I don't think you should include the cost of your TV into the equation, or at least not entirely. You don't buy a TV only for your games. Just like you don't buy a computer just for games(generally).
[...]
As for the debate on which is better and the cost of the systems, I will go into that now. First off for the 600USD version of the PS3 you get HDMI, BLU-Ray and an HD. If you want the HD-DVD for the X-box you need to buy it seperate, for what I am guessing would be around the 150-200USD mark. That comes out to be just as expensive as the PS3 when you buy the deluxe version of the Xbox360 that comes with the HD and wireless. The games for the Xbox will cost less, around 5-10USD less, this is true. One of the benefits of the PS3 is that games are fast aproaching the over 6GB mark for the common game and will soon go beyond 10GB if you don't want a limted port version. This will help the PS3 and hurt the Xbox360 since it will be limted to 9.6GB's. The Xbox360 however, could just go through a refresh and come out with a new system (xbox 720
).
[...]
In comparison though I think the price is more then justified. Especially when you consider you are buying NEW TECH, not used and proven tech. NEW TECH is always more expensive and will always be a risk. When you have a mega-corp like sony backing it up it is not nerly as much of a gamble though.
Include the cost of the TV in the equation or not, just make sure you do the same with the rest of the computer components. It's one of the methods of my first way of comparing the systems, you ignore the other stuff and say "Hmm, $500-600 PS3 or $500-600 gaming addition to my PC?"
I'd heard that the intention of the HD-DVD add-on drive was to be under $200 to make it cheaper overall than a PS3. Regardless of that, though, consider current and past vs present console situations. With PS2 vs Xbox, the PS2 was cheaper, less graphically powerful, launched a year earlier, and sold more than 4 times as many units as the Xbox. With PS3 vs Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 will be cheaper, less graphically powerful, and also launch a year earlier. The situations are reversed it would seem. Given that the PS2 was more popular than the Xbox, we can learn that graphical power isn't the primary concern of console gamers, and we can hypothesize that the games offered, back library, control style, fanboy-ness and features all play an important role in that. Just how the PS3 will measure up to the Xbox 360 in those regards has yet to be seen.
As far as optical discs go, consider what's going on with the PC realm. For some games, like Half Life 2 and FEAR, you can buy the game on 4-5 CDs or you can get 1 DVD instead, stores sell both versions. I don't see why this couldn't be a possibility for console games. If it turns out that game devs need more space than they have on the Xbox 360 (and based on what I've seen, they do a pretty nice job with those <10 GB DVDs!) they could opt to put their games on multiple DVDs, and when HD-DVD/Blu Ray become viable options they can offer the single HD disc or multiple DVDs. That way, upgrading to an HD-DVD drive will not only give you relatively cheap support for HD movies, but it will also let you avoid the possibility of swapping discs during play. For $100-200 such a drive would look a bit more attractive, while at the same time not forcing it upon people who don't need or want it. Did anybody ever look at the PS3 from that perspective? What if you don't plan on playing HD movies in the next few years because you don't have the right TV, for example? You're paying tons of money for the Blu-Ray drive when the only benefit it gives you is not having to swap a disc halfway through a game. It's for this reason that the Xbox 360 makes the hard drive optional; they figure people who don't want it would rather save the money, and people who do have a use for it are gonna pay for it either way, why not make it optional for the sake of those who don't want it? Same reason nobody sells the consoles with 4 controllers, most people only need one or two at first.
So the PS3 uses new tech. So what if it does? WHO CARES?! The vast majority of consumers could care less for how their devices work. They wouldn't care if they had put in a PowerPC and 7 seperate extra processors instead of a Cell processor so long as it doesn't have added disadvantages. People aren't paying for the new tech just because it's there (actually they are, but they don't
want to pay for it), they're paying for the features, performance and functionality that it gives them. If they can get an equally enjoyable gaming experience from something using old tech then they'll do just that. Point is... with consoles you strive to give the best experience, not add all the new tech. If they wanted new tech they'd ship the PS3 with a 750 GB perpendicular-recording hard drive. They won't ship it like that (at least not in 2006!) because that space would completely go to waste for 99% of users. Most users don't want risky new tech, they want a good experience, and they trust the company to provide that. The Xbox 360 should prove that new tech isn't needed to make a decent gaming product.
HDMI is not necessary for using the PS3. You will have the option of using Component output or if you are really down in the dumps you can use RCA yellow video connection or S-Video. You can do the same thing with the Xbox360. There is no way that sony is soo sutipid that they would take out the option of backward compatibilty with TVs. Especially considering as backward compatibilty is one of their selling points. Which brings me to the Xbox360, as rumor has, they are not working on making any more Xbox games work on the Xbox360. Don't quote on that last part for as far as I know it is still just a rumor.
Once again don't get me wrong the Xbox360 is a good system. It has a lot of things going for it. I just don't like it as much as I like the PS3.
One last side not I forgot to mention on my first post, PS3 is supposed to allow you to connect plug-n-play USB devices such as HD's, Keyboards, and Mice, and other peripherals. At least Sony said so in thier so called "leaked" FAQ. This is a huge deal as it may make PC style gaming possible for PS3 exclusive FPS titles, i.e. Killzone (if it is not vaporware).
that is another half a cent from me.
HDMI is not necessary, granted, but it's possible for Blu-Ray DVD makers to require an HDMI connection for HD video. Otherwise it scales the image down by 50% in each direction, giving you 1/4th the image detail you thought you were paying for.
As far as the Xbox 360 backwards compatability thing goes, I'd heard they weren't stopping, but that it was slowing down. I don't think it was ever their intention to have *all* of the games on the 360 as they have to hand-tune them to get them to run on the new hardware. Rather, they're trying to offer the more popular titles.
In regards to the plug-and-play device support... I was initially very excited about this! About 2 years ago. At E3 2005 I read somewhere that, while they would support USB devices, the support would depend on the game developers. With your typical game, there's a single control style, or maybe a basic and "advanced" control style that's more difficult but allows finer control. In order to use a mouse and keyboard for your games (which would be unweildly because they're rather hard to use when you don't have a large flat surface before you, such as a desk) the developers would have to program in menus that would let you customize the control setup in the way that most PC games do. This would mean more time and effort for them, on something that probably wouldn't be a very popular practice. As I understand it, the PS2 currently supports USB devices but that doesn't mean the software can use it.
OK, lets put aside graphics, HD and whether or not the PS3's price tag is worth it from a visual stand point. What do you guys think about the processing power of the new system? Do you think it will translate into considerable gains in realism and immersiveness in console gaming? We all know that the Wii's controller is pretty damn cool, and it opens up so many new possibilities in immersive gaming. Do you think that the PS3's technical dominance can make up for it's lack in innovation from a controller stand point (the tilt sensor is cool, but I don't see a lot of application for it). With the power of the PS3, will developers be able to create massive realistic worlds that will overshadow the "less technically impressive" consoles?
Here's any console at launch: "Booya! *muscle flex* I'm the king of the world, look at my gorgeous graphics. Who cares that it costs $2000 to buy me due to supply issues?"
And here's the same console 6 months later: "Alright, maybe PCs have passed me in graphics... but... uh... I'm cheaper! *whisper* If you've already got a 1080p TV that is..."
From a visual standpoint it's hard to say. I actually didn't think the Wii looked like it had craptastic graphics as everyone seems to think. The Red Steel trailer? (search for it on YouTube.com) Ignoring the totally awesome fact that you get to swing a "sword" at your computer and shoot at people gangsta style, the graphics certainly looked enjoyable and the people reacted well to being shot at. You see people stumble and lean away from gunshots with just the right "emotion" behind it, like they're genuinely afraid of being shot at. Someone falls down a staircase and the other guy watches somewhat while he continues to fire at you. You shoot at someone's feet and they move their feet (Dance monkey, DANCE! :twisted: ). It seemed plenty immersive to me, even if they aren't able to render every drop of sweat and put it in 1920x1080.
okay, i guess i wasnt very clear on some suff: The Gamecube was good, and yes smash melee was loads of fun. and sure the ps2 had the words video of them all, but the thing is that really, the only games i ever enjoyed playing on it are available on the ps2 and xbox as well, and those also have their wicked games, halo being a good example... the DS was an interesting approach, but its visuals were not at all outstanding and i much preffered the PSPs playability, had they made one big screen rather than those two annoying screns with that cumbersome stylus i would have thought mre highly of it. Yeah, i cant buy 3 corer CPUs, but i can get dualcores that perform as well, and better, and video cards that perform equally well. the wii is not a risk, its fanfare, its all bells and whistles.
Yeah, i can respect your opinion of microsofts online costs, but dude, you ever played WoW, and actually payed for it? I havnt (thank goodness) but there are thousands who do... But you have to calculate onto the cost of running a pc having XP PRO (cause home is just a waste of a good pc) and loads of ram, and a crazy video card, and the uncertainty of whether or not your pc will be able t run those new games. Buying collector edition games makes no sense... I could go on and on, writing a giant paragraph cause im too lazy to put those in here, but i wont, cause i forgot the rest of ur post (no offence, im jsut super forgetfull)... oh and sorry, its blu ray i guess, as if it matters, i was just writing it as it sounds. Dude, if you dont want a PS3, dont get one, infact i wont buy one cause its too expensive and im a pc gamer. it boils down to parties, where consoles are supposed to be used, where having 7 ppl each running their own scenes over a crazy landscape, where having a processing behemoth becomes handy...
As a PC gamer you should know that Halo is available on the PC and far better
Extra maps and weapons, mod potential, and 1600x1200 @ 60 fps rather than 512x384 @ 30 fps cap should be evidence enough.
You like the PSP, and other people like the DS, it's just a matter of opinion. See, I don't care so much about graphics on portable devices. I'm not going to be amazed at the visuals on a PSP or the resolution, if I wanted a game to go I'd probably go with something that's more in the fun department than graphics for now. As far as having multiple screens, tell Sony it's a bad idea. They're trying to turn the PSP into a mini-screen for the PS3 (wait, didn't Nintendo do that with the Gameboy Advance and the Gamecube some years ago? Oh well, everyone copies everyone these days). You think that a second screen is "annoying" and a stylus is "cumbersome" and that's your opinion. Tell a PC user with a secondary monitor (I've got a 17" LCD for the simple task of displaying my CPU utilization, core temp and RAM usage while I do fullscreen gaming) or a PDA user that their stuff is cumbersome and annoying.
I think you're missing the point about console vs PC hardware. They've all got commonalities but you won't be able to make any modern console with off the shelf retail components like you think. And even if you could, who cares? What's the point of this minor argument anyway? They're all consoles striving to do PC functions while retaining a stranglehold on what hardware and software is compatible. End of story.
I've never played WoW nor do I wish to, and not just because of the $15-20 a month online fees. Nor did I try to defend or attack Microsoft's Xbox Live online fees. I'll do that now: I think it's stupid to charge for what Nintendo and Sony plan on giving out for free, and PC users have enjoyed for free for years. Microsoft has enough money to provide bandwidth for Xbox content and "Gamer Tags" and other such nonsense from their own pockets, and players should be able to host games on their systems.
If you read an earlier post of mine I discuss the costs of PCs and consoles. 1-2 GB of RAM, a fast dual-core processor, a good display and XP Professional are all things that have useful non-gaming purposes, thus I do not include them in the price. Everyone should HAVE that stuff, and if they don't have it, they should be GETTING it soon. The "crazy video card" is all you really need to turn a good home PC into a good gaming PC, and if you do have that "crazy video card" then there's none of this fear of "Oh noes, will my new game run?" If you've got an X1800 XTX or nVidia equivalent, you don't worry about the game running. It will, barring the increasingly rare hardware/malware incompatability. If you go for that $100-150 graphics card instead you might worry about "Will this game run smoothly on my computer?" but that's no different from console land: getting an Xbox entirely alienates you from the Xbox 360 titles, getting a PS2 alienates you from the PS3 titles, and getting a Gamecube (generally, not counting the Zelda title) alienates you from the Wii titles. Difference is that with the PC there's a bit of flexibility in terms of graphical detail, resolution, and performance... with consoles it's a flat out "NO, this WILL NOT WORK because you don't have the latest hardware."
Buying Collectors Edition stuff does make sense but generally to a small group of people. If you're a Lord of the Rings fan then a LotR game or movie in collector's edition format might be worth the money to you, for added content and collectable stuff. Either way, no matter how you cut it a $60+ game is more expensive than a $50 game.
I don't want a PS3 anymore and I won't be getting one. Sony pissed me off too much with various deceptions (I thought the Killzone trailer was real in-game graphics based on the PS3's hypothetical power, turns out they didn't even have the prototype of the RSX working at the time) and nasty attitude (they mentioned how many PS3s they would sell even if there were no games for it, just because people love the PS3 so much) and blatent ripping off of Nintendo (watch the smugness when they demonstrate a half-assed motion sensitive controller in the E3 2006 presentation, or how they use the PSP to connect to the PS3 as the Gamecube did with the GBA). Finding out that there won't necessarily be
game support for USB mice and keyboards, plus that the console will retail for $600... those things utterly killed my desire to get a PS3. My dream of playing Killzone with my PC mouse and keyboard for $300 having mutated into watching pre-rendered Killzone videos without mouse and keyboard support in the game for twice the price and subsequently caused me to think that Sony should go "Suck a F*ck"
Finally you say something unarguably true and without a hidden side. When you've got 1-3 other friends, maybe college students or buddies at a party, and you want to play games together, sitting around a large TV screen beats taking turns on a comparably priced PC, or spending 10 grand on 4 fast gaming laptops and sitting in a circle. It's cheaper, more portable, and more involved for friends, and in all but the most extreme cases the PS3 will have visuals to beat the PC (as things are now, I can't speak for 6+ months down the road). And when I have friends over, we do game on my Gamecube and stuff.
...man... I gotta stop writing so much D:
). I dont give a damn about the new exciting titles when i know that my three week salary gonna buy me just the consol, games and controlers. I still have to put another month salary to get a hdtv. So dream of ps3 was killed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram