*All the same exclusive games that 103+ million people bought Playstation 2s for (so why not just play them on that)
What do you mean by "same exclusive games"? You obviously don't mean same exclusive series. Yeah, you can play Metal Gear Solid 2 on the PS2 and not buy the PS3, but if you want to continue the story, then you'll want Metal Gear Solid 4. That, and games just get old after playing them 30+ times.
*Complate backwards compatibility with 8000+ Playstation games (when it decideds to work properly)
Yeah, because you totally have a Playstation 3 that doesn't work with your original Playstation games to make that statement.
*Free online play for all non-MMORPG games. Nothing new here
Except that Xbox Live charges $5 a month. You know, after 5 years (average console lifespan), that averages out to an extra $250 on the console. Nothing new sure is right, if you just like making stuff up that is.
*Linux. To what end? I'm sure it will be just as huge a success as Linux on PS2 was.......
Linux wasn't included on the PS2, was meant for hobbyist and Linux enthusiasts, and sold for $200. That just might have something to do with Linux on the PS2 not being a success.
Compared to the 200-250 Wii which looks to be fun at parties and can produce graphics that are more than adequate, all the while maintaining an aura of FUN vs just being eye-candy.
How do you know the Wii will be fun? Yeah, Nintendo is a game company and Sony is an electronics company, but just because Sony is selling the PS3 as a media center rather than selling it as "just a game machine", doesn't make the Wii any more fun. Unless, of course, whatever some high-ranking Sony executive says somehow displeases you to the point where gameplay is actually hindered. But I doubt you (or anyone else for that matter) are that shallow, right?
Or the XBox 360 which will end up costing you over 700 bucks for the non-worthless version over four to five years, vs a system that will cost you well over $2000 up front to use it to its full potential ($600 for a non-crippled PS3, $200 for a few games, $1200+ on the low end for a TV that supports HDMI so you don't lose 1080p playback when HDCP is implemented). And that doesn't include a keyboard or mouse to actually USE the "other desktop apps" properly. Or the overpriced accessories.
Yes, the 1080p support is a feature of the PS3, but that doesn't mean you should run out and get a 1080p capable television (Sony thinks you should and wants you to, but again, are you shallow enough to be affected by someone making 8 figures a year and on the otherside of the planet has to say about what you want to buy?). And is it really important to include "overpriced accessories", considering that ALL console accessories are overpriced? And the keyboard and mouse support is a good thing. I can tell you it will be much better than a controller pad when it comes to First Person Shooters.
It's really sad to see something like that modded up as "Insightful" when it lacks logic. But then again, anything anti-Sony gets modded up, regardless of how outlandish the comment is.
It's a game console, there's no excuse for it to cost six hundred bucks.
You're absolutely right. The 2x Blu-ray player, 60GB hard drive, free online service, Wi-Fi, HDMI port, and have absolutely nothing to do with the price. After all it is just a game console, right?
It didn't work for Neo-Geo (which was by far the most powerful console in its day) and it won't work for the PS3.
The Neo-Geo was released at $649.99 with absolutely no fan base, no developer support, and its games were $200+ each. The Playstation 3 has a huge fanbase, a lot of developer support, and its games can't be more than $59.99 because consoles are just tools to sell games and to price the games themselves higher than the competition would really be suicide.
It'll work better than it did for the Neo-Geo, because it will have the shiny SONY emblem on it, but it's still going to hurt 'em, and bad.
Like I said, Neo-Geo didn't have a fanbase and didn't have much in the way of developer support, and its games were insanely expensive. That is certainly not the case now.
Hey, now don't be comparing the control scheme of the Xbox with something like the Dual Shock II. At least its thumbsticks were next to eachother, instead of opposite sides of the controller!
The PS3's games are all going to use blu-ray discs. If the format tanks, does that mean my days of playing Metal Gear Solid will be over or will interactive media be entirely unaffected?
If I remember correctly, $494 was how much it cost Sony to produce the Playstation 2. This means that it should be no problem for Sony to sell the Playstation 3 at a reasonable price to consumers.
Besides, Sony has learned from the PSX that selling a game console with a lot of features for a consumer-unfriendly price will only hurt them in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
*Complate backwards compatibility with 8000+ Playstation games (when it decideds to work properly)What do you mean by "same exclusive games"? You obviously don't mean same exclusive series. Yeah, you can play Metal Gear Solid 2 on the PS2 and not buy the PS3, but if you want to continue the story, then you'll want Metal Gear Solid 4. That, and games just get old after playing them 30+ times.
*Free online play for all non-MMORPG games. Nothing new hereYeah, because you totally have a Playstation 3 that doesn't work with your original Playstation games to make that statement.
*Linux. To what end? I'm sure it will be just as huge a success as Linux on PS2 was.......Except that Xbox Live charges $5 a month. You know, after 5 years (average console lifespan), that averages out to an extra $250 on the console. Nothing new sure is right, if you just like making stuff up that is.
*Tilt controller that they copied from NintendoLinux wasn't included on the PS2, was meant for hobbyist and Linux enthusiasts, and sold for $200. That just might have something to do with Linux on the PS2 not being a success.
Compared to the 200-250 Wii which looks to be fun at parties and can produce graphics that are more than adequate, all the while maintaining an aura of FUN vs just being eye-candy.Except that they filed a patent for the PS3 tilt controller back in 1999 and there was also a news article in 2003 that suggested the PS3 may have motion-sensing technology. Yep, they totally ripped off Nintendo again.
Or the XBox 360 which will end up costing you over 700 bucks for the non-worthless version over four to five years, vs a system that will cost you well over $2000 up front to use it to its full potential ($600 for a non-crippled PS3, $200 for a few games, $1200+ on the low end for a TV that supports HDMI so you don't lose 1080p playback when HDCP is implemented). And that doesn't include a keyboard or mouse to actually USE the "other desktop apps" properly. Or the overpriced accessories.How do you know the Wii will be fun? Yeah, Nintendo is a game company and Sony is an electronics company, but just because Sony is selling the PS3 as a media center rather than selling it as "just a game machine", doesn't make the Wii any more fun. Unless, of course, whatever some high-ranking Sony executive says somehow displeases you to the point where gameplay is actually hindered. But I doubt you (or anyone else for that matter) are that shallow, right?
Yes, the 1080p support is a feature of the PS3, but that doesn't mean you should run out and get a 1080p capable television (Sony thinks you should and wants you to, but again, are you shallow enough to be affected by someone making 8 figures a year and on the otherside of the planet has to say about what you want to buy?). And is it really important to include "overpriced accessories", considering that ALL console accessories are overpriced? And the keyboard and mouse support is a good thing. I can tell you it will be much better than a controller pad when it comes to First Person Shooters.
It's really sad to see something like that modded up as "Insightful" when it lacks logic. But then again, anything anti-Sony gets modded up, regardless of how outlandish the comment is.
You're absolutely right. The 2x Blu-ray player, 60GB hard drive, free online service, Wi-Fi, HDMI port, and have absolutely nothing to do with the price. After all it is just a game console, right?
It didn't work for Neo-Geo (which was by far the most powerful console in its day) and it won't work for the PS3.The Neo-Geo was released at $649.99 with absolutely no fan base, no developer support, and its games were $200+ each. The Playstation 3 has a huge fanbase, a lot of developer support, and its games can't be more than $59.99 because consoles are just tools to sell games and to price the games themselves higher than the competition would really be suicide.
It'll work better than it did for the Neo-Geo, because it will have the shiny SONY emblem on it, but it's still going to hurt 'em, and bad.Like I said, Neo-Geo didn't have a fanbase and didn't have much in the way of developer support, and its games were insanely expensive. That is certainly not the case now.
Hey, now don't be comparing the control scheme of the Xbox with something like the Dual Shock II. At least its thumbsticks were next to eachother, instead of opposite sides of the controller!
The PS3's games are all going to use blu-ray discs. If the format tanks, does that mean my days of playing Metal Gear Solid will be over or will interactive media be entirely unaffected?
You're learning an invaluable lesson. I congratulate you.
The game industry is expected to double yet again in 2022.
If I remember correctly, $494 was how much it cost Sony to produce the Playstation 2. This means that it should be no problem for Sony to sell the Playstation 3 at a reasonable price to consumers.
Besides, Sony has learned from the PSX that selling a game console with a lot of features for a consumer-unfriendly price will only hurt them in the long run.