[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

I like how people still complain about the price. There's a Blu-Ray-DVD drive built in, you fags, that makes the PS3 one of the cheapest Blu-Ray-DVD players on the market. If you're just interesting in playing HD games, you could as well buy a XBOX 360.

High quality has a high price. This isn't a console for hipsters.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Musharraf

I like how people still complain about the price. There's a Blu-Ray-DVD drive built in, you fags, that makes the PS3 one of the cheapest Blu-Ray-DVD players on the market. If you're just interesting in playing HD games, you could as well buy a XBOX 360.

High quality has a high price. This isn't a console for hipsters.

The price really don't concern me personally since I can easily afford it. But lets be realistic here; it's not going to see the mainstream success it needs with a $600 price tag and its still probably won't see it with a $500 price tag either. Sony's top priority should be continued manufacturing refinement to get the thing in the $300-$400 dollar range so more people start buying the thing so developers are more comfortable with developing their games for the platform.

How ya doing, buddy?

Look, isn't it like that: Right now, it would be pretty stupid to buy a PS3 for the sole reason of playing games anyway, since basically, there are only a couple of good games out while the rest is pretty much total crap. In a couple of months, maybe even before the Christmas season, when there will be good games, they WILL lower the price, I am pretty sure about that.

Sure, so far, the PS3 has definitely not been successful at all, but is it because of the price or because people still hesitate to buy it because of the lack of good games?

I bought the PS3 for 600 Euros (which is much more than 600 dollars, by the way) last month because I wanted to get a Blu-Ray-DVD player anyway. 600 bucks is NOT much for a Blu-Ray-DVD player with upscaling possibilities. I didn't primarily get it for playing games, this is what I could've bought an XBOX 360 or a Wii for, I guess. I see the PS3 more as a multimedia center with a loooooooooooot of potential.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Musharraf

I like how people still complain about the price. There's a Blu-Ray-DVD drive built in, you fags, that makes the PS3 one of the cheapest Blu-Ray-DVD players on the market. If you're just interesting in playing HD games, you could as well buy a XBOX 360.

High quality has a high price. This isn't a console for hipsters.

Xbox 360 is an ugly piece of shit that breaks down when you look at it wrong, and Wii is for homosexuals, babies, and people who are okay with playing the three good games the system has.

In light of that, I really want to like PS3, but when you look at everything Sony has been doing, it becomes clear that they have no fucking clue. As I said, this is a small step in the right direction. Maybe it will somewhat help them, especially in autumn when actual games start appearing, though Microsoft has Halo 3 (generic trash that will sell millions) and exclusive content for Grand Theft Auto IV that they bought.

At any rate, 'this isn't a console for hipsters' is pretty much what the policy of Sony has been, and it's fucking retarded. People don't want an electronic multimedia entertainment Jesus in console form, the absolute majority don't even have HD TVs, let alone give a shit about Blu-Ray; they just want an affordable machine that plays good games. Sony got too cocky because of their 13 years of total domination ('People would buy PS3 even if it had no games,' actual quote there), and now they're paying the price (PS3 being outsold by Gameboy Advance).

Again, I want PS3 to succeed, and I will buy one either way, but if you don't see how Sony is fucking things up, you're just fooling yourself.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I wonder if Lair's release date was made to coincide with this. It would make sense to roll out one of their killer aps as soon as the price drops.

Personally, I bought a PS3 because my PS2 was just about to fail completely on me, and I figured I'd been a good enough boy that I could see how next gen home video looks.

Resistance is...okay, but nothing we've never seen before. When I'd rather play Super Stardust and Full Auto 2, there's really no question I've been let down as a game consumer.

(Speaking of which, whatever happened to Metronome? I thought it was pretty ambitious to have an adventure title as a launch title too. Maybe a little too ambitious.)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

They should have realized a long time ago that gamers are not necessarily rich and don't necessarily want to spend thousands of dollars on stuff so they can watch pretty movies.

If they're trying to convince my parents that video games are a cool thing to spend money on, they're going to be pretty hard pressed. My dad is stupid and could never win at video games if his life depended on it (unless it's a Wii game, which anyone can win, which is why Nintendo is making billions of dollars). However, my dad likes to spend thousands of dollars on HD TVs and likes to watch movies.

They should have kept the entities separate instead of trying to force Blu-Ray on the population of "installed" gamers. Granted, Sony has more title support for Blu-Ray than Toshiba does with HD-DVD from movie companies (but that's because Sony has more money to throw around than Toshiba does, on top of owning their own motion pictures studio).

But still, they should have at least given gamers the option to buy a system that didn't have the DVD player included. Then they would likely still be on top. I know people have argued that there isn't a lot of added cost in including the DVD player, but it's likely enough that it could have made a difference in the number of systems sold. Microsoft had the right idea with the 360, releasing different versions of their console for different price brackets, and they're reaping the benefits.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The hell? Do we have a price cut or not?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/techno...6?feedType=RSS

http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony-presid...cut-275536.php

All this bouncing around is making me dizzy!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Aardark

People don't want an electronic multimedia entertainment Jesus in console form, the absolute majority don't even have HD TVs, let alone give a shit about Blu-Ray; they just want an affordable machine that plays good games.

This is your opinion, I heard otherwise.

When the PS2 was released, the costs were about the same (if you compare the price niveau back then and today), but the PS2 had one important advantage: there was basically no competition on the market, so people didn't really have a choice.

I mean, what if there weren't consoles like XBOX 360 or Wii on the market? Would people still complain about the price? Wouldn't you say that a gaming console with Blu-Ray-DVD drive and 60 GB harddisk (which can be used as a desktop PC anyway) can cost that much?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I think if that happens, then the PS3 and in some form console gaming, will become a rich luxury like Caviar and fine wine, and the result will still be low sales cause how many gamers can afford luxuries like caviar? People will still "complain" that the PS3 and console gaming is too expensive.

Of course we all have our opinions and wants and needs, but the fact is that alot of people cannot AFFORD to spend 600 bucks on a over glorified Blue Ray/game console, when the Blue Ray isnt even NEEDED to play good games. Most people already own DVD players in some form and are happy with it. If they want Blue Ray, it should be an option and not forced on them like the PS3 is doing.

And I dun recall the PS2 being 600 dollars and had a HD DVD thing tagged on. It was a console that happens to play DVDs, which was a format everyone was using or starting to use. All consoles are expensive in the get go, but the PS3 is forcing on us a format that not everyone wants or cares about, and its jacking up the prices way too much for the average college student or families.

Its almost a fact that everyone wants something they can afford. If you bought something expensive and it was worth it for you, great, more power to you. But I'm sure even you will love it even more if it was more affordable or cheaper. For alot of gamers, the PS3 is not worth it at this point, especially since the games are more important.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah. I do love how other people go and make decisions for other people just because they like to believe they are part of some overwhelming majority. HDTV prices are plummiting and people are jumping ship. It really won't be that long before the "majority" accept it and just go along with it. Especially with the media being so ready to embrace (and force) it on everyone and their moms.

Edit: No, it's pretty much exactly the same. PS2 was pushing DVD when plenty of people still didn't feel it was "necessary". It happens everytime, people are afraid to accept something new but they pretty much have to anyway if it catches on with the media companies out there.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ah, but usually the majority accept it when the format becomes more affordable. DVD naturally had the phase where it was expensive and new, but now its alot of cheaper to produce, hence the popularity and acceptance.(And the ease of skipping to your fav part of a movie, unlike the old VHS tapes) Blue Ray is still too early in its stage, in terms of production costs. If Sony was smarter they should have waited for the tech to become easier to produce and cheaper to manufacture before slamming it into the PS3.

Now alot of gamers who want the PS3 can't afford one cause its too expensive. As a blue ray machine is perhaps a great deal, but what about those who don't care and don't wanna wait for years for it to become affordable?

And another important factor, the DVD was a revolution in terms of how we watch movies and videos. We can skip to a certain chapter. Better image and sound quality. Multiple tracks and easter eggs and extra features can be implemented. It opened up a new realm for viewers and movie makers. What does Blue Ray have that's different aside from even more space for better image and sound? Nothing really. As much as I wanna see things HD, I can afford the wait for the tech to become affordable.

However, I don't wanna wait 5 years to play MGS 4 or FF13 or whatever exclusive game they still have left.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Musharraf

This is your opinion, I heard otherwise.

Quote:

When the PS2 was released, the costs were about the same (if you compare the price niveau back then and today), but the PS2 had one important advantage: there was basically no competition on the market, so people didn't really have a choice.

I mean, what if there weren't consoles like XBOX 360 or Wii on the market? Would people still complain about the price? Wouldn't you say that a gaming console with Blu-Ray-DVD drive and 60 GB harddisk (which can be used as a desktop PC anyway) can cost that much?

You know, it's true that the launch of PS2 was shit as well, but yes, the only competition it had was Dreamcast, and we pretty much know how that turned out (ironically, PS3 is almost the Dreamcast of this generation). But see, that's exactly the thing: yes, it did not have any competition back then. Now the situation is completely different, but Sony still wants use their old modus operandi, and that is why they are failing. Also, even when PS2 didn't have any games for the first half a year or so, it had DVD playback, which was a strong selling point at that time. On the other hand, Blu-Ray is completely the opposite. HD sales are a miserably small part of the industry total, and it only makes the console needlessly expensive.

Again, I will still buy a PS3, and I don't mind paying the current price for it. However, I know that millions of other people think it's too expensive, and if Sony continues like this, they will be the last place this generation. That means less games for PS3, or at least less games that aren't watered-down 360 ports. And that's what I do mind.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Kairi Li

However, I don't wanna wait 5 years to play MGS 4 or FF13 or whatever exclusive game they still have left.

They have plenty left even if the majority are still in the beginning stages. There's more to a console than huge name blockbuster hits. Some of the best games come from the smaller companies anyway.

As for the rest, of course I agree, but the fact is that the media is shoving it down people's throats. It's going to come rather people want it to or not. Tech prices lower constantly, I really do feel by the end of next year people won't even remember this shit about it being too expensive. It's happened before with many other things.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If what you say becomes true, then awesome. But I don't think Blue Ray is depreciating that fast enough, but we'll see. I just wish Sony either waited or made Blue R as a future add on instead of forcing people to pay for something they don't want. Its forcing people like us to wait for a long while even though there still are games we wanna play. (Mentioned above.)

And Sony tossing the "100 dollars off " ball back and forth isn't helping your theory either, as much as I love to see it depreciate to a much MUCH cheaper lvl that we will forget this crap.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Kairi Li

And I dun recall the PS2 being 600 dollars and had a HD DVD thing tagged on. It was a console that happens to play DVDs, which was a format everyone was using or starting to use. All consoles are expensive in the get go, but the PS3 is forcing on us a format that not everyone wants or cares about, and its jacking up the prices way too much for the average college student or families.

???

I said you had to compare the price level, of course the PS2 didn't cost 600 dollars, but I think it was something around 400, which was quite a lot back then. And I didn't really say that the PS2 was able to play HD media (?)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

My actual post content that I wanted to pass along is that PS3 loses Beautiful Katamari to 360. I'm so depressed.

I never got why people feel the need to bitch about something they want for something they don't want nor have. If you want your PS3 exclusives, you will buy a PS3. No matter how opposed you are to the technologies or the price, eventually, you will buy a PS3. Is it really that hard to not open your mouth?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well at the store that I work when people ask me what system they should buy or what system has the most games. I just tell them, buy the system that has the First-party games you're interested in or long time series that will stay true. Thoes are the only things that anyone can count on. Third-party stuff especially this gen are all 90% cross platform so that's not really a factor like it was.

So basically it comes down to;

MS: HALO, Fable, Forza, Gears of War, X-box LIVE
Nintendo: Metroid, Mario, Party games
Sony: MGS, Final Fantasy, Jack, Ratchet, Tactical RPGs, Gran Turismo and consistant original first-party titles. original

As for Katamari, after the last two games I've had my fill. I have a 360 and a PS3 therefore what system it came to wouldn't have mattered, I'd still felt the same.

Lastly I agree with Musharaf's point. The PS2 was a 200% price hike from earlier consoles therefore being more expensive then the market was used to where the PS3 was only a 150% increase from last gen.

Also while DVD when the PS2 came out was not HD DVD, the market penetration was low especially in China, Japan, and parts of Europe, therefore took time for the realization of the technology to come to terms with the public, however the PS2 massively helped home penetration.

While the penetration of Blu-Ray will NOT be as fast as DVD, seeing how almost nowhere now sells SD TVs, the market for HD technology can only grow. Therefore it's only a matter of time.

@Kairi
Sony is in the industry for $$ not to be popular like any other company. (However they're still not as big of ass like some larger companies) However market examiners are already questioning how long it'll be before all 360 games will be multi-disc due to DVD space limitations. Most people say by the end of this year that most 360 games from then on will be multi-disc. Heck, LAIR coming soon is 22Gigs of information which is about 3 DVDs of information. So while it may be hard to see now, Sony's move with the Blu-Ray was very forward thinking which is what they due well.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Son'y following a strategy they've used twice now, one two previous consoles.

Introduce a machine whose primary playback capabilities rely on a new type of digital storage format. Price it conveniently lower than the average device that uses said format, and sell away!

The PS1 was, at the time, pretty damn cool for a CD player. For people that didn't have a big stereo system at the house, hey they could buy a PS1 and play it through their TV! Viva la revolution!

The PS2 followed the same policy. DVDs had just hit the market, and they were outrageously expensive. Upwards of $400 and the DVD selection was sparse. I think every DVD owner had at least one copy of The Matrix. But then the PS2 came along, priced $100 cheaper, and it played games! Not only that, it played PS1 games too!

And now the PS3 is doing the same thing, except Sony jumped the gun on a new format. They helped to introduce Blu-Ray (this is a key point) as a selling point for the PS3, instead of waiting for Blu-Ray to gain an audience and use the PS3 as an alternative player and a gaming console.

Whereas before you might've gone into someone's house and said "Oh look, you have a $400 DVD player. Sweet. I've got a $300 PS2 and not only does it play DVDs, but I can play new games and my old PS1 games. OH SNAP MOTHER FUC-", now you say "Well I've got a PS3 and it's a Blu-Ray player as well as....OH SNAP MOTH-".

So yeah they changed their market entry strategy just a little bit. I don't think there's really a need to hock it down Sony's throat though. Almost every technology analyst has predicted that Sony will get off to a slow start, but will catch up and lead the trio into the next generation of consoles.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

At the same time, a 150% price increase is still a 150% price increase. Over at cheap ass gamer they talk all the time about the price hurdle, where getting PS3s to the consumers isn't a matter of what they can offer to them so much as being able to compensate for the sticker shock. (That means lowering the sticker price.)

Consider me cautiously optimistic at this point.

FELIPE NO

I think that people cry too much. They'll pay $2,500 for a new PC to play 10 games but not $600 for something that's more powerful then that PC, well run ALL games efficiently, and the person will probably play 50+ games in it's life span.

People need to get in check-in with reality and stop demanding things that are already too good, nevermind being better.

Hell I know that this won't change any time soon, doesn't make my opinion wrong though. Hell multiple companies and market examiners have said the same thing.

@Jag
You're totally right. And that's why in my last post I believed that BR&PS3 will take longer to take off then DVD&PS2 did for that exact reason ^^

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Slayer X

The PS2 was a 200% price hike from earlier consoles therefore being more expensive then the market was used to where the PS3 was only a 150% increase from last gen.

Uh what, PS2 shipped at $300. PS1 shipped at - wait for it - $300. So if my math is correct, the PS2 shipped at an increase of exactly 0% from its predecessor.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Slayer X

I think that people cry too much. They'll pay $2,500 for a new PC to play 10 games but not $600 for something that's more powerful then that PC, well run ALL games efficiently, and the person will probably play 50+ games in it's life span.

People need to get in check-in with reality and stop demanding things that are already too good, nevermind being better.

Haha yeah, people should stop having any demands towards companies and just be grateful for what they get, because that's exactly how the market works... HERE IN SOVIET RUSSIA

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Bought this today. It's actually pretty good quality. Its got the same scratch-prone finish as the PS3, so your hairscratched black console will match your hairscratched black charger. It also has some silver on it but its hard to explain where. It looks nice though, and mine already has a nice little hairscratch on it just like my PS3.

There are colored charge indicators and they provide stickers so that you don't mess up your SIXAXIS' front or something, but the stickers have Nyko logos so I didn't bother.

The box's stated charge time is 1.5 hours, but my controllers are never really that dry so I can't really vouch for it or not. It also uses a normal outlet, and that's a good thing. Always.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

@russ
Well the PS here was $300 (you were right) and the PS2 was $600 (retail wide markup) so it WAS 200% here. I have the receipts from FutureShop and WalMart to prove it. And don't say "oh well that's not what it was supposed to be" or something because frankly I don't care. I just care what I paid.

@Aardark
What I said earlier was like a, "In a perfect world" type of thing. However even in that post I acknoledged that it will probably never happen.

@Ultima
I was thinking of getting that before but is it an AC adapter or USB? Hopefully USB because I don't have any more AC plugs due to my 2 TVs, Surround Sound and 20 systems.

Most amazing jew boots

Trouble is despite the Blue Ray's massive storage space, its a fragile format, to quote my boyfriend:

Quote:

The blu-ray disk format is much more fragile, apparently, than the other formats. I work at an independant video game store, and we'll sometimes buy heavily damaged disks since we have a resurfacing machine. We cannot, however, buy blu-ray discs that are too scratched up because they cannot be resurfaced to functionality. Basically, this means that people are going to have a higher likelihood of needing to replace their discs if they become too damaged; discs being of course the one catagory in which Sony is currently making money since the systems are being stated by the company as being sold at a loss. This likely will cut into the circulation of used games as well, at least by a degree, which while technically (or at least potentially) good for the company, is bad for the consumer.

While multi disks isn't exactly a high point, its not that big of a deal at the same time. We had multi disks games in the past, and I rather have stable game disks as oppose to one Blue Ray that could snap any second. Past multi disks games had the same price, the only difference is a very minor inconvience of switching them. And please don't tell me it takes too much effort to switch some goddamn disks.

So I stand by this: Sony should have waited for Blue Ray to get affordable and more stable.

Most amazing jew boots