No, it's fact. As a technological box that comes inside of a cardboard box, it's fact. What use you want to put to it is a different matter.
The official 360 v PS3 v Wii fanboy thread
- Thread starter The Flying Potato
- Start date
No, it's fact. As a technological box that comes inside of a cardboard box, it's fact. What use you want to put to it is a different matter.
Not all people want a Blu-ray player. Hence inclusion of a blu-ray player would not be as good value for them.
Yes, technology level-wise, but he mentioned that separately.
Value for money can mean any number of things, hence it's not a fact.
DVD will eventualy die out like VHS has and Blu-ray is the successor to DVD so soon enough Blu-ray players will be on demand and at the moment most are going for around £700....
It's like being stuck in a fecking sow pit is this place recently, and the pigshit is thick.
And what, by the time the death of the DVD has come, you don't think the next generation of consoles will be out?
the next generation of consoles wont be around for ages and blu-ray wont just become popular once DVD is dead it will grow in the next few years.
The PS3 will still be sold when that happens anyway, just like the PS2 is now
They'll be around sooner than you think, knowing this bloody industry
You think? I can see a Wii 2 being a possibility as they need to majorly improve the graphics and stuff, but I can't see any sort of improvment coming from Microsoft or Sony in the next few years, I don't see what there is to improve graphics wise or hardware wise....apart from Micrsoft putting Blu-ray into the 360 but this can be done with an add-on.
Another thing that I just thought of, why don't Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do something crazy and join forces to create one big super console? Imagine how awesome that would be
That indeed will be the real trick. Of course Cell makes it easier to upgrade with hardly much effort, but there's still refining to do in that area. Graphics techniques and hardware is improving all the time, just look at how many PC graphics cards come out each year just to keep up with the latest shader level (for example).
It is a very fast moving industry.
Another thing that I just thought of, why don't Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do something crazy and join forces to create one big super console? Imagine how awesome that would be
Never in a million years.
Actually I assume you do know that's where the PS1 came from? Collaboration with Nintendo that went in two different directions.
Oh right, did not know that.
The playstation wiki is quite an interesting read if you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation
We don't even know if Microsoft is going to bother again. We don't even know if Sony will. The reason being, we don't know where this is all going. Custom parts are going out of the window, just like they did in the PC space. Would you like a serious discussion on that? Sony for one are not really interested in fabbing complex semiconductors anymore.
We both know that Sony and MS are no doubt already planning the next step. What forms they take we won't know for a while of course, but they'll both have games machines out well beyond the current crop.
It could all be Java based in 6 years.
The Java model is quite perfect for Cell+ type processors, as all of the multithreads are scheduled for you, you don't really have to do much. I doubt that it will be Java, but if Microsoft is smart, the next XBox will not be a physical one, it will be a virtual machine based on top of .NET. If Sony went this way, they would most probably use some form of Java derivative. Processing power in 6-8 years will be such that it really no longer matters what the physical underlying hardware is, unless some arse wants to try pushing 4096x gaming resolutions again.
Hmm, an interesting thought. I'm not sure if I agree anything like that would happen that soon though. I think we'll see another wave of hardware like this one first. 10 processors and the latest Nvidia card would be the MS way.
Sony on the other hand do really need to now look more into the software development side of it now they have the technology in hand, so I'd like to see them push on further in that direction.
Thats hilarious,
PS3 best value for money? paying over 300 squid to play MGS4?
I think what you meant to say was XBOX 360 + Wii (same price) > PS3.
PS3 has the most potential at the moment and is undeniably the most technically impressive console of the three. That doesnt mean that it yet justifies its crazy price tag following its complete lack of exclusives.
Trust me id love to have a PS3...but only when Sony treats us like normal customers and offers me more than a watered down piece of shite 40gb model. Then ill splash out and be happy to play final fantasy 13, killzone 2 etc.
Kinell people will you just read what Weaste actually said and not what you think he said or what you want him to have said.
In summary he said is that technologically PS3 is the best (undeniable I would have thought) and as a bit of hardware the best value for money given the processing power, future proofing, processing/graphics power and the blue ray drive for much less than the cost of a stand alone blu ray player (again hardly a controversial claim).
What he didn't say was that you shouldn't use one of the other consoles because you like the games unique to them.
In summary he said is that technologically PS3 is the best (undeniable I would have thought) and as a bit of hardware the best value for money given the processing power, future proofing, processing/graphics power and the blue ray drive for much less than the cost of a stand alone blu ray player (again hardly a controversial claim).
What he didn't say was that you shouldn't use one of the other consoles because you like the games unique to them.
You've just totally gone off on a tangent on what Weaste was trying to say. Fair enough if you prefer the 360/Wii games over the PS3's, that's purely down to choice. What he was trying to say was for what you get in the box for £299 is much more value for money than your 360 or Wii.
When you buy a PS3 you get a 40GB HDD which can be upgraded when you wish to any standard 2.5" SATA HDD, a Blu-Ray drive, Wi-Fi enabled, free access to all aspects of the online service, and a superior console technologically wise.
Now try getting both the 360/Wii to do all those without going over the price of a PS3. I'll save you some time, you won't. The 360 has no BluRay add on for a start, you will have to pay £60 to get it wirelessly enable, £40/year to have access to it's online service, £170 fecking quid for a 120GB HDD,straight away that is another £260 added on, and it still won't be up to scratch with the PS3.
So stop reading what you want to read and read what Weaste is actually saying.
You are trying to fight a battle you cant win, you will be drowned with propaganda form this forums sony fanboys who thinks that sony can do no wrong.
The PS3 are getting a bunch of features which well I dont know....maybe should have existed at launch yet nobody reflects on that. All the comments are "sweet, awesome, sony pwns microsoft" and if you claim otherswise you will get called an idiot.
Any fool can see that the PS3 is bargain, I mean MGS4 and uhhhhh well, FF13 and kill zone are coming soon.....
Soon this thread will turn into "my mascot can beat up your mascot" discussion, just like in 80's.
Most people buy consoles to play games. Not DVDs and other stuff. Just games. So, in that respect, the PS3 is clearly over priced, for most people, as a games machine.
Games. Online. That's all that matters to people who play games. Not Blu Ray and what not. Online gaming at the most affordable price.
Was the Amiga 500 the best value for money when it was always priced 100 quid more than the Atari 520 ST, and at launch over 200 quid more?
Did people say then that things like having the ability to genlock video, run a multi-tasking operating system were not needed, all they want is to play games? Because it's the same silly argument. The value of hardware is in what it is capable of doing in comparison to its cost, its bang for buck. Whether everyone needs that is a totally different argument, many people are content with playing games on their mobile phones.
I never said that they can do no wrong, has anyone here said that? And there is no propaganda from me, just me trying to correct the drivel that comes out off the end of some of your fingers. You and your "hyperthreading" being a perfect example. That was a case of you trying to talk about something you know nothing about.
This is partly but true, but most people look at the whole package i.e most people who bought the PS3 were looking at Blu-ray as the winning factor, whereas most other people (myself included) bought the 360 because of the price as you pointed out.
So it kinda swings in round-abouts
Amiga had better marketing. No one mentioned Atari 520 ST at school. And they weren't just games machines, but computers. Playstation and Xbox are games consoles. . .if they were similarly priced, then most people would probably get a PS3. But they're not, and there's a huge difference in price. As I said, most people just want to play games. I think one of the reasons why the Wii has done so well, is down to the fact it's well priced(that's despite it being overpriced for what it is).
And I'll have Blu Ray, one day. . .but it'll be a specialised machine. . .not a jack of all trades.
The thing I find funny is that people say they like the Wii because its cheap...but isn't the 360 now cheaper? Or is that just the crappy core version?
I reckon many people stick to a brand and all. Weaste clearly does. The Playstation brand clearly has a huge fanbase(as does Nintendo). Which is absurd to me, as I've always bought what I thought was the best(for whatever reason). Anyway, recall getting the original Playstation a few days after release, it cost me in excess of £300. But it was much better than the Saturn hence worth every penny at the time.
I used to be a massive Sony fan, had the PS1, PS2, PSP, nearly got the PSX but didnt see the point. I was going to get the PS3...mainly because of the fan factor, but when I saw it was going to cost £425 with no games whereas for the same price I could get a premium 360 with I think it was 5 games and an extra controller for the same price I changed my mind.
Would still love to own a PS3 though..
Where I went to school more people had 520 STs, the Amiga was too expensive. The same shit went on with Spectrum owners spouting shit that you could only use 32KB of the C64s RAM, well yes, with basic programs. How you think that Amiga had better marketing I don't know, number of ads for both were very similar.
My PS3 runs Linux just as well as my PC.
You presume that PS3 was only designed for games. I think that you'll find that it wasn't.
Then people are free to choose. It's not Wii owners that are the ones generally shooting their mouths off.
Interesting that PS3 is rated by many video/audiophiles as being one of the very best Blu-ray players, even when compared to the top of the range stand-alones. Cell was designed as an embedded processor, it's likely that when you get your Blu-ray player Cell will be at its heart. The thing that you need to realise is that the processing power required for modern HD media processing is also quite capable of playing games.
Yes, but when you think of Playstation, you think of a games console. Took them the best part of a decade to create such a strong gaming brand. . . it's virtually impossible to shake of the image. So why did Sony not create a simple games console with online abilities? something along the lines of the 360. It would've been cheaper. . .and to be honest I don't think Microsoft could've lived with them had they done that. Don't Sony make a huge loss on the PS3? As for Nintendo they've got a niche. They offer something the other two consoles don't, whether you think the technology is great or not; a different style of gaming. And I don't have a Wii, so I'm hardly biased.
As for Blu ray. It's still in it's infancy. It'll catch on eventually, but people who have been around since the VHS/Betamax days, know it's best to wait. Stand alone specialised machines will take over, no doubt, as technology keeps improving.
It's for a shite version which to get it up to spec would cost you more than a PS3.
Thats bollocks, every 360 model is cheaper than the PS3, except possibly the elite which might be the same price as the shittest possible PS3 the 40gb.....hang on thats the only PS3 available in Europe, DOH.
Hit the nail on the head, Sony (and their fanboys) claim that the PS3 is superior on the basis that it has a blu-ray player, now what they didnt realise is that while they were too busy bigging up their media-player and not their console they lost exclusives such as GTA IV, Assassins Creed and Devil May cry which if kept exclusive would have seen the console surge to success.
Look at the Wii for example, its a technical piece of shite thats on the same technical level as the Gamecube - no hardrive, no HD, not even a frickin DVD player yet its the best and still the fastest selling console - miles ahead of both the 360 and PS3. Im not a fan of the Wii but surely you can see where Im coming from.
Yes, that's true, but it is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that the cheapest model for the 360 costs you £160 (That being the Arcade model), but to get it up to spec with the PS3 will cost you more than what you would pay for a PS3.
This thread scares me. How anyone could feel so strongly about a console that they get into a raging debate on the internet over it is beyond me.
I have a 360 but I don't go around saying the PS3 is shit or the Wii is for girls, I don't care which is better quite frankly.
I have a 360 but I don't go around saying the PS3 is shit or the Wii is for girls, I don't care which is better quite frankly.