Welcome to Gaia! ::

The only reason the PS3 is "worth the cost" is because it's also a Blu-ray player. The point is that the PS3 is a cheap Blu-ray player but an expensive gaming console and the only reason it's expensive in the first place is because of the Blu-ray technology. For people who don't care about Blu-ray and really just want to play the games ('cause it's a GAMING console) it's a huge rip-off.

Perhaps an argument could be made that going to HD would require more space, however I'd counter by pointing out that most people don't have HD. They won't be able to take advantage of it at all. There's this ridiculous mentality of "HD is available! We have to nudge the market in that direction to encourage people to continue to be consuming sheep while being locked down more and more under DRM chains."

I mean, I know that's what lots of companies want, but to seem so blatant about it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (They even put those damn things right next to my anime at Fry's!)

$150? I wish, but I doubt Nintendo would price it that low. They've already said that it will be no more than 250$, and most of my sources of information are projecting the price at 200-250$. There's a lot of room for guessing though, Nintendo has kept quiet since E3.

But compared to the PS3, 250$ is still dirt cheap.

The PS3 is expensive because Sony wants to milk their fanbase for all that they're worth, and then some. Blu-ray, while a pretty good concept, is BULLSHIT for a gaming console. Seriously, how many games are going to come out at the 30 gigabyte mark, or 50 for a dual-layer? The resources required to fill up that much space on a disc will drive the game prices even higher. There's also been numerous issues with the whole BR format in general, because it forces the CD and DVD manufacturers to totally retool for the special disks. HD-DVD is similar enough to regular DVD that there would be almost no need for such a retrofit. The BR disks themselves (no data) currently cost about $6 apiece, while DL DVD-RW discs aren't even half that.

As for the whole High Definition thing, we'll all have to switch over to it by 2009 anyway last time I heard. One can get a fairly cheap (850 dollars or so) HD TV right now, which, when you think of TV's, isn't much. I've seen ones with a built-in tuner going for $1200 at my local Sam's Club. Sony also happens to make HD TV's, so it probably figured it might as well sell something that can go with not one, but TWO of its televisions. By the time 2009 rolls around, I expect to see HD's selling for as little as 5 or 6 hundred dollars. Also, you can just get an adapter for HDMI or something similar to go into an RGB monitor, for much cheaper than a TV too. High Def isn't something you can b***h about anymore really, because it's just not worth all the fuss.

Another reason for the insane price is the Cell processor it uses. This thing supposedly beats out almost all the current CPU's from Intel and AMD in terms of power. IBM, Toshiba, and Sony teamed up for this little venture, and all will expect to get a certain share of its profits. This translates to an even higher price the consumer has to pay, just to keep these companies happy.

One may argue that the PS3 isn't just a gaming console, but also a Multimedia device. To them I say, SO ARE PC'S AND MAC'S!!! I'd rather do all my music and the like with a keyboard, mouse, etc than with a controller that only has maybe ten buttons if that? And speaking of the controller, it's STILL pretty much the same from the PS1 version. Sure, there's some tilt function of maybe 15 degrees or so on each axis, but so what? Compared with the Wii's 360 on ALL axes, it sucks.(Really, 1080 compared to 45? I wonder who's got the better goods...) Let's see some innovation that is actually revolutionary Sony!! Or at the very least worth the price for it's so-called 'novelty'. Whatever happened to that Batarang controller anyway?

I'm sorry Sony, but you've made a big blunder this time. There may be a lot of fans that will support you no matter what you do, but that number is going downhill. Publishers and developers want their games to actually sell, so what good will the game do if its system is too ridiculous to buy? It's the hardware and name that first makes the console, not the games. I don't care if the PS2 had the most RPG's or fighters or even library of total games last generation, because that was then, and this is now. (The Cube's controller is better for fighters anyway)

Actually, I'm not sorry about that, because Sony has always been lagging in my eyes, and these flaws in its gameplan only prove my thoughts. GO WII! GO NINTENDO!! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

No "average gamer" is willing to dish out that much for a gaming system because they're not a diehard gamer. How many average gamers did you see lined up outside of a Best Buy waiting to get a 360? And... Are you even sure that the PS3 that they're showing off now is actually going to be the final product? Was the final product for the PS3 even shown at E3 '06?

They already did.
Mind you, that was in the 1990's, when Apple was dying and sucked.

You're used to Windows, so Apple computers are confusing. They aren't poop, they are different. Thank you.

Now then, Jackelope, your post is quite good.

yeah, ps3 is a dissapointing price...although it did drop...20%? or 30% in japan due to a lack of sales.

The thing is though, i'll prob get one once the price drops (like alot...like when ps4 comes out haha) because, the games I like are mostly on playstations. I enjoy the weird bizzare japanese games and the other systems don't do it for me in that department. (and my brother is already planning his wii purchase.)

Whatever happens to it, hopefully people will post pics when it arrives this month. 3nodding

perosnally i wouldn't get the PS3 because it costs too much