http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4...itled10hs1.jpg

Hahaha, that one was great. So true too, most of only really want the system cause of the exclusive titles. Eg. FF13, MGS4, DMC4, etc.

Heh, the delay is no surprise either. But still shipping em out, when only 400k are going to available? Bleh, I can easily see the PS3 being scammed for $1000+ on ebay now.

Wow, they're basically imitating Microsoft.

The 360 was released in november last year in america, and march in europe. Now that everyone's been told the PS3 will be released in november this year, and march next year, they're exactly a year apart. I'm sure this is some strategic plan on Sony's part.

But it isn't good thinking. The longer the consoles take to be released, the longer it'll take for the price to drop. That, and the fact that people will eventually get sick of waiting and just end up purchasing a different console.

Thank god I'm satisfied with the current generation.

Actually it was just Australia and New Zealand that got fucked over with the March release of the 360. ;_; They still insist they pulled off a simultaneous worldwide release though!

So is this delay also going to affect australia and new zealand, or just europe?

Yep, we also get raped. Again.

This is a fucking joke but oh well, I guess, it is not that surprising. Good job in supporting Wii, Sony. I will buy a fucking PS2 now and play FFXII :mad:

I don't really see the big deal myself. Seeing how Sony's plans for the PS1,2 and 3 (originally) were to launch in Japan first and then NA & Europe about a year later is worse for us then the current situation, I'll just be happy to get them when we do. Also we don't want the hardware to be the quality of the 360 now do we? (On my 3rd 360 as of now) And don't forget that Sony is going to have about 100 000 more then the 360 had for NA release and they have more factories working on the system then Microsoft.

As for the Wii, of course it's not going to be as near as troublesome to stick another stick of RAM, add a new case & peripheal as it would be to make a whole new system from scratch, so as far as the Wii's concerned I find $200 to be expensive for an upgraded system that I already paid $200 for.

Once again Europe gets ######...Thank God i'm getting one at half price XD

It's not that they couldn't get in a better release date, but it's that they promised a world wide launch that they didn't keep. They also promised, I believe, 2,000,000 systems at launch, which is sitting at 500,000, I think? And I think I mentioned it earlier, but a shitty launch for the 360 certainly does not justify a shitty launch for the PS3. I have no comment about the 360's hardware since I don't own one.

I don't believe the PS3 was made from scratch, BTW. Nothing nowadays is made from scratch. Companies take what they have and improve upon it. No point in reinventing the wheel. You'd be on target if you made the connection that it'd also be expensive as hell to pay $600 more on something that is upgraded from something you already paid $250 for.

Yeah but the upgrades make it about 32 times superior to the PS2 according to benchmark reports. And of course $600 is alot, but systems ALWAYS launch around that price, from the Atari systems to the PS2, 360, and now PS3. Also at one point the Neo-geo costed around $800 when it came out. The only thing that has changed over the years... is well nothing. New systems cost alot, people bitch alot, and to expect any change to this cycle that has been going on since the 1960's won't change anything.

But in the end though, if I wanted my 360 to have the same capabilities it will cost sufficiently more then just simply buying a PS3.

360 Premium: $500 + $120 HD-DVD = $620
PS3 Core: $550 + $0 Blu Ray = %550

So in the end the 360 is costing more for the unit, it's just missing features to make it seem cheaper.

Your little math equation forgot to take into account that the 360 is only $400 for the premium package, and the the PS3 is $600, which still makes the 360 + the HD DVD player cheaper.

I don't see how it was a point for or against either console, though.

Well, excluding complete and utter failures like Neo Geo, CD-i and the Panasonic 3DO, nothing has come close to launching at $600 US. I think.. Saturn was the last system to sort of approach that mark at $400.

True, but Sony has developed the cell processor and Blu-Ray DVD player themselved which is what makes it more unique then the 360 and such (which is just a PC in a box) and is also the reason why it's more.

NES Oldskooler: That's the Premium PS3 which is $650 but if you want to compare that.

PS3 Premium: $650
Premium 360: $500 + HD-DVD $120 + Wi-Fi $100 = $720 (and you can't upgrade the harddrive from 20 GB now where the $650 PS3 has 60GB, nor do you have the HDMI)

The 360 isn't at $500.....the premium version of the XBox360 lies at $400 last I checked...Maybe you're gettin screwed over? o.O

Ironically, Sony themselves have said that the PS3 is basically a PC entertainment system. And Cell was not developed soley by Sony, it was a joint effort by Toshiba, Sony, and IBM.

Also, from your earlier post, numbers might be 32x that of the PS2, but numbers don't always equate exactly into performance. (I actually know nothing about the numbers, but I'm almost certain that nothing jumps up that much (32x) flawlessly without a few limitations and draw backs). New technology is always a gamble. There have been plenty of new things in the past. Some of them work wonderfully, some of them fail. I'm not saying that the PS3 is going to fail, but I think it's going a bit overboard on the numbers. As a result, the cost of the system suffers. It also takes a lot more power to run all those high tech things too, I wouldn't be surprised if that thing was running a bit on the hot side. Also, adding everything into one package isn't necessarily the best course of action. I'm sure there are people who don't need one feature or another, and at the same time, there are those who must simply have everything.

Even though it was a joint effort, it was originally designed for the PS3, and would still cost alot more then just buying consumer parts like Microsoft and Nintendo do.

As for the price I'm in Canada therefore the 360 has an exchange difference of $100 and the PS3 has an exchange of $50 (set by the companies)

core premium
US 360 $300 $400
CAN 360 $400 $500

US PS3 $500 $600
CAN PS3 $550 $650
You can check any retailler site, these are the costs.

Also why Sony were trying to promote it as a PC entertainment system is because the taxes on video games & hardware are insane in Europe compared to that of consumer electronics, so if Sony could get the countries to believe that it was a PC and not a Console they could save something like $3,000,000 on taxes which they were going to in turn use to pay immersion to get the rumble feature. Unfortunatly the European countries didn't fall for Sony's marketing.

(Information from IGN podcasts and articles)

That's interesting. That's definitely news to me....so what, Sony retaliated by launching the PS3 next year? Haha.....

Just kidding, I don't really know....But it would be hilarious if it were true....

The reason why the PS3 was pushed back is due to the lack of Blu-Ray diodes that is required to change the focus and reading attributes of the laser in order to read the Blu-Ray discs. Therefore they had to choose a market to delay release in. Therefore since Europe is smaller for gaming then North America or Japan, it was elected to get the cut. Like I said though, no launch goes smooth anyway, so it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Plus with all the bitching that I've been hearing from people aswell as how many people say that they're going to wait a while to get a system that will last, what does it matter to them if it gets pushed back or not. (I'm not emplying that everyone is like this however, or even that this is even the general opinion in Europe, heck it's only in Europe where the PSP is outselling the DS. Not by much, but outselling non the less.)