a bit depressing, since I love my PS2).

Also, the arguments for the backwards compatibility is rather stupid. At the very most, you can price them at $130 for the PS3. That is the price to go and buy a PS2. If this feature is worth $200 to you, why wouldn't you just drop the money on a PS2, and start enjoying the games right now, before the PS3 launches.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']

I don't care, I'm holding to what I've said for a few months now. I don't care if you can show me that the PS3 is worth $2,000 in reality, I won't spend $500 or $600 on it at launch. [/QUOTE]

That doesn't sound too bright. ;)
 
[quote name='radjago']Yes, but you could just buy a PS2 and save $400. I'm assuming you're buying a next-gen system to play games designed for that system.

Also:

Total 360 games available, including Arcade titles: 77
FPS titles: 7
Sports titles: 16
Racing titles: 6

% of FPS, Sports, and Racing titles: (7+16+6)/77 = 38%

By comparison,

Total PS2 games available: ~1300
FPS titles: 57
Sports titles: ~295
Racing titles: ~210

% of FPS, Sports, and Racing titles: (57+295+210)/1300 = 43%

I'm not saying that the 360 couldn't use more diversity in its library, but perceptions often overshadow the truth.[/QUOTE]

What list of 360 games are you going by? Including arcade titles makes no sense as you don't buy them in stores (yet) and aren't even remotely the same because they cost alot less than any game out and aren't really next generation (your argument, not mine). I only count 53 games and that's including ones yet to be released in August. Also my count of the xbox.com catalog comes ot 9 FPSs, 10 if you include GRAW. Plus would things like Bankshot Billards be sports, maybe that's just me.

So it should be more like:

Total titles: 54
FPS titles: 9
Racing titles: 6
Sports titles: 16

% of those genres combined vs. overall ((9+16+6)/54)) = 57%

I suppose perception does overshadow truth. Still my point wasn't a debat eon the state of the 360 selection (which I adore actually), it's that a guy with a PS2 buying a next gen system has to consider he can buy 2 launch games for the PS3 and still play his backlog of PS2 games on the PS3, possibly at hgiher resolutions (if sony is wise enough to upconvert them). Hell he can even sell his PS2 and still do it, that will get him an extra game or two. In the end, a buyer's decision on something they haven't used is always based (at least partly) on perception anyways, be it theirs, that of a friend, a professional review, etc. All are forms of perception effecting consumer choices.
 
[quote name='Morpheus']Duo_Maxwell, you should look at the list of 360 games that are out and that will be released by the time PS3 hits stateside. Theres even going to be a JRPG released by then. O_O Along with a bunch of other genres (other than FPS/Sports/Racing). When PS3 and Wii launch the fact is 360 will have more next-gen games available to purchase for its userbase. That's a fact and not an opinion. However long that lead of games lasts who knows.[/QUOTE]

If you'd provide with a list of solid release dates that won't be delayed or of which the majority aren't simple placeholder dates for preorder purposes, then I'd consider those into the facts.

But still you're right it is obviously a fact that the 360 will have more games out, and of varying genres too, than the PS3 at launch. I never said it wouldn't. Given the history too I'd say PS3 will overtake 360 easily when it comes to genres like RPGs, sheer overseas locale almost seals unfortunately. But 360 cane hold it's own in total games released I think for soemtime.

I simply said the huge spread of games may seems reduced and perhaps less of a selling point to someone not interested in those 3 genres. This is nothing aginast those genres either, I love'em (though depending on how the interactivity works out I may be playing my sports games on the wii). But I simply gave an instnace where you can't simply say "it has more games now so it's better" is the wisest choice for everyone. I think console buying, at least for me and I'm sure others, comes down to the games I want to play more than anything. So if 360 has more games is not the point, it's is it games that people want to play, and I think it'll be at least 2008 before we get our answer there.

To be honest I think Sony's huge mistake in their gigatnic PS3 push on the people has been all this talk about hardware and very little about the games. I'd not pay $600 for a system at launch no matter what, but if they can give me some kind of guarentee that it'll have alot of games I'm going to like, then I'd definately give more thought to it. Unfortunately we've heard very little about the games save a few, so people interested in the games and what they'll have, are forced by Sony's marketing to play the waiting game.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']What list of 360 games are you going by? Including arcade titles makes no sense as you don't buy them in stores (yet) and aren't even remotely the same because they cost alot less than any game out and aren't really next generation (your argument, not mine). I only count 53 games and that's including ones yet to be released in August. Also my count of the xbox.com catalog comes ot 9 FPSs, 10 if you include GRAW. Plus would things like Bankshot Billards be sports, maybe that's just me.

So it should be more like:

Total titles: 54
FPS titles: 9
Racing titles: 6
Sports titles: 16

% of those genres combined vs. overall ((9+16+6)/54)) = 57%

I suppose perception does overshadow truth. Still my point wasn't a debate on the state of the 360 selection (which I adore actually), it's that a guy with a PS2 buying a next gen system has to consider he can buy 2 launch games for the PS3 and still play his backlog of PS2 games on the PS3, possibly at higher resolutions (if sony is wise enough to upconvert them). Hell he can even sell his PS2 and still do it, that will get him an extra game or two. In the end, a buyer's decision on something they haven't used is always based (at least partly) on perception anyways, be it theirs, that of a friend, a professional review, etc. All are forms of perception effecting consumer choices.[/QUOTE]
I'm using Gamerankings.com

Including Arcade games does make sense as the versions avaible are exclusive to the system, and they are next-gen as any retail game, as they are designed to be played on a next-gen system. To discount these games is to deny part of what gives the 360 its unique appeal. They've released 25 year-old games on Live Arcade, and I still consider the Live Arcade versions of those games to be next-gen because they include features not seen in previous versions, such as online multiplayer or leaderboards. I'm not seeing where you got that arguement from my previous posts. The fact that they cost less works even more in favor of the 360.

FPS titles: GRAW (although it uses a 3rd person perspective, Gamerankings counts it as an FPS), Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Prey, Far Cry Instincts Predator, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, Quake 4

Sports titles: Fight Night Round 3, Table Tennis, NCAA 07, NBA 2K7, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, NHL 2K6, Top Spin 2, Madden NFL 06, Amped 3, 2006 FIFA World Cup, College Hoops 2K6, Tiger Woods 06, NBA Live 06, MLB 2K6, FIFA 06: Road to the FIFA Cup, and Bankshot Billiards 2

Used PS2 console prices will drop as gamers shift toward PS3 as the market will become flooded with them. Look at what happened to the PS1 when PS2 debuted. And what if the PS2 guy buys a 360? Then he can play some Xbox games he missed out on.

I agree on your point about perception. Perception has a huge effect on consumer choices, especially in the console space. A big reason Microsoft is working so hard on backwards compatibility is to raise the perceived value of their console. The perception I was talking about is the one that says Xbox consoles are primarily for FPS, Sports, and Driving games.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']If you'd provide with a list of solid release dates that won't be delayed or of which the majority aren't simple placeholder dates for preorder purposes, then I'd consider those into the facts.

But still you're right it is obviously a fact that the 360 will have more games out, and of varying genres too, than the PS3 at launch. I never said it wouldn't. Given the history too I'd say PS3 will overtake 360 easily when it comes to genres like RPGs, sheer overseas locale almost seals unfortunately. But 360 cane hold it's own in total games released I think for soemtime.

I simply said the huge spread of games may seems reduced and perhaps less of a selling point to someone not interested in those 3 genres. This is nothing aginast those genres either, I love'em (though depending on how the interactivity works out I may be playing my sports games on the wii). But I simply gave an instnace where you can't simply say "it has more games now so it's better" is the wisest choice for everyone. I think console buying, at least for me and I'm sure others, comes down to the games I want to play more than anything. So if 360 has more games is not the point, it's is it games that people want to play, and I think it'll be at least 2008 before we get our answer there.

To be honest I think Sony's huge mistake in their gigatnic PS3 push on the people has been all this talk about hardware and very little about the games. I'd not pay $600 for a system at launch no matter what, but if they can give me some kind of guarentee that it'll have alot of games I'm going to like, then I'd definately give more thought to it. Unfortunately we've heard very little about the games save a few, so people interested in the games and what they'll have, are forced by Sony's marketing to play the waiting game.[/QUOTE]
Release dates are almost always subject to change until the game has gone gold, so providing a list of solid release dates would be a very short list.

You're basing your statement about the library on the PS2's success last generation. At this point we know don't know the details of Sony's online strategy or even have an official list of launch titles. I have a feeling that Sony's "free" online play will entail some combination of ads, giving away personal information (see EA's online policies), or having to buy more content piecemeal. Some developers have even cancelled games or delayed PS3 development. I think keeping so much in the dark is bad for PS3, but it might be better than having to recant on statements later on. The 360 actually has more RPGs that have been announced or released. So any assessments of PS3's value at this point are only based on speculation.

I'm going to wait and see on the PS3 and I think everyone in their right mind will too. As prices drop and the library grows, the value of the system will increase. My point about the size of a system's library is that with a larger library you have more choices and the likelihood that there will be games that appeal to you increases.

I know I haven't taken the Wii into account, but that makes it a much different discussion.
 
[quote name='radjago']I'm using Gamerankings.com[/quote]
Eh, they sometimes blend things across genres IMO that don't belong, then again it's all bout perspective I guess.

[quote name='radjago']
Including Arcade games does make sense as the versions avaible are exclusive to the system, and they are next-gen as any retail game, as they are designed to be played on a next-gen system. To discount these games is to deny part of what gives the 360 its unique appeal. They've released 25 year-old games on Live Arcade, and I still consider the Live Arcade versions of those games to be next-gen because they include features not seen in previous versions, such as online multiplayer or leaderboards. I'm not seeing where you got that arguement from my previous posts. The fact that they cost less works even more in favor of the 360.[/quote]
So 25 year old games become next gen by simply making the high scores screen and multiplayer xbox live capable? Oh yeah I forgot that 720p in Pac-Man makes all the difference too. Games that play exatly the same and have added on features are called ports last I checked, which is what I consider these. They are IMO not next-gen, a nice feautre of a next gen system to be sure, but the titles themselves I don't consider to be anything really new. Will you consider all of the Wii's virutal Console games to be next gen too if they have online leader boards or the like? If so, they may have quite the catalog of next gen games. The bottomline is nobody buys a 360 soley for Arcade titles, which is what I took out of your talk about BC games, and the fact that you can'r buy them with the system in the store and no one actually purchases the system to play 25 year old arcade games makes all this moot I'd think. Don't take offense, but I think including them seems like just a way to boost the numbers up.

[quote name='radjago']
FPS titles: GRAW (although it uses a 3rd person perspective, Gamerankings counts it as an FPS), Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Prey, Far Cry Instincts Predator, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, Quake 4[/quote]

I counted Condemned and King Kong, which are arguable I suppose because they are not soley shooters but the games are played in the FP perspective most of the time (in Condemned all the time except cutscenes IIRC).

[quote name='radjago']
Sports titles: Fight Night Round 3, Table Tennis, NCAA 07, NBA 2K7, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, NHL 2K6, Top Spin 2, Madden NFL 06, Amped 3, 2006 FIFA World Cup, College Hoops 2K6, Tiger Woods 06, NBA Live 06, MLB 2K6, FIFA 06: Road to the FIFA Cup, and Bankshot Billiards 2[/quote]

We came out with the same number here, only I counted Madden 07 cause I went through august and not BSB 2.

[quote name='radjago']
Used PS2 console prices will drop as gamers shift toward PS3 as the market will become flooded with them. Look at what happened to the PS1 when PS2 debuted. And what if the PS2 guy buys a 360? Then he can play some Xbox games he missed out on.[/quote]
Agreed, but $50 is $50 after all, $50 equals one new game (well almost) or an extra accessory (knowing sony we'll need those). As for the xbox games thing, you could say the same for any of the next gen systems, in the case of Wii and PS3 you decidedly play more games you missed out on, with much more ease (if the speculation is true).

[quote name='radjago']
I agree on your point about perception. Perception has a huge effect on consumer choices, especially in the console space. A big reason Microsoft is working so hard on backwards compatibility is to raise the perceived value of their console. The perception I was talking about is the one that says Xbox consoles are primarily for FPS, Sports, and Driving games.[/quote]
MS is working slowly on BC IMO, I won't get into the argument about it cuz I realize it's very very hard to emulate them, but it's the path they choose and they'll be presumadly very behind the competion in the realm of BC even at the competitor's launch. And historically the original perception surronding xbox 1 was that it was for those games, all I'm really saying is i think a similar perception is beginning for the 360.


[quote name='radjago']
Release dates are almost always subject to change until the game has gone gold, so providing a list of solid release dates would be a very short list.[/quote]
Which is exactly why I or anyone can't look at the list and consider a fact for which to base any decision on, that was what I was getting at in my response to morpheus.

[quote name='radjago']
You're basing your statement about the library on the PS2's success last generation. At this point we know don't know the details of Sony's online strategy or even have an official list of launch titles. I have a feeling that Sony's "free" online play will entail some combination of ads, giving away personal information (see EA's online policies), or having to buy more content piecemeal. Some developers have even cancelled games or delayed PS3 development. I think keeping so much in the dark is bad for PS3, but it might be better than having to recant on statements later on. The 360 actually has more RPGs that have been announced or released. So any assessments of PS3's value at this point are only based on speculation.

I'm going to wait and see on the PS3 and I think everyone in their right mind will too. As prices drop and the library grows, the value of the system will increase. My point about the size of a system's library is that with a larger library you have more choices and the likelihood that there will be games that appeal to you increases.[/quote]

I pretty agree with all you just said, except the cancelled games thing, that happens with every new system it seems like. Basing it on the PS2 library is a logical assumption though, or about as logical as I can get seeing how as you said they haven't given the people much to go on. Plus history counts for something right? Still my last paragraph was all about how I think sony's making a poor decision by not giving any details at all on most games, even launch ones. They are trying to sell it all on the hardware, and not on the software, which I think is where they are loosing a large protion of gamers interest, particularly experienced ones. This seems even more rediculous to me, especially considering software sales and liscensing is where they will make back alot of the money they are going to lose in hardware.

[quote name='radjago']
I know I haven't taken the Wii into account, but that makes it a much different discussion.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, though as of late I think they've unfortunately fallen into the saem marketing pit as Sony. I mean how much do we know about the Wii Launch titles? Other than some high profile ones I can't name hardly any and I don't even know how those I can name are going to work. I think they've left at least that portion a big question mark for the buyer unfortunately.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']...[/QUOTE]
For all those words, I think we agree more than we disagree. The only real point of contention I see is what makes a game next-gen. For me, if it plays on a next-gen system and has any extra features that previous versions of the game don't, then it fits the bill. Even if it's something as small as achievements, which weren't available on any other console before. So in that way, yes Pac-Man on 360 is a next-gen game. I'll admit that's pretty liberal. Granted ports may not be as desirable since they aren't exclusive, but it's just another facet to consider in the big picture.
 
Die hard PS2 fans, gotta love 'em.

Yeah, sure the online service will be free, but that does not stop the games themselves from charging monthly or yearly subscriptions. And, also, I have not heard anything that says that the online service will be for those with broadband or higher, and, from experience on the PS2 online service, if they don't set that restriction, then the online community will be trash (again). Also, there is no way the PS3 online can outperform Xbox Live in Sony's real 1st year in the online community (I would consider the current PS2 online a beta version).

In reference to the game saves and the HD, Microsoft has already said numerous times that they are slowly introducing games to where you won't even need an HD for game saves. Also, the only reason people complain about the size of the 360 HD is because a lot of room was reserved for normal Xbox game saves and probably because they don't delete all the stuff like played demos, trailers, etc. off their HD once they are done with it.

With the HD-DVD add-on, I highly doubt the average person will buy/look at/care about HD-DVD. There is not enough difference to warrant a purchase. Plus, people who really wanted the "next gen of DVDs" would probably already go for the PS3 anyways.

Don't forget that Sony said prices will not always be $50 or $60 dollars for their games, they can go upwards of 3 digits. So if there is indeed no online charges, this could be another way to pull more money out of you.

Plus, like shipwreck already mentioned, there will be bundles out that will include games for free and that alone will still cost less than the PS3 system.
 
If you look at the system specs it doesn't list modem anywhere. Ergo, I believe it'd be safe to assume its going to be broadband only seeing how you can't hook up a router to a dialup connection.

[quote name='Tha Xecutioner']Die hard PS2 fans, gotta love 'em.

Yeah, sure the online service will be free, but that does not stop the games themselves from charging monthly or yearly subscriptions. And, also, I have not heard anything that says that the online service will be for those with broadband or higher, and, from experience on the PS2 online service, if they don't set that restriction, then the online community will be trash (again). Also, there is no way the PS3 online can outperform Xbox Live in Sony's real 1st year in the online community (I would consider the current PS2 online a beta version).

[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']If you look at the system specs it doesn't list modem anywhere. Ergo, I believe it'd be safe to assume its going to be broadband only seeing how you can't hook up a router to a dialup connection.[/quote]
I would hope it'd be that way, because I can remember playing PS2 online and not once finding a game that didn't lag horribly.
 
[quote name='Tha Xecutioner']I would hope it'd be that way, because I can remember playing PS2 online and not once finding a game that didn't lag horribly.[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the infrastructure of Sony's system, but I fail to see how some users operating on dial up would affect you. Unless ofcourse the dial up machine was the host. If Sony had things server-centric, lag would be caused by either insuffient hardware on their end or an overwhelming number of clients connected.

Dial ups slow transfer speed should only affect that machine in a server centric environment.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I'm not familiar with the infrastructure of Sony's system, but I fail to see how some users operating on dial up would affect you. Unless ofcourse the dial up machine was the host. If Sony had things server-centric, lag would be caused by either insuffient hardware on their end or an overwhelming number of clients connected.

Dial ups slow transfer speed should only affect that machine in a server centric environment.[/QUOTE]
Moreso, as far as I know, the PS3 will not offer dial-up. Sony has made no mention of it, and the system only has broadband built-in.
 
I love the PS2. I have gone with Sony the entire way (PS, PS2 and eventually the PS3). It's going to be interesting how many PS3 consoles are sold versus X-Box 360 consoles. I for one won't getting one this time around. I figure to wait 2-3 years when the price starts dropping.

What is the official release of the PS3 by the way? Last I heard, it was delayed until Spring 2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top