Kutaragi does have a point. Technically, you get a cheap Blu-Ray player, with the option to play thousands of games.

But still, $500-600 for a gaming console? I still can't really shake it off.

With the price of gas rising, and the cost of living skyrocketing, it'll be pretty hard for most of the middle-class people to afford it..

See, that's what gets me. What if I'm not interested in the damn blu-ray player? I'm not making the jump to HD anytime soon. I want a PS3 for the FFXIII's and MGS4's. I guess it's a decent deal for someone interested in both components. For the likes of me however, it's a rip-off. As I've said before, I think the PS3 will be one of those cosoles that'll be absolutely amazing when you purchase it later in it's life-span as opposed to on launch date.

the problem you don't see is that to have a game with so beautiful real-time 3D graphic, you need this blu-ray disc, otherwise the game would fit on like what 5 dvd >.>

i'm not saying that it's the blu-ray that does the performance, but heh the game does take a lot of space now for those graphic and game content >.>

...well then you'RE LOST!!! ;)

*jk*

I agree Technophile. I am not making the jump to HD in for at least 5 years which will make half of the PS3's cost a waste of money for me too. So cheap blu-ray player or not, so what? I don't need it because I will never be able to veiw it in HD. And about Storage space, I doubt real time graphics will need the storage space of more than 2 DVD's. Its when they start wasting space with HD prerendered cutscenes that they need a blu-ray disc. And with the power of the PS3, there is no need for prerendered scenes anymore so. In all honesty, I know high def textures will take more memory, but I highly doubt they will take THAT much.
Also, I even have an SACD player already so all of PS3's extra components are just a waste of my money. The blu-ray is the only thing I don't own and I can't even properly use it.

The jump from VHS to DVD was a huge. No more stupid rewind/forwards, we can actually skip chapters, clearer quality, more space, that was huge.

Now, the only thing good I see coming out of this is maybe a bit more crisp audio, and video, because of the increased space, and all that other tech related stuff.. DVDs still cost a pretty penny, but Blu-Ray disks? I can only imagine..

You would be right about this except for a couple things.

Most games are only now starting to actually use a whole single-layer DVD (aka Oblivion at 4.18GB). I don't see how 4-9GB isn't enough for ANY game. It's true that HD video pre-rendered cutscenes will take up alot of space. But if game studios would actually implement good video codecs (e.g. AVC/H.264), then there is nothing to worry over size, even if they stupidly use the HUGE pre-rendered scenes.

Hey, is it possible that the first gen PS3 games will be on regular DVD's thus reducing the cost (like the first PS2 games were on CD's), or is Sony going to force all PS3 games to be on Blu-Ray?

PS3 Online (Including Gaming) Is Free "offical"
http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2006/5/17-51

probably, and then like the PS2, which loses its cd reading function in a year, the PS3 will get disc read errors for DVD's. I am still not able to play my early PS2 games because of this lameness, and I forsee having the same problem with the $600 PS3. I miss you Gungriffon Blaze~! (my first PS2 game)

Well, to be fair, only the first gen PS2's had a serious problem with that (and some of the later ones). This is why I refuse to buy a launch PS3, I learned my lesson with PS2 that launch systems are bound to have bugs and problems. I missed Gungriffon Blaze as well until I got a slim PS2. Then I realized that I had become jaded by much better games and that Gungriffon really isn't that great in retrospect. Anyway, I'm sure Sony doesn't engineer thair stuff to break on purpose (like the planned obselecence in cars?), they're simply really bad at engineering it to not break. And why is everyone insisting on buying the $600 version? If the $499 version comes with Wi-fi and Memory card slots then I'm all for getting that one.


Free online gaming with PS3? I'm sold. I don't like Microsoft's "Live" system where you have to pay for it, even if it is $80 a year, that's still $80!

It's $50 a year.

That's $4.16 a month for any online game on XBox and XBox360, with voice chat.

Most MMORPGs cost at least $15 a month. For a single game.

$15 a month + $4.16 a month = $19.16 x 12 months = $229.92 a year. Not to mention the cost of the Xbox Live Starter Kit...that first year will run closer to $250 for, say, Final Fantasy 11.

It'd be $180 to play Final Fantasy 11 on either the PS2, PC, and assuming it makes it to the system, the PS3 as well. It's a good $70 difference.

Even if the first party controller won't have vibration, you can bet some third part brand will implement it the first chance they get.

Woah, woah, woah. What the fuck did you just do.

You just twisted my argument.

I never mentioned playing an MMORPG on an Xbox / Xbox360.

I compared the price of a single subscription fee for 1 game (take your pick from any major MMORPG) to the price of a single subscription fee for dozens, if not 100+ games with voice chat.

All you did was say "well, but the starter kit is..." Yes. The starter kit is $70. But you need to get a headset if you want to talk, don't you? That's 20 bucks of the price. A keyboard for the PS2 would be the same price.

It's $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold. You can play FFXI with Xbox Live Silver, which is free.

Okay then, but the keyboard for the PS2/3 is negated by the keyboard for the 360. Soooo we're still even.

And I didn't twist your argument. You mentioned that MMORPGs are $15 a month on average, right? Since we were talking about the PS3's online service and the fact that some games, such as FF11, will still charge a fee, I merely took the two arguments and combined them. Final Fantasy 11 on the 360 adds up to about $230 a year, not including the Starter Kit. Presumably, on the PS3 it would only cost $180, as there's no charge.

The point here is that even if games still charge for online play, they will always come out cheaper on the PS3 simply because of the free online play, which will be a big draw for gamers who play their consoles online.

I feel like you intentionally missed Jazz's point.

To play FFXI on the 360, you don't need to pay for a GOLD account since a SILVER will do. But, you need to pay for the PLAY ONLINE service from Sony to play it and that ain't free.

Also, this is the same gimmick that Sony will do for the PS3. They keep saying that it'll be free to play online on their sytem, that they won't charge you a thing, but the company responsible for the game will. It ain't free playing online. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Well, I play Ace Combat with a Hori Flightstick 2, and as far as I know the crap Sony got sued over for using force feedback/vibration doesn't apply to them, so I won't be missing out on anything, really. So long as Hori makes a stick for the next Ace Combat or the current one is compatible with it I'm set.

You don't have to pay for a gold account, true. But you can't have unlimited play time with a silver account either, be it for games that are both online-only and online-capable. If that's wrong, then my whole discussion is wrong. If that's right, then let's continue.

Square-Enix's pay-for-play methods have little to nothing to do with this, save for being used as an example. The point is that Sony's free online gaming service does, thus far, seem superior to Xbox Live's Gold Account, even more so when you consider having to pay for two online services as opposed to one with regards to MMORPGs.

Yes, I know that Final Fantasy 11 isn't free to play online. However, Sony won't charge you an additional fee on top of SE's.

Edit: Having just read Devo's post (and you were the second person, by the way. Not the 10th.), I concede. Since MMORPGs are online-only, and thus the only way you can play is online, I was under the impression you had to have Xbox Live Gold as well. My bad. Fuck, some of you guys are asshats, ya know? Ever stop to think that I might not own a 360?

Double Edit: Sorry, whoever SCHWARZE-6 actually is, but I never saw your post. I stopped at whoever NERD-1 is.

Protip: It cost money to run servers. I'd rather pay and get something top of the line like XBL than have something that was free and sketchy (See: SegaNET).

If Sony is really going to go with their service being free, I sure hope they put the kinda effort into their network that MS did, otherwise I'll be dissapointed, and I don't even OWN a 360 yet. I've just seen it in action and know that it rocks.

My main point (just to finally clarify) was that millions of people pay $15 a month to play games like WoW or City of Heroes, but a $4.16 a month fee is somehow considered expensive even though it supports a ton of games and you're essentially guaranteed that servers are maintained properly.