Sony PS3

[FuriousFure]

it's true, the Hd-dvd is about $200. and before, there were some complaints about it not supporting 7.1 sound and full 1080p because of the lack of HDMI. but now theres rumors (with PICTURES) about a v.2 of the 360. with HDMI output. that would be another Ps3 exclusive gone.

hey, another target alert. just went in, 4 ps3s just sitting there. visible but along the wall (so they've been there for awhile) and no wiis or DS lites in sight.

[Zutnunzor]

PS3 is simply too much, just forget it.

I was in favor of Sony before, but I just don't know now.

And playing Twilight Princess doesn't help either, mmmmmmmmmm so fun.

But in all honesty, I'd rather have an XB360 and a Wii for the money I'm paying.

[Dervish]

That's a completely illogical way to compare the consoles. It's impossible to compare the ethereal "future PS3" to the currently-1-year-old XB360. All we can do is compare two available products at present and examine which one holds more value. Right now, it's undeniably the 360.

Besides, if we waited a year to compare them, then the arguement would be "Why are you comparing a 1-year-old system to a 2-year-old system?" Also, the Wii seems to have little problem selling despite the 360's lead. If one system released a year late can compete directly with the dug-in competition, why must we coddle and baby the other?

Aside: My EBGames currently stocks about eight PS3's. We sell about one a week. We've recieved about three shipments of Wii's, with three systems per box. They sell as soon as they come in, and we get at least five to ten people a day calling/walking in and asking when our next shipment is.

I'm not suggesting that you compare the mythical "Future PS3" to the current Xbox 360. I also think that comparing the current Xbox 360 to the current PS3 is unfair. What I am suggesting people do is compare the current brand new PS3 to the 360 of 1 year ago, when it launched. THEN you get a fair comparison from a system launch perspective. And in that sort of comparison, PS3 does pretty well! Of COURSE Xbox 360 has more value to it right now - it's been out a full year and is just starting to have some solid AAA titles drop. Its library of next-gen games dwarfs the PS3's. That's what an extra year will get you. I don't have a problem seeing the distinction between current value and the strength of a system launch; I DO have a problem with those who resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the Xbox 360 had a pretty terrible launch and then proceded to get better, just as the PS3 undoubtedly will. Instead they just shout, "ZOMG PS3 SUX 360 FTW HALO3 & GEARS ARGHALSENV;AOIER;ASLKD" and expect people to take their opinion seriously.

From a retail standpoint, I'm happy to have PS3s in stock at my store for about a week after we get them. It means I have guaranteed revenue walking out the door every day. Instead of one huge day from a revenue standpoint, I have many great days where I kill my budgets simply because I have a $600 trump card ready to be played.

[SilverStar]

I'm not suggesting that you compare the mythical "Future PS3" to the current Xbox 360. I also think that comparing the current Xbox 360 to the current PS3 is unfair. What I am suggesting people do is compare the current brand new PS3 to the 360 of 1 year ago, when it launched. THEN you get a fair comparison from a system launch perspective. And in that sort of comparison, PS3 does pretty well! Of COURSE Xbox 360 has more value to it right now - it's been out a full year and is just starting to have some solid AAA titles drop. Its library of next-gen games dwarfs the PS3's. That's what an extra year will get you. I don't have a problem seeing the distinction between current value and the strength of a system launch; I DO have a problem with those who resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the Xbox 360 had a pretty terrible launch and then proceded to get better, just as the PS3 undoubtedly will. Instead they just shout, "ZOMG PS3 SUX 360 FTW HALO3 & GEARS ARGHALSENV;AOIER;ASLKD" and expect people to take their opinion seriously.

From a retail standpoint, I'm happy to have PS3s in stock at my store for about a week after we get them. It means I have guaranteed revenue walking out the door every day. Instead of one huge day from a revenue standpoint, I have many great days where I kill my budgets simply because I have a $600 trump card ready to be played.

Something else you have to consider, is that the 360 has already been established, it already has the base, and it's already making money for developers. That will, naturally, make developers more likely in turn to develop games for it, because it shows there's money there. The market isn't just 10 million to 1 million, it's 10:1, meaning you have a chance of selling 10x the games, to make 10x the profit.

The PS3 will have to actually get more units sold, to get on even footing and be a particularly valid development platform.. It's an edge that cuts both ways. Less hardware available means less software will be developed for it. Less software available will sell less hardware.

[Brim]

PS3 is pointless right now.

If it gets some good exclusives, it can gain a foothold.

[Ero Elohim]

I'm not suggesting that you compare the mythical "Future PS3" to the current Xbox 360. I also think that comparing the current Xbox 360 to the current PS3 is unfair. What I am suggesting people do is compare the current brand new PS3 to the 360 of 1 year ago, when it launched. THEN you get a fair comparison from a system launch perspective. And in that sort of comparison, PS3 does pretty well! Of COURSE Xbox 360 has more value to it right now - it's been out a full year and is just starting to have some solid AAA titles drop. Its library of next-gen games dwarfs the PS3's. That's what an extra year will get you. I don't have a problem seeing the distinction between current value and the strength of a system launch; I DO have a problem with those who resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the Xbox 360 had a pretty terrible launch and then proceded to get better, just as the PS3 undoubtedly will. Instead they just shout, "ZOMG PS3 SUX 360 FTW HALO3 & GEARS ARGHALSENV;AOIER;ASLKD" and expect people to take their opinion seriously.

From a retail standpoint, I'm happy to have PS3s in stock at my store for about a week after we get them. It means I have guaranteed revenue walking out the door every day. Instead of one huge day from a revenue standpoint, I have many great days where I kill my budgets simply because I have a $600 trump card ready to be played.

You're still missing the point. This isn't about a hypothetical winner of the "System War." It's about current value. It's meaningless to compare the 360's launch to the PS3's launch. Why? Because you aren't buying the 360 at launch, you're buying it a year after launch! You're essentially trying to invalidate Microsoft's smart decision on being the first to market by claiming that we should "give the PS3 a chance." Again, I state that the Wii seems to have absolutely no problem selling, despite the 360's head start. Why must we cut the PS3 slack in this department? From a different standpoint, Sony and game developers had a full year extra on top of the 360 to spend polishing system features and games, yet the PS3 launch is almost identical to the 360's lackluster one.

To put this another way, imagine a hypothetical scenario between two music players:

Player A has been out for a year, costs $200, supports all file types of music, can connect seamlessly to the internet to download songs, and has a wide range of accessories available.

Player B has just released, costs $300, supports two file types of music, can connect to the internet to download songs through an unwieldy process, and has a small pool of accessories available. Company B promises more music file types and accessories in the future.

Why would you buy Player B? It's more expensive and offers less than Player A. B's only saving grace is that its maker promises to make it a better player in the future, but there's already a better product on the market. It's irrelevant that Company A released their player first because it's not about the history behind a product, it's about the value it offers at the present.

[The Damned]

Applause for Ero Elohim, for an excellent rebuttal.

[Aninymouse]

Agreed, that's the reason I'm not paying any attention to the PS3 right now. As of right now, both the 360 and Wii have more or better games and features. Right now, damnit, not months from now. When something costs twice as much with half the content it's not a smart buy, regardless of what may be coming in the future.

I heard Metal Gear & Prince of Persia were being ported to the 360 and Wii, respectively. Time to get your shit straight, Sony.

[Neo-Egyptian]

Indeed. I particularly like the music player analogy, I hadn't really thought about it like that before. Furthermore, Elohim's emphasis on 'current value' is particularly interesting, because if you consider the probable situation in a year's time, even if the PS3 has proceeded to get better (as Dervish suggested) by that time the 360 will have yet another year of decent games under its belt.

This is all hypothetical, though. The 360 could have a weak year, the PS3 could suddenly sell millions, and the Wii could, I don't know, spontaneously combust or something. The latter is, admittedly, rather unlikely.

[Dervish]

You're still missing the point. This isn't about a hypothetical winner of the "System War." It's about current value. It's meaningless to compare the 360's launch to the PS3's launch. Why? Because you aren't buying the 360 at launch, you're buying it a year after launch! You're essentially trying to invalidate Microsoft's smart decision on being the first to market by claiming that we should "give the PS3 a chance." Again, I state that the Wii seems to have absolutely no problem selling, despite the 360's head start. Why must we cut the PS3 slack in this department? From a different standpoint, Sony and game developers had a full year extra on top of the 360 to spend polishing system features and games, yet the PS3 launch is almost identical to the 360's lackluster one.

I'm not missing any points here. I'm not trying to declare a winner in the system war, and I am not attempting to say that the PS3 has a better current value than the 360 (or even Wii, to a degree). I have simply been stating something that pisses me off - the comparison of the PS3 at launch to the 360 a full year after its release. I find it an unfair comparison in many respects, especially when people are unwilling to even CONSIDER that there are other methods of comparison between these two systems than "current value."

And I DO have a right to compare the two launches, as I've purchased both systems at launch! And you know what I find, in retrospect? Microsoft Xbox 360's launch sucked ass in my opinion, while PS3's has been decent. Not great, but decent. I am impressed that PS3 game developers, when given an extra year to make their launch titles and despite a system architecture that NOBODY knows how to code effectively for, managed to release a selection of games which were gameplay-wise and graphically on par with a system which had been out for 1 year. I am also thankful that my PS3 did not break in the first week of me owning it, as my (and many other peoples') 360 did. I'm also pretty pleased that my copy of Madden '07 wasn't a ghost of its PS2 counterpart. There are, of course, things I'm not too happy about with my PS3, but when I think about it, compared with the 360's launch I much prefer Sony's release. I think it's better in *almost* every comparable category.

Now this is not to say I think the PS3 is a better system *right now* from the current value standpoint. The 360 obviously is the leader in that department. I even applaud Microsoft's decision to launch their system before Sony and Nintendo's platforms, so as to gain a foothold on the market! I applaud them just the same as I applauded Sony for releasing the PS2 ahead of the GameCube and Xbox - it's a good strategy. On the same token I am not going to completely rag on the PS3 just because it's late to the party, just as I did not rag on the Xbox or GameCube when they released later than the PS2. I could've - both systems had flaws at launch. You know why I didn't? Because it was an unfair comparison then, just as it is an unfair comparison now. And guess what? I gave both systems time before I passed final judgment on them, and lo and behold! Xbox turned out to be an okay console! And GameCube ... well, GameCube had Smash Bros.

When customers come into my store and I find out what gaming system fits their needs the best, I usually sell them either an Xbox 360 or a PS2. I don't offer the PS3 to customers usually, because for most of them it is not a good value yet. I did the same with the 360 last year - I sold PS2s instead, because at the time there was no value in a 360. That changed, however, just as it will change with the PS3. I just wish that instead of bitching about how much people think the PS3 sucks compared to the 360, they would stop to consider another method of comparison and realize that hey, the PS3's really not that bad.

[PriZm]

Don't forget you can install the (new public) yellow dog Linux build on your PS3, making it a capable media and emulation center.

[Nario]

It doesn't have Smash.

That's probably the worst excuse I have EVER heard. I may be a Nintendo fanboy, but I must say that there are a lot of games for Xbox 360 that even I enjoy, and Wii is my thing. You could easily say the exact same thing for the Wii, though, because "it doesn't have Final Fantasy XIII!" Here's the thing, though: Super Smash Bros. Brawl isn't even out for the Wii yet, so I guess you shouldn't buy a Wii either because "it doesn't have Super Smash Bros. Brawl!" Seriously, your logic really disturbs me. O.o

Nonetheless, Xbox 360 has just so many more worthwhile games than PS3 and Wii, and Wii has more worthwhile games than PS3. If you all don't mind, I will take my time and give out my opinion as to which and how many games are worthwhile on each current-gen console:

• Xbox 360:
  - Kameo: Elements of Power
  - Perfect Dark Zero
  - Call of Duty 2
  - Dead Rising
  - Gears of War
  - Viva Pinata
  - Call of Duty 3
  - and more
  Wii:
  - Wii Sports
  - The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
  - Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
  - Trauma Center: Second Opinion
  - Red Steel
  - Call of Duty 3
  - Elebits
  PS3:
  - Resistance: Fall of Man
  - Call of Duty 3

So, according to my opinion, Xbox 360 has more worthwhile games than the other two competitors and Wii has more games than PS3 (ouch). PS3 is going to have to kick it up a notch to stay in the competition, in my honest opinion. Also, I did not include games that will be awesome but are not currently out, therefore getting rid of all the people that are like "Don't get a Wii or PS3 because they don't have Halo 3 or Mass Effect!" or "Don't get an Xbox 360 or PS3 because they don't have Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, or Metroid Prime 3: Corruption!" or "Don't get an Xbox 360 or Wii because they don't have Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy versus XIII, or Devil May Cry 4!"

Seriously, buy a console that has a lot of games to choose from, because you might be playing with that for quite a while. To buy a PS3 and wait (im)patiently for Devil May Cry 4 is just ridiculous; play some Gears of War or Banana Blitz while waiting for it. Also, I don't mind if not a single one of you all like Banana Blitz or any of Rare's games for the Xbox 360, because these are just my opinions. Even so, the first two consoles have more worthwhile games than PS3.

[The Unsung Plumber]

The PS3 also makes a great hand warmer. really, It's been cooler around here for the past couple of days, and after a few hours of Resistance It's blowing nice warm air out the side. That makes it the superior system.

[The Damned]

The PS3 also makes a great hand warmer. really, It's been cooler around here for the past couple of days, and after a few hours of Resistance It's blowing nice warm air out the side. That makes it the superior system.

Oh. Well then, I take back everything I said about the PS3 not being a good value. All that other stuff and it's a space heater? I'm sold.

[The Unsung Plumber]

The PS3 also makes a great hand warmer. really, It's been cooler around here for the past couple of days, and after a few hours of Resistance It's blowing nice warm air out the side. That makes it the superior system.

Oh. Well then, I take back everything I said about the PS3 not being a good value. All that other stuff and it's a space heater? I'm sold.

He has been converted. All others will submit quietly or they will have their thumbs removed.

[Bahamut]

Heh, I might end up with some PS3s sometime in the next few months because I am preparing for a joint venture of starting a video game website with one of my best friends.

Things should be interesting with having all three consoles at my discretion .

[The Damned]

So. Uh... about that Blu-Ray DVD format... I don't know if it's going to catch on now. The porn business isn't going to support it. The best part? It's not the porn companies that don't want to use Blu-Ray; it's Sony. Sony has allegedly threatened to take the licenses away of anyone who would publish porn on Blu-Ray. From the article:

He then went on to explain that he had in fact wanted to publish his movies on Blu-ray Disc, but that all Blu-ray Disc copying facilities in the United States had refused to cooperate. The companies had unanimously declared that Sony had threatened to withdraw their Blu-ray licenses should they stoop to making HD copies of pornographic films, Joone said.

Porn is supposed to be the majority of DVD sales, and VHS porn must have been pretty big. Even with the internet supplying quicker and cheaper (even free) porn, there will still be people that buy DVDs. Or in this case, HD-DVDs.

Looks like Sony's format took another hit. Anyone still want me to believe that the PS3 is a good value as a movie player? I see less and less of a chance that Blu-Ray will even be around in a few years. Only if all the major movie studios go with it, will we see it stick around. At that point, however, we'll have two different formats still fighting each other.

[hamburglar]

So. Uh... about that Blu-Ray DVD format... I don't know if it's going to catch on now. The porn business isn't going to support it. The best part? It's not the porn companies that don't want to use Blu-Ray; it's Sony. Sony has allegedly threatened to take the licenses away of anyone who would publish porn on Blu-Ray. From the article:

Porn is supposed to be the majority of DVD sales, and VHS porn must have been pretty big. Even with the internet supplying quicker and cheaper (even free) porn, there will still be people that buy DVDs. Or in this case, HD-DVDs.

Looks like Sony's format took another hit. Anyone still want me to believe that the PS3 is a good value as a movie player? I see less and less of a chance that Blu-Ray will even be around in a few years. Only if all the major movie studios go with it, will we see it stick around. At that point, however, we'll have two different formats still fighting each other.

Wasn't one of the downfalls of Betamax not supporting porn? Hasn't Sony learned their lesson yet?

[G_D]

According to an article I read yesterday (I'm too lazy to look it up), the same thing happened with VHS vs. Betamax. Sony wouldn't allow porn to be distributed on their format, and look where the format ended up...

Of course, it could be coincidence, but I personally wouldn't bet on it.

Edit: Jacked!

[SilverStar]

So. Uh... about that Blu-Ray DVD format... I don't know if it's going to catch on now. The porn business isn't going to support it. The best part? It's not the porn companies that don't want to use Blu-Ray; it's Sony. Sony has allegedly threatened to take the licenses away of anyone who would publish porn on Blu-Ray. From the article:

Porn is supposed to be the majority of DVD sales, and VHS porn must have been pretty big. Even with the internet supplying quicker and cheaper (even free) porn, there will still be people that buy DVDs. Or in this case, HD-DVDs.

Looks like Sony's format took another hit. Anyone still want me to believe that the PS3 is a good value as a movie player? I see less and less of a chance that Blu-Ray will even be around in a few years. Only if all the major movie studios go with it, will we see it stick around. At that point, however, we'll have two different formats still fighting each other.

Nice. Hybrid DVD porn! Regular DVD on one side, HD-DVD on the reverse! *yoink and wank!*

[The Damned]

Anyone want a significant discount on a PS3? No problem. Just trade in your PS2, your second controller and your memory card. Now you have a system that also plays PS2 games, and it only cost you $400 to $500!

AWESOME DEAL!

Who in their right mind would take this trade? Get rid of a system with shitloads of games for it, that only costs a little over a hundred bucks, and get rid of not only your extra controller, but your memory card as well? For a system that only has one controller (with no rumble and an unused tilt feature), no pack-in game, and you still have to pay three to four times as much for?

[Petara]

Anyone want a significant discount on a PS3? No problem. Just trade in your PS2, your second controller and your memory card. Now you have a system that also plays PS2 games, and it only cost you $400 to $500!

AWESOME DEAL!

Who in their right mind would take this trade? Get rid of a system with shitloads of games for it, that only costs a little over a hundred bucks, and get rid of not only your extra controller, but your memory card as well? For a system that only has one controller (with no rumble and an unused tilt feature), no pack-in game, and you still have to pay three to four times as much for?

Yikes. That's pretty weak. I actually almost gave my PS2 to one of my friends when I got the 3, but soon realized the HDMI conversion discrepancies when playing PS1 games. PS1 games actually do look worse on the 3 than the 2. Of course, I take into account the size and resolution differences between the TVs I used. Nasty looking edges and some other eyesores that weren't all too apparent on my 27in Wega, show up quite vivid on my new 32in Phillips LCD HD. I was praying there wouldn't be quality issues with the backwards compatibilty, but it looks like the Sony gods have smited me.

[SilverStar]

Anyone want a significant discount on a PS3? No problem. Just trade in your PS2, your second controller and your memory card. Now you have a system that also plays PS2 games, and it only cost you $400 to $500!

AWESOME DEAL!

Who in their right mind would take this trade? Get rid of a system with shitloads of games for it, that only costs a little over a hundred bucks, and get rid of not only your extra controller, but your memory card as well? For a system that only has one controller (with no rumble and an unused tilt feature), no pack-in game, and you still have to pay three to four times as much for?

Here's the real story..

http://kotaku.com/gaming/business/sony-vp-on-those-stacks-of-consoles-227588.php

"...what we do pay attention to is that month in, month out, the PlayStation 2 continues to outsell Xbox 360. I think you see the consumers voting with their wallets on the PlayStation brand. But also, if people want to go out and buy a 360, their stacked pretty high at retail and yet, six-year-old technology is outselling it. I also think there's another trend going on. Every Sunday in the paper, there's a new deal with a free controller or a free game or $100 off all discounting the 360. I don't think you take those measures if you're selling as expected." Peter Dille - Senior VP of Marketing, SCEA

That was posted on Wednesday. 3 days later, one of Sony's largest retail chains for the PS3, announce a sale for $100 off if you give up ~$150 worth of gear.

[The Damned]

Sony. Insert foot directly to mouth.

[SilverStar]

Sony. Insert foot directly to mouth.

Sony reminds me of the ever-tarded "Stop hitting yourself!" type of bullying.. Only no one is holding their arm as they keep punching themselves increasingly hard in the face, along with a few swift kicks to their own nuts.

Sony: "You're not laughing -AT- us, you're laughing -WITH- us! ...Right? Heheh...?"