|
|
|
PS3 Price announced
|
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 00:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the wii is like a 1990 corolla for 1,000 dollars and the ps3 is like A 2006 ferrari selling for 3,000 dollars and you nintendo "kids" are saying ohh ill take the corolla because its cheaper.
That has to be one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.
anyways, Hade, I liked a lot of what you had to say. I think I can agree to some of it, but a good portion had to do with the success of the Blu-ray, which isn't exactly definate. Sony has a pretty consistant track record with failed formats, so lets hypothesize that the Blu-ray turns into the BetaMax.
Then you just spent an extra 200 dollars for nothing, and then you'd have to fork out a lot of money for a HD-DVD player.
No one is being that naive here. For gaming purposes only, the 360 certainly seems the better deal, unless you're a fan of the exclusives sony still has.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 00:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ hade.....not a bad anaylis,but thats not how it is actually worked out,yes both companies have offered 2 consoles,premium and budget,however for the sony PS3's cheaper version,they don't know how that will fair,it hasn't wifi,no memory stick(they give you the alternative via usb on pc-bit inconvenient)hdmi may not be reachable with this cheaper version and certain other capabilities,and sony have admitted this,they don't know what troubles it will run into further down the track.and i bet you online play won't be free for very long,so you can add that to the price of the console (PS3) at a later date,seeing as that is your anaylisis.it has been said amongst the gaming community to buy the expensive unit,purely for this reason,the unknown fate of the cheaper version.
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
13. May 2006 @ 13:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
But you cant buy a cheaper ver thinking its going to do almost the same as the big ver.The cheaper ver i think is for younger kids that dont play online games & not that diehard of a Sony fan but they still can afford it.
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
13. May 2006 @ 13:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
You cant go to a Toyota parking lot and buy a Camry thinking its going to be compare to a Lexus.Toyota makes both Cars but one is High dollars the other is the affordable one.There got to be a difference.
|
|
AFreak
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 14:12 |
Link to this message
|
if you are going to compare the PS3 cheapo version against the better one, then you also have to look at Xbox360s shitty version.
300 bucks for core(and guess what, it has more missing than the PS3 cheapo)
you get the 360 with no HDD, you get no wireless controllers(unless you buy the attachment which is gay), you get no HDD(the PS3 may not have memory sticks, but it damn well has at least something to save your games with, say a 20 GB HDD)
and I agree with Hade, but you forgot some more things comparing the 360s premium pack to the PS3s premium pack.
You forgot the wireless adapter(PS3 better version is wireless out of the box) which is 100 right there, 400+100=500 already(this equals the regular edition of the PS3 already).
you said the HD-DVD add-on, which doesnt even support games. That(and this is being generous at this point) is another 100 dollars, that is already at the PS3s premium pack version at 600 dollars. next is the Wireless controllers that CANT RECHARGE unless you buy the docking bay, and all you need for the PS3 to charge is a USB cord. thats already another 30 dollars bring the Xbox to $630, then you add the three years for XBLive GOld(and that doesnt even count Diamond) and u got $780 just to have the same features as a PS3 out of the box, and not to mention that adds to stroage space as well.
nope, in the long run PS3>X360 in value.
Yo!
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 14:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ damondash,you can't compare cars to consoles :) because cars nowdays come out standard with everything now,and technically the camry has what the lexus has,except for special orders,like leather trim,auto or manual,they come out standard with power steer,air con,etc,etc,it just depends what model they are running thru the factory floor on the day.
the only difference,yes sounds a bit contradictory i know,but the cheaper version has a smaller HDD,no memory stick,if you want to use it you have to via a USB cable to PC,no wifi and most likely won't look so good on hdmi,so what they are actually doing is making it a basic version,but have stated they do not know how it will fair.unlike microsoft,they give you the opportunity to buy the HDD at a later date,(the console itself has everything in it ready for later use if wanted-where as the cheaper version of the PS3 won't)they will have further add ons later down the track,so whats happening is microsoft are giving you the opportunity to upgrade the one console,where as sony won't with their 2 versions of the PS3
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. May 2006 @ 14:28
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 14:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
But you cant buy a cheaper ver thinking its going to do almost the same as the big ver.The cheaper ver i think is for younger kids that dont play online games & not that diehard of a Sony fan but they still can afford it.(Quote)
for sony no...but for microsoft yes,because they have everything built in ready if someone decided to go online,etc,etc.the 2 versions of the 360 are exactly the same,just not sold with the HDD and have a hard wired controller,which if wanted later,you can buy the wireless controller.
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 14:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ AFreak,the cheaper version of 360 is exactly the same as the more expensive one,like you and i said,no wireless controller and HDD,you don't need a special add on to be able to operate the wireless controller?? if someone decides to upgrade.i bought the premium pack,for the pure reason that you got the lot in the bundle for a whole lot cheaper if you bought it seperately,and only payed an extra $150AUD with 1 game (approx extra)and thats the cost of a HDD if you went out and bought one,
|
|
AFreak
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 14:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
but in comparison for Developers the PS3 outpaces the Xbox by a lot.
Every PS3 has an HDD, and that means the no noe will be left out if a game uses the HDD to optimize it, but on the other hand, the 360 doesnt allow that, unless you plan to fork over more money(which doesnt make the Core any less cheaper thant he premium).
Take Fable, it will most likely use the HDD, so anyone with the core pack is shit out of luck.
Yo!
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 16:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ AFreak..developers will be finding it hard to adapt to the blu-ray,they say they would rather stick with the DVD9 formatt,as game files are actually getting smaller,without any loss what so ever to the quality of the game,they believe that the blu-ray formatt may turn out to be a nightmare for them,but at this stage, that itself is speculation,so we have to wait and see.
as for the HDD,thats basically for online play,and game saves(for online play and downloadable content)the bundles come with a memory card(or what ever you like to call them for the xbox,(basic console-no HDD).
so with that in mind,sony are trying to do as microsoft have done,but can't guarantee the future of the cheaper PS3,because of some left outs...
on the note of fable,that is actually quite a small filed game,so being $hit out of luck is an unfair statement as to comparing both platforms
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. May 2006 @ 16:11
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. May 2006 @ 16:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AFreak
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 18:51 |
Link to this message
|
About the DVD9s to Blu-ray, of course at the beginning people wont want to change.
Take the CD to DVD format, at the time of the PS2 launch, almost everyone was using CDs compared to DVDs, but now no one is using the CD format on new PS2 games, Sony thinks that the same will happen with Blu-ray once everyone starts to get accustomed to it, and it will make it the best format to produce a game on in the long run. SOny thinks long term more than short term all the time.
Yo!
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
13. May 2006 @ 23:52 |
Link to this message
|
About the DVD9s to Blu-ray, of course at the beginning people wont want to change.
Take the CD to DVD format, at the time of the PS2 launch, almost everyone was using CDs compared to DVDs, but now no one is using the CD format on new PS2 games, Sony thinks that the same will happen with Blu-ray once everyone starts to get accustomed to it, and it will make it the best format to produce a game on in the long run. SOny thinks long term more than short term all the time.(Quote)
no not completely true,yes sure dvd's hold more data,but thats not what game developers are looking for,it's just technology (blu-ray) that sony wants to use,game developers don't need that much storage space,games these days,because of technological changes,are becoming smaller in files,as i said in previous post,thats why microsoft did not adopt the Blu-ray technology,Blu-ray also has it's other supposed advantages,but is not a discussion that is really tolerated on this forum,so enough said on that part,thats why sony want to use this technology.
apart from the blu ray,there is very little difference between the platforms,except the name,and maybe slightly more flops on one system,but it's not enough to be bragging about.
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2006 @ 04:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Game developers been cryin about how hard it is or how hard it is to adapt to Sony application to make games for years but that never stop them from making blockbusters games for them.They been complain since the end of PS1.Why: because its a money thing,deveopers can save money(and make more money) if they can use the same Application to make games for years.But they dont like the fact Sony always had plan for the future which is not there fault.So game developers have to Buy new kits and they dont like that because it cost them money plus they fear the unknown.I rather have something that give me more than enough space then something have to shrink to put files on because developers will be the first ones to complain about why a game was not a hit because they didnt have this or that.Sony give them more than what they need to work with.I rather have a system that the makes think about the future than shortterm that let me know that my money i spend was not in vein.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2006 @ 04:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
the reason why on both ps1 and ps2 they have been able to make awesome games, is b/c in both occations they released a year before, and in which case for ps1 was n64 and ps2 was xbox. but now the ps3 is just as hard a s ps2 to develope for but it coming out a year after the xbox 360 which is easier to develope for.
|
|
robjungle
Newbie
|
14. May 2006 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah but the thing is, just cos the 360 is avaliable to buy, it's still not "out" in the sense that there's not gonna be hardly any truly great games to buy for it until the PS3 comes out! When the PS3 does come out, and we can go to the store and buy resident evil 5 with a 360 or a PS3, then I reckon more people will choose the PS3.
Earlier in the thread someone said that the PS3 will "only just compare" to the 360. Since then I've compared the specs of the 2, and I really don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion! The Xbox 360 is basically a top of the range gaming PC in a box. It's not gonna get any better than it is. The Ps3 on the other hand, IS going to be more powerful plus it will allow for huge games (via Blu-ray discs) that the 360 will not be able to accomodate. I don't buy the "games are getting smaller" argument. Does anyone seriously believe that developers are going to make games that push the next gen consoles to their limit, without using more gigabytes in the process?!
Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again, Japan will make or break both consoles. Right now, I bet there's not a single kid in Japan who hasn't set their sights firmly on the PS3. They're just not keen on Microsoft over there! I don't see how anyone could think the 360 could possibly outsell the PS3 in Europe either. I predict the Xbox 360 has it's best shot in America, but I reckon PS3 will do better in America than the 360 does in Japan too.
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2006 @ 07:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup X-box only sold 1.2 million consoles in Japan out of 25 million world wide as of March 06. Thats real bad.If you going to sale the most consoles you got to win the Japan & U.S. markets its not going to happen in Japan.I dont think the U.S. either.Microsoft was saying that they Hopefully have shipped & solded 10 million consoles by the time PS3 lauch.Thats not good if you only sold 10 million to all the major markets in a years time.PS3 will catch them a lease by the end of next spring.Sony will have 4 million consoles on launch day thats almost half of what MS have.
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2006 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
robjungle - as crap as the ps2 was, even that console improved dramaticaly over time, how can you say the xbox 360 is not gonna get anybetter, oh and the specs, well you can not just put these specs side by side, it does not go that way, as the ps3 is still not out yet the best way of finding out whcih console is better, is to look at interviews with well known developers, and from what i have read xbox 360 will be graphicaly better, but in everything else ps3 will do better, like loading time, physics, etc, etc. oh and although i am an xbox 360 and nintendo fan, that does not mean that i would just make up those interviews with devs, i have actually read at least 4 in whcih they all either say that the xbox 360 and ps3 will be exactly the same, like the mgs4 dev who said that mgs4 would have easily been capable on the xbox 360, also the guys who are making the darkness for both consoles, said that the graphics chip for xbox 360 is slightly better, and the guy who made doom 3.
also you said that the major games would not be out for the xbox 360 before ps3 launch, well personally i think MS would not be that stupid, it is most likely that games like gears of war, mass effect, too human, saints row and crackdown will release late summer (hopefully).
also about the nlu ray making games massivly bigger, well here is link whcih explains in great detail why ther blu ray will only help developers be a little more sloppy when making a game.
http://www.gamesfirst.com/?id=1132
anyways both consoles are ganna be great, i am plan on getting all three, but untill games start coming out on ps3 that really are ahead of xbox 360 in graphical terms plz do not go around saying that ps3 will have better graphics b/c then you are just asking for a reply (although i may be wrong, ps3 might be 10 times better, but at least wait and see what ps3 agmes look like side by side games like gears of war and mass effect)
|
|
AFreak
Member
|
14. May 2006 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
"no not completely true,yes sure dvd's hold more data,but thats not what game developers are looking for,it's just technology (blu-ray) that sony wants to use,game developers don't need that much storage space,games these days,because of technological changes,are becoming smaller in files,as i said in previous post,thats why microsoft did not adopt the Blu-ray technology,Blu-ray also has it's other supposed advantages,but is not a discussion that is really tolerated on this forum,so enough said on that part,thats why sony want to use this technology.
apart from the blu ray,there is very little difference between the platforms,except the name,and maybe slightly more flops on one system,but it's not enough to be bragging about."
first of all, when they talk about games getting smaller, they dont talk about games that are running in 1080p. that will take up almost 4 gigs on its own, so ive heard, the Blu-ray gives it that extra space, and come on people, are you stupid? games were getting smaller during the transition to the PS1-PS2. Ico was only 512mb at the most, and the same with all other PS2 launch titles, but because the developers had the extra space, they started to use it, without that extra pace i doubt GTA would be anywhere near as good. Thats what Blu-ray will do for this generation, what DVD did for the last. You can believe what you want, but once PS3 games start putting everything into one disc, be prepared for Xbox 360 games with 4 discs to each one.
Yo!
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2006 @ 09:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
just read my link plz.
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2006 @ 11:52 |
Link to this message
|
@ Rabbity: That link said that most of the Games on 360 have took about 49% of space on the disc.360 been out for 6 or 7 months.Thats half a year and most new consoles last at least 4-5 years thats not good.They will max out a DVD9 before the system has been out a year.
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
14. May 2006 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
@ robjungle,well i'm afraid you are going to have to accept that games are getting smaller in file size,and will continue to do so,sure there is going to be some grate games out in the near future for BOTH consoles,but when you open up the game structure you will be surprised,especially to the size of it,i have to agree with damondash in respect to the developers,and their money/cost cutting exercise,but it is completely possible to have a 1 gig game and still achieve a great game with out anything suffering,look at PGR3 for the xbox 360.IMO sony have chosen the wrong path to go down,as i believe games may well end up like MP3 or DivX structures,(probably wrong,but thats where i think games may well be heading,especially with sequels).
@ damondash i have never seen a PS2 game any bigger than 6 gigs in size,and can't see any developer making many games that big to often,so a DVD9 disc is cost effective,and really all that is needed in the gaming industry,even hollywood have said the same thing,at one stage they were all for it,but they are now umming and arring about it,because it could mean lost dvd revenue,as people decide not to adopt to Blu-ray.
|
|
AFreak
Member
|
14. May 2006 @ 13:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
games will noyl grow in file size later on, like i said check out this generations games, they started out getting smaller, but then they added so muh, they NEEDED more space, i mean Legend of Zelda OoT was only 20 MB big.
Yo!
|
|
rabbity
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2006 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
DamonDash, you obviously really did not undertsnad that link, read again if you want.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
heraldsun
Member
|
14. May 2006 @ 14:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
games will noyl grow in file size later on, like i said check out this generations games, they started out getting smaller, but then they added so muh, they NEEDED more space, i mean Legend of Zelda OoT was only 20 MB big.(Quote)
they may grow in file size,but it is highly unlikely,exceeding 8.5 gigs,with new compression tools for game developers,WE are looking at this generations games and none thus far have exceeded 6GIGS.
read the link rabbity posted,it makes for interesting reading,but your entitled to your opinion,as the link states,if there is excess amount of space on the disc,this allows for game developers to get sloppy with their graphical work. just believe when your told,not just by me,but by others and the game developers,that a DVD9 is quite sufficent for this generation of consoles,sony are just opting for something that isn't really all that neccassary,in fact in may be sony's undoing in the future.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. May 2006 @ 15:26
|
|
