Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Problems Parried
Via Joystiq, an article on Gaming Horizon defending the PS3 from its detractors. The article looks at a number of the biggest concerns about the system (price, HD, rumble, blu-ray), and attempts to explain why most of these problems are nothing to worry about. From the article: "As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade. There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to 'replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up), but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle, and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available."
Defend it all you want. That doesn't change the fact it's still gonna cost $600, which I don't have.
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
The author must be having a dot-com bubble flashback about the rate of technology adoption. Nearly 1/3 of all active internet users in the US are still on dialup (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0604/). If that's "all but eliminated" I'll be happy to play poker with you.
whether the PS3 rocks or not, it's still going to be niche. the niche being people with much more disposable income.
$600 for the system, $50 or so for a game, and $2000 for an HDTV if you want to get the most out of the system. thats quite a bit, even for me, and i have a lot of disposable income. the pricetag will turn off a lot of gamers who have control of their own fincances and find that they are too tight to splurge that much cash on a new game system.
Yawn!!! 500,000 units should be more than enough for the PS/3 launch. This time last year most of my gamer friends where debating pre-orders of the Xbox360 versus standing in line for the initial release. Fast forward to now--only one of my friends is contemplating picking up a PS/3--and he has no plans to pre-order. Personally, I'll be waiting until the PS/3 has proven to be a must have.
But if you are spending $500 in the first place, you must be doing so because you believe in Sony's vision of Blu-Ray and HD as the future even if it's more expensive than we've seen in the past. Once sold on the $500 system, the $600 one seems more future-proof with HDMI and a bigger hard drive. Sure, you can upgrade the $500 one in some ways, but you'll never get HDMI and the cost (and trouble) of the upgrade narrows the price difference anyway.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I hate how I see more and more people these days discussing the upgrade from 'Standard Definition' DVD's to HD-DVD (and the ilk) as being comparable to the upgrade from dialup to broadband, audio tape to CD or VHS to DVD.
The HD-DVD format doesn't bring many other new features to the table other than higher quality audio and video.
A more accurate comparison would push from VHS to SVHS (link). The SVHS medium did not offer many new features other than an increase in quality.
If anything, that only proved that consumers do not see value in a simple increase in quality.
Off topic, but it needed to be said.
And then people learn that unless they need HDMI they are getting a PS3 that does everything they need for 499.
Gosh, $499 is such a bargain compared to $599, you've completely changed my mind about buying a PS3.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
the PlayStation 3 will be releasing in just a few months
Well I guess that depends where you live.
Spin, hype, hate, and fanboy adoration are quite typical in this business
True, but how often do you see such a large percentage of previous fanboys switch to being haters before the product even launches?
Decided to stop there because the rest of the article is very contradictory and they "point - counterpoint" themselves without my help. Example:
When defending the PS3 price they say well its got extra stuff like HDMI.
When defending why the base system won't support HDMI they say because people don't really need it.
Summarizing there a bit but thats how the rest of the article comes off.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
You obviously missed it, but with 80% of produced PS3s being the $600 version, most people buying a PS3 will be spending at least $600, simply because the vast majority of PS3s available will cost $600. So, yes, saying the PS3 costs $600 is basically true.
Yep, for an extra $100, you can upgrade your $500 PS3 into a $600 PS3 minus the HDMI port! What a bargin!
No, really. Assume that a wireless adapter costs $20 and that most USB wireless adapters will work with the PS3. (As TiVo Series 2 owners know, fat chance on that happening.) Assume you get a card reader that costs $20. That leaves us with $60 for the hard drive, which is about the cheapest you can expect to spend.
The only reason to stick with the $500 version is if you don't need wireless, don't need the card reader, and don't need the HDMI port. Don't forget that if you want to grab your save games and head over to a friend's house, you'll need a card reader. Upgrading individual components is barely worth the money saved, epecially with PS3 games expected to cost $60-$100.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I won't dispute this statement, but it's not enough. Just because an HDTV is affordable doesn't mean that a person is going to buy it. If a person needs to buy a new TV in 1-2 years, he will probably find that HDTV's are affordable. But very few people find themselves in this situation. Even when all OTA signals are DTV, he'll probably buy a converter box instead of a new TV. With the exception of my first TV, all of my home electronic purchases have been upgrades, and I only bought them because I had the extra cash. Very few people will ditch their regular TV just for a PS3.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
My third-party wireless bridge cost me US$20. Free shipping if you buy something else to go over the $25 limit. Works great with the XBox, PS2, 360, took me all of two minutes to configure for WEP128.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
They already have caved. SCEA's Kaz Hirai has said that "I don't think consumers expect software pricing to suddenly double. ... So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me, but, again, I don't expect it to be $100."
So, yeah, we're looking at $70-$100 games for the PS3.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
*Note, I'm not a Nintendo Fanboy, but I do have a bias towards the Wii*
Dude 1: Look at your game shelf, odds are you have 10-12 mediocre games there which total up to as much a PS3. Which would you rather have?
Me: A bit of misdirection since it doesn't factor in the extra 10-12 mediocre titles I'm eventually gonna end up with for the PS3
Dude 2: The 360 is only $400, but the PS3 is better with stuff like WiFi plus it's cheaper than any other BluRay player and then there's the cost of Xbox Live.
Me: I'll partly concede. The PS3 is a cheap BluRay drive, but I'm not sure I want a BR drive. I also don't feel that the PS3 will provide a $200 better gaming experience.
Dude 3: Consumer Electronics are getting more expensive, people are used to paying more for advanced technology such as the latest HiDef video camera.
Me: Ya, but that doesn't excuse Sony from having to justify costing more than its two competitors.
Me: This point and resulting counterpoints are lame, I'm skipping it.
Me: Another semi-lame point. It is true that High Def is not an important feature for many people without the sets for it. I also believe that gameplay is always better than graphics. But I do not think that it is bad to start pushing HD on consoles. I think that HD saturation will become more common as the console's lifetime progresses. It's not like Regular Def TVs are left out (Unless you want to read the text in Dead Rising).
Them: Not really in their control due to patent issues, tilt sensing is a shameless Wii rip off but it could be half decent, and Force Feedback is gimmicky anyways.
Me: I see them both as minor features, I don't think this is a huge issue. That said, the Wii gets movement sensing AND rumble.
Them: Console launches have never had 'enough' units. Plus, it's the units shipped by end of year that really matters. Also, supply shortages have been over dramatized before to create demand
Me: Fair point. Although I fo think that Sony might face a problem if supply is too short and people go in to pick up a Christmas present and end up walking out with a shiny new Wii since the 5 PS3's the store recieved have already been sold.
Them: People said this about the PS2 and DVDs
Me: I'm not getting into a HD-DVD vs BluRay vs Good Old DVD debate.
Dude 1: They said this about the PS2 Emotion Engine. Game developers should get used to the Cell and later PS3 games should look really good.
Me: Well, duh, they're going to get better at it if they use it a lot, but I don't see that doesn't mean its a good architecture.
Dude 2: Launch titles are gonna suck anyways, they'll get better at it, and programmers are whiny.
No comment
Dude 3: Off the record, I have heard of problems from developers. However, a hard architecture means great exclusives, buggy ports.
Me: Great exclusives are always nice, but I don't see Madden 0X running with less bugs on the XBox as a PS3 bonus.
Dude 4: On the flip side the XBox development kit could be to simple or "ametuer" plus the guys working on Full Auto 2 really like
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Those are some flawed arguments. I cant even convine my brother in law to get high speed internet even thought the price difference is only about $5 a month. I would think most concider vastly improved access to information far more valuable than the ability to see the pimples on Jessica Simpsons forehead. If you cant convince over 1/3rd of the country to go to something that is actually more than just visually improved in over 10 years or so how long do you really think its going to take for true penetration of HDTV by the majority. One big difference is the upfront costs, Internet accounts are paid for monthly and as a recurring expense it easier to move about when desired. HDTV is a large upfront expense that doesnt make alot of sense to joe sixpack who's TV is working fine already. You can of course make the same argument about both Blu-Ray and HDDVD but only one of them is being forced on you. But then I guess im just surrounded by bumpkins and hillbillies since the "majority" gladly spend a grand upgrading their entertainment center all the time and I dont know anyone who does.
I have a feeling the PS3 is going to be remembered as the NeoGeo of the current generation consoles. I remember when I was a teenager drooling over the Neogeo, I wanted one sooo bad but it was too expensive for my parents to be willing to buy it and all my attempts to save enough ended up in me spending it on something that I found I wanted more. Moms and Dads at christmas with more money than sense will buy junior a ps3 but I will bet the majority will be looking hard at the Wii. Regardless of your view of nintendo their price point is going to make it hard for parents shopping for a new console to reason the cost of the PS3 and probably even the Xbox 360.
Almost every one of their 'counter points' is just a canned fanboy response that doesn't make much sense. After reading this article I actually have less faith in the PS3 succeeding.
"Much as the inclusion of the DVD format may have pushed many gamers over the edge to purchase the PS2 ("Hey mom, it can play movies too!"), if Blu-Ray ends up edging-out the HD-DVD format, it's another quality that'll make the system more versatile, which is never a bad thing."
Comparing the DVD/PS2 upgrade to BlueRay/PS3 is completely different. DVD was a proven technology, provided MANY immediate consumer benefits (no rewinding, much higher resolution, much better sound, no media degridation, smaller format), and had no competing technology.
Sony really should of delayed BluRay, only around 10-20% of US households have a HDTV and even less care about HD gaming. With the advent of DVRs and media streaming just around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if both HDDVD and BlueRay never take off. Media streaming provides the next immediate consumer benefit (no media to physically move around).
Sony putting BluRay in the PS3 will probably turn out to be the worst decision ever made in the companies history.
"Ryan (TUS): Consumer electronics today have begun to cost more and more, and considering what comes included with the $599 PS3 super-package, I'm honestly surprised that it isn't more expensive." The cost appropriateness of the PS3 aside, does anyone believe the first part of this statement to be true? It seems to me, that by their very nature consumer electronics go down in price over time. Currently even high end PCs are considerably less expensive than low end PCs a decade ago. Even "new" entries into the market are less expensive than similar forrunners. When DVRs started to emerge they were less expensive than the original VCRs and the cost of even moderately sized HDTVs are less than the very first (black & white) consumer televisions. I know that people believe that prices increase over time, and that is true for many things, but I can think of very few cases where this is true in the consumer electronics market, especially for already existing markets.
I read this, and I said, "WHA?! He wants it to cost MORE?!" The emphasis here should be placed on several hundred dollars, of which the PS3 is not. It is not several. It is a BUNDLE of hundred dollars. It is a multitude, or a plethora of hundreds of dollars, spent on a single item that demands other hundreds of dollars to be spent on upgrading the rest of one's entertainment system, to make the whole ordeal worthwhile. A video camera doesn't demand you upgrade your television, and upgrading your entertainment system usually gets you a whole lot more than a PS3.
Excuse me? I'm not a gamer because I don't happen to have 600 dollars lying around that I can throw at a game system when it launches? I'm not a gamer because I'm a college student, or perhaps I'm on a tight income? This disgusts me. It's a slap in the face.
Again, a sort of slap in the face, implying that anyone who liked the rumble feature is stupid. Also, way to sidestep the fact that the Wii gets you the response to direct actions on TOP of vibration. Must... resist... urge... to strangle... Sony fanboy...
Question sidestepped, and point completely missed. Every PS3 sold is a PS3 Sony hasn't made money on. If there's a shortage on launch day, Sony is not, somehow, making imaginary money on these systems not sold. The fact that the Wii will be releasing at the same time or earlier makes the whole thing even more dangerous. If someone can't get a PS3, what's to stop them from buying an 360 AND a Wii instead? Launch is vital. Plus, if Sony can't get their act together for launch, what's to say they can pull off their projected end of the year quotes anyway?
Really now? That's one I've never heard. DVD did well because of the PS2. If that's not the most fanboyish thing I've ever heard... next they'll be telling me that the PS2 contributed to the polio vaccine. DVDs succeeded because they were better than VHSes. They are more compact, last longer, easier to use (does anyone even remember having to rewind VHS tapes anymore?), cheaper... not because they happened to be compatible with the PS2.
HOW INTERESTING! All Launch games suck? So, Super Mario 64 sucked? You're going to tell me that Legend of Zelda:
No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.