Sony dropping PS2 price to $99.99

Cash-strapped console maker heeds publishers' calls, will lower nine-year-old console's price to double digits beginning April 1; cut mirrored in mainland Europe, but UK misses out.

by

In February, Activision executives publicly expressed their doubts about the PlayStation 2. Speaking with analysts following yet another record earnings report, the company said that their continued support of the nine-year-old console would be contingent on Sony cutting its price.

It's all about the Benjamin (singular).

Just over one month later, Activision and potential PS2 owners looking for frugal recession-era entertainment saw their wishes granted. Beginning on April 1, Sony is cutting the price of the PS2 in the US and Canada to $99/C$99. That's a $30 discount from the previous price point of the console, which was set at $129.99 back in 2006, two years after a dramatically thinner "Slimline" form factor was introduced.

The price cut is being mirrored in mainlaind Europe too, with the recommended retail price for the region dropping to €99 throughout the eurozone. The UK, however, is being left in the cold with a SCEUK rep confirming to GameSpot that there were "currently no plans to cut the price of PS2 in the UK."

Announcing the price cut, SCEA president Jack Tretton emphasized that "demand for PlayStation 2 remains strong throughout the world." He went on to suggest that the price cut would serve to boost PS3 sales down the line because it will serve to "bring in new consumers" to the PlayStation brand. Sony also promised continuing to support the platform "with new titles that appeal to families and casual gamers."

David Reeves, president of SCEE, highlighted the releases of SingStar Queen and MotorStorm: Arctic Edge as evidence for the "continued growth of the platform's library of content."

The now-very-affordable Slimline PS2 is less than one third the thickness of the original model, which first went on sale in the US in October 2000 for $299.99. At the time, Sony justified the then-high price point by the fact that the gaming device also played DVDs--then a cutting-edge feature. The PS2 went on to become the most popular console of all time, shipping more than 140 million units worldwide as of last summer and having 136 million sell-in units as of December 31.

Also last summer, Sony predicted that the PlayStation 3 would eventually overtake its elder brother's retail milestone. Unfortunately, sales of the console have lagged behind those of the Wii and Xbox 360 almost every month since its 2006 launch, thanks in large part to its high price. Currently, the PS3 is available in an a la carte $399.99 80GB model or as part of a limited-edition $499.99 160GB bundle containing the double-platinum hit Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. By contrast, the top-selling Wii is just $249.99, while the Xbox 360 is available in three models--the $399.99 120GB Elite, the $299.99 60GB Pro, and the hard-drive-less $199.99 Arcade--with similar pricing and sales discrepancies seen across the world.

Discussion

780 comments
striker22222
striker22222

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

Nexeus
Nexeus

Id buy a PS3 if it was like 100 bux cheaper. I understand the pros and cons of the system. But next week when I get paid I can spend 400 plus 60 for Disgaia plus 60 for Infamous. OR I can spend 300 on a vocoder and have an equal amount of fun. Sorry sony

x8VXU6
x8VXU6

to frazzle00 and Viper_1989, no one cares

brendanhunt1
brendanhunt1

wait to break even sony, then you can get them

frazzle00
frazzle00

1) You pay more for the Blu-Ray drive, which as you said is unnecessary. That's the difference. 2) It doesn't matter whether it is a trend or not. The PS3 is selling worse now than it was a year ago. How can this be interpreted as it "gaining popularity"? Perhaps you should re-read my reply again. 3) LOL. Dude you really like to take things literally. I am not questioning the fact that the story is fictional. I am also not questioning whether or not it's an accurate depiction of the future. What I am saying is that its representation of war and the motivations behind it are extremely naive. You should follow your own advice about misinterpretation :). 4) I found the boss fights to be extremely straight forward. Just simple pattern recognition really. Nothing that hasn't been done before or for that matter done better. 5) This is your opinion only. What makes your opinion any more valid than mine? There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that digital downloads are the way of the future and not Blu-Ray. Once again this is my opinion. As long as you are clear that your opinion is NOT FACT I don't have a problem with it.

6) And you can praise the Blu-Ray all you like, but the simple fact remains that most consumers don't have the equipment to get the most out of Blu-Ray media (in other words justify using Blu-Ray over DVD). SDTVs are still a lot more common than HDTVs and most people DO NOT have surround sound receivers, especially those that can take advantage of Dolby Digital HD or DTS HD. For example the US has the highest HDTV adoption rate and as of Nov 2008, according to a Nielsen study only 23.3% of US homes had a HDTV (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3ifcdf033a039397d3e2b591ea7da1fdea). The HDTV adoption rate is much lower in other parts of the world (it is estimated that over 50% of all HDTVs are owned in the US). This wasn't the situation when DVDs came out. You could play a DVD on a regular TV and its superiority over VHS was immediately apparent. Play a Blu-Ray movie on a SDTV and you might as well be watching a DVD.

How can you expect me to respect you when you accuse me of misinterpreting your posts, and then you proceed to do the same to mine. That's hypocrisy. You still act as if your opinion is definitive. It is not, plain and simple.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 An extremely poor response that time, misinterpretting lots of things I've said again. 1). Why is the Xbox 360 any different. Or any other console for that matter. You are being forced to buy new games and purchase new technology. By your arguement, when a new Xbox comes out that uses something other than DVD comes out, the consumer is being forced into it. Don't forget, the PS3 can still play DVD movies, PS1 games and early models can play PS2 games. If your response is that you need the blu-ray player to play PS3 games, the same is for the Xbox, you still have to have an Xbox 360 to play new games, regardless of what drive it contains. 2) I did actually state that I could be wrong and next month PS3 sales could slump, and I never used the word trend, I merely stated it's gaining popularity, if only very slowly (you're not reading properly again), but outselling the Wii, the best selling console for the majority of the time, if only for 1 month, is still a good milestone. May not be much, but it's certainly a start. But as I said before, it could be just one month and then we see it slip again. Who knows. 3) As far as the story is concerned, have you not noticed the game is set in the future, and is fictional?! It's a story, not a historical representation of war. Of course it's not real, that's the point of a story. All the MGS games are based around real ideas and events, but they all have that element of unrealism to them that make them what the story is about. The whole cloning story is unrealistic, psycho mantis, the metal gears, nanomachines, foxdie, vamp, fortune, ninjas. The story is a suggestion at what the future of war COULD be like, but it is a work of fiction. 4) I'll agree that not all of the AI is perfect, but alot of it, in my opinion, is fantastic, the way the AIs team up, the combat between the two teams, the boss fights, the interaction between them all and snake. Your example depends on the situation, quite often they will hang back and wait for you to make a move, they know where you are so your alert doesn't go down, but don't get themselves killed and wait for you to come out. It all depends on the situation and the difficulty level. 5) I said: "Therefore then, it is my opinion that the PS3 is better suited to future development than the others." You've not been reading properly again. My ideas backing up that opinion is that blu-ray easily caters for both hd gaming and hd movies, is already a well recognised and a leader in the hd industry, and it's space capicity allows for making much larger games on only one disc, especially with that they are constantly researching to add more layers, hopefully getting to 10 layers, meaning a possible 250 gb on one disc. (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5656). If you want to know more on Blu-Ray's development check wikipedia, i know its not always reliable but they do have plenty of sources to back up there facts. On that note, Wikipedia does also suggest (pay attention to the word suggest, not saying definately, saying suggest) that Blu-Ray is in fact doing better than DVD did when it was first introduced, check the page and check the sources. To compete, Xbox will either have to go with blu-ray, or a totally new technology, requiring a new console. If the technology is made correctly, Sony will not require a new console. This is still only my opinion. You will also notice that Blu-Ray is being developed by alot of companies and not just Sony, showing other companies are also going down the blu-ray route. Notice also that the company who created it, "Blu-ray Disc Association" by nine seperate electronic companies, Sony being one of them. So it already has the backing of 9 leading leading companies (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200205/02-0520E/) plus this list of companies that are now backing it as well (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/en/about/SupportingCompanies.html). It's popularity in the industry is growing massively. Finally, still no other reference to my last paragraph earlier apart from tracking me.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 1) What if they own a PS2 and want to progress to playing PS3 games? In that case the Blu-Ray drive is still being forced unto the consumer, since as you have admitted, it isn't necessary for gaming. 2) The PS3 has outsold the Wii for 1 month only. Isn't that too early to call a trend? Secondly if you compare current sales of the PS3 to sales last year in the US, it can be seen that the PS3 is in fact become less popular. The PS3 sold more in the months of Dec 2007, Jan 2008 and Feb 2008, than it has in Dec 2008, Jan 2009 and Feb 2009. Both the Wii and the 360 on the other hand have INCREASED in popularity in the US. 3 months is definitely more of a trend than 1 month and the US market is substantially bigger than the Japanese one, so NO the PS3 is not gaining in popularity :). 3) I am not arguing with you about whether the story is good or not; that's opinion. All I am saying is that MGS 4's representation of war, and politics is naive to say the least. Take a synopsis of it to any historian, journalist or politician. It is a fact that nothing in life, especially when it comes to war, is that black and white. 4) I will give you that the "piss poor AI" bit is my opinion. What is fact is that the NPC's in MGS 4 follow straightforward patterns that are easy to subvert. When you alert them to your presence they make a beeline to kill you with little care for their own safety. Try it yourself. Alert the soldiers. Run to a cul de sac, and watch them charge at you blindly committing suicide en masse until you run out of ammo. What you call this kind of AI is a matter of opinion. I call it piss poor. 5) Games will develop sure. But you have provided no evidence to support your claim that the Blu-Ray format is in any way essential for gaming now or for that matter even in the next 5 years. That is pure speculation on your part and NOT fact.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 I don't see why it is a problem for Sony to prepare themselves for the future. They obviously feel that blu-ray is the step forward and that's their call. As for it being an advancement of thier media format, that's called business mate. Of course they're going to use it to help themselves, and why shouldn't they. It would have been pointless for Sony not to have used this new technology now. It still hasn't been forced onto the customer though, the PS2 is still being sold and new PS2 games are still being made. If you want to stick to PlayStation and DVD, keep buying PS2 games. There has been no force on the consumer. I only used the new Japan story to show that the PS3 is gaining popularity, it may change again next month, but you cannot deny that there are people who are opting for blu-ray. Perhaps for the games, perhaps for the movies. Who knows, though better to buy a PS3 and get a games console and blu-ray player, than just buy the blu-ray player. Now you're confusing opinion with fact. It is your opinion that the story is naive. I love the story, I agree the cutscenes are very long, but I watched them all as I was on the edge of my seat during them for what happened. If you've ever played the game on extreme mode, it becomes very challenging, especially at the boss sections. If you find it unchallenging, you are obviously not playing at the correct difficulty level, or you are just a complete master of gaming. As for the piss poor AI, that's your opinion, I think the AI is very good, the fighting between the two teams is intense, the team work and communication between the teams works well. I doubt award panels are going to give a game with "piss-poor a.i." a game of the year award. You did originally claim it was your opinion, though your recent comment states: "These are simply facts about the gameplay which don't seem to bother you." That sounds like you mixing up opinion with fact, if you read what you were referring to. "You are only speculating about the lifecycle of the PS3, 360 and Wii. You have absolutely no evidence of any sort. Once again you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Grow up dude." My evidence was the development of video games over the past 20 odd years. Games and systems will develop, it is inevitable, that WILL happen. It is not my opinion as you suggest, it is FACT. The PS3 is far more set up to cope with the future of technology than the Xbox 360 or the Wii. When demand comes, PS3 can keep up, Xbox will either have to create games with 7 discs or create a new console. And microsoft aren't stupid, creating a new console will drive much more money than making games with multiple discs. You cannot claim that game development is my opinion, it is fact, it will happen. Therefore then, it is my opinion that the PS3 is better suited to future development than the others. Nice to see you're now tracking me, though apart from that, you failed to acknowledge my last paragraph at all.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 1) Please re-read my post. I am not against necessary advancement. I am against cynical corporate policy masked as necessary advancement. You yourself have admitted Blu-Ray is unnecessary for gaming. Therefore Sony adding a Blu-Ray drive to the PS3 was not for gaming advancement, but for the advancement of THEIR MEDIA FORMAT :). 2) The PS3 has outsold the Wii in Japan in one month. Last year in Japan the 360 outsold the PS3 for a few months. In the majority of months the Wii has outsold both the 360 and the PS3 in ALL REGIONS. I wouldn't celebrate just yet :). 3) Unreliable according to whom? According to you? Don't forget that Eurogamer only gave MGS4 a 8/10, Edge gave it 8/10, and 1up and UGO gave it an A-. Therefore there are "big" sites that don't think MGS4 is all that. On the other hand 1up gave Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 10/10, UGO gave it an A+, EGM gave it a 9.5 (it gave MGS4 a 9) and Edge gave it 8. It's pretty obvious to me that there are plenty of big game sites that think Chaos Theory is at least as good as MGS4, if not better :). 4) I know what is waist high and what is not. There are plenty of waist high ledges that Snake can not mantle. You have also failed to acknowlege the piss poor AI, the lack of challenge in single player mode, and the naive and overly preachy story. 5) I reckon there are more people with a broadband connection than there are people with HDTVs and receivers that can process uncompressed surround sound. 6) You are only speculating about the lifecycle of the PS3, 360 and Wii. You have absolutely no evidence of any sort. Once again you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Grow up dude. All the times you have accused me of misinterpreting you, I have in fact gone on to prove I haven't. I have never gone after your opinions. I have only gone after you when you have confused those opinions with fact. As soon as you learn to differentiate between the two, I'll stop criticizing your posts :).

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 You are still stopping at things completely, this is the first time you've tried to answer to DVD theory which i did mention at least twice. PS3 having Blu-Ray is called "development", if you don't want it don't buy it. By your arguement, we must stick to dvd for ever because any advancements in technology is forced. The Xbox will not stick with dvd for ever, it will move on and so you will be forced to go with something else, just as you were forced to buy new games. Forcing someone is making them do something they don't want to do, if people didn't want blu-ray, they didn't buy it. Though as today's GameSpot news will reveal, the PS3 has outsold the Wii in Japan for March, so obviously they are a hell of alot of people being forced to buy them apparantly. Gamerankings uses all sorts of websites, lots of which are unreliable, they've never been heard of. Yes they also use the reliable popular ones and you'll notice that all of those gave MGS4 very high ratings. To me, well known and important awards in the game industy mean far more than a collection of reviews from here there and everywhere. And you are obviously confused at where your waist is, just above your legs. Stand up against any mantle ledge and it will come up to Snake's waist. Any waist high ledge you supposdley can't climb, probably isn't worth climbing. You still can't watch HD movies from a disc, cutting out alot of audiences, mainly those without access to the internet and those who aren't interested in streaming them, not everyone has a super fast broadband connection and streaming hd video can take a very long time. Xbox and Wii will have problems eventually when the demand for more data becomes higher and more memory on discs is needed. It will come is inevitable, seen as how we started with extremely small memory cartridges and now have gbs of space on discs. That development shows that memory has always increased and will increase futhur. PS3 has set itself up for the future so that the life span of the PS3 will long outlast both the Xbox 360 and the Wii. As I have said originally, blu-ray is not nessecary, yet. No harm in planning ahead. I promise you, we will either see a blu-ray xbox within the next 3 years, or xbox and will fall. And we know that xbox will expand as they already attempted to get in on the hd-dvd idea. They too were looking at new formats, they didn't take as big a risk as PlayStation and implement it completely, which was lucky for them seen as how hd-dvd fell, but they are looking at new technology. and as blu-ray is currently the leader in the high definition movie industry, it would be unwise for xbox to take advantage of that. Still no apologies for the other times you've been wrong or have misinterpretted what I've said. You'll notice I'm now tracking you, not because I want to find other ways to argue with you, but I have enjoyed this arguement and find you a very worthy adversary. I actually, believe it or not, have respect for you. I feel though that this feeling is not mutual. Prove me wrong.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 1) And you are the final word on reliability? Don't forget that gamerankings.com compiles reviews from Gamespot, IGN, 1up, Eurogamer, EGM, all the official Xbox, Nintendo and PS3 magazines, and Gamepro just to name a few. Statistically speaking (and you brought up stats), gameranking.com is much better evidence than your obviously biased and piteously small sample of 5 sites. You may prefer MGS4, but that is simply your opinion. You need to learn to stop confusing opinion with fact. 2) I own MGS4, and NO Snake can't climb up waist high ledges. He can only mantle low ledges. This definitely does not fit with the action he does in cut scenes. Let's also not forget how simplistic the AI is, how easy the game is, and the absolutely naive, and ham-fisted story. Once again I am not arguing with you about your opinion of the game. These are simply facts about the gameplay which don't seem to bother you. Well they bother me and they obviously bothered a number of reviewers out there. 3) You can STREAM HD films unto your Xbox 360 with Netflix. 4) 20 gigs of extra space isn't that big a deal. 5) The Blu-Ray drive was forced. You yourself have admitted that Blu-Ray is NOT necessary for gaming. Therefore Playstation customers who only wanted a games machine were forced to pay EXTRA for the Blu-Ray drive. The only reason that the Blu-Ray drive is in the PS3 was to enable Sony to defeat Toshiba's HD-DVD format. When the PlayStation was released, the CD format was necessary both for the FMV and for the ability to store decent audio. Remember the problems Nintendo had with the N64 catridge format? Neither the Wii or the 360 are having any issue with the DVD format. By the time the PS2 was introduced DVD movies were relatively common place, and DVD drives were not expensive. Don't forget that the PS2 DID NOT cost substantially more than either the Xbox or the Gamecube. If the PS3 is selling for as much as either the Wii or the 360 I am sure people would not be complaining about the Blu-Ray drive, which as you have so nicely admitted, IS NOT NECESSARY. I have only stopped arguing issues that you stopped bring up. You stopped mentioning that the Blu-Ray drive was not forced on consumers. I stopped arguing about it. Check out the history of our conversation if you don't believe me. And as to what points I choose to argue, well let me explain it to you. I have only argued your points that have been wrong (e.g. WIFI figures which I have provided), or where you confuse your opinion with fact (PS3 being better value for money). I don't have an issue with your opinion. You are entitled to it. I do have an issue with you trying to pass it off as fact.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 Your basing your facts on a website that compares reviews from all sorts of websites and sources, most of which are unheard of and are not as reliable as those such as GameSpot, IGN, PlayStation magazine, Xbox Magazine, Nintendo magazine etc. MGS4 can hold its head up high and claim 5 game of the year awards. No splinter cell can claim 1. To me, that's a better game. I'll be honest and say I hadn't read my blog entirely before posting the link so I had not remembered that line and therefore proves you were right about the blog. I would say that my opinion has changed since Dec, though i doubt you will believe that and claim i'm only saying it now i've been proven wrong. You still cannot play HD movies from a disc, you have to download them taking up hard drive space. Not only can the PS3 play them from the disc, it also has more hard drive space anyway. There is an attempt to back up the comment in my blog, though I'm sure you'll just fob it and stick words in my mouth as usual. Oh that was another example of me admitting when I'm wrong and apologising, something you still haven't seem to have done, (all down to the individual, calling me a little kid, all the times you have misinterpretted what i have said, ooh new one, snake can't climb waist high ledges? what kind of rubbish is that? of course he can, you walk up to them and push triangle. you can't do that, then its not a waist high ledge!) On that note, you managed to worm out of the "forced arguement" never confronting my thought on us being "forced" to buy dvd instead of cd, exactly the same as being forced to go to blu-ray instead of dvd. funny how you pick and choose which arguements to continue and which ones to ignore when you come to a dead end.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 1) Dude, need I remind you what YOUR blog says: "If the 360 without the extra costs fits your needs, then yeah the 360 is cheaper, but if you want the full gaming and movie experience, PS3 is worth far more the value. SO STOP SAYING PS3 IS EXPENSIVE (and don't get me started on comparing it to a Wii, the Wii is only a novelty item compared to the might of the PS3 and Xbox 360)". Pay special attention to the line "PS3 IS WORTH FAR MORE THE VALUE". 2) Gamerankings takes into account scores from numerous gaming sites including the ones you have mentioned. Based on an average of all reviews received, MGS4 is not the highest rated videogame or stealth game. Recall that I said: "You will see that not only is MGS 4 not in the top 50 best reviewed games (it's actually ranked 97th), but it is the lowest ranked of all the recent Metal Gear titles." That's right, MGS4 was ranked below MGS on the GB, as well as MGS1, 2 and 3. In fact MGS4 is ranked BELOW Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Therefore based on a survey of numerous games sites, it can be seen that MGS4 is NOT the pinnacle of stealth gaming. Perhaps you should learn to read (and learn some basic statistics too) :D.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 I never claimed the PS3 is BETTER value for money. Only that they are SIMILARLY priced. It's then down to the individual whether its worth the extra money for the PS3. And yet again you have decided to twist my words for your own use. I am not trying claim MGS4 is the best game of all time (although in mine and GameSpot's opinion it is) but that it is, and I quote: "the pinnacle of stealth gaming". You are comparing MGS4 to every other game ever made and not just stealth based games. I stand by what I said much earlier: LEARN TO READ! I know MGS4 isn't rated as highly on others but as we are arguing on GameSpot, I thought that would be the most obvious place to look. It has Gold Award for Officialn PlayStation Mag (10/10), 10/10 on IGN + editors choice award and PS3 game of the year as well as Reader's choice game of the year, making it 1 of only 4 games to recieve a perfect score of 10/10 on both GameSpot and IGN. Overall it has 5 game of the year awards, and 8 PS3 game of the year awards. Compared to that, the ENTIRE Splinter Cell series has recieved NO game of the year awards, and 4 console game of the years (Xbox and PC versions). I'd call that enough proof that Metal Gear Solid 4 is, statistically, the BEST stealth game ever (i guess it can only be challenged by its previous games, so it's still a win for MGS)

frazzle00
frazzle00

@ Viper_1989 If it is down to the individual then what you have said about the PS3 being better value for money is NOT fact, just opinion. You have yet to acknowledge this. And as to MGS 4 being the all time best, well once again I can prove you wrong. Gamespot is just ONE site. There are plenty of other sites. Go to gamerankings.com (they compile reviews from multiple game sites) and click on the "All Time Best" link. You will see that not only is MGS 4 not in the top 50 best reviewed games (it's actually ranked 97th), but it is the lowest ranked of all the recent Metal Gear titles.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

Yeh you're right nuke939, a price drop on the PS3 would be better and attract alot more business. I know I've been arguing that its similarly priced to the xbox 360 but a price drop would definately help. I'm surprised they're even interested in the PS2 anymore, I think they'll finish production of it before the end of 2010.

nuke939
nuke939

Oooohh 99 dollars for a nine year old consol? Way to lose more business Sony...Lower the price on your PS3's!! and get your name back in to second or first!

thenephariouson
thenephariouson

For me, the MGS4 Story is much better than the game itself. Take away the story and all the glitsy FMV and whats left? a game that definately falls short of Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, thats my opinion of course.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 I have also provided proof to back up my claims. It is not purely my opinion in that blog, I have gathered information to balance the 2 consoles to discover their true value. But as always its down to the consumer. I think Metal Gear Solid 4 being the 2008 GameSpot game of the year, and currently GameSpot's highest rated game of all time (go to home page, look at most popular and click highest rated) probably backs up my opinion that it is the pinnacle of stealth gaming. Metal Gear has progressed massively over the years. Since Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (my 4th favourite game of all time) has come about, the Splinter Cell series has gone down hill. Metal Gear is the best stealth series out there. There's my proof to back up my claims, along with the proof I used to back up my blog. You still have never truely acknowledged that I said from the very beginning it's down to the individual.

huladog123
huladog123

It's too bad the PS2 didn't cost $99 when my parents bought mine. Oh well, they still got my xbox 360 half off, so that more than likely compensates for it.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 I have provided proof to back up my claims. You on the other hand confuse your opinion with fact. I don't have a problem with you preferring the PS3 or thinking it's better value for money. That however is purely your opinion, NOT fact. And as for MGS4 being the pinnacle of stealth gaming well that's your opinion as well. I for one don't think it is much of an advancement (outside of the graphics). The fact that Snake can't climb waist high ledges despite all the acrobatics he can do in cut scenes, infinitely respawning enemies and brain dead NPC AI is embarrassing. I'll take my Splinter Cell over MGS 4 any day of the week. Then again that's just opinion too :).

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

Oh and I forget to damn you for your attempt to question my Metal Gear loyalty. I have played every single Metal Gear game, including the original MSX2 ones. I own MGS t-shirts, models, posters and what's more, I LIKE RAIDEN! I agree that Splinter Cell is a more cold-blooded stealth game, but MGS' gameplay allows for a much more gripping story. I will be first in line at the cinema to see the film, just as I am always on the look out for MGS5 info. And yes, the atmosphere is deadly important. MGS4 is such an advancement in the sneaking and avoiding of enemies, that every sound, every vibrance adds to the thrill and fear of staying ever so still in your octocamo whilst leant against a wall. If Mr Kojima felt it needed uncompressed audio, then that's his call. He knows why. NEVER QUESTION ME ON METAL GEAR AGAIN! THE MGS FANBOY HAS SPOKEN!

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 First. I apologise. Both of you are correct, you can still watch HD movies on the Xbox 360 by downloading them. My bad. (Funny how I keep admitting when I'm wrong, and you don't, despite being wrong on a number of things) I'm sick and tired of you attempting to destroy what my blog set out to do. And I have to say koodos to Cjsexy24. As I have said all along, AND YOU HAVE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG, it is all down to the individual user and what he or she wants. I am sick and tired of saying it and its the only things I'm going to say in my response to see if it finally drills into your head. I still believe the PS3 is value for money for what it gives you compared with what the Xbox 360 gives you. You get less in your box with an Xbox 360 and therefore you it is cheaper. If you want everything that you get with the PS3, including the ability to watch the ever GROWING library of Blu-Ray films, then choose the PS3. The choice is yours. End of.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Cjsexy24 I agree with you completely. When it comes down to deciding which console to buy, it is the games library that should be the largest factor in that decision. All I am arguing about is the fact that Viper_1989 is adamant that people NOT say the PS3 is expensive. That to me is complete B.S. It is an expensive machine. Even Kutaragi said so. Is this expense justified? Well that depends on the consumer. Viper_1989 obviously thinks it is. I don't agree (despite the fact that I also own a PS3). Based on sales figures it also seems that most gamers don't agree. Viper_1989 needs to stop being a fanboy and stop generalizing the fact that the PS3 meets HIS needs.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 1) My first bit of advice is to learn to use paragraphs :D. 2) The DVD format has become a standard. It is the most popular and most supported format available currently. The Blu-Ray format is definitely neither of these things. Therefore having a DVD drive is justifiable (and a lot cheaper). Remember you pay MORE for Blu-Ray which even you admit is unnecessary. 3) Firstly the majority of games on the PS3 are also available on the 360 and PC on DVDs. Secondly splitting a game unto multiple discs only incurs negligible additional cost (which is still cheaper than Blu-Ray mind you) and less inconvenience (given the speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive). As it stands the Blu-Ray drive adds nothing to the PS3 as a games machine. 4) There are games with similar amounts of dialogue as MGS4. Uncompressed audio really only benefits gamers with top of the line surround sound receivers capable of processing that format. For the remaining 99% of gamers it makes absolutely no difference. Compression time isn't an issue. And have you really played MGS4 (as well as all the previous MGS titles)? To me MGS 4 places the LEAST emphasis on stealth.

5) You could ask the same question as to why multi disc 360 titles have the same RRP as single disc titles :D.

6) It's not technical equality that is at stake. If that was the case you need to take into account hardware differences including the 360's superior memory architecture, and development environment. What's relevant is what the gaming public wants for its money. Based on sales for the majority of gamers out there, it is NOT the PS3.

7) You pay for the console, not for the online gaming service. PC gamers have been paying for online gaming services for ages. And why not? It is a service after all. As I have said before, I'd rather pay for a great service such as Live, than have to put up with the crappy (free) service provided by PSN. I honestly hardly ever play my PS3 online, simply because the service provided is dreadful.

8 ) When it comes to HD movies being "important", once again you need to prove that this is the case. Firstly SDTVs are still more prevalent than HDTVs. Ever tried watching a Blu-Ray film on a SDTV. Doesn't look any different to a regular DVD. Let's not forget the fact that the DVD library is also MUCH larger and MUCH cheaper. That's why DVDs are absolutely destroying the Blu-Ray format in terms of sales. And given the rising popularity in downloadable movies (both legal and illegal), I honestly don't see the Blu-Ray format as being viable in the long-run. You don't have to believe me, but I only remember too well what happened to once hyped formats like the Laser Disc. Lastly you have also neglected to take into consideration the fact that you CAN watch HD movies on your 360.

9) You gave a simple anecdote to back up your "wireless Internet is essential for gaming" claim. Such trivial anecdotal evidence isn't proof of any sort. Here are some 2007 figures: In the UK 57% of Internet users have wired broadband. Only 9% have wireless broadband. In the US 71% have wired broadband, and 6% have wireless broadband. Sure wireless access is gaining ground but it has an immense amount of ground to make up. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the necessity to bundle WIFI with a console DIRECTLY out of the box. You can read the article here: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3443 10) There are a variety of PS3 and 360 SKUs available. In all honesty 60 gigs of HDD space is more than enough for gaming needs. If you are trying to suggest that having 80 gigs over 60 gigs provides a gamer with some significant advantage then I beg to differ. Let's not forget that there are plenty of 360 and PS3 owners with far less HDD space. And as to being restricted, well that is simply a fact of life. Regardless of how much HDD space you have, you'll eventually run out. As to how much a gamer actually requires, well you have provided absolutely NO evidence with regards to this. 11) The USB cable to charge the PS3 controller is extremely short. If I am going to follow your lead and use anecdotal evidence I can generalize my situation and state that buying extra USB cables of decent length for recharging the controller is ESSENTIAL. These cables cost as much as the official MS battery pack and charger. 12) Dude, what person has Broadband Internet access and no PC? Are you really trying to suggest that the PS3 web browser is in any way essential to anyone? Yeah right. Prove it :D.

13) The PS3 comes with standard RCA cables out of the box. You CANNOT play anything in HD with these cables. Therefore to actually enjoy Blu-Ray movies or HD games you NEED to buy either component cables or a HDMI cable. Good quality cables such as those provided free with the 360 aren't cheap. I paid USD 40 for my HDMI cable. Perhaps you should add that to your PS3 price :). Really dude, you are trying to sell the fact that Blu-Ray movies are essential and yet you claim the wires required to watch Blu-Ray movies in their NATIVE resolution are not essential. ROFLOL.

14) Well I could also argue that having a MIC is essential for online gaming. I reckon if you really want to be "fair" and not a PS3 fanboy you should add that to your list. Hmmm, you really like to pick and choose what is required and what is not. LOL. That my little friend is purely the domain of the fanboy :D.

15) Let's also not forget the fact that some 360 SKU's come bundled with a media remote as well as the mic (mine did). Why not add that little extra to your PS3 list :). 16) Proof? What proof? Your opinion is NOT proof. LOL dude, LOL. I will end my little spiel at that. You can save your curtsy since I am sure you're pretty sore after the pwnage you've just experienced :D.

Cjsexy24
Cjsexy24

That statement about not being able to watch movies in Hi Def is incorrect as you can watch movies instantly via live streaming in Hi Def as long as you internet connection is fast enough & stays stable. (oh & net-flix is not the only option you can purchase movies directly from xbox live) There is also a play & charge kit & you can connect 2 controllers at a time. so you don't need to keep buying batteries. Further more Sony had more time to add more things to their console that would make for a better experience. Bottom Line they are both good console. (Although in my opinion I feel the xbox is better because it tailors to the games that I like better than the PS3 does.) What it all comes down to is games & if you chose a system do so on what games are available. Base it on the game line up. Chose the system that best suits your gaming intrest. This Xbox 360 vs. PS3 vs. Wii is getting really old & the reason someone feels they need to write a book to say in code the PS3 is a better value than the xbox 360 aka PS3 is better than 360 & vice versa baffles me

canana
canana

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 Calling me a "little kid" suggests you believe you are talking to someone inferior than yourself and therefore, in your beliefs, automatically makes you right on anything you've said. I still stand by everything I have said. It is not FORCED on the consumer. You failed to comment on my comment of DVD therefore being forced on the consumer. In which case as an xbox 360 player, you have been forced to buy new xbox 360 games, and before you say i don't have to the xbox has backwards compatibilty, well so do the earlier PS3 models, so when it was first brought out, you could still play PS2 games. Blu-ray was never forced on the consumer, you can still play dvds on a ps3, later models can't play ps2 games, though the list of xbox games playable on an xbox 360 isn't hugely massive (and don't start quoting facts and figures about that. i am fully aware that new games are being added all the time, but when it first came out, your options were limited and so you were FORCED, by your arguement, to buy dvd-9s. You keep going on about I haven't proved blu-ray is neccessary. Fine, i admit it then, Blu-Ray is not neccessary... yet! As i originally said, in my first post defending MrMeatFlaps, the drive for bigger and better games will come, it is inevitable. If you argue against that, you are argueing against the fact that the gaming industry has grown massively over the past 20 years. Bigger games requires more graphics, more sound, most importantly more data. Blu-ray allows for 25gb on a single layered disc, 50gb on a dual layered. A dvd-9, the format for Xbox 360 games, is 8.54gb. Which disc is going to win when more memory is needed? I used MGS4 as an example to show that the boundaries are already being pushed, its only 1 game i know, but the threat is present. I did some checking into the "uncompressed audio" claim, and Gobbo00 was correct, the audio is uncompressed. Why? It takes alot longer to compress the audio, especially with the amount of audio MGS4 has, we could still be waiting for it if they'd compressed it. Also, uncompressed audio picks up everything, even silence, compressed audio loses the silence and other other minute sounds. For a stealth game like MGS4, atmosphere is everything and they wanted to lose nothing to create that atmosphere. That's why its uncompressed. Going back to the discs, It is cost effective to use only disc rather than manufacturing 5 or 6. That requires 5 times as much work and money to burning the data onto the dics. Also someone said (i can't quote it as i can't find it) something about blu-ray's being more expensive to manufacture than dvd-9s, why then are the RRP of both ps3 games and xbox 360 games very similar? for the purpose of what the blog set out to do, it is a proper comparison. stop talking about whether people want these "bells and whistles" as you so aptly call them, i added costs, to both consoles, not just the xbox 360 but the ps3 as well, in order to make the consoles technically equal. i wasn't trying to prove whether people wanted things or which console was better, i was trying to prove that for the equipment you get in the box, both consoles are priced similarly. i will apologise for my final comment about the "full gaming experience" that is incorrect, both consoles provide good quality gaming experiences, since then i have played on my brothers 360 alot and enjoy both. The movie experience i won't apologise for, you cannot watch hi-def movies on an xbox 360, straight out of the box. first you must purchase an additional hd-dvd drive, and now hd-dvd is dead anyway. Whether you agree or not that hi-def is important or not is up to you, but for the purpose of that blog, the xbox 360 does not provide a fuller movie experience than the ps3. You internet arguement involves a third party, completely out of the control of either microsoft or sony. yes you must pay for your internet, nothing comes free in life. You pay to use the ps3s online capabilities. you pay that when you buy the console. you pay to use xbox 360s online capabilities. you keep paying that every year, and have to pay it on top of the console price. why? there is no need for it. you've already bought the console, you've already bought the game, why should you then have to pay to use bits of them? i don't care if xbox live is better, you shouldn't have to pay for something you have already paid for. your wired/wireless connection arguement has now confused everyone, now you're saying "And lastly I never said that the majority of people have a wireless Internet connection. I said exactly the opposite." Sorry what? You said, quote: "I am quite sure that more people in fact have WIRED Internet", to which i claimed you cannot prove that. you know you can't because you then challenged me to prove the opposite, which i can't. then i used my brother as an example of a consumer with a wireless connection unhappy at the exclusion of built in wi-fi because he had to pay an extra £70. you interpreted this and said: "So you and your brother have wireless Internet. That off course means EVERYONE else in the world has it too." I never claimed everyone uses it, i showed how one person is affected. and there is not only 1 person in the world that uses a wireless connection, but i never claimed everyone did or that the mjority did, unlike yourself in your original comment. Now can you why your latest comment makes no sense. Finally, you claim that the ps3 is still expensive and my blog proves nothing which i have already explained back to you above. you then go on to say it depends whether the extra functionality is neccessary. ok, rather than shamelessy plug another blog, i'll have to write my new findings down here. sorry everyone if i'm taking up too much space, but i'm not allowed to refer to other writings i've made: First was the extra hard drive space the PS3 has, it differs depending on which models you look at. I agree with thenephariouson that eventually everything will be downloaded, and now anyway, hard drive space is requirred for installation, software updates, storing music, videos and downloaded games, so that's a yes, the extra har drive space is required, unless you want to have to be resticting what you keep. and people want more space rather than restrict. next was the charging capabilties of the controller. ok, not essential, you can use batteries. but hands up all those who want to charge your controller up for free by pluggingit into your console, or hands up all those who want to have to buy more batteries, or wait around while you charge your rechargable batteries up in a seperate charger, which you will also have had to go out and buy. thats another thing people want. that's 2. blu-ray player compared with hd-dvd. ok, i'll admit this one is not neccssary. both will play dvds, so you could just settle for that. but without the ps3s blu-ray player, you can't play its games so the blu-ray is still neccesary for the ps3, but not for the movie playing. 2-1 online capabilities. the added bonus of an internet browser on the ps3 is great, means if you don't have a computer, you can access the internet on your ps3. even the Wii has the option to buy a browser, whilst the xbox 360 has nothing, which is odd, considering microsoft is the leading manufacturer in internet products, what with its experience with internet explorer. but no you're right, that isn't neccessary. the built in wi-fi is neccessary for some but not for others. still a neccessity then. an then you've got to pay for xbox live which according to you is a fantastic service you don't mind paying for. so, xbox live is an add on that people want, so overall we have a nessecary additional money for online. 3-1 cables. xbox comes with a component, ps3 only an a. all hd-tvs still have an av slot, so the ps3 having a component cable isn't nessecary. that's for the ps3, so that doesn't add to the tally as we're looking at what extras the ps3 has, that you have to buy for the xbox 360. same goes for the mic. xbox has one, ps3 doesn't. not essential, but cool to have. So, you claim that the extra things that the ps3 has that makes it more expensive than the xbox 360 aren't things that people nessecarily require or want, when i have just shown that 3 out 4 of them are either neccessary, or people really do want it. The PS3 is similarly priced to the Xbox 360. yes you pay more for it, but you get alot more for the extra money you pay. BUT, at the end of the day, as i have already claimed, it is down to the individual consumer at what he/she wants. I'll take my bow now shall I?

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 ROFLOL. Dude, at least make it challenging :D. "I am calling you a twit not because I'm a desperate fanboy, but because you don't read things properly." and "Not wrong again, as he never mentioned anything about the PS3 outselling the Xbox 360." If anyone needs to learn to read properly it is you. Brenton_2 said: "SONY's PS3 is also doing something the first XBox didn't do last gen, which is actually catch up." Based on sales figures it is clear that the PS3 is not in fact catching up. As I have said numerous times before, even since the PS3's launch, the Xbox 360 has been outpacing it. "I know it to be fact that Hideo Kojima said it was too big and so here's a source for that FACT: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26269528/mgs4-too-big-for-blu-ray.html?page=27" Firstly like I have said before, you don't know what the data breakdown on the disc is. If most of the disc space was taken up by uncompressed audio (which is entirely unnecessary), then there is nothing to stop MGS4 from fitting on a few DVDs. And as I have said before YOU have no idea how much actual space MGS4 takes. Even the article you provided concurs: "and no one from Kojima Productions has revealed what size MGS4 actually is." "But it still stands that even the capicity of blu-ray is already being pushed. How can dvd-9 compete?" Kojima is a veteran sure, but he is definitely NOT the best game developer out there. There are plenty of producers like Miyamoto, Newell and Cliffy B, who have no problems making great games on DVD. "Wrong. I wasn't forced. No-one said to me "Nick, you must buy a PS3 instead of a 360" By your arguement, we were forced to purchase a dvd drive when buying the PS2." Sorry but you are wrong. If you wanted to buy Sony then you had to get a Blu-Ray drive. You have yet to provide proof that the Blu-Ray drive is necessary for gaming. The fact that both the 360 and the PS3 share the majority of their games library is a clear indication that Blu-Ray is in fact unnecessary. You are also forgetting Sony's history with data formats. They lost with Betamax, Mini-Discs and UMD, so they made sure that this would not be the case with Blu-Ray, at the expense of the consumers. I call that being forced. " In my blog at the end I stated: "Which is cheaper then guys? It actually depends on what you want. If the 360 without the extra costs fits your needs, then yeah the 360 is cheaper" YOU NEVER READ THAT BIT DID YOU!? I explained that consumers are different, they have different needs, I never used this to claim the PS3 is better, i wanted to prove that the PS3 is not expensive for what it is, when properly compared to the xbox 360." Well I disagree that your comparison was proper, especially since you have NOT provided any facts as to how many gamers actually want these bells and whistles. If for example only 5% of the gaming market do, then Sony has done itself a huge disservice by forcing unnecessary functionality on the gaming public. "I explained that consumers are different, they have different needs, I never used this to claim the PS3 is better, i wanted to prove that the PS3 is not expensive for what it is, when properly compared to the xbox 360. for what you are getting in your box, they are both priced similarly. and you say: "So you and your brother have wireless Internet. That off course means EVERYONE else in the world has it too". WHEN DID I SAY THAT?! I used my brother as an example of why some would prefer to have it built in. I never claimed (unlike you) that the majority of people used a wireless connection." At the end of your blog you said this:

"If the 360 without the extra costs fits your needs, then yeah the 360 is cheaper, but if you want the full gaming and movie experience, PS3 is worth far more the value. SO STOP SAYING PS3 IS EXPENSIVE (and don't get me started on comparing it to a Wii, the Wii is only a novelty item compared to the might of the PS3 and Xbox 360)"

Firstly you imply that the 360 does not give you a "full gaming and movie experience" which it does. Are you trying to suggest that Blu-Ray is the only media format available? Secondly you insist that people stop saying that the PS3 is expensive. To do this you have to show that those extra bells and whistles are required by the majority of gamers. If only the minority need these things than yes, the majority do have the right to say that the PS3 is expensive. And lastly I never said that the majority of people have a wireless Internet connection. I said exactly the opposite. Remember that bit of advice on reading you gave me? I suggest you practice what you preach :D. "my anolagy is not terrible, i am completely aware that there are offline modes. but why buy something and then have to pay for the full usage of it. i'll compare it to a film instead of a pie. you buy a dvd player, you buy a film, but then have to pay extra to watch the last 30 mins. you are paying to play the rest of the game. unfair. this is why i've never played WOW." Both your previous and your current analogy are terrible. Consider this. Even if Xbox Live is free, you still have to pay an ISP to provide Internet access. Nothing in life is free buddy. You pay for services plain and simple.

"but it seemed to me you were just using this topic as an excuse to bad mouth the ps3, although this wasn't actually started by you,so i let you off a bit."

I am not trying to badmouth the PS3. I merely stating that yes the PS3 is expensive, regardless of which way you spin it. You have not provided evidence that all that extra functionality is necessary or for that matter even beneficial to gamers in general. If Sony did not do their research prior to coming up with the PS3's specs, well they have no one else to blame but themselves. "OK, first of all, nows who's name calling. And secondly, STOP CALLING ME A KID, I'M 19 FOR GOD'S SAKE! I WOULD'VE THOUGHT MY PIC WOULD'VE SHOWN YOU THAT!" I didn't realize that calling someone a kid is offensive. Sure calling someone a twit is, but "little kid", gosh don't tell me you're that sensitive :P.

thenephariouson
thenephariouson

xcollector Posted Apr 5, 2009 5:51 pm GMT If the PS2 is so cheap to make that Sony can drop the price then why don't they include PS2 backwards compatibility in the newer PS3s? I would rather have them stop making PS2s and include full backwards compatibility in PS3s instead. The reason Sony hae dropped the price of the PS2 and have not included backward compatability on the PS3 is simply to try and claw back much needed ca$h, they'll squeeze every last breath out of the PS2 before they finally dump it and begin to work on the PS3 pricing system. Only when the PS2 is officially dropped will Sony then release backwards compatibility for the PS3. Regardiing Blu-ray and other 'Physical' storage mediums, they will eventually be outmoded by the daddy of digital storage the HDD be it Holographic or not, the future of media (games or movies) is ultimately via the download route, MS have known this for a long time, only now are the other wannabees (Sony, Nintendo) realising this, served by your very own online 'Kiosk' whereby you purchase & DL your software onto your HDD, add to this total resilience whereby if your drive fails, you simply get a new one, log onto your online account and simply re-download any software you have previously purchased.. Weather you like it or not, this is the future of media distribution.

xcollector
xcollector

If the PS2 is so cheap to make that Sony can drop the price then why don't they include PS2 backwards compatibility in the newer PS3s? I would rather have them stop making PS2s and include full backwards compatibility in PS3s instead.

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 I am calling you a twit not because I'm a desperate fanboy, but because you don't read things properly. Your comment to brenton_2: "Wrong again buddy. Like I said before since the PS3's release the Xbox 360 has OUTSOLD it by around 2 million units. That's not called catching up. And btw MS is doing something Sony isn't doing this generation; it's actually gaining ground in the home console market." Not wrong again, as he never mentioned anything about the PS3 outselling the Xbox 360. He merely stated that microsoft took around a 4 billion doller loss. No-one has said that PS3 is outselling the Xbox 360, though neither of them is outselling the **** that is the Wii (don't even get me started, i respect the 360, but the Wii? ARRGHH!) Ok, so i din't have a source for the information. I know it to be fact that Hideo Kojima said it was too big and so here's a source for that FACT: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26269528/mgs4-too-big-for-blu-ray.html?page=27 On that note, Kojima is a veteran designer, he recieved the lifetime acheivement award at GDC (and yes Gobbo00 i did watch his keynote, the original Metal Gear section about the 9 sprite limitation was fascinating). Therefore, he knows a thing or two, and has more right than anyone to justify removing foreign audio, that using compressed audio. You're right, I don't know much about the data compression, I don't know why he did it that ay, but he has a hell of a lot more experience and so he had his reasons. But it still stands that even the capicity of blu-ray is already being pushed. How can dvd-9 compete? Another of your comments to Brenton_2: "Did you have a choice when it came to getting a Blu-Ray drive with the PS3? I didn't think so. That little buddy is called being forced." and your comment to me: "You did not have a choice. I recommend you check the dictionary for the meaning of the word choice. If you wanted to own the PS3 for the games only, you would have NO CHOICE but pay extra for the Blu-Ray drive. " Wrong. I wasn't forced. No-one said to me "Nick, you must buy a PS3 instead of a 360" By your arguement, we were forced to purchase a dvd drive when buying the PS2. And as for, " If you wanted to own the PS3 for the games only" PS3 requires a blu-ray drive for the games, that's what it set out to do. It's called development. What would have been the point in Sony releasing a new dvd drive console, when it's using the new technology of blu-ray? It's their product, they choose what they want to do with it. That's like saying Dyson are forcing us to buy hoovers with balls on instead of wheels. We have a choice! It's our choice whether we buy it or not. Don't won't blu-ray? Buy an Xbox 360. Simple as. "You really are an arrogant little kid aren't you. So you and your brother have wireless Internet. That off course means EVERYONE else in the world has it too. LOL. And secondly what you have done is hardly fair, since consumers are different. That's why companies usually give consumers a choice when it comes to their goods. MS has multiple SKUs for all segments of the gaming market. Sony does not. Their strategy has obviously NOT worked. Given the fact that Kutaragi has (justifiably) been sacked it seems that there were plenty of unhappy Sony execs and shareholders as well ." OK, first of all, nows who's name calling. And secondly, STOP CALLING ME A KID, I'M 19 FOR GOD'S SAKE! I WOULD'VE THOUGHT MY PIC WOULD'VE SHOWN YOU THAT! And your comments back up why i called you a twit, you don't read. In my blog at the end I stated: "Which is cheaper then guys? It actually depends on what you want. If the 360 without the extra costs fits your needs, then yeah the 360 is cheaper" YOU NEVER READ THAT BIT DID YOU!? I explained that consumers are different, they have different needs, I never used this to claim the PS3 is better, i wanted to prove that the PS3 is not expensive for what it is, when properly compared to the xbox 360. for what you are getting in your box, they are both priced similarly. and you say: "So you and your brother have wireless Internet. That off course means EVERYONE else in the world has it too". WHEN DID I SAY THAT?! I used my brother as an example of why some would prefer to have it built in. I never claimed (unlike you) that the majority of people used a wireless connection. PS3 makes it convienient for those who require it, xbox thought they could grab more money of those who needed it. in that sense, PS3 gave more thought into the satisfaction of their customers. I'm not going to quote you anymore, but i will reply to some bits: my anolagy is not terrible, i am completely aware that there are offline modes. but why buy something and then have to pay for the full usage of it. i'll compare it to a film instead of a pie. you buy a dvd player, you buy a film, but then have to pay extra to watch the last 30 mins. you are paying to play the rest of the game. unfair. this is why i've never played WOW. ok, maybe "painstaking" was exaggerated, it still took a good couple of hours to write. ok then, instead of "plugging my blog" i'll write out all that research in a comment then, using up a hell of a lot of space that alot of people won't want to read. *pointless!*. your bit about proving people need all the extras, i already replied a second ago so i won't go over that again. and sorry if you took offense to my last comment, but it seemed to me you were just using this topic as an excuse to bad mouth the ps3, although this wasn't actually started by you,so i let you off a bit.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 "And for your info frazzle00, I did provide proof, its called Metal Gear Solid 4 you twit! You say we don't know how much gb it took, THE GAME WAS TOO BIG FOR A BLU-RAY!! FACT!! To fit it, they had to remove the japanese dialogue from the uk/usa game and the english for the japanese game. FACT! " ROFLOL. You poor silly little boy. Name calling really is the last resort of a desperate fanboy. MGS4 is not proof of anything. Firstly you did not provide a reference for your statement that MGS4 is TOO BIG FOR BLU-RAY. Secondly you have no idea what the data breakdown is like. If what gobbo00 says is true, than the majority of that space was taken by uncompressed audio. Hardly a necessity when it comes to gaming :D. "Therefore, the boundries are already being pushed on blu-ray, never mind dvd-9. And despite what you say about you wouldn't mind swapping 7 discs, developers aren't going to make games on 7 discs, when it is easier and cheaper to produce them on 1." Manufacturing DVDs is cheap. Dirt cheap in fact. I am also pretty sure manufacturing Blu-Ray discs is more expensive :). "As for Sony forcing us to buy the blu-ray player, no we didn't, we bought it out of choice and for their games, the movie player is a bonus. Without the blu-ray player, you can't play ps3 games, and as i've said, the demand for more memory will increase." You did not have a choice. I recommend you check the dictionary for the meaning of the word choice. If you wanted to own the PS3 for the games only, you would have NO CHOICE but pay extra for the Blu-Ray drive. And you have not provided proof that a Blu-Ray drive is a necessity for gaming. MGS4 is not the most highly reviewed game out there. There are plenty of games on DVD (e.g. Fallout 3) that have garnered just as much critical acclaim. "Your wired internet arguement is pointless, i am merely trying to equal the two consoles to dertimine a fair price. MOST people have a wired, you cannot prove that, weren't so good for my brother when he forked out an extra £70 for his wireless. not essential maybe, but very useful for those who need it."

You really are an arrogant little kid aren't you. So you and your brother have wireless Internet. That off course means EVERYONE else in the world has it too. LOL. And secondly what you have done is hardly fair, since consumers are different. That's why companies usually give consumers a choice when it comes to their goods. MS has multiple SKUs for all segments of the gaming market. Sony does not. Their strategy has obviously NOT worked. Given the fact that Kutaragi has (justifiably) been sacked it seems that there were plenty of unhappy Sony execs and shareholders as well :).

"i agree with you that xbox live is better. psn is catching up slowly, they don't exactly have the power of windows live behind it to connect people. and as brenton quite rightly said, why should you pay to play online, you've already bought the console, you've already bought the game. now you have to pay to play it. that's like buying a cooker, and a pie but then having to stick a pound in the cooker to cook the pie." ROFLOL. Your analogy is dreadful. You don't need to pay to play games on the 360. Nearly every title out there has an offline mode. BUT if you want to take advantage of a service (an excellent service at that) you need to pay more. Anyway I have replied to Brenton_2 with regards to this. "finally your first comments. i did provide facts in that blog, i painstakingly researched them and included sources for my findings. you check all the techincal aspects i mentioned and there are all facts. i proved that when compared with each other, the xbox 360 is NOT cheaper, because you have to pay alot of money to match it with the ps3 (alright it is cheaper, BY £13!) and finally i wasn't "plugging my blog" but using it to prove a point. its called "a reference"." No little boy you were simply plugging your blog. And researching prices is simple. Not painstaking. To make your argument valid, you need to prove that consumers NEED all the bells and whistles you claim are essential. Now that would require painstaking research. Good luck with that :D. "thanks brenton_2. and final thought. you may be a xbox lover. doesn't mean you have to be a ps3 hater. i like ps3, i also like the xbox 360. i just PREFER the ps3." I don't hate the PS3. I own one after all. I like watching Blu-Ray films. I also enjoyed Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and Tales of Valkyria. However as a gamer, I can't help but be disappointed with the machine, especially when, in my opinion, the cheaper Xbox 360 is so much more superior to the PS3 :D.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Brenton_2 "I don't understand why you would prefer some archaic methods to enjoying a game." Since when is swapping a disc archaic? Every time you change a game you have to swap the disc. LOL. Waiting for 7 minutes before you can play the game, now that's archaic. I thought I had left that behind with my Spectrum ZX. Thanks to the PS3 I can relive that little bit of unnecessary nostalgia, nearly every time I play a PS3 game for the first time.

"You're right, it wasn't tedious, however most commentary shows great support for having to stay in the gaming experience than to be taken out of it. Thus, it would be horrible having to swap discs in MGS4, given that it was designed to keep you wanting more of the gameplay and story."

I call sitting still and doing nothing being taken out of the game experience. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather game that sit and do nothing. I can do that simply watching TV, and that's free buddy. "Also, it is just more efficient to have all data on one disc that can contain it all, than to split it up on discs with smaller storage capacity." Efficient in what way? 'It is true that gamers who purchased the PS3 believe in paying for quality; which is why SONY PS3 owners had opted to pay for it all at once. Right out of the box, the PS3 has wireless networking, a Blu-Ray player (which wasn't "FORCED," as you say on us), a more trustworthy DVD player, and has a more powerful CELL chip. " Did you have a choice when it came to getting a Blu-Ray drive with the PS3? I didn't think so. That little buddy is called being forced. And secondly what expertise do you have with regards to computer architecture? Fanboys love to proclaim themselves as experts despite knowing absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. Lastly you can get a DVD player, that has far superior playback capabilities than the one provided by the PS3 for cheap. In fact I bet most households already have a DVD player and don't need to rely on a gaming console for their DVD viewing needs. "Therefore, in purchasing the PS3, a gamer shouldn't have to pay more to play online. He or she has already paid for an outstanding gaming console, hence paying for online play is asking too much. Why should any gamer have to pay to play a game online after having purchased it the first time? In other words, 'quality' has already been paid for upon purchasing the PS3." You pay for services, every day of your life. Just like you need to pay road tax even if you've spent a million dollars on the car, you need to pay to have access to the best online console gaming service around. I'd rather pay for Xbox Live, then be limited to the poor service on PSN. I have both consoles, and I in my opinion the PSN is a p.o.s. "The XBox 360 would amount to the same price if the owner were to buy other components such as the HD-DVD player, along with other bells and whistles to match up with the PS3. Owning a 360 myself, I am all too aware of the noisy disc drive and cooling fan, a sub-standard DVD player, and an almost unsightly brick of a power supply-its huge! Also, I have to make extra sure that my 360 doesn't heat up because of the increased chance of destroying my console as indicated by three red lights." Those "bells and whistles" are not necessary for all consumers. Please provide me any proof that 1) most gamers wanted Blu-Ray playback, 2) most gamers were concerned about DVD playback (*cough* look at the Wii *cough*) 3) most gamers spend any amount of time looking at the power supply units of their consoles. And as for reliability, well Sony has had plenty of problems with their consoles in the past. The PS1 (disc drive issues), the PS2 (disc read errors, memory card errors), and the PSP (dead pixels, bum square button, and more recently fuzzy pictures with the PSP 3000) are all examples of issues with Sony hardware. And that hasn't stopped any of these machines from being successful. I guess the same holds true for the 360. "You should also know that Microsoft did take about a four (4) billion dollar loss with their last gen console. On top of a four billion dollar loss is another one billion or so, to address aptly named "Red Ring of Death." Although SONY's PS3 has taken a three billion dollar loss, it sure doesn't seem as bad as five billion. SONY's PS3 is also doing something the first XBox didn't do last gen, which is actually catch up." Wrong again buddy. Like I said before since the PS3's release the Xbox 360 has OUTSOLD it by around 2 million units. That's not called catching up. And btw MS is doing something Sony isn't doing this generation; it's actually gaining ground in the home console market. "Developers such as Terminal Reality and Rockstar are looking to embrace the game development capability of the PS3; Terminal Reality with their 'Infernal Engine' for example. SONY also release an affordable Game Development package to help developers ease their efforts in meeting the standard of quality the PS3 has to offer." Gabe Newell has gone on record about how crap the PS3 architecture is for game development. No offense but when it comes to game development, I'd take Valve over Terminal Reality or even Rockstar any day of the week. "In essence, PS3 owners did pay for quality when they bought a console that is reliable, and offers more features than what the price suggests." Most people draw different conclusions based on the sales figures. In the previous generation the PS2 was easily the victor. This will definitely not be the case this generation. Shout about quality all you like, but sitting last in sales, having developers clamoring for a price drop, and having actual dev teams laughing at your console is never an indication of worthwhile quality :D.

gobbo00
gobbo00

Viper 1989 most (nearly all in retrospect after playing it I felt) of Metal Gear Solid 4's BD-Rom space is taken up by uncompressed audio. Uncompressed audio I would say is hardly "pushing boundries" if you have read Kojima's GDC keynote. You would know that Metal Gear as a franchise came about due to hardware limitation. Throwing "slopy code" (not in MGS4's case) and not bothering to optimise it, is what the BD-Rom is being used for at the moment I think (look at EA). I also think that this trend will continue for a long time, & that when games do start taking advantage much larger mandatory installs will be common place. Look at it like this I downloaded GTA:SA and the game came to 2.4 gig. Now compare it to GTA 4 and I think you will find the former has more content in it. Also your comment on what is cheaper that again is IF you want/need to "match it" the wireless included in the PS3 I have never used personally, since it says in the manual. "For best results use a ethernet cable" hardly a vote of confidence now is it? (please note this is from memory as the manual is not at hand so exact wording may be incorrect). Brenton 2 As for you "more powerful CELL" comment all I can say is both Sony and Microsoft have been feeding us BS about there "power". For instance the (THEORETIAL) test's for the CELL were conducted with 8 SPE's. Now the PS3 has 7 to reduce cost (less silicon wafer), & one is used to run the OS. And the Xenon processor is not able to do true full parrel treading (hyper-threding). So them theoretical numbers are less for a start (-2 SPE), that and game's run in 1080p. Nether the PS3 or 360 is able to pull of true 1080p with all the effect's expected now. So in short is the PS3 more "powerful" yes but only marginaly, will the PS3 have a "10 year life cycle" due to "future proffing". No the GPU's on both the PS3 & 360 are so far behind now they can't realy push much father than there current levels. And it's the GPU that's the key not the processor for instance if you upgrade your PC for gaming memory & processor upgrage's have little effect as opposed to a grafic's card. If anything the sightly better GPU on the 360 should (in general) produce better results, as for Killzone 2 apart from the charater models everything else look's bland (low res texture mapping) compared to them. Uncharted is a better technical demonstration of the PS3 overall caparblity (better gameplay too IMO).

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

@frazzle00 Thank you Brenton_2, an excellent comment, justifying everything I claimed. And for your info frazzle00, I did provide proof, its called Metal Gear Solid 4 you twit! You say we don't know how much gb it took, THE GAME WAS TOO BIG FOR A BLU-RAY!! FACT!! To fit it, they had to remove the japanese dialogue from the uk/usa game and the english for the japanese game. FACT! Therefore, the boundries are already being pushed on blu-ray, never mind dvd-9. And despite what you say about you wouldn't mind swapping 7 discs, developers aren't going to make games on 7 discs, when it is easier and cheaper to produce them on 1. As for Sony forcing us to buy the blu-ray player, no we didn't, we bought it out of choice and for their games, the movie player is a bonus. Without the blu-ray player, you can't play ps3 games, and as i've said, the demand for more memory will increase. Your wired internet arguement is pointless, i am merely trying to equal the two consoles to dertimine a fair price. MOST people have a wired, you cannot prove that, weren't so good for my brother when he forked out an extra £70 for his wireless. not essential maybe, but very useful for those who need it. i agree with you that xbox live is better. psn is catching up slowly, they don't exactly have the power of windows live behind it to connect people. and as brenton quite rightly said, why should you pay to play online, you've already bought the console, you've already bought the game. now you have to pay to play it. that's like buying a cooker, and a pie but then having to stick a pound in the cooker to cook the pie. finally your first comments. i did provide facts in that blog, i painstakingly researched them and included sources for my findings. you check all the techincal aspects i mentioned and there are all facts. i proved that when compared with each other, the xbox 360 is NOT cheaper, because you have to pay alot of money to match it with the ps3 (alright it is cheaper, BY £13!) and finally i wasn't "plugging my blog" but using it to prove a point. its called "a reference". thanks brenton_2. and final thought. you may be a xbox lover. doesn't mean you have to be a ps3 hater. i like ps3, i also like the xbox 360. i just PREFER the ps3.

Brenton_2
Brenton_2

To 'frazzle00,' I don't understand why you would prefer some archaic methods to enjoying a game. You say you would "...rather swap discs." Having played on the PC, I didn't like having to be ejected from the gaming experience by swapping disc every now and again. You're right, it wasn't tedious, however most commentary shows great support for having to stay in the gaming experience than to be taken out of it. Thus, it would be horrible having to swap discs in MGS4, given that it was designed to keep you wanting more of the gameplay and story. Also, it is just more efficient to have all data on one disc that can contain it all, than to split it up on discs with smaller storage capacity. It is true that gamers who purchased the PS3 believe in paying for quality; which is why SONY PS3 owners had opted to pay for it all at once. Right out of the box, the PS3 has wireless networking, a Blu-Ray player (which wasn't "FORCED," as you say on us), a more trustworthy DVD player, and has a more powerful CELL chip. Therefore, in purchasing the PS3, a gamer shouldn't have to pay more to play online. He or she has already paid for an outstanding gaming console, hence paying for online play is asking too much. Why should any gamer have to pay to play a game online after having purchased it the first time? In other words, 'quality' has already been paid for upon purchasing the PS3. The XBox 360 would amount to the same price if the owner were to buy other components such as the HD-DVD player, along with other bells and whistles to match up with the PS3. Owning a 360 myself, I am all too aware of the noisy disc drive and cooling fan, a sub-standard DVD player, and an almost unsightly brick of a power supply-its huge! Also, I have to make extra sure that my 360 doesn't heat up because of the increased chance of destroying my console as indicated by three red lights. You should also know that Microsoft did take about a four (4) billion dollar loss with their last gen console. On top of a four billion dollar loss is another one billion or so, to address aptly named "Red Ring of Death." Although SONY's PS3 has taken a three billion dollar loss, it sure doesn't seem as bad as five billion. SONY's PS3 is also doing something the first XBox didn't do last gen, which is actually catch up. Developers such as Terminal Reality and Rockstar are looking to embrace the game development capability of the PS3; Terminal Reality with their 'Infernal Engine' for example. SONY also release an affordable Game Development package to help developers ease their efforts in meeting the standard of quality the PS3 has to offer. In essence, PS3 owners did pay for quality when they bought a console that is reliable, and offers more features than what the price suggests.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@Viper_1989 Apart from you shamelessly plugging your blog, you've failed to prove anything or provide concrete facts. 1) You have not provided proof that the Blu-Ray format is essential for gaming. If PC and 360 games can keep using the DVD format why can't the PS3? Don't forget that when it comes to graphical and audio fidelity the PC easily trumps both the 360 and the PS3. And as for Blu-Ray triumphing over HD-DVD well that's simply because Sony FORCED every single PS3 owner to pay more and get a Blu-Ray player BUNDLED with their game console. Not all gamers want a Blu-Ray player or have the equipment to get the most out of it. That coupled with poor rental support and high price explains why the DVD format is still destroying the Blu-Ray format in terms of sales. And to tell you the truth I don't see the status quo changing anytime soon. 2) Like I said before there are plenty of people who have a WIRED Internet connection. In fact I am pretty sure more people have a wired connection than a wireless one. I know for a FACT that you can't prove that wireless gaming is essential for all (or even most) gamers. 3) Yes you pay for Xbox Live. You pay for it because it is a great service. A lot better than the Playstation Network. I thought all you Sony fanboys agree that you need to pay for "quality" LOL :D. 4) Firstly you have no idea how many gigs of data are actually present on the MGS4 disc. Secondly yes I'd rather swap discs, even if I have to do it 7 times. It takes me around 15 seconds to get up and swap a disc. 7* 15 = 105s which is under 2 minutes. The initial MGS4 install takes around 7 minutes. You also need to sit through smaller installs after every level. Swapping discs is obviously a lot quicker, and I value my time, thank you very much :). 5) Your and MrMeatFlap's views are in the minority. The Xbox 360 has outsold the PS3 by around 2 million since the PS3's release. So even if you disregard the 360's head start, it would still be ahead in terms of sales. Looking at current sales figures it seems that people STILL prefer the 360. I wonder why :D?

yman173
yman173

Subjective, objective, niave...call it whatever you want. Im not buying a PS3 until they drop to $299. For me, its a matter of principle because time shows that the more consoles age, the more they reduce in price. Im content with my X360 & Wii for now, and the few PS3 exclusives will still be there when Sony finally lowers the pricepoint. Chances are, the games will be cheaper by then too. I mean, really, when God of War III comes out in the fall, you dont think Sony is going to launch that with some kind of price cut? If I buy the system now, Ill be kicking myself for spending the extra $100 just because I couldnt hold my wad for 6 extra months. Please...anyone who hasnt bought a PS3 has waited this long. Whats another 6-12 months???

Viper_1989
Viper_1989

I'm sorry frazzle00 but I have to agree with MrMeatFlaps actually. And I'll support his opinions with some facts, a research blog I did for Gamespot which can be viewed here: http://uk.gamespot.com/users/Viper_1989/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25584887&tag=all-about;blog1 cut a long story short, the Xbox 360 is £13 cheaper than the PS3. And don't talk crap about how blu-ray is not essential. its already destroyed HD-DVD and when the push for bigger and better games comes, Xbox won't keep up. MGS4 for PS3, 1 blu-ray disk. If it were converted to Xbox 360? 7 dvds! That's right, 7! Now do you wanna keep swapping disks over? So I may say when the demand for bigger games comes, but MGS4 proves that demand is already here! DVD 9s aren't big enough! I gurentee that within 2 years, we'll see the announcement for the blu-ray xbox 360. or xbox will fold. So MrMeatFlaps views aren't in the minority and are now backed up with facts and research. My actual point was going to be though, why am I not surprised that the UK doens't get a price cut!

frazzle00
frazzle00

@MrMeatFlaps This post: "Finally someone understands what I am talking about. I own a 360 and just recently purchased a PS3 and it just pisses me off that people act like the $400 price tag is unwarranted. With all of the extras that it comes with you are ultimately going to come out ahead. Now granted I understand that a lot of people can't afford to purchase one but tis life, b1tching and moaning on a website is not going to accomplish anything. Sweet TV by the way." is entirely subjective. What facts have you included in this post? You also neglect to consider the fact that the issue at hand isn't that people can't afford a PS3. After all if they can afford something that is $299, why not save for a month or so more and pay $399 for a PS3? The problem is that most of the gaming public doesn't think that the PS3 is WORTH $399. Opportunity cost is the issue here, not affordability. And as for the extras you have mentioned (wi-fi, and blu-ray), the importance you have placed in them is entirely subjective. Not everyone has wireless Internet (and for that matter I am quite sure that more people in fact have WIRED Internet), and Blu-Ray whilst great for movie playback is completely unnecessary for gaming. Swapping discs is much less of an inconvenience than putting up with compulsory installs that can take up to 10 minutes. You need to grow up and realize that just because you see something as worthwhile, it doesn't mean that other people will share your view. With regards to the whole PS3 vs. 360 issue, it is obvious that your views place you in the minority. Get over it :).

MrMeatFlaps
MrMeatFlaps

@Frazzle00 "What you have said is entirely subjective. I have both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 and thus far have used my PS3 mostly to play Blu-Ray movies. Why? Simply because multiplatform titles are better on the 360 (and they make up the bulk of most gamers' libraries) and I prefer the 360 exclusives (which is obviously subjective). The buying public seems to agree with me. Why is that so hard to understand?" Tell me what part of my posts are subjective? Is it the part where I explain the difference in what the PS3 can do and what the 360 can't? And the whole dig about the buying public agreeing with you, look at almost every post before yours, they simply can't afford to purchase one which in no way makes it an inferior product. I also don't get the whole reasoning of some that state it is not worth the $399 price tag but they would buy it for $299 when nothing about the console has changed.

dark_surge
dark_surge

To titansandgators: That's what warranties are for. Chill out man. I do believe that the price drop was overdue though.

frazzle00
frazzle00

@ MrMeatFlaps What you have said is entirely subjective. I have both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 and thus far have used my PS3 mostly to play Blu-Ray movies. Why? Simply because multiplatform titles are better on the 360 (and they make up the bulk of most gamers' libraries) and I prefer the 360 exclusives (which is obviously subjective). The buying public seems to agree with me. Why is that so hard to understand?

titansandgators
titansandgators

People please stop buying that over price piece of old school console mess. You can buy a used xbox360 for 130.00. Why are people still giving the sony cash cow cash. They were not friendly to there loyal sony fans and made them pay for a 10 year old system over a 120.00 dollars to play it. They are now deciding to drop the price to sale to unfortunate homes. Give me a brake. You guys love sony so much you cant see even when they dont want nothing but your blind loyalty and money. I use to love sony until they told me to repair my ps2 years ago it will cost me 120.00 plus shipping and the system only cost me 179.00 at the time and i only had it for 1 year in 2005. Man some people love the people that take more from them than the ones that give. Its called Battered Women syndrome. Sony has been beating you guys for a long time.

kavadias1981
kavadias1981

140 million! I would have thought almost everyone already had one then.

Cabal23
Cabal23

@dannyatkinson The writing is on the wall about blu-ray. Just a bump until the next format war. It's laughable to think someone would part with their 500+ dvd's to upgrade to blu-ray. And your comment about cost is on target. A $20.00 price point for a movie is rediculous, no matter how good it looks. With tplace like Target selling dvd movies for $5-10 you would be a fool to pick blu-ray over dvd when once the movie starts you forget you are watching blu-ray anyways. Actually streaming videos will be the future with really large holodrives. The holodrive tech allows you store some ungodly amount of info on it. DVD and cd collections will be a thing of the past. People will collect them like Vinyl records and have their libraries on their multimedia/console devices.

Jak-25
Jak-25

The PS2 is a good console. PS2 would be a good choice for people who want to buy a good console with many good games for a cheap price. Now Sony needs to lower the price for the PS3 and it should sell better.

dannyatkinson
dannyatkinson

People don't believe me when I say that Blue Ray will eventually fail. The main reason that Blockbuster is having problems is that they are supporting Blue Ray. When I go into the store every single blue ray title is still on the shelf. Blue Ray is going to be Sony's slow painful death. I wish they would put out a second PS3 that is actually all about GAMES.