This is just as stupid as the "10 Reasons to Wait for a PS3" article and the Revolution one. What's with the mass flux of fanboy threads recently?
This is just as stupid as the "10 Reasons to Wait for a PS3" article and the Revolution one. What's with the mass flux of fanboy threads recently?
Grr, we don't know ANYTHING about the PS3. Not enough to judge it! Why do such morons exist!?
Fanboys go wild at important launch dates, the wars of the Advent Children forum were pretty bad. But wait untill its actual american release, or the armageddon soon to come of the FFXII release.
And no, estimates do not put the PRICE of a PS3 at $500-600. They put the PRODUCTION COSTS at around $500. So unless Sony wants to be a freak and actually make money on selling consoles it'll probably cost around $400 at launch. All this Xbox is ahead on the pricing crap you're hearing is based off the fact that Microsoft will drop the price of the 360 at PS3's launch putting a realitivly big gap between them.
Look at all of the stuff going into the production of the console. New graphics engine, blu ray readers, etc. This stuff has hardly ever been used (if not, almost never) and it's still new. This will make the console very expensive. While sony has much higher specs than the 360 it's still going to be expensive.Originally Posted by MecaKane
As the link stated, Blu Ray readers cost abourt an extra 100 dollars so if Sony wants to make a profit, they'll have to make it 500 or so. It's called Supply and Demand.
Also, it's pretty much in the air that the PS3 won't have any online capabilities.
The only real advantage Sony has over Microsoft is the PS3 will have more backwards compatability, being able to play the thousands of PS1 and PS2 games while the 360 can only play a list of over 300 XBox games.
You know, you've said this in other threads as well, and the fact is, no one knows how much the PS3 will cost because Sony hasn't said what it will cost yet. Let's look at the facts: any estimations have basically been based on manufacturing costs which as I recall are just over the $400 U.S. mark, and these estimates seem to assume Sony will sell the PS3 at a profit. I'm 99% certain that Sony never made a profit off of their PS2's until maybe recently during the later stages of it's life cycle. The fact is they make enough on games to more than make up for it. The idea that Sony would come in $100-200 dollars above the price of their admittedly comparable competition is ludicrous. It would essentially be suicide for them to try, and if you really think they don't know it, you're dreaming. If they actually do it, I'll be happy to say I was wrong and they're crazy, but I doubt it will happen.
If you want some articles giving the most concrete information on Sony's price strategy available, check out my post about half way down this page: http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthrea...90#post1369590 . Both of those articles show that Sony was no where near deciding on a price strategy several months ago, and has even considered a reasonable PSX/PS2 level launch price.
Also, the PS3 supports up to 1080p, not just 1080i. It may be splitting hairs, but it does make a difference. And saying that it not being required is a bad thing is rediculous. The main reason Nintendo isn't supporting HD at all is because it drives up development costs, and they don't want to scare away smaller developers. By offering the option to not go HD, Sony isn't forcing developers to spend more to make the same game. Would it be nice if every developer used HD? Yes, but I'd say it's better to let those who can actually afford the added costs use it and those who can't can save some money.
And as for the development side of things; numerous developers early on complained that the PS2 was overly difficult to develop for. Now let me think, which console came out on top this last generation? Not to mention how Sony has sub-licensing agreements for the Unreal 3 engine, Havok Physics engine, and other tools designed to make development easier built right into the dev kit.
And also for the record, I saw an article recently that specifically stated the PS3's GPU is more powerful than even the most recent GeForce cards. It's not simply technology that will be available in a few months.
Yeah I managed to rant quite a bit there, but what do you expect when most of those arguments against the PS3 are either garbage or opinion.
Supply and Demand has nothing to do with charging higher because something costs more to make. Supply and demand is charging more money simply because people will pay, nothing to do with making up for production costs. It's supply and demand when sony and mircosoft don't send as many of their consoles out in order to drive the demand for it so people will pay the $400, and get extra games and accessories or else they'll have to wait too long.
Now, I am looking into all the stuff going into the production of the console. But the thing is. I don't know [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] about most of it, and neither do you, and neither does the guy who wrote this "article." What I do know is how to put some words into google and press enter to see that people who actually do know what they're talking and they say the production costs are around $500 and that it will most likely cost around $400. And Soney doesn't want to make a profit on their systems. No one makes profits on their systems. They make it on the royalties or whatever from the games.
And it's not up in the air about PS3 not having ANY online capiblities. This stupid article even mentions it has ethernet ports. Not having a main interface isn't the smartest thing, but no online games at all would be suicide.
The PS3 will have online, its just the companys will have to go by it themselves to supply it ....
Thats quite the fanboyism in your post Jole...E3's demos of PS3 games ran in realtime on alfa and bata hardware...making the 360 look like a child... heres some antedote http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content...e=pub&aid=8834
not to menchin that lots of 360's are already crashing on ppl.
Last edited by Yew-Yevon; 11-29-2005 at 06:54 PM.
Precisely. Why is it that now it seems like people are concerned about everything BUT the games?
I like Kung-Fu.
Jeesh. I support the 360 more than PS3. But I'd never pull a stunt like this. People will like what they like. I think FF and its kin have grown old and stale. Lots of people think they're just reaching they're prime. So PS3 is good for them. Now I'm not all into FPS, Racing, and Sports crap that X-Box kinda likes to tote around. But MistWalker and BioWare are with Microsoft and that's all I'm interested in. Mature RPGs that branched off where FF left off. Its not all about Halo. But none of this means crap to players dedicated to other teams. They like their teams. You like yours. You wouldn't appreciate them trying to persuade you to get a PS3 I would suppose. It's a two-way street.
The PS3 one is extremely fanish, the 360 one seemed to be accurate and very fanish too.
It's mad.
I would prefer a revolution over 360.
LET THE HAMMER FALL
umm........didnt ign do tht "10 reason to wait for a ps3"?
I would probably go play video games or have sex (the usual) - Nominus Experse
my mom would be like "ve? yo te dije, el internet no es bueno."
"seriously, my mom tells me "que tu hase en eso el dia entero?" and im like "mami yo toy hablando con people" xD. spanglish, ftw." ~ liz
These fanboy threads are getting redundant.
Fixed!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
