Yep, it's not worth it today so buy it today for the value it will have tomorrow.

Or you could wait until tomorrow and see if that value materializes and, if it does, you could buy it then, lose nothing, and get a better price on a better PS3 with more features.

The thing would make a crappy HD DVR without a much bigger drive.

 Well they're my predictions.

Is it wrong to enjoy watching HD fanboys split hairs over which version of HD games are better on which console?

@ssj12

I demand proof about Grand Theft Auto 4. Otherwise I am calling you out for being totally full of shit. The speculation last year was that in was the Sony version of the game lagging far behind the 360 version of said game. So how can the PS3 be the lead platform. After all the lead platform leads does it not. I mean you can say lead as in it lead to the game being delayed half a year.

@topic of game quality

I think it has been proven with a high degree of certainty. That both consoles are for most part visually equal. Lesser developers cannot make use adequate use of the Cell leading to poorer quality visuals. While more adept developers might be able to get more out of the Cell. However it is not much more if any at all.

Regardless hardly a decent argument for spending much more money. That could easily be spent on more games. Which the 360 has in abundance. The reality is when the games are for multiple platforms they are going to be visually equal, because the developer is going to design the game so as to play on both platforms.

well the people who buy it today, are the reason people are going to buy it tomorrow. so regardless of whether or not you buy it now, you will buy it. :P

@ultimate: well you do have a picture of ralph for president, so i see it goes along with your style.

Nice excuse. If your product has to sell on "potential", you have a problem. That kind of thing flies in the stock market (which it really shouldn't, as selling on "potential" is what crashed the stock market so horribly in 1929), but not in the consumer market. Most people are interested in what a product can do for them now, not what it might be able to do for them at some undefined point in the future.

Seems as some pointed out that this may be old or out of context etc. Honestly as I mentioned in my comments this is just something my cousin and I just always found amusing even before any execs said anything we both always assumed that those paying for a ps3 at the time where just doing it mainly for games that wouldn't even come out for years to come. Perfect example of that was mgs4. Obviously as I also mentioned in my comments that does not appear to be the case anymore as there are plenty of games available that show that the PS3 is indeed capable of some great things again using mgs4 as an example. In the end I posted this really as a joke that my cousin and I have been discussing for a long time but obviously nobody else would care unless it also came from SONY or someone worth mentioning etc.

Just to give an example of a great PS3 feature that my cousin and I always talked about is the remote play with the PSP. It is now available in some games and it kicks ass. That is a potential that has for the most part been met and I hope it only gets better.

You're boring. Ever so boring. Maybe you should write a book entitled 'my mommy wont buy me a PS3 so i have to abuse it on an internet forum to make it look like i dont care'

So, what they're saying is "Pay 500$ for it now, because at some point in the future you'll get awesome games" but that ignores the fact that they'll probably have another price drop sometime next year.

Actually, what I meant to say is "Lolsony, they has crazy execs"