Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MMR: Is PlayStation 3 in Trouble or Just Playing Possum?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 7, 2006 7:11:08 PM

The seemingly endless flow of bad press and negative comments about PlayStation 3 continues, from cancelled titles to production costs. Meanwhile, Wii and Xbox 360 are getting good vibes. But are Sony and its next-generation console really in that much trouble or is the media and gaming community getting carried away?
August 7, 2006 9:04:23 PM

Here's my thoughts: I think Sony tried to make a game console of the future--which they are doing--but perhaps they made it too futuristic. An area you didn't touch on here--is sony in trouble due to the rumored low yeilds of the 7 core cell processors? Are the games just too difficult to make due to the complexity of the graphics, thereby discouraging game makers from spending all of their resources on making PS3 games?

Sony is too far ahead IMO. I don't know of anyone personally who has a 1080p resolution TV or even plans to get one. Heck, most of my geek friends didn't even know 1080p existed ("What? You mean there's different HDTV standards?"). Sony is making a great system, but I believe it is being released or trying to be released way too quickley. Perhaps the XBOX 360 was released faster than they anticipated? In two years, I can see the PS3 being a major console, but right now, nobody can afford it IMO, and the 1080p selling point just does not sell to a big crowd.
August 7, 2006 9:54:11 PM

Each of the "next gen" consoles have failings and accomplishments. Price, performance, features, resolution, game support, online gaming, etc.

But the Xbox 360 is here, now, so it's hard to complain about it--you'd have to compare it to what currently two non-existant products.

Among those products, the Wii gets few complaints because people are excited by what looks like a fresh take on gaming, and its supposedly very low price. People are also hesitant to pass swift judgement on the Wii, because its biggest selling point is the game controller, which nearly 100% of consumers have not experienced.

PS3 doesn't offer that. It's easier to ignore its benefits ("I don't have an HD TV anyway so what does 1080p matter to me?") and criticize the shortcomings ("$600?!") because people know the value of a dollar.

Fair or not, that seems to be how it's all working out.

Personally, I'm not a big console gamer, I'm a PC man. If I'm going to get a console it will be for things I can't get on the PC. Playing UT 2007 at high resolutions against friends who aren't watching on the same screen? That's about as PC-gamer as you can get, we've been doing that since the original Unreal Tournament back in 1999. The Wii at least offers a new controller with a price of less than half a PS3, making it affordable to people who want to try something new and not take out a loan for it.

Let's do some (estimated) math for the systems, decked out with 3 full-price launch titles, 3 extra controllers for your friends, and enough space to have about 300 GB of total system space (not that you really need it).

Wii System = $250
(3) Remotes = $90
(3) Games = $150
300 GB USB HD = $110
Total: $600

PS3 System = $600
(3) Controllers = $90
(3) Games = $180
250 GB USB HD = $90
Total: $960

Once you throw in some cables for doing the high-def audio and video (which the Wii won't need), the PS3 setup ends up hovering around 1000 USD. Now, I don't make the same money as those Sony CEOs so for me $1000 is a lot of money for something that plays 3 games and movies (which aren't included in that $1000 price tag!).

Sony's trying to push the PS3 as being its big Blu-Ray introducing device. At $600 for a fully-featured Blu-Ray player, it's a steal, right? No. The average person doesn't say "Oh wow, it's like having a free console built into the video player!" The average person says "I'm not paying $600 for a video player, or a console, or both put together. I'll buy each when they cost <$200, or maybe $250-300 if they're put into one box."

Commenting on what bourgeoisdude said, I totally agree. They're maybe half a product lifespan too early. If it were 2008 or 2009 then Blu-Ray drives and media would be much more affordable, there would be a decent number of videophiles and gamers with 1080i and 1080p TVs to take advantage of the high quality, and hopefully the Cell would have better yields and have lower costs due to its development price having been whittled away after 2+ years of selling it for other purposes. All the hardware would be matured, standards established, and true potential for HD realized. After all, if you're missing a single link in the HD chain, such as a TV that shipped without an HDMI input, your HD experience won't happen at all. I think that the Xbox 360 was more on target actually. It shipped sooner, but didn't force Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as a standard quite yet, which I still don't think would be a wise choice if it shipped today. It's got less than half the core count and I heard Microsoft loses much less money on it. Also, because they got it out a year sooner, they'll have a head-start on the next batch of consoles. There was a 4 year gap between Xbox and Xbox 360 launch, and a ~6 year gap between the PS2 and PS3 launch. If they take the same amount of time that would mean an Xbox 3 (for lack of a better name) in late 2009 and a PS4 in late... 2012?! Hopefully Sony will get some sense in the next 6 years and do it sooner, but if Microsoft takes the same time to make the Xbox 3 as the Xbox 360, they'll be poised in 2009 to launch a device that is cheaper and more cutting-edge and powerful than the PS3, while using Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, whichever becomes the leader. It's probably idle speculation to assume Microsoft and Sony will both keep the same pace (either one may or may not feel a great need to get newer products out there, depending on what consumers go for) but still fun.

Sooooooo yeah. Do the companies deserve the press they're getting? Yes! Is the Wii innovative compared to current and next-gen game sytsems, while being cheaper? Absolutely. Is the Xbox 360 a good product, way before the competition, from a company who traditionally puts out "too little, too late"? Undoubtably. Is the PS3 expensive and basically pointless for the 83% of Americans (and who knows how many people around the world) who don't have an HD set, period, much less 1080p? Yup.
Related resources
August 7, 2006 10:54:10 PM

In all cases, I might be one of the few people who have been saving for a PS3 for a few months now. I have already started my Blu-Ray DVD collection and have my eyes set on a 1080p 50" Plasma TV. I am just waiting for after Halloween for the cheaper prices.

I am a huge PC gammer and have always been on the bleeding edge of new tech, and I think the PS3 is one of those items and I know there are a ton of people like me who are going to do the same thing.

Note: $1000 for a gaming console is nothing compared to my $5000 gaming PC. and my PC lacks super nice wireless controllers and Blu-ray support.

In all the PS3 is a winner. It has better performance, better graphics and it has Blu-ray, Meets my needs and I can't complain.
August 7, 2006 11:47:00 PM

Since Blu-Ray is still far from being the clear winner of the two future formats, and I don't have over $10,000 to burn like you do, I don't even have an HDTV yet. I am planning to get one very soon, but guess what? It'll likely be 720p.

Yes, there are people like you--only not as many as there are people like me. In America (and many other countries I hear), the middle class is becoming more and more scarce. We're becoming the world of supercompanies/megacoorps, and you're either rich or living near or below poverty. In that case, yeah, the PS3 may win in the next couple of years. I still think there are too many folks that can't afford PS3 and Wii is starting to look like it will be the more clear victor. What else can I say, thogh? Wii and PS3 aren't out yet, and the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD format war is far from over.
August 8, 2006 12:04:26 AM

You gotta feel bad for th guys tho, I think Sony took too big of a bite, or they had an economic moron designing its hardware. Why, however, is it that no-one notices Sony is also trying to be *new* in this matter. Microsofts XBOX360 is pretty much just a compter, with plain components, not much different from what we see on newegg, but sony is trying out the cell processors, and risking the video game inustry over it. Sure, Nintendo scored with the wii, but really, all youre getting is a cool controller which does not apply to die hard gamer's needs. And blue-Ray is another risky move by sony... I lost all respect for nintendo with the DS and the Gamecube, and the wii, quite honestly, is really not a comeback, its just because nintendo, in my opinon, can only rely on its name and the fanboys. To the post of the "expensiviness" of the ps3, yeah, a pc is cheaper, if you plan on downloading pirated versions of computer games, buyng garbage video cards and only ever playing alone. the price of the PS3 is a steal, for the consumer it is a steal. there is NO pc which at a similar price can perform half as well as it can.
The novelty of the wii is its only benefit, and when that wears off, what then? 250 dollars spent poorly is worse than 5-600 bucks spent on innovation and proven gaming performance.

Well, i just got distracted, im gonna go do something else now....
August 8, 2006 1:35:10 AM

Sometimes a possum is really dead and not just playing. This particular one seems to have died from Sony Greed, Complacency, Arrogance and Fear.

Fear of Microsoft influenced their engineering decisions to try to make a system that looked better than the 360 on paper, rather than build a system based on what the developers needed. PS3 didn’t need to be better than the 360 or Wii to continue Sony’s dominance, it just needed to do the same thing just a little better. Their user base has invested a huge amount in PS3 games that they won’t just throw away. Let’s not forget; the original Xbox was, after all, twice as powerful with far better graphics capability than the PS2.

Arrogance in thinking they could rest on their laurels and rely on brand loyalty rather than building a good product.

Complacent in their belief that Sony wields some magic that will cause ordinary people to skip a house payment and put in a lot of overtime to pay for their “computer replacement”, multimedia supercomputer. Imagine how the poor sap who breaks the bank to get a PS3 will feel when he finds out it’s not a super computer and very little else they promised. He’s going to be really upset when he finishes making the payments and he’ll provably tell his friends about it.

Greed in their trying to exploit their customers by pushing Blue Ray technology they cannot use and don’t need at present. This is what happens when the entertainment and marketing divisions have more “say so” than the engineers do when decisions are made about what to build at the “big meeting”.

Sony’s silence and their keeping their system far away from those who might benchmark it is very telling.
August 8, 2006 2:08:42 AM

Quote:
Note: $1000 for a gaming console is nothing compared to my $5000 gaming PC. and my PC lacks super nice wireless controllers and Blu-ray support.

In all the PS3 is a winner. It has better performance, better graphics and it has Blu-ray, Meets my needs and I can't complain.

I'll discuss this down below.

Quote:
You gotta feel bad for th guys tho, I think Sony took too big of a bite, or they had an economic moron designing its hardware. Why, however, is it that no-one notices Sony is also trying to be *new* in this matter. Microsofts XBOX360 is pretty much just a compter, with plain components, not much different from what we see on newegg, but sony is trying out the cell processors, and risking the video game inustry over it. Sure, Nintendo scored with the wii, but really, all youre getting is a cool controller which does not apply to die hard gamer's needs. And blue-Ray is another risky move by sony... I lost all respect for nintendo with the DS and the Gamecube, and the wii, quite honestly, is really not a comeback, its just because nintendo, in my opinon, can only rely on its name and the fanboys. To the post of the "expensiviness" of the ps3, yeah, a pc is cheaper, if you plan on downloading pirated versions of computer games, buyng garbage video cards and only ever playing alone. the price of the PS3 is a steal, for the consumer it is a steal. there is NO pc which at a similar price can perform half as well as it can.
The novelty of the wii is its only benefit, and when that wears off, what then? 250 dollars spent poorly is worse than 5-600 bucks spent on innovation and proven gaming performance.

Well, i just got distracted, im gonna go do something else now....

I almost feel bad for Sony. I've heard for years about the PS3 back when it was just whispers and wide eyes about 50 GB DVDs and the fastest thing in the universe. I almost wanted a PS3 at one point. But Sony's arrogance and attitude have just made me give up with sympathy.

Xbox 360 is just a computer? Sony's the company who has been trying, since the PS2, to say they're selling computers. In the case of the PS2 it was to avoid millions of dollars in taxes due to a technicality in a law, in the case of the PS3 it's to try and appeal to a broader audiance and offer more features. The Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, etc, they're all just computers that have been somewhat gutted of their general-purpose abilities. They're honed to do more specific functions, hence the more specific input, output, and software/hardware compatability. The only thing Sony is doing which is innovative here is the Cell processor, and the only reason that's innovative is because it's crazy new, Sony was part of the group working on it, and as such they've got first dibs so to speak (you'll soon be able to put Blu-ray and HD-DVD drives in the PC, and can already get Cell-processor accelerator cards for the PC).

As far as the Wii not being a comeback, it depends really on how you play your games and what you want out of them. I personally have been wanting to play a game where you can actually swing a sword and have it register on-screen, I'm a graphics-obsessed guy and yet I'm willing to put that on the back burner if I can really feel like I'm part of the game. Breaking down the 4th wall! After all, if I valued visuals above interactivity, I'd watch various CG movies all day...

Now I get to the point of PCs being "expensive" and consoles being "cheap". The way I see it, there are two ways of approaching this. The first is to say, the whole setup is taken into account. Your multi-thousand dollar PC versus your multi-thousand dollar console setup. Why is this? Well, all PC components have legitimate non-gaming uses, just like all entertainment center components have legitimate non-gaming uses. And in theory, a good computer should be as much of a useful household appliance as a good home entertainment system. A fast dual-core processor, 2-4 GB of RAM, 500 GB of drive space and a 24" or 30" display will all make for a very nice computer even if there's not a single game on there. Likewise, a 7.1 sound system and 50" HDTV make for very nice movie, TV and music watching. Each of them can range from cheap and craptastic (moderate single core processor + 512 MB of RAM + 160 GB space and a 17" display for the PC, no sound system and a 25" standard def TV for the entertainment center) to expensive and wonderful (specs I gave a couple sentances back). So this way of thinking basically says, compare your $5000 PC with your $5000 theater setup, in terms of what they can/cannot do. Or alternatively, you can subtract the non-gaming components and compare those. If a PS3 costs $600 and adds a lot of gaming fun to your home theater system, what PC hardware additions can you have for the same $600? Probably a $400-500 graphics card and another 1-2 GB of RAM. I am a huge proponent of this way of thinking, because I think it's the most fair way of comparing the two things. The only difference between a gaming PC and a regular good PC is really the graphics card, everthing else really isn't part of the equation unless you've got the high-def theater and not the good PC... but really, that's just you, we're looking at everyone else who hasn't yet adopted high-def or high-spec computers for general use.

The other way of looking at it is the bullsh*t way that everyone seems to do it nowadays, "My PS3 will cost me $600 and show me a $600 gaming machine!" This is bullsh*t because your $600 PS3 will do you absolutely no good unless you've got a TV and sound system to back it. It's a point perpetuated by the console lovers and ignored by the PC lovers, because they generally don't even think about the idea above. You want to see my $600 gaming PC? Fine. Now show me your $600 PS3+HD theater setup. Let's not forget that you can still watch your HD videos, music, games and TV on the expensive computer setup, but your PS3 probably won't do a very good job of common office applications. It's only with this newest generation of consoles that we see the abilities to do simple things like internet browsing, IM programs, or play stuff that's not on a DVD.

And in response to GWolf...

Beautiful. I couldn't agree more with that.
August 8, 2006 3:12:17 AM

Quote:
You gotta feel bad for th guys tho, I think Sony took too big of a bite, or they had an economic moron designing its hardware. Why, however, is it that no-one notices Sony is also trying to be *new* in this matter. Microsofts XBOX360 is pretty much just a compter, with plain components, not much different from what we see on newegg, but sony is trying out the cell processors, and risking the video game inustry over it. Sure, Nintendo scored with the wii, but really, all youre getting is a cool controller which does not apply to die hard gamer's needs. And blue-Ray is another risky move by sony... I lost all respect for nintendo with the DS and the Gamecube, and the wii, quite honestly, is really not a comeback, its just because nintendo, in my opinon, can only rely on its name and the fanboys. To the post of the "expensiviness" of the ps3, yeah, a pc is cheaper, if you plan on downloading pirated versions of computer games, buyng garbage video cards and only ever playing alone. the price of the PS3 is a steal, for the consumer it is a steal. there is NO pc which at a similar price can perform half as well as it can.
The novelty of the wii is its only benefit, and when that wears off, what then? 250 dollars spent poorly is worse than 5-600 bucks spent on innovation and proven gaming performance.

Well, i just got distracted, im gonna go do something else now....


Some other stuff I noticed on a further review of your comments... in order of what you said...

None of these things have many parts you can just buy off a shelf or from Newegg. They have custom graphics parts and things like 3-core PowerPC processors, those don't grow on trees.

Sony isn't really risking the videogame industry over the PS3. There are probably at least as many Sony fanboys as there are Nintendo ones. Nintendo survived 3rd place this previous console generation, Sony's a much more powerful and larger company and it will survive even if the PS3 only sells as well as the Gamecube did.

Wii has a cool controller which does not meet die-hard gamer needs. Depends on how you define die-hard gamers. If you're talking about people who need the best graphics, then no, the Wii doesn't provide for that. If you're talking about people who want an immersive experience with decent graphics, then the Wii will provide that. I'd hope that a good system wouldn't focus on one to the exclusion of the other.

Blu Ray is risky for Sony, but that doesn't mean a thing. The Wii is risky for Nintendo but that also doesn't automatically give support. If anything it takes it away, because people doubt them and say "Who thought of THAT idea?"

Losing respect for the Gamecube and the DS? Weren't you just giving Sony props for taking risks? The Gamecube is actually more powerful than the PS2, don't be getting pissed of at Nintendo for what game developers choose to do with it. Gamecube has plenty of fun games, most people would agree, it's just not as popular as the PS2 was. I've never actually used a DS, but my sister did last night and she said it was "surprisingly fun." Personally, $100-200 for a portable is a bit rich for me, I'm never far away from an outlet so my laptop and PC work fine for me ;) 

You don't have to play pirated games on the PC and play alone to have it cheaper than consoles. PC games run from $20-50. Console games run from $20-50. New console games, like for Xbox 360 and likely the PS3, will top out at $60 at least. Collectors Edition Xbox 360 games cost $70. And let's not forget that Xbox live costs $50 a year, the Sony service will cost $0 a year, and PC gaming costs $0 a year for online stuff. You don't have to play alone. You want to talk about playing alone? Consoles in a nutshell, if you don't have people clustered around your TV. PC games have been about multiplayer and community since the '90's and consoles are just starting to realize that. It took Sony until 2006 to come up with this online network and we still don't have it in place...

And you say the novelty of the Wii will wear off, whereas the PS3 will retain its much more expensive and desirable qualities of being innovative and having proven gaming performance. I couldn't disagree more. I'd say if anything it's the PS3 which is the novel item. After a while you'll get used to the graphics. I spent the past 2 days playing Half Life 1 which has comparatively crap graphics. After a while I didn't even notice. And then I'll play FEAR which has wonderful graphics. After a while I won't even notice. When the game is fun enough and immersive enough it can pull you in and you don't focus on textures or anti-aliasing as much. The only innovative things about the PS3 are the Cell processor, which translates to performance, and Blu-ray, which is only useful for watching movies. So what, PS3's awesome qualities which justify twice the price is that it has better performance and can play HD movies if you've got the right hardware, cables and discs? I'm going to try and reserve judgement on the Wii until I've tried one out in a store, which is something I'm looking forwards to immensely.
August 8, 2006 5:27:22 AM

that 600 $ pc thingy. lol. i couldnt agree more that youre not taking into account your tv and stuff. nor the general stuff.

i mean, maybe if you were talking just a pc tower it might be a bit fairer, but even so, teh 600$ price tag is lowered by sony just like microsoft did to make it attractive, theyre taking a hit on it too. and think about those yield problems theyre having too. lol. weeeeee, more losses. i bet the real price of such a console would be at least 1100$, now who'd want to buy THAT?

and i dont know about you, but i doubt you can overclock a xbox or a ps3, whilst you can on a decent pc. heck, to meet your 600$ thingy, you could probably go buy a cheapo dell or something with all the rebates (to make it sort of fair) or make a pc and overclock it to make it sort of fair again.

but all that doesnt take into account (like was said in a previous post) the better sound card, upgradability (cant really upgrade the memory of a ps3 now can you eh? or change the processor to make it faster. only thing you can add IIRC is a better hard drive and a ethernet adapter - which all modern mobos have integrated anyways) and it cant really run an OS.

btw, about that downloaded games not being able to be played online. well, there ARE FREE ONLINE games such as wolfenstein enemy territories. so like yeah... thats a valid coment. not to mention that you havent taken into account all those crackers that work to get internet play in games. theres some patches for ut2k4 for example, but yeah, you dont need to know that.

and besides, we have the computer that can do pretty much what the ps3 claims it wil be able to do. there are some blu-ray players already out there, so i bet blu-ray drives for pc wont be too far off. heck, once you get hd-dvd and blu-ray drives, who needs a ps3 or another machine to read whatever thats going to read hd-dvd? you have a pc with two drives, upgradable hard drives, a kentsfield possibly, and yeah. you can upgrade the videocard for a uber screen and what not that sony claims it's thingy can do.

now WII on the other hand, you cant really make a controller like that for the pc, so that would make it worth buying for the experience.
August 8, 2006 5:53:51 AM

1 : the 100 title probably include Japanese only games.

2: Regardless of whether Blu-ray is a success or not, many people will not use a console to play movies.

3: mel gibson got caught, apparently not shifting fast enough
August 8, 2006 7:05:29 AM

Pc will never die when it comes to hardware comparison. what will kill pc gaming is less titles to play. we have been listening to this rubbish that pc will be killed, everytime when a new consol is released.

for me PS3 was dead effectively when the news of $600 tag came. When i read the possible price first time, all i could thinnk of how much 600x1.18 will be (can. dollar :)  ). 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.

Now I take bite my lip and go and buy all that spending pretty almost $3000 can. or even more. enjoy a few days and then when its time to get back to pc and do some work, i find out i dont have enough money. now can i use a 3000 garbage to write a c++ code. No. Can i use it to edit some pics? No. Can i watch google video? No. How about all the other stuff that links up to pc? how will i download stuff? Hey can i get porn on ps3? ok forget porn :)  what about assignments and stuff? No.

maybe someone already pointed out, I have a choice with pc. I can go and get a 7900gt and watch some great grpahics or get a 6600gt and watch something of less quality.

and finally to burn a dvd or future format, I will still need a pc. so no matter what you do, there is no escape from pc. you going to have to buy one. Now a decent gamer pc can be bought with a $1200 CAN. (a good one, not enthusiest grade) but with a ps3 just to minimum start I am gonna have to put down a $3000 CAN. Now which smart a$$ who works on pc gonna ditch pc upgrade and go after a ps3? frankly i have not met a single student who lives without parent check and will be able to pull that off.

We students were the force who introduced the ps1 and ps2 to parents and families. and when you leave this huge portion of your customer out, even if your product is complete and in competition, you will fail. Hell i dont know how the hell i am going to come up with 3 grands when I stopped going to movies cuz theatres are expensive now.

My 16 years old cousin, the only "child" (well atleast his parents think so :)  ) in the house did not ask for a xbox 360 for present. Reason: "dude its a little too much man i am gonna ask for something small". I can remember clearly how he wouldnt shut up when he wanted money from his parents for 7600gt, almost the same price of a xbox.

we have to realize. In the end ps3 is entertainment and nothing more. when you and me go to dish out our hard earn money, this "just entertainment" fact stays in our mind. and no matter how enthusiest we are, thought of price vs. use will never go out of brain.

Now you could easily ignore the price vs. benefit and say hell buy pc and ps3. and i agree for some that is very good option too. but hey neither i have $3000 to spend on ps nor i have 3 grands to spend on pc. and agree or not, most of people are like me.

so when i have to ditch one for another, PS3 will be out of the window before you can blink. Because, after all, its just a entertainment box.

Any ghost recon fan here? well if you are not then let me give an example. I have played ghost recon online for atleast 4 years. waited for GR2 for 3 years. bought a graphic card just before GRAW(GR advance warfare). checked my specs with ubi and i well above average and a little lower than great specs.

a month later GRAW gets released. bought a copy and guess what. the game was too advance for its own good. I could not do sht. Apparently the card that could play doom3 and fear without any problem with quality of graphics between average and high end, cannt play GRAW properly. I am not the only one. many others have faced the same problem. And eventhough UBI likes to beat its own drum that GRAW is a great success, the fact is for poor performance, tons of pc gamers are left out.

Lesson to learn here. Not everybody has a 5000 pc. and not everybody is willing to spend that much just because you are offering something for 5000. There is a limit to customer loyality. and with all the crticism ps3 is getting, I think sony has found out that they just crossed the line.
August 8, 2006 9:52:16 AM

The PS3 will follow a similar angel as the PS2 - top of the line capability at an inflated price tag over the competition.

Seriously, the PS2 was (and still is) a stellar machine. Developers have just recently in the past year been able to fully tap the potential of it's hardware. The Xbox is also a great peice of hardware, but how long after the PS2 did it come out and only slightly better in terms of ability and innovation compared to the PS2.

My opinion, even if the PS3 is not the dominate force in 2-3 years in the gaming industry, it won't go down like Sega. I predict that the PS3 will be in second place to the Wii, as the angle of the Wii is focused more on family fun and innovation and less on visuals or "end all be all" system for the house hold. Sony is beating an old horse with a rotten stick with the Entertainment PC - isn't that a similar angel Microsoft touted with it's Xbox before dropping it entirely from the media highlights when it didn't take off in that direction? Honestly, how many people use their Xbox regularly as a DVD/Music center? (except for bacholars who didn't already have a DVD player or laptop).

It's too soon to tell, I read a number of stories saying the Xbox would outsell the GameCube and PS2 combined in games/equipment. Not even the greatest of market specialists could tell you the true winner... because it's the consumer who really makes the final choice.

Me? I own a Panasonic Plasma TV, but it's not 1080p... I didn't care because my eyes are not that good as it is and the 1080p version was 400 dollars more without speakers. I put that 400 dollars aside for a year after the PS3 launches (to get the bugs out)... I wait... I'm a stalker of good technology, you won't find much unused tech in my home. I leave that for the technfreaks.
August 8, 2006 1:23:57 PM

One Thing that everyone seems to fail to mention is the following. When you buy a television, big screen or not, you are not just going to use it for gaming only. When was the last time you bought a 50' TV and said "Wow, this will be great for my PS2/Xbox(360), but when I watch a DVD or My teams sports broadcast my old 21' TV will be perfect." I am not saying that you don't imagine how good your games will look but that is not hte sole purpose of buying your television. When I bought mine I thought of how good Sunday Night football and Saving Private Ryan was going too look. Then when nothing was on I was thinking, wow my PS2 will look awsome on this thing. Next when I bought my home theatre sound system, the first thing I thought of was how good action movies would sound on it. Not how good my Games would sound.

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 :D  ).

Don't try to peg me off as a FanBoy of playstation because I am not. I will probably buy a Wii also since it sound like a blast to play sports games using a controller to do the operations of the game--i.e. throwing a football, shooting a puck with a stick, swining a baseball bat. Now that sounds like fun. I am just plain sick of everyone saying that sony is stupid and arrogent, well they are kind of arrogent. 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.
Well that is my 2 and a half cents. Feel free to belidger and flame me for defending Sony as I know many of you will.
August 8, 2006 2:14:25 PM

Quote:
"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 )."


Remember Final Fantasy VII for the original PS? Had three discs--yet it cost about the same as the other games did. The media format means close to nothing about which console wins, IMO. If a game comes on two DVDs, fine. A tad less convinient, and yeah, you could lose one of them more easily, but big deal. The XBOX 360 has the advantage over the PS3 in this area IMO, as the console's cost of materials isn't sky-high due to a new video player included. The HD-DVD as an addon was genius IMO, as the true enthusiasts can get the works, but people like me who can barely afford a decent PC are still able to buy the XBOX 360.

BTW, I do agree about the TV cost.
August 8, 2006 2:25:30 PM

But here's the thing, you most likely already have a PC monitor since you're typing that message. Monitors can pass down for a LONG time. If I got a new PC right now, I'd definitely reuse this monitor (17' LCD). A TV, on the other hand, you're going to be using a new format (HDMI) so most likely, you can't use your current TV, unless you already have an HDTV. And since HDTVs are still on the expensive side, you don't see too many people who have them. much less dual HDMI ports.

Foxconn 6100K8MA-RS Socket 939 NVIDIA GeForce 6100 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail $43.99

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model ADA3800BVBOX - Retail $149.00

G.SKILL 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model F1-3200PHU2-1GBNR - Retail $87.99

eVGA 256-P2-N554-AX Geforce 7600GT KO 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail $145.99

JPAC 550ATX ATX 550Watts Power Supply - OEM $26.99

TOTAL COST: $453.96

Use what you have already. You already have a keyboard/mouse since you're posting here. You should already have a case from your old PC. and with $150 left over, you could get a GeForce 7800GTX. $600 PC solved.

EDIT: Prices off of Newegg.com, by the way.
August 8, 2006 2:53:18 PM

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.
August 8, 2006 3:41:48 PM

Of Course Sony is not that stupid. It's just that it's not what they promised. They promised HD, which is only capable via Component and HDMI. Component looks a bit worse than HDMI and if you're resorting to that, you STILL need an HDTV. If I'm going to drop $600 for a system, I want it to deliver what it promised. Too bad the only way is with an HDTV with 1080p and Dual HDMI ports.....which is the setup for every single demo you've seen of the PS3 so far. We have no idea (at least I have no idea) how much lower a Component or even S-Video quality is. It wouldn't bother me, maybe the videophiles, but to get the full offering of the PS3, you need a LOT of money.

EDIT: Even worse, if you're going to use a regular TV on it, you paid extra money for stuff you're not going to use at all. Just the ability to do HD costs money. And so will the games. If you can't take advantage of the HD, then there's no point spending THAT much money.
August 8, 2006 4:29:44 PM

Not to turn this into too large of an argument I just need to state one thing you made an error on.
Quote:
Component looks a bit worse than HDMI and if you're resorting to that, you STILL need an HDTV.


You do not need an HDTV to be able to use Component imput. You can use a SDTV and still get 480i scanlines with Component cables (which will still look very good with the PS3 or Xbox360). Granted with doing that you do not get full graphics capabilities of the system. Your argument seems to be only against the PS3. You can use an equal argument with the Xbox360 (sans HDMI connection). You cannot fully see the capabilty of the Xbox360 without an HDTV either. Considering as it is capbable of 720p and 1080i as well.

It is still a mostly valid argument with both systems, I just wanted to point out that small mistake in the case that there are not so knowledgable patrons who are reading these and taking what is said to heart. :wink:
August 8, 2006 7:44:42 PM

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?
August 8, 2006 9:10:00 PM

Quote:
You gotta feel bad for th guys tho, I think Sony took too big of a bite, or they had an economic moron designing its hardware. Why, however, is it that no-one notices Sony is also trying to be *new* in this matter. Microsofts XBOX360 is pretty much just a compter, with plain components, not much different from what we see on newegg, but sony is trying out the cell processors, and risking the video game inustry over it. Sure, Nintendo scored with the wii, but really, all youre getting is a cool controller which does not apply to die hard gamer's needs. And blue-Ray is another risky move by sony... I lost all respect for nintendo with the DS and the Gamecube, and the wii, quite honestly, is really not a comeback, its just because nintendo, in my opinon, can only rely on its name and the fanboys. To the post of the "expensiviness" of the ps3, yeah, a pc is cheaper, if you plan on downloading pirated versions of computer games, buyng garbage video cards and only ever playing alone. the price of the PS3 is a steal, for the consumer it is a steal. there is NO pc which at a similar price can perform half as well as it can.
The novelty of the wii is its only benefit, and when that wears off, what then? 250 dollars spent poorly is worse than 5-600 bucks spent on innovation and proven gaming performance.

Well, i just got distracted, im gonna go do something else now....


Some other stuff I noticed on a further review of your comments... in order of what you said...

None of these things have many parts you can just buy off a shelf or from Newegg. They have custom graphics parts and things like 3-core PowerPC processors, those don't grow on trees.

Sony isn't really risking the videogame industry over the PS3. There are probably at least as many Sony fanboys as there are Nintendo ones. Nintendo survived 3rd place this previous console generation, Sony's a much more powerful and larger company and it will survive even if the PS3 only sells as well as the Gamecube did.

Wii has a cool controller which does not meet die-hard gamer needs. Depends on how you define die-hard gamers. If you're talking about people who need the best graphics, then no, the Wii doesn't provide for that. If you're talking about people who want an immersive experience with decent graphics, then the Wii will provide that. I'd hope that a good system wouldn't focus on one to the exclusion of the other.

Blu Ray is risky for Sony, but that doesn't mean a thing. The Wii is risky for Nintendo but that also doesn't automatically give support. If anything it takes it away, because people doubt them and say "Who thought of THAT idea?"

Losing respect for the Gamecube and the DS? Weren't you just giving Sony props for taking risks? The Gamecube is actually more powerful than the PS2, don't be getting pissed of at Nintendo for what game developers choose to do with it. Gamecube has plenty of fun games, most people would agree, it's just not as popular as the PS2 was. I've never actually used a DS, but my sister did last night and she said it was "surprisingly fun." Personally, $100-200 for a portable is a bit rich for me, I'm never far away from an outlet so my laptop and PC work fine for me ;) 

You don't have to play pirated games on the PC and play alone to have it cheaper than consoles. PC games run from $20-50. Console games run from $20-50. New console games, like for Xbox 360 and likely the PS3, will top out at $60 at least. Collectors Edition Xbox 360 games cost $70. And let's not forget that Xbox live costs $50 a year, the Sony service will cost $0 a year, and PC gaming costs $0 a year for online stuff. You don't have to play alone. You want to talk about playing alone? Consoles in a nutshell, if you don't have people clustered around your TV. PC games have been about multiplayer and community since the '90's and consoles are just starting to realize that. It took Sony until 2006 to come up with this online network and we still don't have it in place...

And you say the novelty of the Wii will wear off, whereas the PS3 will retain its much more expensive and desirable qualities of being innovative and having proven gaming performance. I couldn't disagree more. I'd say if anything it's the PS3 which is the novel item. After a while you'll get used to the graphics. I spent the past 2 days playing Half Life 1 which has comparatively crap graphics. After a while I didn't even notice. And then I'll play FEAR which has wonderful graphics. After a while I won't even notice. When the game is fun enough and immersive enough it can pull you in and you don't focus on textures or anti-aliasing as much. The only innovative things about the PS3 are the Cell processor, which translates to performance, and Blu-ray, which is only useful for watching movies. So what, PS3's awesome qualities which justify twice the price is that it has better performance and can play HD movies if you've got the right hardware, cables and discs? I'm going to try and reserve judgement on the Wii until I've tried one out in a store, which is something I'm looking forwards to immensely.

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...
August 8, 2006 11:12:52 PM

Quote:
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 :D  ).

[...]

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 :D  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:
August 8, 2006 11:26:53 PM

Quote:
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.


Absolutely, Twile. The rest of the stuff was right-on as well, but this is more or less the big reason that IMO Microsoft is using a better marketing strategy than Sony.
August 8, 2006 11:48:16 PM

IMO, sony has pretty much used up the good name theyve built up in the past are are about to die if theyre not playing dead. lol. i mean, all the proprietary BS and the "i am king of the world, people will buy my stuff" show how confident they are that people will buy their stuff no matter what. doesnt take long to figure out their stuff is just grossly overpriced cheap plastic like most other gadgets out there.

and about that 7 core ZOMG! GRAPHICZ NIRVANA! i say BS. XBOX probably had trouble just PROGRAMMING for 3 cores. imagine programing to make use of 7. i bet they'll end up using far less than seven, maybe 3 or 4 at most out of the seven. heck, even pc games right now are JUST starting to use dual cores....
August 9, 2006 12:52:36 AM

This is liek a reply to a bunch of crap. First off when i said Halo i was talking bout both halo and halo 2. I played halo on pc and i didnt enjoy it as much as sitting there on teh xbox w/ my friends/family. When i said it was cumbersome, i meant as far as playing a game with a stylus in comparison to a d-pad or joystick.i never once mentioned a PDA, and dude, imagine putting those two 17" (supposng ur primary is 17"also) screens together, youve got a screen capable of a resolution of 2560x2048, and we all know that usually screens start going wide at 20-21 inches, but were talking about a resolution way over a 30" apple screen. Dude, would you rather a 30+"apple or two 17"s? Yeah, the xbox live is stupid, but i was examplifying something similar on pcs, i just find that it is important to mention that the ps3 is a multiplayer console, and so is the xbox AND the wii, except it gets kinda dangerous having 4 ppl swinging their arms around in a confined area (wii). And here is my final round up of benefits towards my favs, the xbox360 and the ps3:

PS3: Compatability; no need to buy plaform specific memory cards or hardrives, itll take anything. up to 7 players, beasty power, blu-ray format, amongst other sweet benefits.

XBOX360: Multiplayer, controller, HD-DVD, Sleek Design, Its actually on the market, its american ;) 

there ya have it folks!

the wii can turn a weee!!! into a trip to a hospital.
August 9, 2006 1:03:22 AM

Quote:
IMO, sony has pretty much used up the good name theyve built up in the past are are about to die if theyre not playing dead. lol. i mean, all the proprietary BS and the "i am king of the world, people will buy my stuff" show how confident they are that people will buy their stuff no matter what. doesnt take long to figure out their stuff is just grossly overpriced cheap plastic like most other gadgets out there.

and about that 7 core ZOMG! GRAPHICZ NIRVANA! i say BS. XBOX probably had trouble just PROGRAMMING for 3 cores. imagine programing to make use of 7. i bet they'll end up using far less than seven, maybe 3 or 4 at most out of the seven. heck, even pc games right now are JUST starting to use dual cores....


That's a good point actually. People think that all games take about the same amount of work when, in reality, the more complex you want a game, the harder it is to code.

Quote:

PS3: Compatability; no need to buy plaform specific memory cards or hardrives, itll take anything. up to 7 players, beasty power, blu-ray format, amongst other sweet benefits.

XBOX360: Multiplayer, controller, HD-DVD, Sleek Design, Its actually on the market, its american Wink

there ya have it folks!

the wii can turn a weee!!! into a trip to a hospital.


I thought the PS3 had limited compatibility with hardware in terms of controllers and memory cards. Also, the PS3 has downgraded back to 4 players I think. All the consoles are multiplayer. I don't quite get your argument of the controller. You'll need additional stuff to use your PS2 memory cards. Just to let you know.
August 9, 2006 2:40:02 AM

Quote:
and dude, imagine putting those two 17" (supposng ur primary is 17"also) screens together, youve got a screen capable of a resolution of 2560x2048, and we all know that usually screens start going wide at 20-21 inches, but were talking about a resolution way over a 30" apple screen. Dude, would you rather a 30+"apple or two 17"s?

the wii can turn a weee!!! into a trip to a hospital.


dude, youre talking quad 17 inches lcd 1280x1024, not two of them two of them just doubles either horizontally or vertically depending on how you shove them, not both horizontally AND vertically. basically youre either talking 2x 1280x1024, 1x 2560x1024 or 1x 1280x2048. unless you screw around with the rotations and shit like that.

and believe it or not, some people rather 2x 17 inches because you can use the displays independantly instead of like one big one. you can have two maximized windows at once instead of a huge ass one on a panoramic display.

and that last sentence. SO CAN ROLLERCOASTERS AND ANYTHING OUT THERE. INCLUDING DRUNK DRIVERS. WTF?
August 9, 2006 7:08:24 AM

As for expensive HD TV's:

1 month ago I managed to pick up an 18 month-old ex-rental Sony 76cm HD (1080i, composite in) ready TV for less than AU$1,000. As for the TV?

Cons:
-It's a CRT, so weight and size
-"Only" 76cm

Pros:
-It's a CRT, so it will still work in 6 months time
-the picture quality rocks harder than granite
-Unlike with an LCD, my retinas haven't been scorched from brightness overload.

Seriously everyone, you can buy some really good stuff really cheaply if you don't mind something that isn't 100% new.
August 9, 2006 8:34:45 AM

Just wanted to let you know that you put too much text into your post (and that from me and I'm notoriously lengthy myself). Too much text and people won't read it, which means you typed it for naught (what's the point of typing it if people are not going to read it?).

Maybe just dose it to a couple of posts, posted separately. Just meant as a helping statement because I hate good text going to waste but I really could not bring myself to read it all.
August 9, 2006 1:35:32 PM

Quote:
As for expensive HD TV's:

1 month ago I managed to pick up an 18 month-old ex-rental Sony 76cm HD (1080i, composite in) ready TV for less than AU$1,000. As for the TV?

Cons:
-It's a CRT, so weight and size
-"Only" 76cm

Pros:
-It's a CRT, so it will still work in 6 months time
-the picture quality rocks harder than granite
-Unlike with an LCD, my retinas haven't been scorched from brightness overload.

Seriously everyone, you can buy some really good stuff really cheaply if you don't mind something that isn't 100% new.


So for us Americans, that's about a 32' HDTV....which.....let's check up the currency conversion....

$1 AUD = $0.76 USD

So we're looking at year-and-a-half old 32' HDTV which sells for under about $760. Not a bad deal, but there are some vendors who sell brand new 32' screens for about $750 - $800 if you look in the right places. Regardless, the point is, if you don't already have an HDTV, you'll have to buy one to experience all the features of the PS3. Such as the Blu-Ray player, which is much of the PS3 cost.
August 9, 2006 11:58:51 PM

dude, add 2(1280)+2(1024) AND LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION WERE TALKING ABOUT...
August 10, 2006 12:04:14 AM

Quote:
Just wanted to let you know that you put too much text into your post (and that from me and I'm notoriously lengthy myself). Too much text and people won't read it, which means you typed it for naught (what's the point of typing it if people are not going to read it?).

Maybe just dose it to a couple of posts, posted separately. Just meant as a helping statement because I hate good text going to waste but I really could not bring myself to read it all.


i just skimmed the surface when i read those novels.
August 10, 2006 2:22:17 PM

Quote:
dude, add 2(1280)+2(1024) AND LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION WERE TALKING ABOUT...


That's 4 screens though. you just doubled both length AND width. If you have 2 screens you can only put them so that they double either length OR width, not both. If you have 2 1x1 blocks, explain to me how you end up with a 2x2 block.
August 10, 2006 7:26:06 PM

lol. read post # 27 :p 
August 11, 2006 5:59:09 AM

Quote:
This is liek a reply to a bunch of crap. First off when i said Halo i was talking bout both halo and halo 2. I played halo on pc and i didnt enjoy it as much as sitting there on teh xbox w/ my friends/family. When i said it was cumbersome, i meant as far as playing a game with a stylus in comparison to a d-pad or joystick.i never once mentioned a PDA, and dude, imagine putting those two 17" (supposng ur primary is 17"also) screens together, youve got a screen capable of a resolution of 2560x2048, and we all know that usually screens start going wide at 20-21 inches, but were talking about a resolution way over a 30" apple screen. Dude, would you rather a 30+"apple or two 17"s?

It's possible to hook up an Xbox 360 controller and a TV to a PC and pretend like you're playing Halo in HD :p 

Again, cumbersome is a matter of opinion. I would argue that, really, a mouse/keyboard/stylus/D-pad/joystick are cumbersome for almost every game in that they're not the "natural" input devices. The Wii is getting there with a remote which can do more natural input gestures. Lightguns are also a nod in the right direction.

My primary display is a 20.1" LCD as I'll restate later. Putting them together gives me 3.23 megapixels of desktop space, a far cry from the 4.09 that a 30" widescreen does. Even two 1600x1200 screens together would be less than a 30" widescreen. Would I rather have a 30" or two 17" displays? I'd have the 30", sell it for $2500, buy two 20.1" displays and pocket the $1900 difference. As a side note, I won't buy anything from Apple. If I had to get a 30" it would be from Dell for $200-300 cheaper.

Quote:
and about that 7 core ZOMG! GRAPHICZ NIRVANA! i say BS. XBOX probably had trouble just PROGRAMMING for 3 cores. imagine programing to make use of 7. i bet they'll end up using far less than seven, maybe 3 or 4 at most out of the seven. heck, even pc games right now are JUST starting to use dual cores....

That's a good point actually. People think that all games take about the same amount of work when, in reality, the more complex you want a game, the harder it is to code.

Quote:

PS3: Compatability; no need to buy plaform specific memory cards or hardrives, itll take anything. up to 7 players, beasty power, blu-ray format, amongst other sweet benefits.

I've read that games in particular are hard to multi-thread. Unlike processing intensive "static" jobs like rendering a scene or video compression, with a game you simply can't move on until everything is synchronized. The physics engine can't take effect until it knows what the player has done. The AI can't figure out what to do next until it knows where the objects will be. The graphics card can't draw until it knows where the AI will move. You can put physics, AI, game logic, etc on separate cores, but you can only segment it so much the way things are done now.

As far as having 7 players, I don't know where you got that figure. The Cell processor has 7 co-processors, yes, but 1 of these is reserved for the PS3 OS, game devs only have 6 to work with. And even so, the number of cores has nothing to do with the number of players. The AI and physics are the same for everyone (actually, adding human players rather than bots would decrease the CPU workload because there's less AI), and as the RSX graphics parts are separate from the Cell processor entirely, the core count doesn't impact the number of multiplayer frames, etc, that can be drawn. Last I checked, there are only 4 players per system.

Quote:
and believe it or not, some people rather 2x 17 inches because you can use the displays independantly instead of like one big one. you can have two maximized windows at once instead of a huge ass one on a panoramic display.

Thank you for pointing this out! I prefer to have two displays rather than one large one. The downside is that, for videos, you can only really use one. But everything else is a plus. Easier to transport a display you can "fold in half", obviously easier to upgrade. Cheaper as well, you can get 1.92 MP of display space with a good $285 Samsung 20.1" display. Two of these sets you back maybe $600 with shipping and gives you 3.84 megapixels of desktop/application space, 4.1 Megapixels on an Apple or Dell display will run you well over $2000. It's possible to "upgrade" cheaper when you have dual display. You can full-screen game, while using the other screen for critical system stats, cheat sites, IM windows, or whatever else you want. Mostly I like it because I can maximize two windows at once quite easily and other wonderful things. Although actually, I don't use two displays of the same size, I use a 1600x1200 + 1280x1024 (20.1" and 17" for those who care). The benefit of this is... heehee... when you flick the mouse up to the top corner of the primary display to close a maximized window, the "corner" created at the top (assuming the bottoms are level) keeps the cursor from flying into the secondary display ;) 

Quote:
1 month ago I managed to pick up an 18 month-old ex-rental Sony 76cm HD (1080i, composite in) ready TV for less than AU$1,000.

That's totally awesome, glad that worked out for you. Unfortunately I'm talking about the majority of people, and well, to get deals like that, they have to have just as many people tossing their old displays :p  A lot of people won't go for stuff that doesn't have a warranty, or is used, even if they CAN find such a great bargain.

Quote:
Just wanted to let you know that you put too much text into your post (and that from me and I'm notoriously lengthy myself). Too much text and people won't read it, which means you typed it for naught (what's the point of typing it if people are not going to read it?).

Maybe just dose it to a couple of posts, posted separately. Just meant as a helping statement because I hate good text going to waste but I really could not bring myself to read it all.

And yeah, I know I should post smaller. Basically I'd recommend to just skim it and see if anything is interesting, especially read the quotes that I respond to as they summarize stuff I'll either agree with or try to tear apart. I mean, I read all of the posts to the best of my ability, and some people comment on what I say, so it's not all lost. I wish I could write on this site so I could throw together an article rather than a bunch of posts. But ah well, I digress. I clocked myself and it took about 4 minutes to read this, including all my quotes. Heh, you think it takes you a long time to read it, imagine me writing it; that's much slower. Also, I read over it several times through to make sure it sounds good before posting. And hell, if nobody reads it, then I still feel good because a lot of times I just want to get my opinion off my chest. If people bother to read and respond, all the better.
August 11, 2006 6:12:26 AM

Twile, keep posting :)  i like to read your long posts, as long as its not a full post of idontknowwhatimtalkingaboutbsspamwtfisthis, im sure some people will read it and perhaps learn a bit too. :)  and it sure beats the two words posts like "ps3 ftw" or whatever other console you can think of.

and yeah. you have a nice sual screen setup there :) . id love to have one of those triplescreen setups for fraggin, man, the matrox triplehead to go looked pretty darn nice, but at that resolution, i think my x800xl will have its work cut out for it o.O

man. my posts sometimes make no sence or overuse slang >.<
August 11, 2006 2:23:06 PM

:D  Glad that somebody bothers to read it. I checked one of my longer posts (I think my longest yet on this thread) on the previous page; after removing quotes it was about 2145 words. That's a decent essay right there, a shame I don't have to do this for a class.

One reason I "have to" post so much is that I might stop paying attention for 2-3 days, and respond to a bunch of things at once.

1600x1200 + 1280x1024 is perty nice, though I have yet to play a game that can use dual monitor. I'm right now chugging through X2: The Threat, which has dual monitor support (you can display 4 displays of things such as targets, missiles, turret and external views of your space ship) but I've yet to figure out how the devil to get it to work for me...
August 11, 2006 2:33:20 PM

Quote:
lol. read post # 27 :p 


Technically you could place them diagonally, but what the hell kind of screen is that?

But yeah, Twile, I too enjoy your long posts as they are pretty informative. Nice rig you got there too since I'm stuck with a 17' LCD. 1280x1024 for me!

On a second note, Everybody here knows as much as I know that games make the system. How many games exactly have been announced for the PS3? And is anybody here actually buying the PS3 Launch-Day? Hell, I'm not sure if I'm buying it at all, but just want to see your opinions.
August 12, 2006 2:27:44 PM

;)  No launch-day PS3 for me, if ever.
August 14, 2006 1:29:22 AM

Quote:


So for us Americans, that's about a 32' HDTV....which.....let's check up the currency conversion....

$1 AUD = $0.76 USD

So we're looking at year-and-a-half old 32' HDTV which sells for under about $760. Not a bad deal, but there are some vendors who sell brand new 32' screens for about $750 - $800 if you look in the right places. Regardless, the point is, if you don't already have an HDTV, you'll have to buy one to experience all the features of the PS3. Such as the Blu-Ray player, which is much of the PS3 cost.


You must remember that Australian prices are generally higher than US prices because of the market size and freight. A brand new sub-AU$1k HDTV over here has all the colour depth and clarity of a mobile phone screen, only bigger so it looks even worse. That is, if you can find a sub-AU$1k HDTV here.

Isn't most of the Blu-ray's definition and colour depth thanks to HDMI and 1080p? If you want a TV with HDMI there's a price premium. Also, I'm not even sure if you can buy a 1080p television over here yet.

Australia: The technological arsehole of the world. :lol: 
Related resources
!