Stop the presses! Positive PS3 news!

They show me 7 words

Price, Lineup, BluRay, BD+, content mafia, gamespy

I have only 1:

Nope

"i do understand why people will not buy it. if it's financial reasons, well these people will never save any money in their life no mater what they make in salaries."

wow thats just incredibly ignorant.

yea, because some people have their priorities straight, and decides that they would be better off spending money on things that they actually NEED instead of blowing $600+ (game, extra controller, console) on a VIDEO game, they are losers because they will "never save any money no matter what they make in salaries"

Yes... 100 million people bought PS2.

Most of those at between $129 and $200 apiece.


If each 3 people who bought PS2s pool their money together they could buy 20-33 million PS3s, and share them...

A $600 game console to take to college & put in my dorm room...

with games at $69-89 apiece...

That's $700 already...




OH AND BTW IT CAN'T EVEN PLAY ANY OF YOUR CURRENT DVD MOVIES!!! so you either HAVE TO PURCHASE OR TAKE A SEPARATE DVD PLAYER with you, OR you can purchase all your DVDs over again on Bluray format at $25-30 a pop.

one of the PS3s strongest arguements is that if the Xbox 360 had all the extras the ps3 did (card reader Wi-Fi etc) it would cost more or the same but theres one point to go against this... I want a damn console not a stupid multimedia centre! with sony, all the extras are forced upon you hell, if they sold a basic pack with a DVD drive, and a hard-drive i'd buy it because right now blu ray isnt important in the slightest! microsoft did the right thing the prices of all the extras might be high but they are optional. i know i wont be buying a HD-DVD drive for my 360 because the reason i purchased it is to play games! if i want to watch DVDs i sure as hell dont use my ps2. the whole dvd system is messed up and a regular dvd player works just fine so i dont see why i would decide to use another console for my HD-DVD or Blu-Ray needs. a console is just a console and it seems that nintendo are the only people to fully grasp that (par the dvd expansion for the Wii) Microsoft has gone down a good path offering but not forcing stuff as to keep the price low but still have everything to make it a multimedia centre. the only business model im in full disagreement with is Sony's

What really bugs me is how people forget all this was said about the playstation 2 and it price tag.Gamers all around said 249 was too much for a game system just because it had a dvd drive in it.Dvd players where still alot of money when the PS2 hit the market so alot of people (like myself) used there PS2 as a dvd player.

Is 600 bucks alot of money ? Yes but even if you ignore the blu-ray it has built in wi-fi (just to get that alone on the 360 is 100 bucks) and 40 more gigs than the 360.That alone makes the price reasonable.

I'm not a fan boy (I own a 360 ,gamertag: urbanstorm) but I am a gamer , and in the end as long as final fantasy,metal gear ,soul calibur,devil may cry,god of war, and other big selling ps titles are around sony will be getting my money just like MS and nintendo did.

In the end the reality is if you can afford a 360 you can afford an HDTV now if you want something thats out of your range (like everyone has a 50' tv at home) I cant help you , but there are hdtv at reasonable prices and HD will soon be the standard (just like color tv took over black and white).I am just sick of this nonsense bashing.History has always shown us in consoles that games>console so as long as the console has the game that people want the console will sell.

"If you're after the platform that offers the most potential (and as long as cost isn't a factor) then buy a Gaming PC. You won't regret it!"

Except until you need to upgrade various components every 6 months to keep up. I'd rather spend $600 once in 5 years, rather than $600 on a new video card alone, every 6-12 months. Also, being able to enjoy games in my living room, on a couch, with a huge TV and surround sound system... good times.

"OH AND BTW IT CAN'T EVEN PLAY ANY OF YOUR CURRENT DVD MOVIES!!!"

You're an idiot.

Based on everything we know so far, the PS3 is weaker spec-wise than the Xbox 360. So the PS3 is not "the most powerful console of this generation."

The only advantage is that PS3 games might use the extra storage of a Blu-Ray disc. But:

1) 2x Blu-Ray is slower than 12x DVD. (9MB/sec vs. 16MB/sec.)

2) We have better video compression codecs this time around, so a DVD can hold more than it used to. (Blue Dragon was slated to be a multi-DVD game until they converted their video to WMV9.)

3) Even the enormous Oblivion took up less than half of a full-size DVD.

@DJ

Dude... just because Garnett from 1up goes on one of his geriatric halucinating rants, does not mean that it's true.

All HD-DVD and BluRay hardware have all, as far as I know, full backwards compatability with DVD.

And who the hell has ever said you have to rebuy your whole DVD-collection just because a better format for new movies is available?

And regarding the PS3 games? Yeah, same price as all Xbox 360 games at least in every store in Sweden. If you're getting ripped off whereever you live, import!

Just because a head-honcho said that he could never promise there wouldn't be a game that cost more than $59 does not mean that they will cost more. How would it look for example as now with Gears of War where Microsoft claimed no first-party-game would EVER cost more than $49... and now here comes Gears of War at $59-$69.

It's simply about not lying, and at the same time not confirming anything regarding price. Price is left up to the publishers, not Sony, with the exception in regards to where they obviously are the publisher on first-party-games.

Take for example Guitar Hero. Would you demand that it must cost $59, even though it includes a specialty gaming device [the guitar]?

So:
1) BluRay and HDDVD backwards compatible: true
2) You have to rebuy your whole collection of DVD's: false
3) Games will cost a gazillion dollars: false

Darryl, you lose. How much was that HDTV you bought? add that to the price of your PS3...

Computer gaming wins. You only have to upgrade "every 6 months" if you want 150+ fps in every game...

@50

that statement is drected towards people liek us that read joystiq that invest all kinds of money playing games.

I want Microsoft to fail so badly. I am a Gamecube & PS2 user and I plan on buying a Wii, but I think Sony is all wrong on this one. I don't want a media center. My media center is my itunes on my Mac which has videos & all my music.

I have a very very large DVD collection and I don't plan on repurchasing any of those on Blueray. I don't want a "next format" disc. I am ready for Movie downloads.

I'm sorry Sony fans, I would love for Sony to kick M$'s butt in this next gen war, but I really think Sony is going to lose.

People forget... it's not the quality of the drive in the device, but the games you can play on it. People still want a game machine. The Blu Ray is just a nice afterthought. Same with using the PS2 as a DVD player. I seem to recall them doing something similar when the PS2 came out. Not only did it offer a gaming device, but an easy way to add another DVD player to your household. Most people used it as a game machine though.

Just to remind people:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-estimated-to-cost-900-per-unit/

(For the specific numbers, read the report linked to from that post.)

If you just dropped Blu-Ray in favor of DVD and kept everything else (including HDTV support), then the cost of production would drop by $300. Presuming retail cost would drop by the same amount (which is really wishful thinking, I know), we'd have a high-end PS3 for $300. Would anyone even bother with the low-end system if the high end one was $300?

I know it's easy to take shots at Sony for the HDMI, the various memory card/stick interfaces, and for other possibly pointless additions to the PS3. But let's all recognize that Blu-Ray, and really only Blu-Ray, is what's causing the price of the PS3 to be so high, and will thus be the heart of the PS3's victory or failure.

$300 just seems a pretty large amount to pay just to triple the size of the discs we can use... especially when we could get by with the old discs if they just used better compression.

Before I can really harness the power of any HD movie I'll need to own a HD TV. Even when that happens, I don't want to own two different DVD players, one for Blu-ray and one for HD DVD. You know that the movie studios who support one or the other will release movies for one or the other. The rare cases, like Disney, who has shares in both stock will cater to both sides. Regardless of all this interwining crap, I still don't want to spend $1000-2000 a pop for two different machines. I'll wait until Phillips or Samsung creates a dual playing machine.

I figure in about 3 years everything will be low in price to be a reasonable buy. Same goes for the PS3.

"HAHAHA!!

Love the owl pic. Thats a fab way to express sheer suprise!"

First time on the internet?

"So even ignoring the HDD you got $205 you would need to spend in THEORY to make Xbox 360 Premium the SAME as PS3 Premium. ADD HDD space cost and you're looking at over $400!!! AND THATS NOT EVEN INCLUDING THE BLU-RAY DRIVE."

Why would you need to make it the same? You assume people want and/or need those extra features. Blu-Ray has yet to justify its existence, because as has been pointed out many, many times developers still rarely fill up a single-layer DVD.

"So all you people saying "I don't want to pay $200 extra for Blu-Ray thanks" then think again about the OTHER extras you get that people completely ignore and what you have to BUY for Xbox 360."

Don't be a fool, Blu-Ray players cost $999. Where the hell do you think all that extra money is going? On a memory card reader?

"If we did bring into play the extra HDD space, the bonus of being able to swap out the HDD and use a STANDARD PC drive (Unlike MS's drastically inflated price CUSTOM HDD) AND the Blu-Ray drive... then PS3 is incredibly good value."

Again, you assume everyone wants these extras. It's good value if you were planning on buying a Blu-Ray player, otherwise the PS3 is not good value next to a machine that offers the same performance for significantly less money.

"Looking like this you could say the Blu-Ray and extra HDD space has been given to you."

And you say other people are stupid?

"Of course all you Sony haters will just call me a stupid fanboy. AND nit pick AND ignore all the points completely. You crack me up guys."

Well I'm not a fan of any company, am I still allowed to comment? Or would it be easier for you to just ignore any comments made and call people Sony haters?

It's odd that people become so attached to a company, they're not your friends they just want your money. Grow up.

The PS3 is not more expensive than the 360, it just has more features. People need to stop freaking out. If you get the add-ons for 360 to bring it up to the features of the $500 or $600 PS3, the 360 is equal or greater in price. Sony isn't ripping you off any more than MS is, possibly less.

With that said, the only "add-on" I required for my 360 was the plug 'n' play addaptor + battery pack (cause I didn't want to keep buying batteries). It was $20-30 or something, which is a rip-off. But, I can play any game in any way I want for the money I spent. Wi-fi is unnecessary and it works better with a cable anyways. 20Gb is plenty of memory for gaming, you just have to erase some of your demos occaisionally. This is, of course, unless you are a XBLA fanatic.

The 360 disc space is plenty large, unless you want a $150 game that is just enormous. My only knock on the PS3 really is the reliability of the PS1 and PS2 early on. But, if you want true reliability, you have to get a Nintendo product. There is no arguing that unless you are ignorant.

You can't freak out at the PS3 having a $500 system equivalent to the $400 360. After you get a plug n' play adaptor and XBL for 360, the two systems cost the same. Maybe Sony should have just charged extra for all the extras so the prices would be the same? It seems like that is what ravid internet people want.

"Darryl, you lose. How much was that HDTV you bought? add that to the price of your PS3...

Computer gaming wins. You only have to upgrade "every 6 months" if you want 150+ fps in every game..."

Oh I love when a pc fan comes in and tries to "school" console gamers.

First off if i was to buy and ps3 with my already xbox360 and HDTV I am still better off than investing in pc gaming(which total $1500 for a ps3,xbox360 and a 27inch crt hdtv).

The PS3 RSX GPU is closely spec to Nvidia 7900 (If what the nvidia ceo said is true in an interview
alwhile back about the RSX and the now old 7800).Plus for every 1 good pc game that comes out theres about 10 good ones for the PS2 and xbox360 .Once again games>console because we are gamers not systemers correct ???

@ #8---

100 million people did NOT buy the PS2.

100 million units were shipped or sold. Evidence would lead you to believe that somewhere around half of these are replacement units for faulty ones.

"As with all things in life, you have to pay for quality."

The first thing I thought of here was: Xbox LIVE vs um...whatever Sony calls the PS2's joke of online connectivity.

@Uber Soldat

Read the news. PC gaming has been shrinking for years, now.

I bought an xbox 360

$400 system
$100 wireless
$50 xtra controller
$40 2 plug and charge kits

Total price = $590

Forgive me if I got something wrong, but doesn't the $600 ps3 come with all of these things standard?

So that was the good news one market / sales guy says its a bargain?

LOL

@8
@67

etc...

I can count for 3 PS2s were purchased for house. 1 working unit (collecting dust), 1 returned (under warranty) and 1 broken unit sitting in a closet (no warranty).

I'm sure that there the number of people that have only had gone through PS2 is in the minortiy.

"I hope I am missunderstanding you, but are you saying that you believe that every texture in the game will be loaded at once and never removed from VRAM?"

No, of course that will not be the case.

There would be no insufferable loading screen interludes in that scenario!

"@50

that statement is drected towards people liek us that read joystiq that invest all kinds of money playing games."

no, his post was just incredibly ignorant. just because he has the ability to get "every little gadget that comes along", a lot of people cannot do that. he basically just generalized that whoever can't afford to buy a ps3 as someone who "will never save any money in their life no mater what they make in salaries."

but hes probably just a 13 year old kid who never had a job and is gets everything on a whim because hes a spoil brat. "i understand"

@71
"can count for 3 PS2s were purchased for house. 1 working unit (collecting dust), 1 returned (under warranty) and 1 broken unit sitting in a closet (no warranty).

I'm sure that there the number of people that have only had gone through PS2 is in the minortiy.

Posted at 11:46AM on Aug 16th 2006 by lothar"

Well that maybe the case but I had one PS2 it broke adn I did not replace it. My brother is on his third PS2. Another of my friends is on his third PS2. I have another friend that is like me, his PS2 broke and he just didn't replace it. I have two other friends that are on their original units. In my general experience people that had to replace a PS2 are not the minority. Sony is either unwilling or unable to build reliable hardware. I refuse to spend $600 on a console from company with Sony's track record. Not to mention the fact that the only games I am interested are scheduled for a 2007, at the earliest, release. From all the available information the PS3 isn't even the most powerful console. If they weren't wasting so much money on trying to shove Blu-Ray down our thoughts they could have put out a PS3 that had more RAM, and GPU power than the 360 with a faster disk drive. Instead you get a $600 console with theoritically more CPU power and less GPU power.

@75 excellent points.

Another thing to consider knowing that Sony is taking a major loss on the consoles and considering the (lack of)reliability track record of the PS2. I wonder what the build quality will be like for the PS3. Its given with any initial release your going to have a number of defective units, but beyond that point look at the fact that the unit is going to pull double duty as a DVD player and gaming machine which means twice the wear and tear on the hardware. To me that is a formula for failure as how we've all encountered before.

Almost all of us gamers that had to replace a console or drive etc, now use a stand alone DVD player.

"If people are seeking the ultimate machine,".............right......

"the PS3 is clearly the best spec machine as far as next-gen goes."............again....right......

"As with all things in life, you have to pay for quality.".........i wonder how much sony is paying him?

"It is absolutely beautiful to look at".........Huston! we have a problem. cridbility lost. i repeat! credibility lost.

"Sony just has to educate people that yes, it's a lot of money, but it'll be worth it."..................yep sony does educate its fanboy base VERY WELL.

GET THE HELL OFF SONY DICK.

As a full-on home media center system it better have full-on media capabilities. The PSP rocks for media, it does. I can play just about anything on it, but you almost have to be a sony engineer to actually get things to work on it.

I just hope they don't fudge up the PS3 like that. If it can play mp3 files, it better have full playlist, shuffle, fastforward, a-b, volume, DSP, EQ, and whatever other sound-thing you can dream up on it. Same with anything else.. It better not have a BD player that say, can't go backwards.

The features on the PS3 are great, there's a LOT of potential that they can screw up, a LOT. Let's just hope that the features listed actually work correctly and are easy to set up. Not to mention durability... It better not die. Ever.

As far as the whole BD movie argument, wtf? Sony... listen: BD movies are going to rock, eventually. Don't be playing up the movie angle right now, seriously, you're kicking yourself. It is first and foremost a game system, that plays GAMES. You SHOULD be talking about how games have up to 50 GB of space. Think FFX, or GTA:SA, but up to 5x larger. That will sell systems.

You already admitted that the BD player is a trojan horse that you want to slip in homes under the guise of a videogame player. Great! Fine plan. It's just you're advertising the horse. "TROJAN HORSE! Now with 40% soldiers inside!" Please stop.

Although I havn't seen any PS3 commercials, or Ads, so... I'm guessing you're not really caring about that quite yet.

Ah well, I'm going to buy one on day 1, and will be playing some fun games on in, but nothing too spectacular. I'm going to get BD movies, not for the "OMFG QUALITY!" But more durability, knowing that in about 5 years I'll thank myself for buying into nextgen stuff now. HD is about the last real innovation I see for video today. I don't see screens getting any bigger, or massively sharper. I only see movies going to 3-d in the future, so when you think about it, any movie that has been filmed is in 2-d is going to be at the best it can get on HD. HD is going to be about the best you can get before 3D. That's at least my logic.

When PS2 was released alot of people, at least of the people I know, complained about it not using CD's like the PS1 because it made it cost more. Personaly I think that it is exactly like blue-ray. I mean, FF-VII used 3 discs, how many would Halo use if it were not DVD? In a few years everyone will probably be using several DVDs on on their 360 and just one blu-ray disc for their PS3 games.
Another point is that if you're so worried about your money, why are you buying multiple units for dvd player and etc.? I still use my ps2 as a dvd player, and yes I know I'm missing out on a little bit of quality but if I had bought a seperate DVD player when they were knew I'd be several hundred dollars poorer right now.
Also, the playstation 2, apparently, had some problems where they broke. Mine never did and I got it at the release. However, my Xbox burst into flames... I would like to remind everyone that the Xbox had it's own share of reliability problems. Personaly I've never had any trouble with any sony product, which I cannot say the same for MS products. I have had many troubles with MS products breaking and failing to work properly in the past, maybe it's just bad luck.
As for Halo 3, Halo 2 was a pretty big let down. It was nothing close to as good as Halo(1). Halo 3 will probably be just as big a let down as Halo 2 was. Although I do think Halo was an amazing game, and Halo 2 was awsome as well.
Personaly all that matters to me is games. My favorite game is still Sonic the Headge Hog, and that's only 16-bits! I'm not buying either system until I know which system has better games. Based on past experiance however, I'm expecting it'll be the PS3.
Oh, and one last note. PS3 isn't so vastly more expensive than the Xbox 360 that it should be that big of a deal. If the PS3's games are good the system is worth it but no blu-tooth player included will make up for bad games. Same with the Xbox and the Wii, saving 200$ (probably less) isn't worth inferior titles.

#54

The Wii also has built-in WiFi. So since it has at least 1.5 times as much power as the Gamecube, that alone will cost at least $150, plus $100 for WiFi, and a $50+ for a more expensive controller and a sensor bar. So that means an acceptable $300 price tag for Wii.

See, I can also argue about outlandish price tags being reasonable.

There is no reason to make a game system into a home media center, and slapping on a $600 price tag. The reason I won't buy a PS3: They're trying to force us into their format, and into High Definition which I don't think will be close to standard in 5 years unless the prices of HDTVs drop. If I'm not going to spend more than $300 on a TV, why the hell would I spend twice that on a game system?

At the moment, HD-DVD seems to be coming out on top (the release of Training Day on both HD formats seems to have confirmed this).

If I wanted to get both a PS3 and a high definition DVD player with the BEST video quality I would have to buy a PS3 and an HD-DVD player. Unfortunately, I would have paid for a Blu-Ray player I really didn't want.

In terms of Blu-Ray and gaming, I thought read speeds were incredibly slow - nothing like the speed of conventional DVD-ROM.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that:

1) if you are concerned with high definition DVDs, then you should probably buy an HD-DVD player (and probably not Blu-Ray).

2) if you're not concerned with high definition DVDs then you probably shouldn't be paying for either an HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray.

Either way... I think you should have a choice.

#84:

1)I'm not really concerned with high defenition DVDs, because I probably won't ever shell out the money to have that $15,000 home theater that will make it worth it, so I won't really notice the difference either way.

2)I'm not concerned about movies, no. but everything else: yes. I do want the hard coating to make movies not get scratched. I also want a disc that I can backup data to that allows me 25 GB per disc (cause you just know 50 GB writables are going to cost an arm and a leg. Just like DVD).

I also know that while the PS3 is probably going to clock in at 2x (I forget if that was confirmed), that doesn't limit my PC burner or other players, it just limits the minimum read speed requirements on the games on the PS3.

While being given a choice is good, not having something standard is bad. Think about it: MS makes the HDD not standard, so... Devs can't rely on that for games. no caching as standard, no huge gamesaves, no optimization by defualt, it MUST be an option. MS made HD-dvd optional, so.. they can't rely on that either to make games.

Everyone says "I don't want to be forced to adopt a tech!". I think, "I don't want to be forced with small games." Also, to stop something before people bring it up, Oblivion is a large game, procedural synthesis helps, and compression is getting better. But then take the largest 360 game, multiply it by 5, and that is what the PS3 can do.

@ Lekko

Any game system can do any "size" game. There are such things as multi-disk games. If the BD player in the PS3 runs only at 1x or 2x, then it really won't have that big of an advantage other than capacity, which almost doesn't matter.

@ 69 WTF are you talking about?? 1 good pc game for every 10 xbox360 and ps2 game??? ARE YOU NUTS OR JUST BLIND?
Look at all the RTS's and FPS games for PC - BF2 , Halo, FEAR, Half Life 2, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, BF1942, Command and Conquer, Star Wars Empire at War, Unreal Tournament 2004, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, WoW, FREE CONTENT that doesn't blow ie mods, did I mention that you have the best user interface ever made - the mouse? The Wii cant even come close to how easy a mouse is to use. O and you can use a gaming PC to do things besides gaming, like movie and video editing.

What does Xbox360 have that PC doesn't have? Oblivion? got it. Call of Duty 2? yep and it uses a mouse.
How about ps2. Devil May Cry? got it. GTA? got it. Resident Evil 4? its coming and was out a year earlier on GC. Splinter Cell? yep and it looks better. How about Medal of Honor? looks and plays better on PCs. How about MMORPGs like WoW? nope not even Xbox360 has it.

If you know how to spend your money wisely (like not buying the latest and greatest piece of hardware every 6 months) and upgrade every 3 years PC gaming can be amazing and it will always look and play better than ANY console, PS3 got nothing on my comp. PC hardware is all about buying at the right time. The people who buy the $600 video cards are called rich people, they also buy Quad SLI and Extreme and FX processors which are outragously marked up.

Just think next time you speak against PC gaming, game support is not the fault of PC gaming.

Everybody, if you buy a PS3, and Xbox360, and a 50" HD TV for say $1000 heres what you could get instead and get a PC and spend only

$150 AMD Athalon X2 3800
$135 Asus A8N SLI Premium MB
$220 2GB Corsair RAM
$85 2x80GB HDD in RAID 0
$290 Evga 7900GT SuperClocked
$120 Aspire Case w/ 500w PSU
$70 HD ATI Tuner Card
$40 CPU Cooler to OC that CPU
$170 for a 19" monitor
$40 keyboard and mouse
$60 DVD Rom Drive and a DVD burner drive from Lite-On
Total = $1380 for a high end gaming monster. Eat it #69 disprove me if you can. Also for sound (which you didnt include in your $1500) you can get a 505w system for $260

All prices are from Newegg.com

Dont forget "RIIIIIIIIIIDGE RAAAAAAACER"!!

Man, its da bomb..

Fair comments Fumar and 100% correct, I'm running a Core 2 Duo (6700), Gainward 7900GTX and 2GB Corsair XMS2 Ram and it's sweet! My previous comment did state 'if money is no problem' then PC gaming is the way to go and was in no way a dig at current or next gen consoles. I think what the new consoles can do for their price is fantastic and for someone who doesn't want to go mad on cost and build a Gaming Rig then consoles are the way to go.

Personally I prefer PC gaming and for the poster who mentioned that PC Gaming is dying, LOL, I recall those comments been made when the PS1 was launched all those years ago and then again when PS2 came to dominance - but we're still here and with DX10 cards on the way games will only be getting even more impressive on PC (this is provided Vista destroy every PC on the planet when it's eventually launched!).

Consoles have primarily broadened the gaming market, making games more accessible and that is a good thing, I've also got a 360 and am contemplating a Wii as well. The PS3 holds no interest for me at present, we'll see how Sony's 'Super Computer' plays out over the next few years.

Uber

If the blu-ray size makes a difference to gaming...
Good luck spending 500 hours on an rpg then.

It just seems akward. Basically, of arguments I hear, I conclude you can/have to see ps3 as a bluray-player too. But since bluray (nor HD-DVD) are standards at the moment, it sounds more like a 600$ gamble you are making.
I think that even if you really really want a ps3, you should at least wait a while to see how the market evolves. 600$ is a lot of money...

...again, that is just a thought...

I meant to say 'If Vista DOESN'T destroy every PC on the planet when it's launched'. Proof Reading is my friend, repeat 100 time to myself!

#85

I don't disagree with you that not including a hard drive as standard is a bad thing...

The point is, I was not talking about hard drives - I was talking about high definition DVD drives. While a hard drive seems to add a lot in terms of gaming value, I think Blu-Ray does not.

And it's not about being forced to adopt technology, but that technology has to be relevant to advancing games if most of the people doing the buying are gamers.

Double the size... And your point is? Some one said this a good thing for gaming and will help to add more features that might have been cut out otherwise... Let me ask you this. If size of the disks are such a big problem. Then why do modders find unused sex animations stored on game disks? (GTA) Why do gamers find nude character skins on game disks? (Oblivion) I belive the size issue is irrelevant. The majority of games are still useing up disk space on unused code, animations, skins, models, and textures. One day 50gb will be needed for games. However can you honestly say that a game developer is going to make his game 5x better because there is 5x more space? No. And they won't. This is not about gaming for Sony. This is about Blue-Ray. If the blue-ray format losses, the PS3 will not lower in price rather rise. Games won't get cheaper they'll get more expensive. M$ made a move that insured cheap prices for gamers. They just kept the format war away from their games. I'm not a fan of M$ in anyway. But I can see now why they continue to persevere. They do what works and what is safe. They don't take risks. They let competitors do it for them then crush them in thier ignorance.

To those that are doing the math. Do the ENTIRE math, and be realistic, and reasonable!

Like this Premium PS3 vs Premium 360.

Lets do a Pro verse con list:

1 PS3 Pro.
1 Hard drive bigger! ( lol )

2 PS3 Pro.
2 Hard drive cheaper per gig!

3 Xbox360 Pro..
3 Xbox was reliable even with hard drive.

4 PS3 Con.
4 PS3 average person bought 4, not reliable makes that 100 million sold into 25 million
original owners.
5 Xbox Pro.
5 Xbox (1) had the power it claimed to have.

6 PS3 Pro
6 PS3 is newer

7 PS3 Pro
7 PS3 Claims higher specs

8 PS3 MAJOR Con
8 PS3 Has overstated by a mile (boldly lying) about how powerful the PSP, PS(1), and
PS2 was before they launched.

9 PS3 MAJOR PRO
9 PS3 Brand loyalty.

10 Xbox360 Pro
10 Xbox360 Brand loyalty.

11 PS3 Pro
11 PS3 Pro best in advertising.

12 Xbox360 Pro
12 Xbox360 has way more money for advertising do they know how to use it?

13 PS3 Pro
13 PS3 Like a politician Knows how to do a negative campaign on opponent and not
afraid to!

14 PS3 Minor Pro
14 PS3 live is free

15 PS3 Con
15 PS3 Free means you don’t pay Sony. But! For most games you will pay $10 per
month per game! (that’s called free? Yep, just like PS2 online is ‘free’ ).

16 Xbox360 Major pro
16 Xbox360 gold is $59 for a year unlimited number of games. And the is a free silver
account for everyone that lets you play all weekend. Which is my online big
block of time anyway. (if you have school or work).

17 Xbox Pro
17 More actual developers have been positive about the hardware than Sonys

18 Xbox360 MAJOR Pro
18 Xbox 360 Has not lied about how much there machine has in power in the past
Except they UNDERSTANTED IT.



Several things to consider when doing the math!

1 Most people will only buy the premium systems,(3-5%). They’ll make
more premium PS3’s, just like when it was only a few non
premium 360’s. Sony has said they will not release the exact
figures though.
2 No one wants the HD-DVD that’s getting a 360 (its for games)! Only a
small amount of people will buy it. Not a realistic part of equation.
I know I’m not! I know no one that is getting it!
3 Sonys’ products break! Repeatedly! But most people have had
several PS1’s and PS2’s me and all my friends have! (except the
one that hates Sony). So It’s not realistic to spend large money
when you know the immediate history. They only seem to break
after 90 days hmmmmmm. A new reason is added that makes you
NEED to include a warranty. It will now have a hard drive! And
they tend to have a limited life now.
4 At least 1 game! Duh!
5 Sonys’ live will be free the way PS2 is free (says Phil ‘in the
same way’). Which means you don’t pay Sony, but the publishers $10 a
month(per game). Yeah that’s why I said the whole math! (there is exceptions on both for the per month. For instance a FEW may actually be free for from Sony. Square will charge for FFXI, and Sega for fantasy star on both systems. In the end these two exceptions, and others like them will cancel each other out since they are cons for both for a small amount of games.

Cost Comparison with Realistic math! (except the warranty on xbox try to be consistant) First of all the winner is WII! The runner up is: you decide

XBOX360 Premium PS3 Premium
System $399.99 System $599.99
Warranty $49.99 Warranty $99.99
(I know its not fair to require a warranty for xbox360)
1 Game $49.99 1 Game $59.99
1 year Online (live) $59.99 1year, only 1 game $120
Taxes (Indiana 6%) $33.36 Taxes (Indiana 6%) $52.62

First the total package comparison:

Totals (with Tax) $593.56 Totals (with Tax) $932.77
OR
Minus online but Minus online but
With tax included $529.97 With tax included $805.57

Minus online Minus online
Minus Warranty Minus Warranty
Taxes included $474.88 Taxes included $697.48


These configurations are with 1 Game! The more games you add the worse it looks for Sony. With the fake ‘Free’ live, and more per game. I’m used to getting 8 games and only spending around 900$ at launch. I can’t see getting 1 game! Unless PS3 comes loaded with lots of demos (hello Sony talk to me!).

Reformatted from previous to make math section clearer.


To those that are doing the math. Do the ENTIRE math, and be realistic, and reasonable!

Like this Premium PS3 vs Premium 360.

Lets do a Pro verse con list:

1 PS3 Pro.
1 Hard drive bigger! ( lol )

2 PS3 Pro.
2 Hard drive cheaper per gig!

3 Xbox360 Pro..
3 Xbox was reliable even with hard drive.

4 PS3 Con.
4 PS3 average person bought 4, not reliable makes that 100 million sold into 25 million
original owners.
5 Xbox Pro.
5 Xbox (1) had the power it claimed to have.

6 PS3 Pro
6 PS3 is newer

7 PS3 Pro
7 PS3 Claims higher specs

8 PS3 MAJOR Con
8 PS3 Has overstated by a mile (boldly lying) about how powerful the PSP, PS(1), and
PS2 was before they launched.

9 PS3 MAJOR PRO
9 PS3 Brand loyalty.

10 Xbox360 Pro
10 Xbox360 Brand loyalty.

11 PS3 Pro
11 PS3 Pro best in advertising.

12 Xbox360 Pro
12 Xbox360 has way more money for advertising do they know how to use it?

13 PS3 Pro
13 PS3 Like a politician Knows how to do a negative campaign on opponent and not
afraid to!

14 PS3 Minor Pro
14 PS3 live is free

15 PS3 Con
15 PS3 Free means you don’t pay Sony. But! For most games you will pay $10 per
month per game! (that’s called free? Yep, just like PS2 online is ‘free’ ).

16 Xbox360 Major pro
16 Xbox360 gold is $59 for a year unlimited number of games. And the is a free silver
account for everyone that lets you play all weekend. Which is my online big
block of time anyway. (if you have school or work).

17 Xbox Pro
17 More actual developers have been positive about the hardware than Sonys

18 Xbox360 MAJOR Pro
18 Xbox 360 Has not lied about how much there machine has in power in the past
Except they UNDERSTANTED IT.



Several things to consider when doing the math!

1 Most people will only buy the premium systems,(3-5%). They’ll make
more premium PS3’s, just like when it was only a few non
premium 360’s. Sony has said they will not release the exact
figures though.
2 No one wants the HD-DVD that’s getting a 360 (its for games)! Only a
small amount of people will buy it. Not a realistic part of equation.
I know I’m not! I know no one that is getting it!
3 Sonys’ products break! Repeatedly! But most people have had
several PS1’s and PS2’s me and all my friends have! (except the
one that hates Sony). So It’s not realistic to spend large money
when you know the immediate history. They only seem to break
after 90 days hmmmmmm. A new reason is added that makes you
NEED to include a warranty. It will now have a hard drive! And
they tend to have a limited life now.
4 At least 1 game! Duh!
5 Sonys’ live will be free the way PS2 is free (says Phil ‘in the
same way’). Which means you don’t pay Sony, but the publishers $10 a
month(per game). Yeah that’s why I said the whole math! (there is exceptions on both for the per month. For instance a FEW may actually be free for from Sony. Square will charge for FFXI, and Sega for fantasy star on both systems. In the end these two exceptions, and others like them will cancel each other out since they are cons for both for a small amount of games.

Cost Comparison with Realistic math! (except the warranty on xbox try to be consistant) First of all the winner is WII! The runner up is: you decide

XBOX360 Premium PS3 Premium
360 System $399.99 PS3 $599.99
360 Warranty $49.99 PS3 Warranty $99.99
(I know its not fair to require a warranty for box360)
360 one Game $49.99 PS3 1 Game $59.99
360 1 year live $59.99 PS3 1year, only 1 game $120
360 Tax(Indiana6%) $33.36 PS3Tax(IN 6%) $52.62

First the total package comparison:

360 Totals (with Tax)$593.56 PS3 Totals (w/T) 932.77
OR
Minus online Minus online
360 With tax incl. $529.97 PS3 With tax incl. 805.57

Minus online Minus online
Minus Warranty Minus Warranty
360Taxes incl. $474.88 PS3 Taxes incl.$697.48


These configurations are with 1 Game! The more games you add the worse it looks for Sony. With the fake ‘Free’ live, and more per game. I’m used to getting 8 games and only spending around 900$ at launch. I can’t see getting 1 game! Unless PS3 comes loaded with lots of demos (hello Sony talk to me!).

i have just spent money on a hdtv, & my next 2 purchases will be SKY HD & then hopefully a PS3. i know the ps3 is about 400 quid (UK) but its still cheaper than a HD-DVD player, and i get a free games machine thrown in for the kids - thats what counts for me.
I appreciate all the long winded maths here but it makes no difference coz joe publics like me will always go for the best value product and the ps3 is the best bang for the buck.