Is it worth it?

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

The PS3 is not worth it.

Not to bash it or sound like a fanboy,but it really isn't.

If you were going to bash it or sound like a fanboy, you could've said a lot worse.

[FDLink]

The PS3 is not worth it.

Not to bash it or sound like a fanboy,but it really isn't.

Reasoning like that is what keeps Uchi on his soapbox, which in turn, annoys everyone involved. Please reinforce all anti-Sony rhetoric with details and educated opinions.

[Faceless]

Well, sources tell me that by next year, the the price of the PS3 will drop.

Yes, you heard me. Drop.

A whole...ready for this...?

A whopping...


$50! And, to make this price drop ever so possible, they will remove the backwards compatability functions.


So now PS3 will only be slightly too much money instead of way too much money.


Yaaaayyyyy.....

_{you can see the sarcasm, right?}

Your sources must suck because Sony has already removed the PS2 hardware from the PS3 in an attempt to cut costs, and emulation is now handled by software. No price cut followed this.

[JordAnime]

Given poor sales of the thing it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a drop within the first year, afterall, Xbox dropped $100 about a year after it came out, and GCN was down to $99 within a few years. 

The question is how low is Sony willing to go to sell the thing?  And if it still doesn't sell, or they don't make enough money back on software, is it the end of the PlayStation line?  Or will they play it like Microsoft and keep marching on in the face of massive losses? 

I guess we'll see.

[Shin Illuminated]

Your sources must suck because Sony has already removed the PS2 hardware from the PS3 in an attempt to cut costs, and emulation is now handled by software. No price cut followed this.

I never said they were reliable sources. I knew it was most likely based on rumors.

And i didn't know they already removed it. When did this happen? Why was I not informed?

Given poor sales of the thing it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a drop within the first year, afterall, Xbox dropped $100 about a year after it came out, and GCN was down to $99 within a few years. 

The question is how low is Sony willing to go to sell the thing?  And if it still doesn't sell, or they don't make enough money back on software, is it the end of the PlayStation line?  Or will they play it like Microsoft and keep marching on in the face of massive losses? 

I guess we'll see.

I seriously doubt this is the end of Sony's Playstation series. They'll keep going most likely until 4 or something. Though i still think they will see sales increases once the prices go down 2 or 3 years from now.

[JordAnime]

That's what everyone said about Sega during the Saturn era, granted they made it to Dreamcast, but even with a really good system they bit the dust; and before that you had Atari. 

I mean it's hard to imagine Sony going under and out, but it's entirely possible and its happened before to other staples of the industry.

[Shin Illuminated]

That's what everyone said about Sega during the Saturn era...

Oh yeah...I forgot about that.

But even if the Playstation brand eventually dies, I doubt it would be the end of Sony as a company. They have tons of other gadgets and whatnot to keep them around.

[FDLink]

I've said this before, but even if the PS3 tanks, it won't be the end of Sony in the game industry. Do you understand just how much glory and success Sony has tasted in this industry? You'd be crazy to think that one failure on their part is going to make them give it up so easily.

The way I see it, if indeed the PS3 doesn't meet Sony's standards of success, do you know what they're going to do? Pull a Nintendo and keep coming out with new systems until they get it right--even if it takes a decade to get back on top. 

I seriously doubt that Sony will pull a Sega and just roll over.



(But then, at least Nintendo was making a profit during all the time they spent as #2...)

[TheHylianLoach]

You never know, Sony may back out of it. I'm not quite sure but I though I heard somewhere that Sony spent an estimated $4 billion on developing the PS3. Lets not forget that in reality, the PS3 is serverly under-priced for what you get.

But all that computing power doesn't come cheap. According to an iSuppli estimate, Sony is spending $89 to make each chip. (Goldman Sachs estimates that chips comprise nearly half of the cost of the gaming machine.) That's part of the reason Sony is losing as much as $300 on every PS3 console it sells.

If this is correct, then this is bad news for Sony, I think this time they went too far in trying to win the console wars, I don't think people were ready for that kind of technology. I think that Sony should have waited for the next console wars to go this advance.

I think that Microsoft set the par with consoles when they released the XB360 in late 2005 and Sony wanted to do much better because they saw how successful Microsoft was with their new system so they developed the super-advanced PS3 and made it even better than they were plannning. MEanwhile, Nintendo took a different aproach, they wanted to please people with the gameplay and fun level and not just focusing on the graphics. That's why Nintendo came out good this time, they made their system cheap(er) and fun.

Eh well, what do I know...

Quote fro this article:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2007/02/sony_cuts_back.html

[Sheldon Cooper PhD]

And now with the PS3's price Drop the PS3 only costs Sony to lose $200 vs. 300.
Of course a new SKU was announced as well....Amazing.


The PS3 has been out for 8 moths, discontinued an SKU already, introducing another and having a price drop. All with no games worth buying.

[ZeldaMaster]

The verdict after 4 pages of debate.

PS3-Still not worth it.

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

*wades in with his size 12 Mario emblazoned Doc Martins* (I'd hate to disappoint certain people)

Wasn't there already a $499 PS3...? Oh yes, there was and it fell on its arse faster than a fat kid on freshly greased lino flooring. I'd predict the same for the 60 Gb version now, with this convenient new 80Gb model.

Come Christmas, it'll be 80Gb for $499. Just watch...

Points to consider:
- Is this honestly "all for the gamer"? Of course not. Sony are coming in last and had to dive in with what must be the fastest price cut in any console's history.
- Was this a killer E3 announcement destroyed by the Internet?
- Any price cut in Europe from the current £425 price tag would look even more desperate. It's only been out three months.

[Scott Shelby]

All with no games worth buying.

Opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I disagree, hence why I own one and am satisfied with it.

The verdict after 4 pages of debate.

PS3-Still not worth it.

No, that's not the verdict. That's simply how you (falsly) interpreted it. It doesn't matter what the outcome is anyways. You're in a Nintendo forum. Nobody in this thread even owns one. Few have actually played one. It's just the usual people trolling the Sony board trying to put a negative spin on everything.

Bottom line-nothing can be decided in an isolated forum topic. The verdict is that there's no verdict, especially under these conditions. Let me go to the Sony boards and get their opinions on whether the Wii or 360 are worth it. I'm sure they'll give me incredibly detailed and well thought out post responses like "No Wii sux cuz itz kiddie!!!!11" and other equivalents. Of course, that would certainly be a reliable verdict for sure.

Wasn't there already a $499 PS3...? Oh yes, there was and it fell on its arse faster than a fat kid on freshly greased lino flooring. I'd predict the same for the 60 Gb version now, with this convenient new 80Gb model.

Come Christmas, it'll be 80Gb for $499. Just watch...

Lol. That absolutely made my day.

Let's go to class:
http://home2.btconnect.com/hgi/ps3/ps3-system.html

Compare the 20GB to the 60GB. Just because the 20GB failed doesn't mean the 60GB will. If anything, the 80GB will be gone by next year. Anyways, back on point. The 20GB didn't offer key features that the 60GB did. All in all, it was completely crippled and non-functional:



See that there? The 20GB had no HDMI, WIFI, or Flash Memory Card Reader. Those are probably the 3 most important aspects listed. The 100 dollar price difference was worth it back then. Now let's fast foward to today:

The only known differences between the 60GB and 80GB models are the 20GB difference in hard drives and a copy of Motorstorm
 
WOW! I'm sure people will line up to get the 80GB version. I mean, seriously! It's going to own the 60GB because a 20GB hard drive is really worth $100! Oh wait, no it isn't.

The 80GB version has no forseeable advantage that is comparable to the ones that the 60GB had over ther 20GB. Comparing the two and proclaiming that the inferior 60GB is going to fail is one of the funniest things I've seen in recent memory.

Come Christmas, it'll be 80Gb for $499. Just watch...

I'll take that bet. What would you like to lose?

[Shin Illuminated]

Wasn't there already a $499 PS3...? Oh yes, there was and it fell on its arse faster than a fat kid on freshly greased lino flooring. I'd predict the same for the 60 Gb version now, with this convenient new 80Gb model.

Pretty much my thought on the subject as well.

[hupla]

And guess what the 80G almost has http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/09/80gb-ps3-has-limited-backwards-compatibility/

Thats right no full backwards compatibilty.

Sony you have nothing to lose at this years E3 please give us some good news.

[Faceless]

Will you just shut up Madara?

Worth is a subjective thing.
It doesn't matter how many extras Sony crams into the PS3 or how advanced the technology is (which it isn't to any PC gamer). If it doesn't offer me (or many others on this board) what we want, then all that extra bullshit is worthless to us. Therefore the console is not worth it.

The verdict of this board most certainly is that the PS3 is not worth it (currently). To argue otherwise is stubborn and childish. Do you know the definition of the word "verdict"?

Let me provide one for you:

# An expressed conclusion; a judgment or opinion: the verdict of history.

Your verdict may differ, but the near-unanimous verdict, and thus the verdict of this board is that it is not worth it. Now stop arguing the toss.

[Scott Shelby]

Will you just shut up Madara?

In a word...NO. Haha. I don't answer to you and I never will. I offer you the same advice, as you have no power here.
 

Worth is a subjective thing.

No sh** Sherlock. I adressed that in my very first post, by examining them from a technical and figurative standpoint. Oh well. Hopefully other people took the time to read throught the topic before posting.

It doesn't matter how many extras Sony crams into the PS3 or how advanced the technology is (which it isn't to any PC gamer). If it doesn't offer me (or many others on this board) what we want, then all that extra bullshit is worthless to us. Therefore the console is not worth it.

1.) Of course it's not advanced. No console is. Someone who's ordering a computer with dual 8800 gtxs in SLI would know that (me). That wasn't the issue at hand.

2.) Of course it doesn't offer you what you want. It doesn't have Zelda on the system and it's not manufactured by Nintendo.

3.) Again, that's just your opinion. I'm not arguing that you or the others haven't reached a quasi-verdict. I'm arguing that you haven't reached a meaningful verdict. I'm devaluing your opinions based on your unwillingness to even try the system and your personal bias (the bias of the forum).

And you obviously didn't read my posts. Your claim about "new shit" getting crammed into the PS3 is worthless to me, as I've dismissed the 80GB version as nothing more than a gimmick (aimed at keeping Sony engaged in its pissing match with MS).

The verdict of this board most certainly is that the PS3 is not worth it (currently).

Yup. I can't classify it as an educated verdict though. It's meaningless garbage, as your committee is filled with Nintendo jihadists who have nothing better to do than troll these boards and spread misinformation about a system they've never owned (or played). Half the threads here are just flamebaits. Hence why I (usually) don't post in them. People like EA have admitted to posting just to stir shit. Just this morning he and ZeldaApprentice hatched a plan to put a negative spin on the price drop JUST TO ANNOY ME. They weren't going to express their opinions, but rather just try to tick me off and flamebait. ZA was willing to offer money (not really, but that's what he said in his post)

So trust me-I nulled the results of the poll as soon as I read the posts of people like him. I don't know you personally, but I'm not entirely convinced you wouldn't do the same.

To argue otherwise is stubborn and childish

As childish and stupid as stomping into a conversation throwing around insults and saying things like "why don't you shut up?". Sure.

Do you know the definition of the word "verdict"?

sure, but enlighten me anyways.

Let me provide one for you:

# An expressed conclusion; a judgment or opinion: the verdict of history.

Hmph. The only reason you have a leg to stand on here is because I said that there's "no verdict" instead of that there's "no real verdict". The verdict you reached is worthless. So worthless in fact that it can be disregarded. That's my point. Your opinions allowed you to reach your quasi-verdict; opinions that were tainted.

Your verdict may differ

Sure does. But then again I'm one person. The only thing I'd be satisfied in seeing is the opinion of all PSWii60 owners. Since that isn't possible, my verdict isn't absolute either. Go figure.

and thus the verdict of this board is that it is not worth it

Great! And for the umpteenth time now, your verdict means NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. I'll let the PSWii60 nation decide a more appropriate and accurate verdict.

Now stop arguing the toss.

In a word...NO. Haha. I don't answer to you and I never will. I offer you the same advice, as you have no power here.

 


                                                           BACK ON TOPIC:
To get back on topic, I'm a bit dissapointed in you all but whatever. How anyone can toss aside a $100 price cut and not say it's a step in the right direction is news to me. Whatever. This September is when most of Sony's Triple A games are slated to come out. Come Christmas time we'll see what people outside this forum think.

Other than that, realize that I think the 80GB should be canned. Don't listen to anyone's interpretation of what I meant than my own. Other than that, the 60GB is poised to sell well, especially if a price cut comes this X Mas. If they competitively price at 399 to counter the 360, it will restore some of the shattered faith in the brand name.
I see 2008 as a very positive year for the system, as a TON of their best content will come to the forefront and showcase what the system is capable of.

Anyways, I think a few of these votes may change when Killzone 2 is finally demo'd sometime this year
If Sony ever plans to counter Halo, this will be the game to do it. I just hope that it lives up to what it's billed to be, unlike its brother. Either way, even if it is a flop, there's more to look foward to in '07 and '08.

[Shin Illuminated]

Its not so much the drop. While its a good thing, some people just don't see it as enough without the titles to back it up. Should those titles you talk about come out at the time you mentioned, some opinions might change (like mine, for one).

The problem some might see here (agin, including me) is the creation of the $600 80GB, which some might see will take over and then we see Sony eliminate the now cheaper 60GB, once again leaving us with a $600 system, which has all the same stuff but a bit more memory space.

But, hell...for $500 I just might get me a PS3. I'm just debating now if it'll be worth it to be broke for the next few weeks after the purchas.

Gotta admit, that HDMI support does look pretty tempting, and it does have some titles I look fowrd to.

I'm on the fence on this one. Maybe I should get the 60GB before it dissapears.

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

People like EA have admitted to posting just to stir shit. Just this morning he and ZeldaApprentice hatched a plan to put a negative spin on the price drop JUST TO ANNOY ME. They weren't going to express their opinions, but rather just try to tick me off and flamebait.

Oh get a sense of humour, will you? Honestly...

ZA was willing to offer money (not really, but that's what he said in his post)

That bit was the punchline.

You honestly see this as all good news? All good for the gamer? All perfectly peachy and acceptable? Not Sony desperately trying to recover as they slip deeper and deeper into third place?

All reads like "positive spin" in that case then. Which doesn't always work... Just remember folks, 10 year plan, 10 year plan, 10 year plan! *flails wildly*

Best bit: "The PS3 is still dominant." Come on.... Seriously...? The PS2 perhaps, but the PS3? Bullshit.

_{Although CNBC's numbers could do with a little work...}

[Assault on Mind]

Uchi you really need to calm down on this subject. You just sound like a fanboy trying despreately to defend his favorite system which discredits your opinions and beleifs.

2.) Of course it doesn't offer you what you want. It doesn't have Zelda on the system and it's not manufactured by Nintendo.

The two facts I have to addres. Yes I'd love to see Sony make a Zelda game because that would definetely make me wanna buy a $500 piece of crap.

Waaaaaaait! Your telling me it isn't made by Nintendo!