Potential PS3 pitfalls parried

How can you be pro or against something thats not out yet. Im looked forward to the 360 but i wasnt pro 360 when i had not laid a hand on it yet.

Come on Kyle. Flying pigs don't even exist =(.

I read a bunch of that article but had to stop because I don't agree with most of their assumptions. I hardly think that this report (albeit a calmer fanboy approach) will really quell the rising tide of worries about the PS3 until the damn thing actually hits store shelves.

Personally, I still don't care about Blu-ray (or HD-DVD for that matter) so it's still not a worthwhile feature for me and therefore I don't want to spend the extra $200. By that same token it's not a "cheap blu-ray player" to me since the amount of money I'm willing to spend on a blu-ray player right now is $0.

And yeah...how are we comparing the 360 to something that is still just a glint in the eye of Sony?

"fanboy hyperbole" has to be one of the best phrases of all time!

you just made my day :-)

Somehow, I remain unconvinced. 600 is a lot of money for something that I only use to play games. 60-100 dollars a pop is a LOT of money for software. If you don't like it, you can't return it either.

This is a fiasco, pure and simple.

All this article does is put a positive spin on some of the problems that gamers have with the PS3 plans.

This isn't Point-Counter-Counterpoint, it's Gripe - PR Spin

whoa, thats some serious fanboyism there.

"That's probably why Sony decided not to include an HDMI cord, because people who use HDMI are quality freaks and they'll NEVER use stock out-of-box cables and they probably have a bunch laying around anyway."

haha, HDMI is a digital cable. unless you are going to run one like 50 feet, it doesnt matter. OMG UNLESS YOU HAVE TEH UBER $100 DIGITAL CABLE WRAPPED IN BABY SEAL FUR YOU WONT GET ALL THE 1'S AND 0'S AND UR PICTURE WILL BE CRUDDY!1!ONE!1

"I'm pretty shocked that all those memory card formats are still accepted (SD, Compact Flash, et al)."
Thats what shocked you? How abou tth efact that they left out compatibility for the one real memory card format that counts the most. The PS2 memory card.
OMG IM GLAD THEY DONT INCLUDE PS2 MAMMORY CARD SLOTS CUZ U WILL ONLY YUSE IT WON TIME TO TRANSFER YOUR PS2 SAVES AND I WANT A MILLION OTHER FORNMATS INSTEAD

"First annual" anything is correctly referred to as the "Firt Inaugural."

This weekend, one person gave me the following admonitions against buying a PS3: it's too expensive, the exclusive games are not compelling, quality and supply issues are going to be a big problem this year.

Who was making this argument? My local Gamestop clerk. The retailers are scared shitless of people hanging out on an endless PS3 waiting list instead of spending money on plentiful supplies of Wii60 hardware, software, and accessories. They are talking down the PS3, and pimping the Wii60, helping to kill the buzz that Sony needs for an already troubled launch.

I'm not a proponent of either 360, or PS3, but this is article does a very good job of attempting to cover all the flamewar topics based around the PS3.

I also like this line in the article: "The PS3 may cost more upfront, but you get all the features that other consoles "get you" with." It reminds me of the old Sega commercials.

Sony does what MsDon't!

I wonder how much they got paid to write that bs.

I thought this was supposed to be a point-counterpoint discussion. Right off the bat the address the situation that the PS3 is too expensive, and all the do is shoot down that arguement instead of shoot it down and back it up.

This article really doesn't take an anti-PS3 stance at all. It's entirely pro PS3 from the looks of it. The only negative points they make are the launch line-up and the lack of innovation from sony, which, in my opinion are the least of sony's worries. While it's important to have at least some decent games at launch, having a AAA blockbuster when your sony isn't as important. The Playstation name alone will sell the console out at launch.

I think the biggest blow to the PS3 will be it's cost. At $600, I really just don't see this thing flying off shelves. Will it sell, hell yes it will. But for how long? Will the PS3 STILL retail for $600 next christmas? Even if sony can work in a $50 price drop, that's STILL $550, and while I understand sony has great exclusives, their biggest one has become multi-platform and Madden will look identical on 360 as it will on PS3, so to the mainstream consumer...why pay the extra money? The ONLY substantial thing sony has as an arguement to that is the blu-ray player, which isn't a sure-fire winner. Next christmas one can only assume that the Wii and 360 will also take price drops putting both systems into the sub $300 price range for entry, and even if sony can manage a $100 price drop, people are still looking at $500 for a fully equipped PS3.

My point is, consoles really start selling well when they get to the $150-250 price range. Wii will be in this range from the get go, and 360 will be in this range likely next christmas. Even if sony was able to do a price cut of the PS3 by $100 each year, even 2 years from now a basic PS3 would go for $300. By that point 360's could be selling for $200 for a premium unit, and Wii's could be down to $150 or $99. Sony just can't compete with that. Not anymore. They're losing the exclusive advantage they once had with games going multi-platform and the ONLY thing that can really help the PS3 out at this point is if blu-ray becomes a success...FAST.

@ protofunk

Well, If you buy a PS3 from say, bestbuy, you have 30 days to return it. I think you can figure out if you like it within 30 days....

___SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC___
I actually almost returned my 360 within the 30 days, after playing Kameo(ok, but not great) and PDZ (more of the same). BUT i got GRAW and saw a glimer of hope for the platform, so i kept it. Now with COD2 and Saints Row in my library, i dont feel too bad...(though i did feel a twinge of regret after playing Prey...*shudder*...getting it for only $39.99 did take some of the sting away)

Where did you dig up that site? No point counterpoint at all, just rumors and fanboys.

ZZZZzzzzz....

Zzzzzzzzz...

Really who cares about the PS3?

Yea guys this really isnt a point counter point type of thing. Look at the quotes.

Shiva: "last 10 years(Sony Spin) I spent $431 for an Xbox 360 that is less intriguing and boasts fewer titles of interest( Personal Prefrance)

Ryan "True HD" man using Sony Buzz words do not make it true. Its called Marketing for a reason.

Aaron D: "been a few games that are literally unplayable in SD (King Kong, Dead Rising among them)" (DUDE.... How can you say unplayable about DEAD RISING in SD. Like there is that much reading in the game. Damn FANBOY.

Ryan (TUS): In the same vein, the 360's development tools could be considered too easy, or point-and-click. (When the F did something being easy to get the desired result become a disadvantage?)

Aaron D: Xbox 360 is nearly a year old now and there are less than 5 titles that are really worth the effort. Lets not forget that the PS3 will have COMPLETE backwards compatibility, so you can still play all your PS2 games while you wait for some good PS3 ones. (Whats the point of getting it if you still have a PS2 then if the games are going to suck? There is more in this than needs to be addressed.)

Hey Joystiq. I bet you get over 100 post on this one.

Potential PS3 pitfalls parried? Should be called "Potential PS3 pitfalls rationalized." ;)

Wow what a bunch of fanboy garbage, as Shannon so correctly pointed out these are rationalizations, not justifications!

"As such, no HDMI support for people who don't care about HDMI features (or own a compatible TV) makes a lot more sense rather than charging them for crap they won't use."

So... BluRay is what to a gamer?

@nootau

If your best buy allows you to return opened games, you are a fortunate individual. Mine does not, and I have a problem spending that kind of scratch on a dedicated game system, plus upwards of 60 dollars per game. This seems like the whole neo-geo thing all over again, which will be fine for the people who can afford it, but the rest of us plebians will be looking elsewhere for our cheap thrills.

I'm glad that my PS2 still works though, (knock wood) I hope that they won't completely cut off support for it once the ps3 slips out.

"My point is, consoles really start selling well when they get to the $150-250 price range. Wii will be in this range from the get go, and 360 will be in this range likely next christmas."

360 down to $250 by Winter '07?

You have GOT to be kidding me. There's just no way. Not even the handicapped unit.

People who compare price are always using unfair measurements. They'll compare the cheapest 360 model, tout the yawn-inducing achivements (if there were more engrossing games, maybe people would care less about arbitrary points you get from the crappy throwaway games), and don't mention that you have to pay a huge monthly fee for that Live junk. But they use way overblown prices for the PS3 in every situation possible (games will cost $100! HDMI cables will be $80! etc. etc.). Even though those same people will be buying a HD-DVD attachment down the road, and Xbox live every month...and will end up spending way waaay more on their 360 than most will on a PS3. But spending $600 in one big installment...unthinkable!! (except that people routinely throw $300-$400 away on iPods, when cheaper, more durable, and more effective mp3 players abound. it is really all about whatever is fashionable and marketed well).

The TWO most compelling issues about the PS3 are AVAILABILITY and RELIABILITY. Sony was supposed to have this console designed and ready for production LAST Spring, yet the last couple of months have appeared to be a panick-driven fire drill to get something that they can actually manufacture in quantity. I would not touch a PS3 until late 2007 at the earliest, when they have the time to re-engineer the console using 65-nm technology, thereby hopefully addressing the size, heat, and power issues that are becoming more public. Besides, the biggest titles for the machine are not likely to be available much before Holiday 2007 anyway. (As a real design engineer with 25 years of experience, I saw this product as realistically targeted for 2007, and adamantly stated so after the E3 2005 presentation!) The fanboys who contributed to this article no nothing about real-world manufacturing or engineering.

Yeah, something stinks about this whole thing. There was absolutely no point/counter-point that I read. All they did was shill for Sony.
I mean, for chrissakes- they tried to actually attribute the success of DVDs to the PS2!
W
T
F
?!

I bet someone got a nice, fat paycheck from that article...

"Where did you dig up that site? No point counterpoint at all, just rumors and fanboys."

You people are all insane. I mean, nothing except for rabid, delusional ranting against the PS3 will satisfy you folks.

The article is very objective. They point out all the crazy overblown stuff that folks like y'all have been spouting, concede the good points, and provide reason and TRUE arguments to provide the rest of the picture on the rest. They concede the launch titles aren't anything special, that Bluray is risky...they talk glowingly about the 360, about a Microsoft 1st party title, they say the Wii's controller is probably a gimmick that will work....if you think that they are unbalanced in their opinions, then you need your eyes checked. Seriously.

@ socrates

Huge monthly fee? $5.00

HDMI cables are $80 - $100 a piece

Anyway you slice it the PS3 is a big chunk of change compared to the 360. Compare Apples to Oranges all day... still doesn't justify $600 for an unproven counsel with nothing interesting to play.

Shiva

“But gamers aren't traditionally cheap people, or they'd be watching The Simpsons or playing board games for entertainment instead of wasting away with EA's Sims Something or Other.”

Bullshit. The majority of gamers have always been cheap. They are not rich old men. The majority are 15-30 year olds working for low pay or trying to get a start on life and play off college loans. This is why the primary concern with the PS3 has always been the price. It doesn’t really matter that it has Blu-ray, or no vibration, or that it is supposedly hard to program for. People look at the PS3 and think “I can’t afford that”.

Even though the PS3 is within budget for me I just can't comfortably purchase it. I think it's priced too high at 499.00 and 599.00. The Xbox 360 Premium took quite some time to mull over (I just got it this summer) and I have to tell you that I am underwhelmed and bored with it already. I have every single accessory for the unit and doesn't offer me anything new as far as gaming. Content delivery is decent (i bought expansion packs for battlefront II and Call of Duty 2 using xbox live) I like the fact that you can extend your gaming experience for titles that I enjoy.
The xbox live marketplace can sure use an overhaul.

That's besides the point. I have learned my lesson with Microsofts Xbox 360 and plunking down lots of cash for what I thought would have been a mind blowing gaming experience. I still haven't experienced that rush when playing Metal Gear Solid on the PS one, Panzer Dragoon on the Saturn and Star Fox on the SNES.
Those titles gave me an experience I have not been able to duplicate since the ps one.
Blu Ray - HD DVD mean nothing to me.

Nintendo's got it right and I can already see a new book about them on the horizon on how they resurrected the dying videogame industry once again.

Sorry Sony, Microsoft; I'm not down with the whole Wii60 deal. The 360 is going to go toward a trade for the Nintendo Wii. New and innovative gaming experience is what's important to me; not games with exceptional graphics that cannot come close to matching even close to good gaming experience.

Here Comes the Wii!

"[I]f you want to play your games in true HD with HDMI on your Xbox 360 you're out of luck until they figure that one out over at Microsoft."

This is disingenuous. First off "true HD" is a Sony coined buzzword, so by using it you've already given up claim of being nonpartisan you had; using it reduces you to the same level of all those people cracking jokes about giant enemy crabs and real-time weapon changes. Secondly, Sony's definition of "true HD" is 1080p. It's been pretty much agreed by both camps that gaming in anything higher than 720p isn't in the cards for this generation, so the whole argument is pretty much irrelevant. You're out of luck no matter which system you pick.

I read the article, and I do agree with most of the posters here in that there were no counterpoints at all. To many people the system is too expensive. These should also be the same people that 400 is too expensive for as well. 400/500, they are both high. But to those that do have the means, get the system that has games you want. as for the online thing, MS has done a great job with live, and the bar has been raised. Sony has work to do there, but it can be done. and I am not totally against letting companies run their own servers. Its not like all the 3rd party games on live run that great. Try playing 16 people on GRAW and you can hardly play it. But play HALo and there are no problems. Crimson Skies was like that too. Don't think for a minute that MS doesn't favor their own games above a 3rd parties game.
As for the PR, Sony sucks, simple as that. They are better off not saying anything until launch, and even then do not let Kutaragi speak.
The HDMI cable thing is totally blown out of proportion. Yes, the system comes with what is needed to play it, but that cable is optional. This is nothing new, so stop acting shocked. Ask MS how many recharger packs they sold for all these wireless controller while you moan and groan. And AV snobs always upgrade from pack-in cables anyway. Ask Monster and Madcats about that.
As for launch, there are good games to be had, but many of them are on the 360. COD2 was the 360 heavy hitter, the rest ran from good to blah(yes EA, I'm talking about you). Sony has Resistance and some good titles, and some blah as well. But 6 months from now, how many launch titles will we be playing anyway?
The development tools thing, I really don't know much about it. Personally, as long as the games are good, I don't care. I like Outkast, but I care less about how or what they used to make their beats. Has nothing to do with me. The final product is all that matters.
Having 400,000 units at launch. I think the article got this one right. Has a console every had enough units at launch? The main question is whether or not Sony can keep the weekly shipments coming. Not sure they can, as Japan's demand will have to be met a well. Pessimistic about this one, but time will tell.
Not sure if the article mentioned backwards compatability, but it means a lot to me. With good games still being released for the PS2, I plan to buy a few and play them on my PS3. God of War 2 and Guitar Hero 2 are on my list. If MS had not dropped the Xbox like a rock and kept good games coming for it that are compatible, I'd buy those too. I gave my PS2 to my bro 2 years ago, so its a nice feature.
As for the innovation factor, big deal. How innovative is GRAW, one of 360's best games? It's not, it just looks and plays really nice. I loved Batman Begins, but it was not innovative. It just did what it set out to do really well. That is more important than innovation. How many innovative games are out there that still don't get bought? Innovation alone is not enough; its execution that counts. The tilt controller is innovative(even the though to include it was probably lifted from Nintendo), but if not executed the right way then its a gimmick. Same goes for the rumble feature. In some games it really adds to the game, and in others your controller just vibrates really hard at inappropriate times.
Not telling anyone what to buy, just trying to be neutral and objective. I am amazed at how polarizing the PS3 is turning out to be, even before it is launched. Why do many of you want to talk people out of spending their own money, and why do some of you want people to spend their money on it anyway? No matter the outcome, it will not justify YOUR purchase decision. The Dreamcast died quickly, but that did not change the fact that I enjoyed it. Peace, and see you all on Xbox live and Sony's online platform, whatever they decide to call it.

"The PlayStation 3 costs too much!!!"

Me: The cost is fine for 25+ geeks who buy Sony Bravia HD tvs, but that should not be their core market. To maintain their market share as the number one console, they will need little Johnny's parents to buy it. And the cost is way too high for a little Johnny's parents.

"The specs for the PS3 keep changing, no HDMI support for the $499 version."

Me: HDMI is not really needed for games. The image quality of Component is comparible to VGA. Many hard-core PC-gamers use VGA without any complaints. The low-cost SKU is fine for most consumers.

"No "shock" in my Dual Shock. Is cheesy tilt-sensing worth the loss of force-feedback?"

Me: This is purely a legal issue that came about due to Sony's inexcusable business practices.

"Sony says they won't have enough consoles to ship for launch. Only 500,000, they say."

Me: That's a pathetic number, considering that it's already been delayed since Spring, and they've had all that time to stockpile laser diodes. They said the delay was because of ratification of Blu-Ray standards, but it doesn't look like that was the real reason.

"Sony is putting way too many figurative eggs in their metaphorical Blu-Ray basket. End users don't really care about formats so long as they work."

Me: Without Blu-Ray, we probably could have been playing the PS3 months ago, and for cheaper. Blu-Ray has already hurt the PS3.

"Developers say that the PlayStation 3 is difficult to work with or that the Cell processor is a pain to program for."

Me: It wouldn't be so bad if the added difficulty was worth it. Sony hyped the PS2's emotion engine as a radical and extremely powerful processor. In the end, it wasn't even as powerful as the traditional, easier to program processors in the GameCube and original XBox! Sony is hyping the Cell exactly like they hyped the Emotion Engine, but we have yet to see if there's any truth behind the hype this time.

It is a calmer look at the issues that surround the PS3, but rational? I disagree. It's just 'fanboy hyperbole' with better spelling and caps lock turned off. I was actually hoping there would be some rationality in there. Either way, it was really great to have a bunch of guys with thinly veiled hard-on's for the next Placation insult me right off the bat this morning.

I really don't understand the point of the article. It makes me feel bad. It enhances the dislike I've lately harbored towards Sony, and yet more their fans. I've just been told that I'm too old to care about anything other than price. On top of that, since I don't have an HDTV and don't see myself getting one that supports 1080p any time soon, I would be inclined to get the cheap PS3, I am stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to afford that, but a TV with 1080p costs like 4 times as much as my car right now.

Sony's "patent issue" in regards to rumble is a nice piece of fantasy. The idea that Sony would somehow let the 3 carry their torch for the next ten years is nice, too. Growth surge in the DVD format? Apex's 100 dollar DVD player, maybe. Also, it is not cheap people that will win a format war, it's porno. I'm sorry to say that so frankly, but it needs to be said. I've seen more HD-DVD disc's around than Blu-ray anyway, but I'm not excited about either one, so enh.

It's a shame I don't give a damn about what a console can do other than play games. Now I'm tired and mad. Great.

The 360 isn't exactly flying off shelves. This is because, you guessed it, the thing is just too expensive. Console sales never really take off until the unit reaches $150.

As for the iPod, they're not selling to unique customers, the bulk of iPod owners have 5 or 6 different versions of the same damned product. They have Minis, Shuffles, Videos, and a few different generations of the standard. Apple's customer base is still very small, they are just able to sell to those customers very well. Apple just needs to release a new version every year (like their OS for instance) and it will sell to those who already bought into the product. Sony isn't able to continually re-release new versions of the PS3 to be able to pull what Apple does.

Sony has completely forgotten about its core constituent. Sony's business model is simply not compatible with the "aim at the upper crust of society" pricing they've attached to the PS3. Companies that utilize this strategy have obscene profit margins on the product. You cannot aim at the hardcore market, sell the hardware for a loss, and expect to make money. Lamborgini, Ferrari and Porche can because they sell a car that costs them $25,000 to make for $100,000 or more. A high price always results in low volume, and when you're doing low volume, you'd better have a high profit margin. Sony doesn't have that profit margin. Net failure on Sony's business plan.

So what if it is a relatively cheap BluRay player? BluRay will be cheaper than the PS3 in a year or two by a wide margin. They've already admitted the BluRay drive costs $200, so we should be seeing $300 BluRay players relatively soon (even sooner if BluRay movie sales continue to flounder as they have) while the PS3's price is being boueyed by Cell, RSX, and the HD, among other components. It won't be a "cheap" BluRay player for much longer.

Sony didn't sell 100 million PS2 units at $300. No, they sold that many at $180 and under. Despite it being a combined DVD player and game player, it still cost more than a stand-alone DVD player, and the thing didn't take off until it hit that magic $180 mark...a full 3 years later.

Gaming Horizon spends a lot of time insulting the casual gamer. They assume all gamers are the ones willing to spend thousands of dollars on HDTV sets, have $500 game collections for each system, and have dozens of HDMI cables just lying around the house. Those individuals are the smallest of the small. The group that can be safely ignored and still sell well, hardware and software.

The market that made the Playstation and Playstation 2 the mega-hits they were are not the ones that see the Playstation 3 as a "cheap BluRay player". They see it as $600, or 4 times more expensive than they're willing to pay. Not until the PS3 starts to hover around the $200 mark (which based on typical percentage drops from the PS2 and other consoles won't be until 2012) will the average consumer consider buying it. By then, the BluRay advantage will be gone, meaning the format has either died or the stand-alone players are both higher in quality and cheaper.

The 360, priced for the hardcore gamer, already has meandering sales with a somewhat decent software lineup. The PS3, priced $100-$200 more, isn't going to do any better. Anyone that expects that is fooling themselves.

I had hope for the PS3 but with stupid fanboys making articles like this I am now certain that the PS3 is doomed.

They made not one good point!!!!!!!

$ony still sucks. DRM, Payola, fake move reviewers, lies, downgraded specs at the last minute, rumble would not fit due to the tilt sensore.

$ony, you $uck, but you don't $uck my $$.

This is seriously a load of bull.

There is no real thought put behind this other than 'i will defend sony to the death'

I don't need convincing. I don't care if it works well or not, im not going to buy it until the price drops, if at all.

Best contradiction the talk of how much hardware is important, then they change gears to talk about how the games are all that matters.. no reason to ever even have read this

"This isn't Point-Counter-Counterpoint, it's Gripe - PR Spin"

Agreed, for most of the points.

Often they don't say "this isn't a problem because..." and give a good reason, they just say "this isn't a problem because you shouldn't care about it."

For the record, I hate when they try to say a comparably equipped 360 would cost about the same. That isn't relevent. My 360 cost me $400. I do not want HD playback in a console, so no added cost there. I already had a wireless bridge, as many many Xbox owners do, so no added cost there. Final cost - $400.

It's impossible to say these problems aren't problems or missteps. Impossible. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong. But the thing is every system has problems and missteps. It's simply a question of whether or not these are enough to doom the system, and no one can answer that right now. The 360 had its own share of problems, and we discussed them endlessly before launch. Turns out none of them were fatal, but they were to some people.
The Wii has its own problems, which we discuss quite often, from no HD to last-gen graphics to being based around a gimmick. We could try to defend these problems as not being fatal, but c'mon, they're still problems.

Just like everything in this PS3 article. You can't make excuses around them. You can just say live with it or don't buy it and we'll see what happens.

This isn't a fanboy article. Kudos to those who post about high priced/overpriced gaming systems. This industry has gotten out of touch because of greed (just like the cooling Real Estate market)

Nintendo is already putting it back on track and the Wii isn't even officially out yet!

And yes, I had to stop reading it, too, because I still found it obnoxious due to its assumptions and unwillingness to admit any fault.
It's still one-sided, not balanced.

socrates, huge montly fee? It's like $50/year that comes to $4.17 a month. My TiVo is more than that.

all of Joystiqs ads have now been put on AdBlock for posting such stupidity

Wow, that was a horrible read. It wasn't objective at all. Where were the arguments against the PS3? Never going to that horrible site ever again.

after reading through this it just made me realize something. The one game that I would ever play on PS3 with backwards compatibility is Guitar Hero. The PS3 DOES NOT support PS2 controllers. Therefore, Guitar Hero is unplayable on PS3. That sucks. I guess it really isn't "100% Backwards compatible" if you look at it like that.

@ LaughingTarget:

"The 360 isn't exactly flying off shelves. This is because, you guessed it, the thing is just too expensive. Console sales never really take off until the unit reaches $150."

Uh, do you have anything to back that up? The PS2 did just fine at $300 for 2 years. In fact, the NES at $200 is the current equilvilent of $408.63 - and it did just fine as well (I actually had to buy two, since my first broke. My mother spent the equilivant of over $800 on NESes for me, and that's not even getting into the 30+ games I bought). The 360 is selling poorly because its game library is so weak, not because of its price.

"As for the iPod, they're not selling to unique customers, the bulk of iPod owners have 5 or 6 different versions of the same damned product. They have Minis, Shuffles, Videos, and a few different generations of the standard. Apple's customer base is still very small,"

Wait, so people won't buy one over-priced product, but they'll buy 4 or 5 kinda over-priced products that duplicate each other? Even if you were correct, that would still be tens of millions of users, all who opted for a more expensive product with low battery life and DRM issues, in lieu of a Karma, Zen, etc. Besides, at most a lot of people have bought 2 - not more than that, in most cases. My point stands either way.

I'm not going to reply to the tired car analogy. It gets repeated every PS3 thread, and it is still meaningless.

"(even sooner if BluRay movie sales continue to flounder as they have)"

They, uh, didn't really expect to sell many, since very few things have launched in BR...you could say that HD-DVD has floundered even worse considering it launched a tad early, but whatever. 2007-2008 is the key window, the real major salvo in that battle. And you won't see $300 BR players by then either.

"Gaming Horizon spends a lot of time insulting the casual gamer. They assume all gamers are the ones willing to spend thousands of dollars on HDTV sets, have $500 game collections for each system, and have dozens of HDMI cables just lying around the house. Those individuals are the smallest of the small."

Whose ass did you pull that from? They said that HD sets are decreasing in price - I got a used one almost a year ago for 600 bucks. Thousands of dollars? What empty theatrics. And they said nothing of the kind that implies the rest. Copy the line where they say that about a casual gamer.

Why is it that people imagine that everyone is like themselves? LaughingTarget, your vision of a casual gamer is clearly just a (possibly cheaper) version of you. If you think that everyone thinks the same way that you do, then you're the one kidding yourself. The article makes a real good point - rabid Lost fanatics will think to themselves "hey, I can get a machine that plays the new Maddens/fighting/racing games, and also shows Lost/Spiderman3/etc/etc. in high def." You don't think there's a market for that?

dsub, jason w, herman, et al.

You are correct, this isn't much of a point-counterpoint article. That's why the title of the article is "Point Counter-Counterpoint: PS3 Editorial." Think about it.

I realize that the Microsoft and Nintendo fanboys on this site have gotten nearly out of control, but everybody should just calm down. As soon as Joystiq puts "Sony" or "PS3" in a headline, you people start clamoring for negative things to say. I'm almost willing to bet that me simply pointing this out will lead to even more negative posts, just because people can't stand to see someone not hate Sony or their beloved Playstation 3.

Honestly, how will a successful launch by Sony possibly affect ANY of you in a negative way? It can only lead to good things for all of us. If you really got what you wished for, and the PS3 ends up being the last console Sony ever makes, it will be a very sad day for gamers, as the competition will be gone, and the industry will become much more stagnant than it is today.

I think its a well written objective article. Of course, the anti-sony brigade here is satisfied only with

"ZOMG Fony is going to failz0r this gen, t00 expensive, I need that extra $100 more than I neeed bluray, HDMI, wifi, 60gb hd, and I need my mario and generic fps games LOLZ0rz"

Bunch of haters here. Keep drinking the haterade, the xbox1.5 is already slowing its roll HARD, WII will do well but its not competing with the PS3. PS3 will FLY off the shelves, Sony will sell every unit they can produce for the first year on the strength of the playstation brand alone. After that, games like MGS, FF, Dragon Quest, etc will pick up the sales ball and run with it. So enjoy the self-righteous hating while you can.

I have to disagree, Kyle. There's still plenty of hyperbole to be found in this article, along with a great deal of assumptions and generalizations. I think anything that exaggerates the truth (or the supposed truth), especially in a way that rings of the "It's okay! Everything's going to be okay!" type of rhetoric screams "fanboy hyperbole".

First and foremost, the commentary on price. Yes, we all (the authors included) have bought $50 games we later found out weren't worth the price of admission. But the fact is, we didn't truly know that until we got there, played it, and realized that truth. What are they suggesting, that we stop buying games so we can buy a PS3? It almost sounds like they assume that the very purchase of a PS3 will guarantee that stack of 10-12 games would mean so much more if they were PS3 games. The PS3 will have just as many "mediocre" titles as any other system. The difference is, the systems in front of me didn't cost a $600+ premium or a $60 price of admission. That'd be $10 more per mistake, mind you.

The thing that stuck out the most was the opinion that anyone who buys the cheaper PS3 is not a "gamer". Personally, I think that comment couldn't be further from the truth. Since when did any of us "need" HDMI or Blu-Ray to play games? Since when did anyone *need* to play their games in Hi-Def, or purchase a system with a lot of features that have nothing to do with *playing games*?

Point being, if it can play the GAMES, then that, to me, should be the only thing that matters. The PS3 is, after all, supposed to be a game system first and foremost. The rest of the features are just fluff, and, at least in my opinion, not necessary. Hi-Def can increase your enjoyment in a game, but it's not necessary to play it (at least, for now). Considering that I am a gamer (defined by the fact that I own every game system from the Atari 2600 to current, minus a 360), who does not own a hi-definition television, and does not feel the NEED to own one, I find the statement particularly ignorant.

One last thing - Their statements on price. I think they missed the point when most gamers went ape over the high cost. It's not as if they don't realize that all the components in the PS3 add up to be way more than that $600 price tag. It's the fact that most feel it was unnecessary to do so. Sony is banking on the success of the PS2 to force MGS and Final Fantasy-hungry gamers to shell out an exorbitant amount to play games that don't need all those fancy features to be enjoyed in the first place. They just want the games. It's as if they ordered a prime rib, and Sony gave them the prime rib, the lobster, the caviar, the $300 bottle of Don Perignon, and an expensive hooker, then gave them the bill for WAY more than they wanted to pay, and then charged a 25% gratuity.

At least, that's how I feel.

It's as if they ordered a prime rib, and Sony gave them the prime rib, the lobster, the caviar, the $300 bottle of Don Perignon, and an expensive hooker, then gave them the bill for WAY more than they wanted to pay, and then charged a 25% gratuity.


I trying to think if all of those things cost more than a PS3....... Nope. Bring on the Don!!

"Huge monthly fee? $5.00

HDMI cables are $80 - $100 a piece

Anyway you slice it the PS3 is a big chunk of change compared to the 360. Compare Apples to Oranges all day... still doesn't justify $600 for an unproven counsel with nothing interesting to play"

You and Mez are right - I meant yearly. And I don't think it is that huge myself, but if you plan on using it for more than a few years it makes the 360 more expensive than the PS3, so...if it isn't a huge deal, then the PS3's price difference isn't either. (not to mention the wireless adaptor. I would HAVE to buy that to use a 360 in my room. Its inclusion cannot be ignored as having value).

Unproven counsel? Sounds like something you'd say about Marc Antony ;-)

dsub - I saw somewhere in an interview - can't find the link offhand - that Red Octane rep claims the existing PS2 GH guitars will work with the PS3. How this is possible I have no idea, but it was claimed but the publisher/developer.

I feel the need to chime in.

Sony is really getting bad press and starting to get a bad rep for a lot of reasons. yes, I said there are reasons many people that loved sony now loathe them.

I will speak my (somewhat) story.

Sony has been lying to us non stop for a long ass time. Why do we keep taking it? It's like they are bitch slapping us in the ass saying "take it bitch" and we say nothing about it. hell, some of you enjoy it it seems. I've had enough, thanks.

besides shoving a blu ray player down our throats (which makes up a hefty part of the price so they say), they make up stuff that blatantly isn't true, and fool many people into thinking it is. I guess this goes back into the lies part but Ok, so what?

I do not like the software lineup save for a few games. I can honestly say besides the price this is the #1 reason i will not be getting a ps3 until next holiday (if even..)

oh wait, that brings us to the price point. 600$? Please, sony, explain to me Why in the hell would I spend 600$ for a f***ing blu ray player that supports games, when there aren't even any games that are out that justify the price. or dvd's for that matter. how many blu ray dvds are available?

they want us to buy a console that doesnt have any decent content for it, what??

then comes the fact that.. wait, exactly how many people can actually SEE the benefits of the blu ray, etc? how many freaking people in the world actually have tv's that can display "true hd 1080p", or even fking 720p. not that many people can afford it and not that many people have it.

Playstation, from what I knew, was a game device. it has gradually changed into an entertainment center (or not so gradually?), I want to play games. period. I don't want to waste my cash on the other crap. sony is forcing us to spend money on the other crap thats included just so we can use it to play games. i see this as unfair.

thank god for nintendo and not even adding a dvd player to the wii. we don't need any more of those to inflate the price, if even by 20$.


so uh, 600$? for what exactly? yeah, I will pass. sorry sony. bad decisions after bad decisions after lies after lies. great way to win loyal customers.

it is beyond my comprehension somewhat why people still bother to defend them. I don't get it, are they paying you, or are you really that ignorant to believe the lies they shit right down onto your face. maybe you're rich. that's great. but trying to defend them for reasons that don't make sense is stupid.

i had more to say, but I forgot. d'oh!

losing train of thought ftw, but I think I got my idea's out there. thanks!

"The article is very objective." - socrates

If that's so, why did they have to editorialize before they even got to their counterpoint? I mean look at this:
"Why is Sony staying so quiet about the PS3 if this huge new system is going to be launching in 2 months? Where are the ads and the hands-on reports? Are they hiding something? I've fallen and I can't get up!"

It certainly doesn't show neutrality if you have to mock your opponent in this way. It shows that you can't win in a fair rhetorical fight, but you want to win very badly. They know their position is weak, so they have to resort to putting words in their mouths to make them sound stupid. These guys aren't making counterpoints, they're making damage control.