[[toj.cc]Phantom]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I'd get a PS3. When it hits that low as well.

Zing!

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I'd get a PS3. When it hits that low as well.

Me too.

[undeaf]

Let me just get one thing straight, you're saying that it will rule HD movies, right?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by InlineChick

Hmmm...yeah after some thinking yeah you're right.Thanks.

You also should figure in that the doubtless very powerful Cell chip in the PS3 is so new and complex that it'll take another several years before game developers can discover and exploit its potential, and that benefit passed on to consumers like you and me to the point where we can finally feel we're getting our money's worth.

Marketing at Sony claims that the console will be good for ten years, but then that is just marketing mumbo jumbo, of course. It'll be another several years before true high definition technology is more commonplace. In the mean time Blu Ray technology is a very risky venture and may or may not go the way Sony's Betamax did in the 80s. Sony is essentially putting ALL its eggs in the one basket that is the PS3, and you'd be paying the price for that risk.

Personally I would wait at least several months and watch what happens after the initial launch and, most importantly, wait until a significant price drop. $600 is far too much to spend on technology that can't be truly taken advantage of for a long time.

[undeaf]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

$600 is far too much to spend on technology that can't be truly taken advantage of for a long time.

Neither 360 or 425 quid is 600 dollars. It's more.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Quid? I was talking in U.S. currency.

[undeaf]

Ohhhhh, I thought you were talking in hong kong^W^W australian dollars. Well, 425 quid is still 800 greenbacks.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

800 for the PS3 over there? Pity you.

[undeaf]

Some places are supposed to be getting gouged even more than england, in denmark it'll be $950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3#Rel...ta_and_pricing

But no one's going to be forced to get a PS3. Well, maybe in japan...

[SoccerDude28]

I'll probably buy all three consoles at one point or the other. I am not usually an early adopter so I will wait a little for their prices to drop.

As far as the PS3 cost goes, well I used to pay 500 dollars for a graphics card that got outdated in 2 years, so I can handle a couple of hundreds extra. Yes the PS3 is kinda expensive, but 200 dollars difference between the PS3 and the 360 is not that big of a deal that all these Microsoft fanboys are making it out to be. It's funny how people think that 200 dollars is a lot more to pay than a 360, but then they go and shed 60 dollars on a single game. You are getting more for these 200 dollars too like HDMI support (something you'll have to pay for with the 360), 40 Gigs more hard disk space (20 Gig hard drive of 360 costs 100 dollars), a blue ray DVD player (HD DVD add on costs 150 dollars), and 1080p output. So you are not paying 200 more for vaporware but for real extra hardware features that will probably be very relevent soon.

[bysmitty]

For me at least, HDMI, Blue Ray, and 1080p are useless features that I will never use. So yeah, it is not paying for vaporware but it is paying to have a bunch of useless (for me) features crammed down my throat. What I do like about the package is not only the option for the bigger 60gig drive but the fact that it is removable so you can swap in larger drives later. With the rise of downloadable demos and content plus that Sony keeps talking about caching (read: installing) games to the drive before you can play them, 20gig and 60gig drives will be filling up in no time. I think that is the main misstep of Microsoft so far is the small (or lack of) hard drive.

On other topics, I keep hearing about all the miracles that cell will perform. Who cares, this is a CPU. Besides the fact that multithreaded applications are very tough to code, games are putting very little on CPUs now-a-days anyway, especially at higher resolutions such as 1080p. The beef should be in the GPU (video card). On any modern game, what CPU you have plays very little role in how a game will perform. Basically, at 1280x1024 and above, an amd 3200+ will be just as comparable to an amd fx-62 due to GPU bottlenecking. The RSX GPU in the ps3 is only going to be running at 500mhz core/650mhz memory, which is only about the power of 1 7800gtx. Even by today’s standards in the computer world, that is pretty tame. For a machine that is supposed to be in use 6 years from now, that is scary.

...bysmitty