ps3 price announced

Originally posted by Shenroon
When you price it up the value for money of the PS3 is better than the 360 without a blu-ray drive.

I'll agree to disagree.

And i dont recall much difference between the xbox and the xbox 360 controller

I put a picture at the bottom of this post to show you, there is clearly a difference.
Playstation hasn't done so much as move a single button or at least make some small subtle changes that give it a new look & feel.

the menu is identical simple because it works there no point in using a new menu is there.

Its a very feature lacking menu, it looks fine on a small screen game console, but on a big screen it needs more stuff to fill it up...I'm not talking about having it all cluttered and confusing...but its just to lack luster.

And when did they saw the higher version wont have a HDMI socket, let me guess this came from an Xbox 360 website again.

actually the opposite, this link is to a Playstation site.
PS3 shipping w/out HDMI cable

Discs spins slower? Well have you looked at the actual bit rate DVD offers only 10mbps when the 'slower' blu ray offers 54mbps, it spins slower because theres more to read.

You got your facts mixed up, heres a link that basically says the PS3 will have longer loading times then the 360, confirmed by a Sony employee.
PS3 loading.....

The last full scale production starts at the end of this month so even if they dont produce enough for everyone they’ll just have to use ebay or wait for the second wave of consoles (which is funnily enough what happened with the 360)

The last full scale production??? The PS3 hasn't begun production yet.
They were shooting for a worldwide launch of 4 million…But now they have said that they wont launch in Europe until March 07’, and instead of 4 mill at launch, they say 2 mill. An estimated 1 million consoles will be for North America for the 06’ year, and around 400,000 at launch (in the US).

The 360... took many months to become easily available...I would have though Sony would not want to follow in their footsteps...But its looks like they are.

Admittedly the PS3 is harder to program for but thats only because its so much more powerful

The reason is its cell processor chip, which is very complex.
The PS3 is more powerful then the 360...there’s no denying that. But analysis say that it will likely be around 3 years until you can actually notice that the PS3 has better graphics, and even then the difference wont be all that big.

The PS3 needs to have the latest tech, Sony is spending so much on it there digging a hole...and they know it.
In fact a Sony President has said that they expect the PS3 to live for 10 years. The average console life today is 5-6 years. Which is good since tech evolves a lot in that amount of time...But the PS4 isn't coming until around 2016.
PS3 to have 10 year life cycle


same pic in higher res.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by scorpionxx
www.scei.co.jp...

499.99 version:

- No built-in Wi-fi
- No HDMI port
- No Memory Stick slot
- No SD card slot
- No Compact Flash slot
- 20GB hard drive

599.99 version:

- Includes everything including HDMI port, built-in Wi-Fi, 60GB hard drive, etc.


sony has lost there freaking mind if they thinkl I'm gonna pay 6 hundred bucks for one of there systems.

it sucks but you are lucky that will be there beacuse in Europe no one till march will see ps3
I've read about some people which want to buy it via import stores. They are crazy and they will spend at least 1000€ for a console which mybe can be also bugged
However i'm skeptic and in some days sony will announce that in november we will not see the console in U.S. and Japan :bash:



[edit on 7-9-2006 by L3X]

Hi Murcielago thanks for all of that,
now I feel stupid for ebing SOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.

PS3 isnt even coming out till march in Europe or Australia

Well if you look at my post in this thread- www.belowtopsecret.com... check page 2 this explains my point about price.
And there is nothing wrong with the menu and controler, even if it is a simplistic menu im not going to be looking ta it when i watch videos or play games and if im listening to music the scren doesnt mena much to me.

Not sure about the HDMI bit after reading it I believe it doesnt ship with the CABLE, nothing is said about the port and the cables sell for only around £20 here (and the news story refers to America not the rest of the world.)

And the reference to 10 years want a sony employee it was a Nvidia employe. And by ten years he meant it's so powerful that there wouldnt be any need for creating another in 5 years time so we get a console that lasts twice as long potenially.

And before you say we in Europe have gotta wait another 6 months, I believe that is a good thing look here- www.belowtopsecret.com...

must read sony fanboys!

www.belowtopsecret.com...

have a good day

Originally posted by MurcielagoThe PS3 needs to have the latest tech, Sony is spending so much on it there digging a hole...and they know it.
In fact a Sony President has said that they expect the PS3 to live for 10 years. The average console life today is 5-6 years. Which is good since tech evolves a lot in that amount of time...But the PS4 isn't coming until around 2016.[edit on 6-9-2006 by Murcielago]

The PS3 will not be coming out in 2016, thats ridiculous fanboy logic. They will support the production of PS3 and games for the PS3 for about 10 years. This does not mean they won't release another console. They have done it for the PS1, which was produced till March 23rd of this year. Games where made upuntill 2003 as well. Hell Nintendo even did it for the SNES, it was produced till 2003 and new games were even made up intill 2000, thats a 10 year life cycle, didn't stop them from producing other systems did it?

Originally posted by Murcielago
The PS3 is the hardest and most expensive console to develop for...so dont expect another (PS2 like) onslaught of games.


The controller looks nearly identical to the one they came out with during the era of the FIRST playstation. And the user interface (IE:the menu screen) is identical to the PSP.
They are using old hardware (controller) and old software (interface) because they have spent so much money on the Cell processor chip, and the Blu-ray drive.

BTW, it comes out in November...and they haven’t even started up the production lines.
Sony dropped the ball

The PS2 was also the hardest to devolep for and that consoles dominates the world. Why would it be any different in that context? What is wrong with the controller looking the same, does the controller not feel good? Feels great to me, why should the controlller LOOK different, what does that add to the gaming experience? Last time I checked the hatdware inside the controller was very diffenet then the hardware inside inside the PS2's controller. You really think the interface is so far similar to PS2's because so doesn't have money to change it? lol.

So sony dropped the ball did they? Did you say the same about MS when they were in the exact same boat? MS didn't start producing the 360 till 2 months before the launch.

I have a 360 now and enjoy it very much, I will also buy a PS3 when I can walk into a store and grab one of the shelf, which won't be for awhile. The Wii on the other hand does not interest me. The poor graphics and the kiddy games(reason why no one bought a GC) are a real turnoff.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Shabaz]


[edit on 15-9-2006 by Shabaz]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Shabaz]

ok, people want to call me a fanboy, whatever. I love PCs too, does that make me a PC fanboy?

I just know that more likely than not I will wait a while to get my PS3, and in the meantime purchase a new graphics card and power supply for my computer. Then when the PS3 has been around for a while, we will all know which system is really better. If the PS3 ends up a failure, that won't bother me, I won't be purchasing a 360 or a Wii.

So either way it's win win for me, if the PS3 turns out to be amazing then great, i'll get one, if not, i'll just have to spend around the same amount to make my PC amazing.

I'm a fanboy of amazing graphics and gameplay+ high def nothing else. I favor Sony's PS3 right now, because in every aspect that I can see, it will be better than the 360. I'm concerned about what's going to look better on my 27" high def display, and it's definately not going to be a 360 or a Wii or even a Wii60

Shabaz
The PS3 will not be coming out in 2016, thats ridiculous fanboy logic. They will support the production of PS3 and games for the PS3 for about 10 years. This does not mean they won't release another console. They have done it for the PS1, which was produced till March 23rd of this year.

no...it wont. the PS3 will be coming out in 2006.
In his interview, he was really implying that they hope to not have to make another game console in just 5-6 years down the road.
BTW...When was the last time you bought a PS1 game.....yeah...thats what I thought.

The PS2 was also the hardest to devolep for and that consoles dominates the world. Why would it be any different in that context?

Developers that do multi-console releases (which is the majority) pick one console to be the "top choice" and then port the game over to the remaining consoles. This was the PS2 because of many factors, it would be more powerful then the GC & come out over a year before the Xbox.
The 360 came out a year before the PS3, Also the developers have to think like a consumer...and this includes the cost of the system, and they judge who they think will sell the most consoles, and design there games around it. many have chosen the 360.

What is wrong with the controller looking the same, does the controller not feel good? Feels great to me, why should the controlller LOOK different, what does that add to the gaming experience? Last time I checked the hatdware inside the controller was very diffenet then the hardware inside inside the PS2's controller.

lol, thats the worst argument I have ever heard. (another example like yours: I had a great car ten years ago...I dont need one to look different, cause mine still looks good)LOL.
I doubt you have "checked" the inside of the PS3's controller out...since its not even out yet. They have put a PS logo in the middle that gives you the ability to turn the console on.....gee, who did that first?. and they very quickly added the whole "six degrees of motion", in hopes to "wow" people away from the Wii.

You really think the interface is so far similar to PS2's because so doesn't have money to change it? lol.

no, it looks nothing like the PS2's UI.
And if they dedicated a group of people to come up with an all new one...it would of cost them precious more money. They are already planning on loosing around 1 billion on the PS3's launch.

Did you say the same about MS when they were in the exact same boat? MS didn't start producing the 360 till 2 months before the launch.

Microsoft did not even come close to meeting initial supply & demand. It took many months until you could easily buy a 360. I assumed Sony wouldn't of followed in the same footsteps (MS), But they did, and they to wont meet the supply & demand numbers either.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Murcielago]

Wow, ive skimmed through this thread and theres so much fan-boy crap here , its unbelieveable.
id like to give an opinion.

Personally, ive got an xbox, got a 360, have a Wii pre-ordered and ill no doubt get a PS3.

Someone did mention around page 1 of this thread about consoles being expensive when they first come out. Before Sony , i worked at Game which is a large retailer over her in England ( used to be part of electronics boutique i believe). The Xbox was £300 when it first came out. and that was with no games, 1 controller etc. The same crap about it being overpriced was being touted around at that point. Even further back, my dad bought me a Dreamcast on its first day of release. This is a technologically inferior machine to Xbox, but again was £300 plus games and memory cards (VMU's) on top of that.
For the price of a PS3 , what you are getting is the most powerful home console avialable. It doesnt matter what you see in magazines or read about on the net, the best features wont be shown untill Sony is ready.
The # that was thrown around about the 'boomerang' controller which was shown when the first PS3 was laid out was hilarious. Sony had never said that was the final design, but the crap put on the net about it was ridiculous.
ALL games you have seen are work in progress. Dont judge a book by its cover.
Comparitively, what you get in a PS3 is great value for money.
Now i can only speak about the English pound, but think about this.
A PS3 whith a harddrive will be around £430. This has Blue-ray capabilitites straight away, games that can utilise the space of Blue-ray discs (up to 50-odd gig) , bluetooth and can play PS1 and PS2 games. An xbox with hardrive is £280. Plus £200 for the HD-DVD drive if you want to watch HD movies ( PS3 will allow this out of the box). Microsoft has said that the xbox 360 will never release games that use the HD drive, so games may be restricted somewhat by the space on a dual layer DVD which is around 8 gig. Look around and you may find information that shows that some current PS3 are needing around 20 gig of space becasue they amazing way they look and sound.

To be honest though, this is all worthless chat , because for me , it all comes down to which machine has the best games. There'll be games on each format i want to play, so ill get all 3 machines, but theres no point slaggin off a machine if you think
its overpriced or whatever. Lets just wait and see. but dont start making up # just because you dont agree with something.

O.K Murcielago Sont are gonna loose on launch.
That happens wit evry console it's nothing new to the PS3.

Originally posted by Murcielago
no...it wont. the PS3 will be coming out in 2006.
In his interview, he was really implying that they hope to not have to make another game console in just 5-6 years down the road.
BTW...When was the last time you bought a PS1 game.....yeah...thats what I thought.

I meant PS4. What does it matter when the last time I bought a PS1 game was? You make no sense, the system was still supported by Sony and sold around the world, and games were bought for it. Are you denying that? If not what is your point?

Originally posted by Murcielago
Developers that do multi-console releases (which is the majority) pick one console to be the "top choice" and then port the game over to the remaining consoles. This was the PS2 because of many factors, it would be more powerful then the GC & come out over a year before the Xbox.
The 360 came out a year before the PS3, Also the developers have to think like a consumer...and this includes the cost of the system, and they judge who they think will sell the most consoles, and design there games around it. many have chosen the 360.

More disinfo the GC was more powerful then the PS2
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(sixth_generation)

But lets say it was more powerful, thats the reason you are saying they used the PS2 as a base right? The more powerful console so the games would run on the GC no problem right? Why would they choose the PS2 when the XBOX was the most powerful console? Doesn't matter that it was released a year latter. The majority of games made for that gen was during the time all 3 consoles were released.

Originally posted by Murcielago
lol, thats the worst argument I have ever heard. (another example like yours: I had a great car ten years ago...I dont need one to look different, cause mine still looks good)LOL.
I doubt you have "checked" the inside of the PS3's controller out...since its not even out yet. They have put a PS logo in the middle that gives you the ability to turn the console on.....gee, who did that first?. and they very quickly added the whole "six degrees of motion", in hopes to "wow" people away from the Wii.

I like how you ignore my question about how a controler that looks different adds to the gaming experience, care to answer that one? Because that was your comnplaint, that the controller looks the same. Then you go one to contradict yourself. You ask how I know the hardware inside the PS3 controler is different then you talk about the "six degrees of motion". Now how would that be possible if Sony did not add new hardware inside the controler, please answer. And the who copied who arguments are for gamefaq forums, try and keep the fan boy arguments over there. They have all copied each other. Going with your logic I can say Nintendo copied Sony by making a console capable of 3d graphics or by using optical disks instead of carts.

Originally posted by Murcielago
no, it looks nothing like the PS2's UI.
And if they dedicated a group of people to come up with an all new one...it would of cost them precious more money. They are already planning on loosing around 1 billion on the PS3's launch.

Again myfault I meant the PSP, not the PS2's.

Wow a console manufacture losing money on consoles!? They all lose money, Microsoft lost 4 Billion on the original XBOX.
theinquirer.net...

Originally posted by Murcielago
Microsoft did not even come close to meeting initial supply & demand. It took many months until you could easily buy a 360. I assumed Sony wouldn't of followed in the same footsteps (MS), But they did, and they to wont meet the supply & demand numbers either.

LOL Are you serious? When has a Sony console at launch ever meet demand? When has a console period ever meet demand. It doesn't matter how many consoles Sony or MS launched with, they would have all sold out with many people not being able to buy one.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Shabaz]

Lets see, the 360 has already launched...the library is going to be better then the PS3's the price will be lower and then to top it off, Xbox 360 has Halo 3 Coming out. Soooooo, Xbox is going to slaughter PS3 on this one, Bill isnt the richest Geek in the World for nothing

Dark