By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Does Sony's PS3 value argument hold up?

ymeaga1n on 29 March 2009
City17 said:
ymeaga1n said:
greenmedic88 said:
It's extremely safe to say that onboard WiFi isn't adding $100 to the price of a PS3. The Wii has it. Even the $130 DS has it. It's a standard feature these days whether used or not.

The question should really be why the hell doesn't MS add it to the next MoBo redesign?

Answer: to sell $100 adapters for a $200 console.

As for Blu-Ray, that's what the games are published on. If you want to use it watch BD movies or not, whatever; it's there.

And there lies the biggest mistake sony made this generation. Forcing bluray adoption at the expense of its playstation franchise. Bluray wasn't necessary for gaming and is inferior to DVDs for gaming in all regards except space. It astounds me that people actually argue bluray adds value when the only reason it was put in the ps3 is to push sony's agenda. Forcing consumers that don't care for bluray to fork over the extra several hundred for the PS3.

 

Pushing SONY agenda includes trying to protect themselves from piracy.  I'd say they did a very good job with that for now thanks to BLU-RAY.  With the amount of amazing in house developers to protect I can see why this is so important to them. 

 

Not sure how you're argument has anything to do with what I was saying. You're telling me sony forced consumers to pay the extra cash for the bluray player so the can prevent piracy.

How does this make the gaming experience better to consumers? To make more money for sony by preventing piracy?

 




Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 29 March 2009
Pipedream24 said:

Yes it does. For everything that is included in the system (even it's current configuration), it is a good deal. The problem is with the general publics perception of what a console should cost. Twenty-five years ago the NES released for $199 dollars. It's now 2009 and people still think $199 is what a console should cost.

 

 

 

 

 

When the NES was released people would spend $5,000 on a PC just so that they could do basic word-processing ... At a time when you can buy a $300 PC which is more than adequate to do practically anything except for playing games, why should a dedicated gaming system be dramatically more expensive than historical norms?

 



ymeaga1n on 29 March 2009
haxxiy said:
ymeaga1n said:
greenmedic88 said:
It's extremely safe to say that onboard WiFi isn't adding $100 to the price of a PS3. The Wii has it. Even the $130 DS has it. It's a standard feature these days whether used or not.

The question should really be why the hell doesn't MS add it to the next MoBo redesign?

Answer: to sell $100 adapters for a $200 console.

As for Blu-Ray, that's what the games are published on. If you want to use it watch BD movies or not, whatever; it's there.

And there lies the biggest mistake sony made this generation. Forcing bluray adoption at the expense of its playstation franchise. Bluray wasn't necessary for gaming and is inferior to DVDs for gaming in all regards except space. It astounds me that people actually argue bluray adds value when the only reason it was put in the ps3 is to push sony's agenda. Forcing consumers that don't care for bluray to fork over the extra several hundred for the PS3.

 

Lol, wtf?

- Mostly region free, unlike DVD which has 9 freaking regions;

- Mandatory hard-coating, ie no disc scratching by drivers;

- I assue you're talking about PS3 drive, since you need only a 6x bd drive to outperform 20x DVD. 8x BD drivers are already on the market and soon we'll see 10-12x.

Among others, BD allows 7:1 lossless sound and high-res cutscenes/CGI on PS3.

lol, wtf?

- regions argument? oh yeah, REGION FREE, I can take my game bought in the USA and go to butt fuck egypt to play on a ps3 there.

- mandatory installing. ie http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ps3+mandatory+install

- you know, you're absolutely right. Too bad the ps3 has a 2x blu ray drive huh? Put that in your calculator then explain to me how it outperforms the 12x dvd drive in the xbox.

 




ymeaga1n on 29 March 2009
Staude said:
ymeaga1n said:
greenmedic88 said:
It's extremely safe to say that onboard WiFi isn't adding $100 to the price of a PS3. The Wii has it. Even the $130 DS has it. It's a standard feature these days whether used or not.

The question should really be why the hell doesn't MS add it to the next MoBo redesign?

Answer: to sell $100 adapters for a $200 console.

As for Blu-Ray, that's what the games are published on. If you want to use it watch BD movies or not, whatever; it's there.

And there lies the biggest mistake sony made this generation. Forcing bluray adoption at the expense of its playstation franchise. Bluray wasn't necessary for gaming and is inferior to DVDs for gaming in all regards except space. It astounds me that people actually argue bluray adds value when the only reason it was put in the ps3 is to push sony's agenda. Forcing consumers that don't care for bluray to fork over the extra several hundred for the PS3.

 

how is it inferior ? speed ?. but it's Scratch Resistant another way it's physically superior.:p

 

haha

 




mjc2021 on 29 March 2009

For what its worth a lot of $300 PCs nowadays can produce better visuals than the Wii. Stick in a $100 video card and you have a machine than can basically produce what the PS3 does.



Around the Network
bouzane on 29 March 2009

@ymeaga1n

Unless I'm mistaken the 360 can only read dual layer DVD's at 8x speed.

@haxxiy

Remember that the PS3's blu-ray drive is a CLV (constant linear velocity) drive due to its low read speed. This eliminates the load time reducing technique of caching the most commonly accessed data on the outer layer of the disk. Having a CLV drive is one of the PS3's biggest weaknesses.



Rpruett on 29 March 2009

Since Blu-Ray is poised to become the next format for movie watching and is something most people will eventually own. Yes the PS3 on Blu-Ray alone wins from a value standpoint.

Add in free internet (When you're competitor makes you pay 50$/year for an XBL subscription), free features like Playstation Home, etc.

Toss in a WiFi adapter (Which WiFi is rapidly growing in homes) and the fact that it's primary competitor charges you 100$ for one.



PS3 is easily the better value and it's not even debatable.




With that being said, depending on your situation it might not be the console that you want. If you have no desire to play online, own an SD TV and don't have a quality PC and you won't have many or any of these things anytime in the forseeable future? You're probably better off buying a 360.



bdbdbd on 29 March 2009

@Rpruett: What if i don't need Wi-Fi? Cable and telephone plugs are next to my TV, so i could plug my modem there just as well.

What value does BD bring to me? I have an SDTV without plans to buy HD one. Besides, the BD drive in PS3 is read only, it should be rewritable before it really could be said being useful, so the BD drive in PS3 is inferior to my DVD player.

Then, i buy my games consoles to play games on them. Not to watch movies. For the purpose PS3 offers the biggest price for the value. And it really isn't debatable.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Rpruett on 29 March 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Rpruett: What if i don't need Wi-Fi? Cable and telephone plugs are next to my TV, so i could plug my modem there just as well.

What value does BD bring to me? I have an SDTV without plans to buy HD one. Besides, the BD drive in PS3 is read only, it should be rewritable before it really could be said being useful, so the BD drive in PS3 is inferior to my DVD player.

Then, i buy my games consoles to play games on them. Not to watch movies. For the purpose PS3 offers the biggest price for the value. And it really isn't debatable.

Well if you had read my last paragraph in the original response you wouldn't have such misconception.  If you don't need WiFi (And never will) and have an SDTV (With no plans of upgrading to an HD TV) or don't intend on watching Blu-Ray movies ever,   then you really don't have much of a reason for a PS3 and might find the value for the 360 to be better. 

And no, the PS3 Blu-Ray Player is in no way inferior to your 'DVD Player'.

You can play games on the PS3 as well (It's not just a movie player).  So like I said,  it comes down to what you're looking for.   Read above in my original response if you need anymore clarity.

 

 



The on 29 March 2009

It's $400 for christ's sake. We're in 2009. The PS2 sold like crazy at $300 back in 2000, that was quite an amount of money back then (and that price tag was unchanged until MAY 2002)

PS2:

did NOT have ethernet or wifi
did NOT have a hard drive
did NOT have FREE online gaming
did NOT have wireless rechargable BLUE-TOOTH controllers
did NOT play any media content except for CDs/DVDs
did NOT have USB ports
did NOT have cutting edge disc format player (DVD was quite popular and affordable already in late 2000, in comparison Blu-ray launched with the PS3)

it DID have something to its "advantage" in that it played its prior generation games. PS3 doesn't do that anymore, but I wonder who cared to play PS1 games that much on their PS2s. Anyway, for whatever it's worth there were PS3s and, to some extent, still can be found that are able to play PS2 games, and upscale them for HD displays to boot.

Once you bought your PS2 you certainly HAD TO pay at least $35 for a Sony Memory Card. Most people who gamed a lot and cherished their precious saves ended up buying more than one. That's $335 in the year 2000,2001, half of 2002.

$400 for a high-quality marvelous system in 2009. Is that too much to ask? have gamers become so cheap? christ, lord almighty.....