[Lamenthe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skiflyer /img/forum/go_quote.gif My PS3 can play games? Dang, I just use it for movies... best blu-ray player on the market when I was shopping last year. Better upgradability, faster load times and equivalent on all other fronts. With comparable blu-ray only players still in the $300-$400 range I don't imagine they're going to drop the price too far too soon... but now you can pick up budget blu-ray players for $200-$250, so maybe I'm wrong.

Exactly what I was going to say. That's the only reason why the price hasn't dropped. If they dropped below regular blu-ray players everyone would be buying PS3s like crazy.

 

[Bonthouse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamenthe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly what I was going to say. That's the only reason why the price hasn't dropped. If they dropped below regular blu-ray players everyone would be buying PS3s like crazy.

And.. how is that bad for Sony again?

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonthouse /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's so overpriced because Sony is THAT arrogant. I seriously don't get why people want that big black BBQ looking thing.. I mean, the developers can't even get half decent preformance out of it, since even Sony doesn't fully understand their Cell processor, how the hell are those developers supposed to create games that actually use the potential of that chip with that half-wit overly-complicated SDK? Next to that, just a few months before it's release Sony, in all it's panic, called Nvidia for help on the GPU (they were dumb/arrogant enough to think that they could let their Cell processor take care of that part. NOT). No wonder it doesn't look that good! It's just a souped up 7900GTS. Microsoft was smart enough to work together with IBM and ATI from the very start, resulting in a better console. Sony could learn from that

I wasn't going to bother responding to a troll until I saw you continuously spouting garbage. First off, the claim about developers not being able to get "half-decent performance" is purely laughable. Take a look at Killzone 2 (almost every single review for this game notes how it is hands down the best looking console game ever released), Uncharted, MGS4, Gran Turismo, etc. While developing games on the PS3 is more challenging, in the long run, the PS3 will produce better results. The PS2 was initially complicated to develop on but look at games like God of War 1/2, Shadow of the Colossus, and MGS3,which look better than almost every Wii game out.

Oh and btw, IBM is one of the developers of the Cell processors. There are loads of people outside the gaming industry who have taken advantage of the Cell's tremendous computing abilities. For example:
Folding@Home: Why the PlayStation 3 owns the PC in F@H - Ars Technica
for more just google folding@home

Supercomputers and cluster computing:
Astrophysicist Replaces Supercomputer with a Cluster of Eight PlayStation 3s
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/vi...2&context=lbnl
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/Jac...PERS/scop3.pdf

PS3 Gravity Grid:
gravity.phy.umassd.edu
PlayStation 3 tackles black hole vibrations - Space.com- msnbc.com

for more: Cell (microprocessor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but you're totally right, the people at Sony are completely arrogant and stupid for using the Cell processor. I mean, aside from playing games, the ps3 can be clustered to form a supercomputer at the fraction of the cost of a real supercomputer, it can help find the cure for countless diseases, provide a better understanding of the properties of black holes AND it can act as your personal george foreman grill. Oh, and the it's also the best blu-ray player on the market.


Quote:

At least MS extended the service for RROD's to three, yes, three years. They admitted their fault. On the other hand, Sony is keeping their mouths suspiciously quiet about the burning-out lasers in the PS3's after about 1,5 year of casual use. I wonder why that is.

yeah, Sony really needs to learn from Microsoft on how to make a console that doesn't have a tremendous failure rate. /sarcasm
Instead of rushing to release their console, Sony actually took more time to make sure the failure rate would be below 1%, unlike Microsoft.
Microsoft consistently denied widespread problems regarding the 360 until it got completely out of hand (The truth about the Xbox 360 | Technology | The Guardian). Microsoft only acknowledged the terrible failure rate of the 360s when it got so bad they had to outsource to companies to help fix all the rrod 360s (Independent Repair Center Refuses Xbox 360 - Shacknews - PC Games, PlayStation, Xbox 360 and Wii video game news, previews and downloads)


oh and where's your proof about " Sony is keeping their mouths suspiciously quiet about the burning-out lasers in the PS3's after about 1,5 year"?

 

[Lamenthe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonthouse /img/forum/go_quote.gif And.. how is that bad for Sony again?

I never said it was bad. I meant to say it was tremendous foresight (might have phrased it wrong).

 

[Zanth]

I have a Wii and a PS3. I could have owned an Xbox360 but I chose the other two. I'm a retired game junky. I'm at best casual. I think there may well be another category for people like me who shouldn't even be considered casual.

I bought the Wii because my wife LOVES Mario games and I knew she could play every single one every made plus the new ones. My kids (4 and 2) would eventually be able to play Wii games with the game extensions which lo and behold...they CAN! Outdoor Adventure and Wii Fit both have platforms which do not require using a gamepad/wiimote meaning my entire family can play together. The Wii is tons of fun and playing Resident Evil 4 was one of the most eye opening experiences in my gaming experience. On pure fun factor it DESTROYS every other game I've ever played. Why? That dang Wiimote made it spectacular. There is a reason this game is often ranked in the top 5 games ever made, particularly the Wii one.

Yet, despite the fun I was having with the unit I wanted something more. I was getting tired of upgrading my PC every time I wanted to play a new game (I have a 30" monitor so my video card(s) have to be really up to the challenge). So I made a decision to stop the PC upgrade cycle and stick with console gaming. The choices? Xbox360 with bigger library, many cool exclusives and friends who work at MS and can get games free or for dirt cheap. OR.... PS3, more costly upfront, not as many exclusives and not as much access to free games or cheap games. I do have a single friend who I can share games with but ultimately I was going to pay through the nose for anything I wanted.

I went with the PS3.

Why? Hardware.
Why? Media capabilities.
Why? Linux.
Why? Games.
Why? Blu-ray.

As a geek, and a computer scientist, the hardware of this thing is just hands down the coolest little unit to come into the home in a long long time. Developing for this is great and the capabilities that have already been listed in this thread are legion. A supercomputer in my basement! String a few together and I have my own powerful protein modeler. Run just one and I share my cycles with Folding At Home.

As a husband and father, the media capabilities of this sweet unit, out of the box, are better than the Xbox. Wi-fi? Check. HDD? Check. Ability to read from my server? Check. Save money by not buying Squeezebox? Check. Terabytes of music. Terabytes of our DVDs all online all ready at the click of a few buttons on the bluetooth remote. AWESOME. OUT OF THE BOX.

Linux. Nuff said right there. A full on OS in my living room with little more effort than a single partition and loading up a USB drive. bluetooth keyboard and mouse and my family can surf and not touch daddy's computer. AWESOME!!!!! Also, I can tinker around with my full on computer in my living room. Very very nice.

Games. Now, many may be thinking...see Zanth, this one is 4th on your list not first and it should be first because we are talking game consoles. You know...for the most part you are right, and that argument wins hands down when I look at the Wii. But because the PS3 is so much more and I'm a computer geek, the other factors weighed heavier. Also, because the games for the PS3 are not as family friendly (though Little Big Planet may be the best game ever) and I don't have a lot of time to game...it does fall into 4th place, but don't think 4th is such a bad thing. I still bought it and the Xbox likely will never enter my home. So 4th in this case is still grand!

So back to games...the exclusives are why I went with it believe it or not. Two words: Team Ico. I bought the 60GB unit because it had full hardware support for PS2 games. I went out and bought Shadow of the Colossus and ordered up Ico. I had heard these were games for more mature gamers who favoured a solid/mysterious story with a unique gameplay. I was not let down and I can only imagine what this company has in store for a PS3 game.

Here are three more words: God of War. The best action/adventure series I've ever played. Total mayhem, total fun...totally exclusive to Play Station.

Two more words: Final Fantasy. So yeah...XIII won't be exclusive to the PS3 but when I bought it no one knew that yet

Last two words: Playstation library.

Sure, those that had a Playstation 2 already may not have considered this a factor but I hadn't played a console since the Super NES and so I had before me, more games with the Playstation 1 and 2 than going with the Xbox family of games. Ultimately for games, if I were younger and playing a lot more with my friends online, I may have gone with the Xbox because of Gears or Halo, but frankly, I never got into Halo and believe me I tried to. Gears has been a ton of fun but not enough to really keep me interested. For online gaming...if I really want to that badly, I'd default to the PC again. Far more immersive for me. Anyhow, I just didn't feel the Xbox necessarily bested the PS3 itself for games and the catalogue of games available to me dwarfed the Xbox's options.

Finally Blu-ray. The best Blu-ray player on the market and perhaps will only be surpassed by the likes of Denon with their $5000 units. $500 or $5000 for a stunning new media player? I'll go with $500. Although I'm not an avid movie collector (why bother when my father-in-law owns 10 000 DVDs, yes TEN THOUSAND), I'm not so into buying movies and unless a movie will really merit hi-def, I won't go and replace it. Yet, at some point I will buy an HD TV and Blu-rays will be enthusiastically appreciated. So a built-in blu-ray drive alone is worth a costly price hike and the move to PS3 vs. Xbox.

The PS3 out of the box (at least when I bought it) came with far more than the Xbox and if the Xbox were to compete, I would have had to buy add-ons which would close the gap between the two in price. I wanted what I wanted and I think PS3 was hoping more folks would be in my situation, seeing the PS3 as something MORE than a gaming console. They wanted it to be the be all and end all of entertainment systems, they wanted it to be the main hub. Apple be damned with your crappy TV thingy or your sub-par mini (though I really like the Mini), they felt they could get in there with something insane and it would work because of Blu-ray and because of the Playstations past success in gaming. They may have overstated their target outcomes and they may have overpaid for their product, requiring a really high selling price, but ultimately they may have made one of the most incredible consumer devices EVER.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif yeah, Sony really needs to learn from Microsoft on how to make a console that doesn't have a tremendous failure rate. /sarcasm Instead of rushing to release their console, Sony actually took more time to make sure the failure rate would be below 1%, unlike Microsoft

Regardless of how inferior you think the Xbox 360 hardware is, it's a superior engineering design. It delivered enough on time and for the right price.

That's what Sony needs to learn.

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regardless of how inferior you think the Xbox 360 hardware is, it's a superior engineering design. It delivered enough on time and for the right price. That's what Sony needs to learn.

huh? in what way is it superior engineering?

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif huh? in what way is it superior engineering?

Right product. Right time. Right price. Everything else is details.

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Right product. Right time. Right price.

what do time of release and price of product have anything to do with the engineering of a product?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Everything else is details.

so in other words, you have no idea

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by demoNMaCHiN3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif what do time of release and price of product have anything to do with the engineering of a product?

In the real world, the optimal engineering solution delivers just enough to meet the market's requirements to reduce development time and total cost. Falling short of requirements can result in a solution that doesn't work and doesn't sell. Exceeding requirements can result in a product that comes to market late and with a cost premium. Of course, the market's requirements can be unclear at times...

Is the PS3 an objectively superior piece of hardware? Sure. But its capability greatly exceeded market was looking for and lead to a major release delay and a much higher cost compared to its competitors. Meanwhile, the 360 met the market's expectations on performance, significantly beat the PS3 release date, and came in at a much lower price. That's why the PS3 an inferior engineering solution when compared to the 360. Both performed like the market wanted, but the 360 came first and came cheaper. All the extra capabilities on the PS3 are wasted on the average consumer as they just don't use them.

Even worse for the PS3, the engineering decision to use the Cell microprocessor significantly slowed early software development. That gave the 360 a significant edge in quality software, which translated into larger marketshare, which in turn caused many PS3 exclusives to jump ship for financial reasons. Another poor engineering decision which likely cost the PS3 significant marketshare from the loss of exclusives.

 

[dj_mocok]

I got a fairly big TV. And I would love to watch Bluray with my TV. PS3 is almost the same price as a decent Bluray player, so why not just get it and as a bonus you get to play games too, watch avi clips, listen to MP3, browse the internet, have one of the best photo slide shows capability around, etc etc...

Not it's not expensive.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the real world, the optimal engineering solution delivers just enough to meet the market's requirements to reduce development time and total cost. Falling short of requirements can result in a solution that doesn't work and doesn't sell. Exceeding requirements can result in a product that comes to market late and with a cost premium. Of course, the market's requirements can be unclear at times... Is the PS3 an objectively superior piece of hardware? Sure. But its capability greatly exceeded market was looking for and lead to a major release delay and a much higher cost compared to its competitors. Meanwhile, the 360 met the market's expectations on performance, significantly beat the PS3 release date, and came in at a much lower price. That's why the PS3 an inferior engineering solution when compared to the 360. Both performed like the market wanted, but the 360 came first and came cheaper. All the extra capabilities on the PS3 are wasted on the average consumer as they just don't use them. Even worse for the PS3, the engineering decision to use the Cell microprocessor significantly slowed early software development. That gave the 360 a significant edge in quality software, which translated into larger marketshare, which in turn caused many PS3 exclusives to jump ship for financial reasons. Another poor engineering decision which likely cost the PS3 significant marketshare from the loss of exclusives.

Also, for some reason, many multiplatform games that are released on both 360 and PS3, the 360 often looks better. Even if PS3 has theoretically better and faster technology, whats the point if game designers cant utilize it properly and have to resort on lowering graphics to make it run smoothly?

 

[Al4x]

i have also given up on the pc game thing, [securom, cost of hardware etc]

if i do ever buy another console [original xbox was my last] it would be microsofts next offering, but it will have to be media centre capable without the blu ray [i started a thread on how hd dvd makes me feel sick] with a good warrenty
the nintendo wii isnt very good at all, its the worst mario kart version ive played, undoubtedly the ps3 has better hardware

the ps3 is playstaion with its horrid controllers and the 360 isnt good enough, so ive bought neither,

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al4x /img/forum/go_quote.gif the ps3 is playstaion with its horrid controllers and the 360 isnt good enough, so ive bought neither,

Can't you just get an after market controller to remedy that?

 

[Al4x]

i dont know, surely the buttons wouldnt be ideal?

it is my biggest problem

i used to love ssx3 and the difference in my score between xbox and ps2 was loads, cause i couldnt reach all the buttons properly on the ps2 controller lol