Ten reasons to wait for the PS3

ddtrane · Post by **ddtrane** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:27 pm

I found this article to be full of bull. I don't have my 360 yet, but that is in no way mean I'm waiting for a PS3. I will be getting one after my HDTV purchase. Read on, you may agree or disagree.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/668/668446p1.html

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:35 pm

Is it true that Sony is making the PS3 so it will not be able to play used games?

That probably wont stop me from getting one but it sure is a big kick in a loyal customers balls.

CincyKid · Post by **CincyKid** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:03 pm

i dont know about any of that...but if and when the time comes that they can show me off something from the next generations version of sonys mlb the show series

ohhhh yeahhh

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:19 pm

I can only see ONE reason to buy a PS3 over a 360...BluRay support. 1080p is just now showing up at stores and is very expensive just like early HDTV's.

However, what you HAVEN'T heard from Sony is how much more is the PS3 going to cost BECAUSE of BluRay support. I keep hearing rumors from reputable sources of LATE 2006 launch and $499 + for standard package BECAUSE of BluRay. Again, just rumors, but Sony won't likely be willing to take too big of a hit on each machine since the 360 will possibly be out for a year prior to launch....

I will buy a PS3, but it will be primarily for the BluyRay drive and offline play. I don't see anything in their feature list that comes even remotely close to XBox Live.....relying on developer support is NOT the way to go for online play. Sony may have been "forward-thinking" from a hardware perspective, but their online feature perspective appears to be non-existent...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 3:21 pm

Here's the 10 reasons why I'm not buying a PS3:

1. Xbox Live is far superior to any online solution Sony offers through developers and publishers.

2. I don't want a PS3.

3-10. See Nos. 1-2.

Merry Christmas,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:15 pm

pk500 wrote:Here's the 10 reasons why I'm not buying a PS3:

1. Xbox Live is far superior to any online solution Sony offers through developers and publishers.

2. I don't want a PS3.

3-10. See Nos. 1-2.

Merry Christmas,
PK

^^^What he said...

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:26 pm

pk500 wrote:Here's the 10 reasons why I'm not buying a PS3:

1. Xbox Live is far superior to any online solution Sony offers through developers and publishers.

2. I don't want a PS3.

3-10. See Nos. 1-2.

Merry Christmas,
PK

Well I was going to say the number one reason to wait on a PS3 is that you don't care about online gaming at all.

I want a PS3 and I will definitely buy one, but I just can't see it being better than the Xbox 360 given what little value Sony places on online gaming. From the first day I got an Xbox, I bet I didn't put 20 more hours on my PS2.

fanatic · Post by **fanatic** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:59 pm

Because I´m in between living arrangements and tv´s, I basically have to wait until the PS3 is released to make my decision between it and the 360.

However, online gaming isnt a factor for me as I spend most of my time offline with franchises, etc....

I will take the wait and see approach.....But the Blue Ray factor has me intrigued I guess.

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:22 pm

Notice it came from IGN.PS3

The same thing was written about the revolution at about the same time.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:39 pm

Surprised no one noticed.

From those who brought you the top 10 reasons to wait for a PS3, I give you....

The Top reasons to actully by a Xbox 360!

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668897p1.html

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:51 pm

Well I got me a 360 at launch and I plan on buying a PS3 when it comes out. But truthfully both systems are almost equal and that doesn't come from me but straight from anandtech.com

Sudz · Post by **Sudz** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:09 pm

lame.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:06 pm

What's not stated is that Sony is using their systems to push their medium. The PS3 is nothing more than a system to allow BluRay to become the dominant medium device.

I believe Sony has lost focus with their consoles. Microsoft still have very idealistic goals even though they still want you to buy their stuff. They want to have a completely connected home. MediaCenter and the 360 are clearly a push towards the complete "electronic" home in one centralized device. They aren't there yet.

If Sony continues to make devices to sell new technology they might fail the next round.

And even though this is my impression the 360 gets it right for round two. We'll have to see what the PS3 has to offer.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:50 pm

JRod wrote:What's not stated is that Sony is using their systems to push their medium. The PS3 is nothing more than a system to allow BluRay to become the dominant medium device.

I believe Sony has lost focus with their consoles. Microsoft still have very idealistic goals even though they still want you to buy their stuff. They want to have a completely connected home. MediaCenter and the 360 are clearly a push towards the complete "electronic" home in one centralized device. They aren't there yet.

If Sony continues to make devices to sell new technology they might fail the next round.

And even though this is my impression the 360 gets it right for round two. We'll have to see what the PS3 has to offer.

Excellent point JRod, look no further than $ony's PSP the all in one swiss pocket knife. $ony sold every feature on that thing including movies but doesn't emphasize the games because it wants the UMD format to become standard. And if you want to play rehased games or ports that all ready exists on other systems it costs around $50 for a game.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:57 pm

I feel like we talked about all this back in November when this IGN article was published, but I think JRod brought up a really key point. The thing is, though no matter how expensive the PS3 will be at launch, I can't believe it will serve as a very good BluRay player for movies. Standalone BluRay players are likely to be close to $1,000 bucks when they first arrive, so unless Sony is willing to take a massive bath on the sale of each unit, I'd bet the PS3 will be a pretty crappy BluRay player.

I also don't expect there to be a lot of HD games for the thing. With the 360, MS is insisting that publishers deliver games that are at least 720p. Yes, the PS3 would be capable of 1080p, but with no standards set in stone, there's nothing keeping publishers from delivering games in 480p. I'd bet most PS3 games will be in 720p, with a handful in 1080i (nothing to stop 360 games from 1080i), and maybe one or two big releases (like a Metal Gear game or the Gran Tourismo game) in 1080p. Not to mention, I really don't think until you get into the 60"+ size of TVs that you really see a big difference from 720p to 1080i or 1080p. Further, one thing all the nay-sayers are decrying about the 360 is that 'no one has an HDTV,' and this issue will be 10 times more relevant when it comes to 1080p.

Ultimately, for me it will be the games that push me to get a PS3. Unfortunately for them, the games they would be pushing (Metal Gear, Gran Tourismo, some kind of Dynasty Warriors game) aren't games I'm itching to play. And then, of course, I agree with all above about the online situation. At this point, I'm very happy sacrificing some technical quality in terms of visuals and such (physics could be a very different matter) in exchange for robust online functionality.

But in the end, we will only really know once the damn thing arrives. I just can't believe it will show up on these shores before November of next year, and more likely Spring of '07, but we'll see. If it turns out to do a decent to good job as a BluRay player, and is much cheaper than standalone units, then it'll be pretty tempting.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:58 am

There's no evidence that Sony is giving short shrift to gaming. Its gaming business accounts for well over half their profits, because the movie and music businesses are literally hit and miss from year to year and they're not doing as well as they used to in consumer electronics.

If you hear for instance that they're not investing in games development or getting (in some cases, buying) third-party support or making the console too difficult to program, then maybe you could charge that they're not giving enough attention to making the PS3 as successful as its predecessors.

Sure they want to establish Blu-Ray but they would not endanger the market potential of their next console. If as some claim, they price the PS3 at $200 more than the competition (because of including the Blu-Ray drive among other reasons), that would be suicidal.

Regarding more expensive Blu-Ray players, apparently there will be at least two tiers of boxes, with the higher-priced tier having features like recordability (including maybe an integrated PVR) and fancy interactive features. These include things like PIP (for instance, a director's talking head while the main movie played) and some connectivity features. Like maybe chatting with someone while playing a movie.

You wonder if people really want these kinds of features. But apparently these extra features are deemed absolutely crucial by studios like Disney, which prodded the hardware companies to support such things. They apparently think people will pay more for discs with such features. Or at least, motivate people to buy high-def discs than DVDs (even re-buy some movies they already have in DVD).

BTW, HD-DVD also is expected to have two or more tiers of features.

As for 1080p, there are several models this year but they are the most expensive models. If however display pricing goes along the same curve as it has the last few years, you should see them become common in 2-3 years at prices people now pay for 720p DLPs. Maybe even sooner.

But will these consoles have the horsepower to drive 1080p without sacrificing filtering and shading effects? That remains to be seen.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:23 am

WCO,
Where did you see that gaming accounts for half of Sony's business? I find that hard to believe. Not saying it's not true, but I know that Sony has a lot of other sectors like TVs, music, movies, distrubution, mediums etc.

kicko · Post by **kicko** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:43 am

i dont have a 360 and i was not really planning on it but for some reason i am thinking of getting one, i have always been a PS guy but like at the end of this generation xbox power was easily showing over a ps2, a system that i still enjoy. Now i know ps3 will be a little more powerful system i think but it will be interesting to see what the majority will choose. Besides by the time ps3 comes out 360 will have a better libary and you wouldn't have all that launch jazz. I can easily say if ps3 is like $500-$600, i'd be happy with a 360, it's just as nice and easier to explain the money spent to a wife that doesn't like any game besides Ms. pacman.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:34 am

wco81 wrote: But will these consoles have the horsepower to drive 1080p without sacrificing filtering and shading effects? That remains to be seen.

Especially at the 120 fps that Sony is claiming.....

MizzouRah · Post by **MizzouRah** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:00 am

I can't wait for the ps3 launch actually. In fact, I'm going to see if my local retailer is taking pre-orders yet.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:33 pm

JRod, I've heard it various times. I haven't looked closely at their financials but apparently, consumer electronics is a low-profit or even a money-losing business for Sony at times.

Their music and movie companies aren't consistent earners either. When they have a blockbuster like Spiderman, their movie studio does well but of course, they don't have such hits every year.

So I heard half of Sony's profits come from games in many years. Now they generate a lot of revenues, more than Microsoft, but their profits are nowhere close to Microsoft's because software like Windows and Office are high profit-margin businesses.

Similarly, there are higher margins on video game software (the royalty which the console makers get from all games publishers) than any piece of hardware.

Divot, I haven't heard any claim about 120fps. That seems unlikely, since even 60fps games are rare on all consoles, including the X360. Publishers and developers seem to consistently choose details and lighting/shading/filtering effects at the price of frame rate. We don't even get a lot of games locked at 30 fps.

So the tradeoff has always been for more details than high framerates.

I think most people will concede that the Cell is superior to the CPU in the X360. However, the Xenos GPU in the X360 may turn out to be better than the RSX GPU in the PS3 in the long run, because of the embedded 10 MB eDRAM and other unconventional design elements. Sony hasn't revealed everything about the RSX but most people think it's just a nVidia 7800 clocked a bit higher than their boards and with a different bus interface.

So despite the hype generated at E3, the consoles may be roughly comparable graphically, which if you think about it is favorable to Microsoft since they were able to release as much as a year earlier and still have the same or maybe even better graphics.

Where the PS3 may turn out to have more value for some people is that Blu-Ray drive. As fast as HDTV sales are growing every year, to get a high-def movie player included for little cost (depending on how the PS3 is priced) may appeal to a lot of people.

Plus, some developers have said they will use the additional capacity in Blu-Ray discs to put more into their games. Lot of people defending Microsoft's decision to stick with DVD are skeptical that games will grow that much in data size in the next 5 years or so but who knows.

Either the Blu-Ray drive will end up being a costly albatross which hurts PS3 sales because they have to price the console much higher than the competition to recoup the costs or maybe games on Blu-Ray will offer more content the same way CD-ROM games offered more content than the cartridge versions when Nintendo decided to stick with carts on the N64.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:52 pm

wco81 wrote: Divot, I haven't heard any claim about 120fps. That seems unlikely, since even 60fps games are rare on all consoles, including the X360. Publishers and developers seem to consistently choose details and lighting/shading/filtering effects at the price of frame rate. We don't even get a lot of games locked at 30 fps.

So the tradeoff has always been for more details than high framerates.

Page one of the article in question...

Reason #9: Dual-Screen and 1080p Support

1080p! Sweet Marie! Even if most televisions don't support it, why limit yourself to interlaced images when you can experience the glory of 1080 progressive? Support is for the weak! PS3 is forward looking, if anything. This means when you invest in the ultimate display technology however many years down the road, PS3 will make good on your purchase by outputting the absolute best image available on the market. And according to boastful Sony reps, we'll see games running at 120fps, too.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:30 pm

That's good, because 60fps is just so damn difficult to look at!

The refresh rate for 720p HDTV is 60hz, or 60 fields per second. Seems like enough for me. A game displayed at 120fps will look no smoother than the 60 fps game because the TV can't display the extra frames...

I think the 2 consoles will be similar in power (graphically), but that Sony holds an advantage with Cell and Blu-Ray, while Microsoft holds the edge with XBox Live. Sony will glady price the PS3 at $399 and use it to flood Blu-Ray into the market, thereby winning the format war and recouping license and hardware sales revenue on ALL the other Blu-Ray players/drives that will be sold as a result. In addition, they'll start building CELL into everthing from TV's to portable players in the hopes of creating a unified structure and ALL SONY households.

Sony's desire to use the PS3 to advance other objectives may be its undoing. Microsoft is interested in the same thing, but their being careful to make the 360 a games-first device.

I have a 360 and love it. I will likely buy a PS3 for Blu-Ray and because I'm a gigantic geek. However, at the end of the day, from what I've seen so far, Microsoft has the best overall hardware/software/services strategy for gaming in the 'next' generation.

Trnhockey · Post by **Trnhockey** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:35 pm

Hi all, Jack Bandel recommended this place to me. I have a quick question, does anybody have any news regarding XBox 360's and their availability? Any chance any stores are going to have them in the next month or so? I'm really not interested in standing in lines! Thanks in advance.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:45 pm

Sport73 wrote:That's good, because 60fps is just so damn difficult to look at!

LOL, I agree....and the 120 fps statement is nothing but a joke, especially at 1080p.

Sport73 wrote:The refresh rate for 720p HDTV is 60hz, or 60 fields per second. Seems like enough for me. A game displayed at 120fps will look no smoother than the 60 fps game because the TV can't display the extra frames...

True.

Sport73 wrote:I think the 2 consoles will be similar in power (graphically), but that Sony holds an advantage with Cell and Blu-Ray, while Microsoft holds the edge with XBox Live. Sony will glady price the PS3 at $399 and use it to flood Blu-Ray into the market, thereby winning the format war and recouping license and hardware sales revenue on ALL the other Blu-Ray players/drives that will be sold as a result. In addition, they'll start building CELL into everthing from TV's to portable players in the hopes of creating a unified structure and ALL SONY households.

The BluRay advantage is obvious, Graphic rendering advantage is not. The PS3 is using an nVidia 7800 GTX core. I am sure it will be modified so they can call it "RSX", but the biggest issue is that the 7800GTX is a very good PC card. But it has HALF the shader pipelines that the 360 does and unless there are new pipeline efficiencies built into the RSX, the 360 chip will be superior with its 48 unified pipelines along with its 10 MB of embedded (onto the GPU itself) DRAM that can drastically minimize rendering latencies as well as making anti-aliasing render with no performance hit. Unless nVidia has done something to address this, 1080p will NOT be an advantage for the PS3.

Additionally, Sony's public arrogance in the form of statements such as "HD gaming will not begin UNTIL the PS3 arrives" is shocking and so misinformative. Pure, unadulterated BS. Sadly, many people will buy into this concept and it simply is not true.

Sport73 wrote:Sony's desire to use the PS3 to advance other objectives may be its undoing. Microsoft is interested in the same thing, but their being careful to make the 360 a games-first device.

Could not agree more.

Sport73 wrote:I have a 360 and love it. I will likely buy a PS3 for Blu-Ray and because I'm a gigantic geek. However, at the end of the day, from what I've seen so far, Microsoft has the best overall hardware/software/services strategy for gaming in the 'next' generation.

Ditto.