PS3 Price

Originally Posted by Sdallnct

About 5 days before Christmas, wife found a PS3 and got it for my son. I hooked into my HD70 and am still playing with it.

$600 is a lot of money. Do I think it is a good value? Yes, but still a lot of money. You can argue that a BMW is actually a good value, but it is still a lot of money.

We are enjoying it so far. This is the first time we have bought some "cutting edge" right when it came out. So a little disappointed in the amount and type of games, and wish there were more BD movies (and a little cheaper). But that will come.

We did download a demo verion of Motostorm. That is awesome! I'm not into the war games, but outside of those, that Motostorm should be a big hit for Sony. Think tonight will download a trail of the NBA game. And I got to say Fifth Element is pretty awesome on BD.

Do I think it is "worth" $600? I don't know...tough call, but they certainly packed a lot into that little box.

Originally Posted by cheezycheech

This is the exact reason why I bought the PS3. You can't beat it for what it comes with. And it's all in one box.

Originally Posted by danieloneil01

BD? You mean BR? and you might be the only one to think FE is a good transfer.. Just as a BR Player it's a good buy..

Originally Posted by chucky08016

Yes, it does come with ALOT packed into 1 box for the price but MOST people are not like us who will or have (like I will next month) purchase a unit like this at $600. Remember, this is a game machine FIRST and foremost, BD player second to most people and right now, the catalog of games is pretty bad not to mention even if there were alot of good games out, how many can you buy along with a $600 unit, HDMI cable, maybe a second controller, etc. That purchase will be much closer to $1000... again, game machine first and $600+ games+ accessories is a hard pill to swallow.

You see evidence of how expensive the PS3 is just by walking into stores...
Examples:
East Brunswick, NJ - Best Buy - 6 PS3 60GB in stock ON THE FLOOR
Burlington, NJ - Target - 4 PS3 60GB in stock locked up behind glass
Burlington, NJ Walmart - 4 PS3 60GB in stock locked up behind glass
This was all witnessed by me yesterday!!!

When was the last time a game system was in stock during the first 6 months of it's release? Answer NEVER!! You can argue that Sony is just making much more but the real answer is demand is just not there due to price. Had this unit been priced lower, they wouldn't be in stock til late 2007!!

Now for proof that game systems do still sell out for MANY months at a time... can you find a $249 Nintendo Wii? I know I cannot. Yes, they are VERY different game systems BUT they are GAME systems.

Originally Posted by twaller

In the world of gaming, a system costing $600 (US) would be a virtual death for the console. Many people have looked upon the PS3 as too expensive, not worth it, so on and so forth. The fact that the PS3 is not only a gaming system, has not come across to a lot of people, and what the people who aren't familiar or who are scared by the price, need to realize what is offered in this true home media center.

First of all the infamous blu-ray player included in Sony's next gen console is the most expensive, most troublesome, and the most innovative feature included. The fact that you can play hi-def movies and games right out of the box is a major selling point for Sony, and it may also be worth noting that standalone blu-ray players are (on average) 300 dollars more than the PS3, which makes the blu-ray drive alone a deal.

Next comes the hardware, the RSX "reality synthesizer" graphics chip by NVIDIA can render resolutions up to 1080p, and the cell processor chip has 8 synchronous SPU's running together, and, while developing and programming for this processor has given game developers problems, not being able to utilize it to its full potential, but when they learn more and more on how to use it, the Cell will truly be the best processor in a (so called) gaming system.

One item that i think many people have overlooked is the WiFi capability (of the 600 dollar version). If you want WiFi on an xbox 360, you have to buy a WiFi router and an extra ethernet (cat 5) cable. And then theres the matter of the HDD, which on the 360 is a 20 gigabyte model, but with all of the system files, it boils down to about half that size, while the (60 gigabyte version) PS3 has 5 times the usable space (again, after system files).
Then, theres what I call the "X" Factor, in its inclusion of the OS Linux turning it into a full fledged PC, and as Linux is known for its flexibility as an OS, it truly gives the PS3 an entirely new element.

Xbox 360 is (out of the box) has a DVD drive, 20 gig hard drive, single chip processor, and an unreasonably loud power cord, $300. Seemingly cheaper, but if you want all that the PS3 has, add ons are necessary. An add-on HD-DVD player (the rival of Blu-Ray) which costs an extra $200, WiFi connectivity (the router would cost about $25 and the cable about 10) and a 60 gig external hard drive which would run up about $50. A total of $585, and without the option of being a full fledged PC, and without the Potential future of the Cell processor, is the 360 really worth it?

In my opinion, NO, but don't take my word for it, as I am a semi-bias person, being as objective as possible. Give me your opinions on the subject

Originally Posted by swedrows

the biggest problem of the ps3 is the blu-ray drive...it automatically added most of the extra $200 cost over the premium xbox360. people may see it as a bargain blu-ray player, but here is the problem with that. what happens if blu-ray actually gets beat out by HD-DVD and loses the format war? you are STUCK with a blu-ray drive on a PS3, and now you have to go out and buy a HD-DVD drive to veiw all teh newest released movies. MOST people are not willing to buy it for the blu-ray drive at the moment, so in MOST people's eyes, it is a pure $600 gaming console.

also, you compared all the extra money you have to put into the 360 to get the same features, but the ps3 DOES NOT include any cables to allow it to produce a HD picture...so out of the box, you have to spend another $100 on an HDMI cable and so the REAL cost of the 60gig ps3 is closer to $700 just to get it to do what it advertises is supposed to be standard....that in itself is a BIG MARKETING MISTAKE on sony's part by not including the hdmi cable.

as for the wifi, in order to get connected with the ps3, you ALSO NEED to buy a wireless router. the ps3 DOES NOT have a wireless router built-in, only a wireless card to CONNECT to a wireless router, so i can't really see that as a good comparison on that. you need to buy a wireless ADAPTER for the xbox360.

as for the harddrive space, you seem to mention that the 360 has a 20gig hd and half of it is reserved for system files...i really do hope you would have done a little bit of research, because there is roughly 6 gigs for that, so you are left with 14gigs to store games and files on there...yes, the ps3 has a larger harddrive, but it is 3.5 times larger, not 5...larger none-the-less, so i will give you that point

now you say the 360 is not worth the price...hmm, $400 and it is ready to play HIGH-DEFINITION games right out of the box....you need to spend $700 to play the ps3 in HIGH-DEFINITION right out of the box (you need to buy the HDMI cable, otherwise you have to connect it using an s-video cable....weak). plus the fact that the xbox360 has over 160 games for it, with another 100-150 scheduled to be released this year, and the 360 jumps way ahead of the ps3 for bang for your buck.....and currently, it has better grpahics on cross-platform games, not to mention graphics that have set the standard through Gears of War.....

Originally Posted by swedrows

also, you compared all the extra money you have to put into the 360 to get the same features, but the ps3 DOES NOT include any cables to allow it to produce a HD picture...so out of the box, you have to spend another $100 on an HDMI cable and so the REAL cost of the 60gig ps3 is closer to $700 just to get it to do what it advertises is supposed to be standard....that in itself is a BIG MARKETING MISTAKE on sony's part by not including the hdmi cable.

.....

Originally Posted by Sdallnct

No offense, but I'm so tired of the "no HDMI included arguement".

First, you do not have to spend $100 for a good quality HDMI cable
2nd, how long of a cable should they have given you? I hooked mine up to a PJ so giving me a 6ft HDMI cable would have added $15 to the cost and I could not have used it.

BTW I bought a CL-2 rated 25 ft, very good HDMI cable from monoprice.com for like $1.50 per LF (and they have even less expensive ones). The cost of cable for the PS3 is a non-issue. There are some good arguement for the PS3 being overpriced, but having or not having a HDMI cable it not one of them.

Originally Posted by Le Fou

I'll simply confess that while I've bought none of the "next gen" consoles yet, the PS3 has my complete attention a media hub with the bonus that it plays games. I'd already been pricing a Mac Mini at $500 and a comparable WMC PC at $900, both of which had their downsides. On the other hand, a $600 PS3 that plays DVDS (and eventually BD), can be wirelessly attached to my home network and if I don't like Sony's media features I can turn around and put Linux on it and run Freevo? Yeah, that's a seller. And it plays my kids' PS2 games as well? You just got yourself a spot in my living room. My concern is I'll need 2 now... one for the living room TV and one for the HT.

Some various comments I have about 360 and why it's not "all that" even though it's cheaper:

• 20gig HD? Proprietary, no less? How do I expand it? Buy a $1000 HTPC and run Media Center Extender? So much for streaming media at $400.
  
• HD movies over component video? Isn't that squarely within the "analog hole?" Thus, when the HD-DVD distributors choose to turn on the "content protection" flag, so much for your HD? Hopefully that rumored HDMI 360 comes out before then.
  
• 160 games. Okay, it's true that make a console. Though, sadly, a majority of them are remakes of Xbox games. And I'm not an FPS kinda guy. Other genres ("Platform" and RPG games are particularly loved in my house) are not well represented.

That said, if it becomes the console of choice for games, I'll likely have a single 360 to go along with those two PS3s.

Originally Posted by cheezycheech

Obviously, you don't own one so you don't know what comes in the box. You can output 1080P through component. You don't have to buy an HDMI cable to hook up to your tv for 1080P. I tried both since I saw virtually no difference in PQ with my new Samsung 1080P so I returned my overpriced Monster Cable (that I was forced to buy from BB) and went with a cheapy Gamestop component cables for $14.99. Monoprice has HDMI cables for under $20. Who doesn't have WIFI? You can get the modem free if you rant and bitch to your data provider. Besides, you can go the cat5 route and run a long ass cable from your office to the living room. Bluray vs HD-DVD. Who knows who is going to win this war. At this day and age, there is no victor and there will never be. Look at Apple and MS OS systems. There's alot of what ifs... what if HD-DVD doesn't succeed? All the people that purchased the external harddrives will be assed out? Doubt it since MFG's for the US are required to support the format/technology for at least 5 years after the last device is sold. So no, no one is going to loose out. There's plenty of money to be made on both sides and we the consumer have a choice. Anyways, please do some research before going on and on... You gotta let go of that secret box of yours and embrace technology. I did and I am very happy.

Originally Posted by twaller

One item that i think many people have overlooked is the WiFi capability (of the 600 dollar version). If you want WiFi on an xbox 360, you have to buy a WiFi router and an extra ethernet (cat 5) cable.

Originally Posted by twaller

Xbox 360 is (out of the box) has a DVD drive, 20 gig hard drive, single chip processor, and an unreasonably loud power cord, $300. Seemingly cheaper, but if you want all that the PS3 has, add ons are necessary. An add-on HD-DVD player (the rival of Blu-Ray) which costs an extra $200, WiFi connectivity (the router would cost about $25 and the cable about 10) and a 60 gig external hard drive which would run up about $50. A total of $585, and without the option of being a full fledged PC, and without the Potential future of the Cell processor, is the 360 really worth it?

Originally Posted by swedrows

xbox360 has more expanding capabilities than the ps3 also. you CAN'T upgrade the harddrive and are stuck with blu-ray either way.../QUOTE]

The PS3 takes and standard laptop HD and is easily upgradable.

http://www.consolesource.com/blog/?p=33

I'm not sure what your issue is with the PS3 other then being pricey, but if you are going to cut it down you can at least know what it is you are cutting down.

As for Blu-ray...your argument is not a PS3 issue, it is a for mate issue. Sony decided to go with blu-ray. They wanted to give you (at a cost) one of the HD formats. Had they chosen HD the same argument could have been made.

But making the argument that if blu ray doesn't make it you have outdated technology is stupid. What those, 20, 30, 50, 100 blu ray movies you have will suddenly stop working? Of course not. And Sony would continue to put games out that are so large will need the technology.

And you got to stop with the "what if's". What if BR wins. So all thost 360 owners who bought a HD add on will now have to buy a 2nd add on, doubling the cost of get HD. What if a new format comes out and neither HD or BR wins? You can play what if till the cows come home and it is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct



you just made my argument for me....sony decided to give ps3 owners blu-ray at a cost....microsoft DID NOT decide to force you onto one of the formats and charge extra for it on their systems....sony did, while microsoft gives you a choice if you want to add on an hd-dvd drive.....simple point finished....ps3 owners had to pay extra because sony decided that was the way to go, instead of giving options on future expandability....

Originally Posted by swedrows


and your argument that the 160 games for the 360 are mostly remakes of xbox games, um, where do you think the games for the ps3 are from? that's right, they are ps2 titles that are remakes. and what do you consider a remake? if madden 2006 was out for the regular xbox, and madden 2007 came out a year later for the 360, do you consider that a "remake"...because then you have to throw your argument out the window completely....a sequal is not the same as a remake, and most of the games on the xbox360 are NOT remakes.

Originally Posted by swedrows

the xbox360 is coming out with a larger harddrive this year, possibly two larger sizes which will be available as accessories. so the 360 has the option of adding larger harddrive...can you do this with the ps3? no, because it's harddrive is internal so you can't simply exchange it like you can on the xbox360.

Originally Posted by swedrows


And so? You are trying to make an arguement that there is a perfect system that meets everyone's needs and wants. There is not. There are three different "next gen" systems to meet the needs of what individuals want.

Yes, Sony decided to put in a player and charge more. Saying that is "bad" and "no one would want that" and "they should give you a choice" is like saying it is bad to put an HD tuner in a TV display. Or it is bad to put in stereo speakers in a TV. Or that it is bad to have 7.1 surround included in a HT receiver. Or that it is bad that a DVD player include DTS. Or that everyone one of my components comes with it's own remote, when a univeral works them all, or that it is bad that every component comes with component cable...etc, etc, etc.

Any time you add any feature to a something it adds to the cost. It is a business decision and a business model. And the decision to add something or not is based on what they think people want.

So why did I buy a PS3

1st. My son had a PS2 for nearly five years and has like 35-40 games. How many of those would have played on the 360? So, even with the added cost of the BR player, I coming out way ahead then having to replace even half of those games on the 360. And so far every game we have tried has worked perfect.
2nd. I already had a wireless router, did not want to run yet more wires and am excited about the fact I just had to type in my security setting and it hooked up no problem. It does great from the far end of my house.
3rd. Since I recently upgraded to a HD PJ, I wanted to get a HD/BR player. However I didn't want to spend $400 on HD or $700+ on BR not knowing which (if any) format would win. So the PS3 was perfect! The PS3 is cheaper then a 360 + stand along BR player and very close in price to a 360 + HD add on. And again, who cares what format wins. By the time it will be all ironed out, you will have more money invested in software (movies) then the player (any player) anyway. So you will have plenty watch.

I noticed you glossed over your one argement that was not true about the HD not being able to be upgraded.

If you prefer to buy things that are stripped down and you want to piece meal whatever it is your buying. Hey, go for it. I got not problem with that. But I think it is silly of you to say Sony is wrong. It is different. It was idea for me, and obviously many, many, many others. But that is why there are competing systems, and since everyone wants something different, I wouldn't be surprised if all three do just fine.

I actually feel good about this system. On the PS2 my son and daughter were the only ones that used it. Now the whole family can enjoy the PS3.

Originally Posted by emerson1



Xbox has always been known for the worst game library of any system. Most of the franchise games are FPS with a couple good RPGs.

Yes, you can do this with the ps3.

http://www.gamersreports.com/article/43

There is a website(it's down right now) that shows how easy it is to replace the HDD on the PS3. They used a 120GB HDD that costs less than MS charges for a 20GB HDD

Originally Posted by Sdallnct



this thread is specifically about the price of the ps3, all of my arguments were trying to demonstrate why the ps3 is too pricey as a gaming console, since the xbox360 has everything people need in a gaming console and costs less. for you, if you bought a ps3 because your son had a ps2 and has lots of games for it, that is okay and a good reason to buy one. but this thread is all about the price of a ps3 in general, not whether it is too pricey for ps2 owners that have games for it. things seem to have gone off on tangents when each of us is trying to make their points. again, i am just trying to throw in supportive arguments for why i think the ps3 is too expensive as a gaming console if someone is on the fence between the ps3 and xbox360 or wii

Originally Posted by swedrows

and the website you link to for replacing the harddrive, it shows how to put a laptop harddrive inside the ps3 (which yes, i am aware that the harddrive inside the ps3 is already a laptop harddrive), but the article is showing people how to insert a laptop harddrive, which is NOT an authrorized acccessory, into their new ps3's...hardly seems like that is a comparable argument from being able to upgrade with items made specifically by the gaming console company for that system...