|
|
Sony cuts UK price on PS3?
Author: Gordon KellyPublished: 6th April 2007
No official announcement has been made but suddenly UK retailers including heavyweights like Play and WH Smith are offering deals.
Listings are now appearing at the magical figure of £399.99, a £25 reduction, with Play really pushing things to the next level by also including an HDMI cable and a copy of Click on Blu-ray (the only decent Adam Sandler movie ever – oh, ok, and The Wedding Singer). Play calculates a total saving £64.98.
So what is going on here? Consoles are notorious loss leaders for their manufacturers and sales prices rarely ever drop more than a few quid either way from the RRP because there is no margin in it. Has Sony suddenly seen the cold harsh light of day or are stores deciding they'd rather make a loss than a profit? From a distance, both seem equally unlikely.
For now we'll simply have to watch this space. Sony has (rightly) had terrible publicity across Europe for the last 12 months – a PS3 price reduction would be a good way to start rebuilding some of those horribly burnt bridges...
Discuss in the forums
Related
Comments (62)
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Sounds like Sony may have finally caught on to the fact that everyone thinks its far too expensive.
fixed.
The problem is, there's nothing really interesting out there which isn't already on the 360 in some form. No absolute must have title (admittedly, neither did the 360 on release but then the 360 didn't have anything competing against it at the time)
/me checks news... so I guess you're right. Delaying the launch and then flooding the market seems to have worked. Sort of. It's a bit of a lame victory though. Months on you still can't get a Wii for love or money, but a couple of weeks after launch and McD's are giving PS3s away with happy meals (just about).
Maybe I'm a bit too happy that the PS3 has tanked. Sony have treated the UK and Europe as an afterthought. Launched late, with a lower spec and a higher price, and they've lumped us with Africa in the region encoding FFS! Anyone thinking of getting one ought to get a Japanese model. At least then you can play American and Japanese discs (which are cheaper generally and launched earlier).
Unlike PS3 which is hideously expensive.
They need a bigger selling point such as a must have exclusive game, but it won't come now the games developers have to choose to support ps3 and with a much larger catchment in the 360 pool (not counting people with both consoles) why bother developing for the (difficult to code for) PS3. High cost of porting/development and low PS3 users = not much profit. Sony would have to chuck even more money at the problem and pay for an exclusive game, but that's a hell of a gamble.
Also, funnily is all those people who bought them to flog on ebay are going to find it even harder to sell their stock
And yh it was inevetable i think using such an old graphics chip. if it had been out a year earlier it would have been so more up to date
Plus it's supporting a soon to be dead format imo :p
I know that a bare-bone Elite is less expensive than the PS3 but when you buy everything for the Elite that would equal what the PS3 offers the cost is much more. That's all I am saying, so stop calling the PS3 a ripoff in terms of what it offers, and just like how the the 360 took a few months to get off it's feet, give the PS3 a few more months and there will be games worth getting along with more Blu-Ray movies.
Anyone disagree, please explain yourself.
By the way I am not a Sony fanboy. I do not own a PS3 or a 360 or a Wii. I am a computer gamer at heart, but I don't like it when people start saying things that are so biased that the truth is being scewed at little bit in terms of Sony "losing" or the PS3 being a "ripoff". Yes I agree it's expensive, but it is in no way a ripoff when you look at the overall picture.
So if i was wanting a next gen console a 360 would be the obvious choice as i have no hdtv and there aren't many decent games for the PS3. However, if i wanted high definition movies and a few month wait for some more games then maybe PS3 would be the cheaper way to go.
(i own a wii btw)
Um, yes.
Hints my reason for saying the PS3 isn't worth it to you at the price it's at, and that it's only for the people I mentioned above. I think we all know that the 360 gives the buyer the option to upgrade, but it penalizes them with the price to do that.
Also, Blu-Ray isn't going anywhere. Right now there are more Blu-Ray movies than HD-DVD and there are many more to come. Sony is the Home Entertainment Company of the world in my opinion and I feel it's safe to say that Blu-Ray (though I can't say if they will "win" the format war) isn't going anywhere.
OMG I know that you don't *need* it, but it's on the basis of comparing apples to apples.
Exactly, you don't meet the criteria for the kind of consumer Sony feels will want their console as of right now at the price it is.
Now you're thinking straight. That's what I would recommend you do, given that you don't already own a 360. People need to take advantage of the PS3's features along with it offering more/better games/movies, for it to be more of a "deal" than the 360 in the overall picture.
It is an excellent console, very powerful, has connectivity like no other, uses non proprietary hard drive and cables, home, wifi..... etc....
IF, and this is a BIG IF, the blueray format loses, the console has a dead horse on its back to carry, Sony has a track record of FUBARing formats like no other, if they FUBAR this one the optical disks for the PS3 will be so expensive that 2/3 of the price of the game you buy is for the disk it self.
Think of it like UMD and the PSP.... only bigger.
It is the single most expensive console in the market, you can argue that the X360 is the most expensive after you buy all the stuff to make it similar to the PS3, but, if i only want the console to play games? i really don't want all that stuff....... because simply i don't need it.
Another thing i don't like about the PS3, the controller, it is like they got a standard dual shock, striped it, inserted into it a wiimote and voala, SIXAXIS is born, without rumble, you may ask "is rumble so important?" and lots of people will say "yep!", kids that play motorstorm at "Fnac" on the PS3 that is on display say it is awful without rumble and the game is nothing special.
A console is made from its games, if it has crappy games, if it has expensive games, if it has few games it will die.
I bet 5 chocolate almonds that MS will make a firmware update for their console so it can use KB and mouse and i bet that the new 120Gb HD will not be much more expensive, and correct me if i am wrong, it can be detached with the console running unlike with the PS3.
and yes i am a fanboy, i am a fanboy for technology and fun and not for the consoles.
edit:
http://www.t3.co.uk/news/247/games/xbox/the_limitless_xbox_360_hard_disk
That'll teach you early adopters :p, a serious slap with a raw fish by Sony there...
Get a grip please, look at Sony's past record in context
PS1 - They took a chance and used the cd
PS2 - They took a chance and used dvd
So stop talking ******** and comparing things like UMD for the PSP or what you were hinting at betamax/minidisc all over again, because they just completely different areas, and I can't blame Sony for using there huge market share to push there own storage format forwards and in the end it cant fail because the Playstation brand is so strong.
People don't just buy consoles just to play games on them, at least everyone I know who has ever bought a PS1 or PS2 bought it cause they liked the fact that they could play music on it or watch dvds as well without shelling out for a separate dvd player.
As for your comment on the content, Sony has always had the best 3rd part publisher support, people want to make games for the playstation (unlike Microsoft who had to buy publishers in the beginning), because it has the biggest market share.
First off, SIXAXIS is freaking sweat. I have played Motorstorm with it and it was freaking crazy that by me moving the joystick side to side I could move the cars/motorbikes. It had a "fun" effect and made the game more enjoyable and different. I personally love the feature and I can only imagine it getting more refined as time goes by. And so what if those "kids" think rumble is more important than SIXAXIS, it's still a great feature that makes the feel of the game different and enjoyable.
As for the rumble, I do miss it, but who says 3rd party manufacturers, along with Sony aren't going to come out with a controller that incorporates rumble into it later on in the future? I would expect that to happen sometime soon.
Secondly, saying Blu-Ray could die is like saying the PS3 could die. The probability is so small that (even up until today) it's almost impossible to say who's even "losing" or "winning" the format war, and Sony would not let that happen even if it was probable. If LG has already come out with a multi-format player, how could Blu-Ray, let alone HD-DVD falter? What it's going to come down to is how fast they get their format into computers for storage backup, and into current/future home theater setups. Of course that's going to depend on supply and demand with the main contributing factor being price. The only real way the formats are going to "win" is through how much profit each format brings-in. That's my opinion. And who knows, maybe IPTV will kill em both off.
Nobody will know until it's all said and done, but I think with the PS3 housing the Blu-Ray drive, and with the Xbox 360 Premium/Elite still not housing a built-in HD-DVD drive, Blu-Ray has a pretty good foot in the door. One thing that the built-in Blu-Ray offers in the PS3 over the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 is that it will play games on BD-R's in native 1080p (most PS3 games support native 1080p) which (I would expect) would lead to better looking games due to larger textures and more space for higher-quality graphics/movies. Yes 360 offers 1080p natively but only on specific games that can allow it, such as Virtua Tennis and Splinter Cell due to the size of the game, and others do also allow it, but they're not native, they're upscaled, so really PS3 wins in this area, but it's not as big of a win as Sony may have advertised.
Also, the 360 Elite only supports HDMI 1.2 rather than 1.3 like the PS3 and 1.3 offers much more than 1.2, and of course when running 1080p on a 40"+ display you are going to want the features that 1.3 gives you. Of course, it's not a huge difference, but it's notable and worth pointing out.
Lastly, does the 360 utilize its Hard Drive for graphics (such as texturing and other features?) like the PS3?
Very good point.
Hardware always falls in price, look at those who buy the latest and greatest vid cards, do you here them shouting from the roof tops when barely a week later prices are dropped to more reasonable levels? There is always a price for early adoption.
When the PS3 came out, the biggest complaint was the price, now the price is coming down people still find other things to complain about!
If you really want some fun this summer, go out, buy a football, grab your mates then head to a park... after the ball has been lost to the nearby river, go to a pub with a nice beer garden and enjoy the evening! Oh, and then head home and play on the Wii :p ;)
first of all i would advise you to calm down.... really, chill down, this is a forum and we are debating, i am entitled to my idea as you are entitled to yours, but i like to help people correct some facts.
PS1 and the CD..... hmmmm, Compact Disc a format that has been alive since 1982, very much mainstream and the industry standard when the PS1 was launched in 1994........ that is really a big chance they took.
PS2 and the DVD....... the console was launched in 1999 with a format that was launched in 1996 and by the launch of the PS2 was the industry standard and pretty much mainstream and pretty much everyone wanted in..... so not a big chance there.
PS3 and the blueray........ the format was launched at about 2006 and the console by 2006/2007, the blueray format as of the launch of the PS3 is not an industry standard and is not mainstream..... yet.
If you did not see the pattern please read it once again, you will notice that, unlike the PS1 and PS2, the PS3 does not have the advantage of having a mainstream format inside it, IF it dies the PS3 dies with it, i don't want this to happen (i love all machines ;) ), really i don't want it to die that fast, but it is a real possibility.
If you have any data to correct the above please show it to me and i will correct it, but as of now this data was taken from wikipedia and i think it is real.
The interesting thing is that most of the people i know got the PS1 for it being a console to play games on (me included), the PS2 as a cheap'ish DVD player that also played games, interestingly the people that i know that got a PS2 to play DVDs were not very pleased with the results and preferred to use it as a console, and yes i know lots of people with a PS2, i was one of them, until it blew up, rest in peace :'( .
As for third party publishers, they are all becoming multi platform for fear of piracy and low profits, most of the games that would make me buy a PS3 have gone to the 360.
devdevil85, the X360 has a dual layer DVD reader, it is far inferior to the PS3 blueray drive capacity, BUT, it is far cheaper and easier to produce and i think you can squeeze a lot into a DL DVD, especially with that procedural texture thing.
Now please respond in a civil way, remember that this is not an arena ;) .
edit:
that is just perfect :D especially the beer.
Yes. Yes it does it's one of the main reasons you've only got 12GB out of the 20GB HDD for storage.
How comes games on the Core console look exactly the same as on the Premium then?
Anyway this pricepoint is tempting me I have to admit
The missus will kill me though
From X-Box.com
Seriously though, it's a lot easier to defend the PS3 to the NTSC audience. You guys are getting royally ripped off.
CD and DVD were both open standards and already well established or well on the way there when they were chosen for inclusion in the PS1/PS2/XBOX.
HDDVD and BLURAY are both proprietary standards owned by big media consortiums.
Sony has attempted what half a dozen? previous proprietary formats (including UMD and betamax incidentally) which have all been dismal failures when it came to major market penetration.
It also isn't in the consumers interest for either of these competing turbo-charged DVD formats to win because whichever consortium did win would use its stranglehold to restrict consumers rights and choice and rip us off over and over again.
For most of the above reasons I can't bring myself to look at them in the context of consoles in any way but how much do they force onto the price of the games machine ?
loading up a completed items search i see quite a few going for as low as £340. one went for £250 but i doubt that one ever got sent out :P
edit: $99.99
edit2: i am afraid to say
yep
as for the starting price being 1 buck....... i think it would be more logical to start it at half the normal price......... but hey, it depends on the strategy.
that way i pay less of a listing fee.
No, the Wedding Singer is most definitely better than Happy Gilmore. :)
I can't even stand to watch most Adam Sandler movies all the way through to the end. 50 First Dates was decent though, and Spanglish was surprisingly interesting (but I wouldn't consider that an Adam Sandler movie).
First off, when people such as yourself start saying things that are completely opinionated like SIXAXIS is bad and rumble owns, then it will get heated.
I see your point on the CD & DVD-ROM's in the PS1 and the PS2, but in a day and age now where technology is constantly changing and costing more and more for R&D, formats such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (because they are so close in comparison) need to become/seem mainstream ASAP due to the fact that any format can overcome the other and become the "winner" in the eyes of consumers/Hollywood, so I can see why Sony tried adding that edge and took the risk by making Blu-Ray the centerpiece for the PS3.
Oh and by the way, I don't know anyone of my friends that doesn't/didn't use their PS2 as a DVD player. It had component out (480p) along with optical out (Dolby Digital 5.1). Why would anyone in their right mind buy another DVD player if they already owned a PS2?
As for the Xbox's DL Drive and the procedual texturing, I don't know much about it, but I do know that most 360 games don't offer 1080p due to the limited disk storage and that to me shows why the Blu-Ray drive, in the overall picture, offers more future-proofing than the DL drive in the 360. As of right now, the most reasonably-priced console is the 360 due to it supporting 720p and because it's the current HD sweetspot, but over the next year or two, once 1080p gets to be the next standard in High Definition in terms of gaming, the PS3 will really show why it was worth the money and why native 1080p was worth waiting for. Some 360 games do offer 1080p, but it's only because the size of the game and the type of game or because they are upscaled. I believe Blu-Ray is a format that will only get bigger and better, along with it getting more affordable as production increases.
I don't want to keep bringing this fact back up but the Xbox Premium + HD-DVD Add-on = $399.99 + $199.99 = $599.99 which is the price of the PS3.
Even at this price the 360 still doesn't offer all of the features the PS3 does. And yes, I know the 360 gives the consumer the option, but that's not my point; my point is to compare apples to apples.
As of right now, the 360 is still the better console due the optional upgrades, the volume of games and because of the achievement points, but that will soon change. Personally I don't think 360 has that many great games over PS3 right now, other than GOW and PGR, but that's just my opinion. I still like how 360 has more online compatible games, which should be the set standard now for the industry, but I still say: give PS3 another 6 months and it'll be up-to-par with the 360.
yes, it is an opinion that when i push i want the game to push back, to feel the bumps and the hits, hence the rumble, the motion sensor is a good thing in my book but the lack of rumble kills it, it could have been better.
the thing with people is that it depends, here the "normal Joe" goes to the shop and if he sees a BLUERAY DISK player for 600 or a DVD player for 50 he will go for the DVD player because it is cheaper and is more familiar, people are usually afraid to change.
It is a good strategy to put the BR drive in the PS3, but, because of the nature of humans that are afraid to use a new technology simply because it is new and expensive, putting 2 eggs in one basket is really risky, makes the device to expensive and to high-tech, making people afraid to buy it.
The PS2 fails as a DVD player, in my opinion of course, because in most cases around here the PS2 kind of does not like some types of recorded DVDs and i don't like to use the wired controller to control the DVD.
Most 360 games don't offer 1080P because they use old methods to store textures, try reading about procedural textures and you will learn some cool stuff, it is kind of, "who needs a big disk when my textures are 90% smaller?".
You are correct on the price point, but, if you want to compare apples to apples compare a console to a console (not consider all the high tech blueray and wifi connectivity, just the play part), and on the console level the PS3 loses for now.
i see the PS3 becoming very good, unless Sony FUBARs the blue ray or the PS3 itself.
just to know devdevil85 which side of the pond are you?
just to help out: A great article from bit-tech
First off, I don't own and never will own a console. I am a PC gamer who uses mouse and keyboard and only uses the controller for sports games since I also use my steering wheel for racing games. I just see the PS3 as a sweet piece of technology that Sony was willing to take a risk on and I want it be noticed as such, not some over-the-top, flashy wannabe console.
Also, can you prove to me that 360 games (if any) are using this so-called procedual texturing? because if they were where are all the native 1080p games right now?
Thanks!
After all, with the way you lot are talking, there is no shade of gray, just black and white.
Has anybody considered that they're both good, both have their ups and their downs, and maybe just are different? Why is this such a hard thing to grasp?
Just as an aside, I have a 360, and no desire for a PS3 right now, nor am I fan of it as such (price, controller, games, ect).
Can't remember where I read the article, but it is reported that the PS3 retails in the UK for +68% over Japan price and +25% over USA price. This is with the PS2 hardware removed as well for the EU models.
The same pricing difference may be true of the 360, but not for reduced functionality.
procedural textures? the unreal 3 engine has native support for procedural textures, and there is a game called Roboblitz that uses them.
And when i asked which side of the pond you were i was asking if you were in the US or in the EU or anywhere else.
edit:
owww and the thing that F me about Sony is that the $599 console in the USA sells for 599 in the Eurozone, that means that i being in the Eurozone i am paying $803, in the UK it costs £425 that translates to $691 and in Japan it costs ¥59,980 that is about $504.
European people are being hit in the balls IMHO.
I that live in the Eurozone pay $299 more than a Japanese, $204 more than an American and $112 more than a person from the UK.
i dont like when big corporations do this, expecialy considering that the Eurozone is so diverse in therms of poor and rich countries, here i need to not spend any of my minimum wage (that almost every one gets, and almost half of it is gone due to taxes and crap like that) for 1 and a half months, considering that the minimum wage is about 400. :(
*figures from wikipedia.
sorry but i needed to get that out.
At £300 in the UK it would be a serious contender to knock the 360 off its podium and probably would be as difficult to get as the Wii.
If I didn't consider Sony in the way I do I'd probably race to buy the PS3 at £300, but due to their flawed Consumer Relations over the last few years I shall continue to vote with my pocket and abstain from buying their products.
First off, do you think I'm retarded? Of course I know that 360 games come native 480ip, 720p, 1080i. 720p is the best resolution for gaming right now, and I'll get to that later, but thanks for reminding me. My main point is that only a handful of 360 games offer 1080p and only like 2 offer it natively. Of course, right now, this matters to like 5% of all gamers today, but to me, being a guy who wants the most bang for my buck, it does.
As for the PS3 games, which you say are not all 1080p, I can bet you that from now on every PS3 game that debuts will come native 1080p, no doubt about it. BD-R's allow it and developers will offer it. The 1st-gen games were rushed and that's why some didn't offer native 1080p. Either way, as of right now, maybe 15% of all PS3 owners utilize 1080p if they're rich enough to own a TV of that proportion, so it's not that big of a deal right now, but that doesn't mean that it's a wasted feature that consumers are paying too much for or that they won't need/want later down the road.
Here is the reason why I feel 1080p was implemented into the PS3, and why I think Sony made the right decision on providing it in it's first-gen models:
First off, it's called "future-proofing", and that is something you do when you invest in a piece of hardware that you are going to spend $400 or more for. You want to be able to get the most out of the console for the longest period of time and not have to keep caring about upgrading it or buying a new version to get that one extra feature that you should've just waited for and that should've been there to begin with because, in the end, you're penalized for upgrading (hints 360 peripherals or console trade-in). Most people will be investing in a new HDTV come the next year or two (since all-digital broadcasts will be mandatory in 2010) and those TV's will offer 1080p resolution standard. I have seen 1080p and it looks handsover twice as good as 720p. The colors are more vibrant and the text is clearer. It just makes sense when you double the resolution and since the newer TV's allow for high contrast ratios and more color depth and other features, the picture quality is practically doubled. Of course, it depends on the quality of TV you buy and also what type of cable (RGB, DVI, HDMI, etc.) you use along with the version (ie: HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.).
Of course 1080p is going to become today's 720p and something else greater and better will come out, but that's not going to be for another few years down the road.
Either way my point is this: as of right now the 360 is hitting a target market and since 720p is the HD sweetspot right now, and the reason why I focus on 720p is that games need to be progressive due to their nature of constant movement and need for refreshing. Because the 360 offers 720p currently along with most affordable TV's offering 720p standard, it makes more sense to buy it, but if you currently don't own a 360 or an HDTV and you or your parents are planning on upgrading to a new HDTV come the next year or so, why not spend a $200 more than the 360 now and get HD Movie playback AND native 1080p gaming? These are the consumers that Sony is marketing to: the ones just now making the move to HD, who either don't own a 360, and/or still want the PS3.
Oh, and as for you not liking Sony, Malfoleo, I should've guessed.
Sorry. I took it as whether I was a fanboy or not, since you guys always think anyone who likes the PS3 is doing it out of "love" not reason, but to answer your question I am from the US. I am just defending the PS3 over here in terms of value and functionality. As for you guys overseas, I don't know what else to say but wait like the rest of us Americans until it's in your price range. I've said this like 100 times. Any debut is going to be ridiculously high, just like I thought $400 for the 360 was getting a little stretched for it having no real games out at the time, let alone free online play.
Read this before you start ranting and raving about hardware reduction:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=130240
Of course this is my opinion, but: Who is still going to want to play a PS2 game that isn't listed as "able to play" on the PS3 right now?
First off, in regards to the "reduction in hardware" go to the above link.
Other than that, just..... wait....... I don't see what's so hard. Wait until it's worth it to you. Wait until more games are out. Wait until the price drops. Wait until more Blu-Ray movies are out. Idk what else to say, but wait because the PS3 is only going to get more competitive to the 360. Right now, over in the UK I would consider it a rip-off or close to it, in the US sort of but if you have the $ why not, and in Japan it's competitively priced.
i don't see the people here as fanboys but as a people that prefer a certain brand or see things in a different way and i try to show them my logic to try to help them correct some of their mistakes and hope they will shine some light on my mistakes.
Both the PS1 and PS2 were technological advanced machines at the time they were launched, both cost about $668 on launch date in the Europe, $587 in the UK and about $299.99 in the USA.
Now Sony launches the PS3 at an even higher launch price and with the same price differences, considering that it is still a console and it is still a technological advanced machine.
This kind of feels like the 2 finger salute that people use in the UK, confusing for the people in the US and very F**** up for the people in the UK.
If history taught me something is to expect the unexpected, i think the PS3 will survive, but it will not be a resounding success as the PS2.
the X360 can do 1080i and most games can use this and the other 2 ( 480p and 720p ) (please search in google or wikipedia the diference between 1080i and 1080p).
as for future proofing.... it is the same as saying that i am going to buy a ferrari because in the roads of the future cars will all go at insane speeds, people usually change when the time comes, and when the time comes, prices are usually lower than before... so i think i will wait until the PS3 becomes mainstream.
And please consider that the UK is not being as ripped off as the rest of Europe.
My local shops charges 65p for a twix, when I was at school 10 years a go it was only 20p. Should I go crazy about the rip off price? My nanas house cost her £1.5k and now to buy a house like hers will cost £100k.
Prices rise with inflation. Get over it and stop moaning and if you cant aford it then tough, or if you dont want to pay that much money then wait 5 years for it to drop in price and in the meantime you have missed out on some great games. Before you say what games, come on, there are only a few out at the moment but the Playstation brade gets full support as with previous history and there will once again be a massive game libary much larger than Nintendos and Microsoft.
Im aiming for a PS3 around christmas time if not sooner, and while I wait I will enjoy my Xbox 360 and PC gaming . Price does not concern me as for what it offers alongside gaming I think is worth the money.
I have a PC which cost me over £1000 which I only use to play 3 games, Battlefield 2, 2142 and CSS and I cant even play 2 games I want to buy at full rez without spending more money on upgrading. I dont use the PC for anything else as I use my Laptop for all work related tasks and web browsing etc. £400 for a PS3 is a bargin as there are 3 games out already that I want to play and garenteed to display them and runn them how they are supposed to run and any future games. No upgrading is needed as the games are built around 1 peice of hardware and not hundreds of peices of equipment like the pc.
With all the bad press it gets I feel almost ashamed to own and enjoy it :o
Its a quality bit of kit with some good software at both retail and on PSN, try it you might like it :) There are enough cheap ones kicking about now due to people who thought they might cash in you can find them with a couple of gamnes for £360, thats not bad is it?
I have only just got back into consoles having gotten fed up with the PC upgrade cycle for gaming (software and hardware) and I have to say its been good, having both 360 and PS3 gives you a lot of chioce on the games front and you'll know that it will keep delivering quality content for years to come, at the moment the PC games market is pretty dry and can't see anything enticing me back, mainly because of the Vista/DX10 push, the consoles cost less than my SLI setup and since getting them the gaming PC hasn't been switched on at all.
I hope that was not directed at me .
Actually I'd really like to pop in GT4 and pro evo 6 (bought PES6 on X360 but its not as good as PS2) but out of my library of titles those two not working is not a big deal and hopefully they will be fixed in the next release.
I tried to satiate my GT thirst with a bit of GT2 earlier but when faced with the following screenshot you just want to turn it off, I feel a PSP plus dark Alex mod in the offing.
http://www.adhsmith.34sp.com/images/gt2.jpg
When you have a taste for high def games though playing these old things is painful unless you are hooked up to a CRT screen so I don't see backward compatibility as important as I once did, playing FFXII at the mo on my PS3 on my HD screen and it makes me want to cry but then it was the same on the PS2 with the HD screen, I have to take it to the old 28" CRT TV, the sooner next gen equivs come out the better. (Wii owners everywhere probably wonder what I am on about and think that PS image looks great ;) )
Aye that it is :)
Some pretty obsessive posts so far guys, keep it up ;)
Still wanting to get a PS3, but still a bit hooked up on the price. Hmmmm :D
First off, he was referencing that I didn't know something that everybody and their dog knows.
Secondly, 1080i games are nowhere close to as good as 1080p and yes I do know what the difference is between them. Again, you're referencing something just like the other guy....
Secondly, technology is getting mainstream and getting more and more costly due to R&D. Consumers are wanting more and more as time progresses, such as expecting High Quailty Movie playback or expecting higher quality games in terms of visuals (of course gameplay is still desired) and with that comes $$$ and I can see why the PS3 debut price cost more than the PS2 or PS1.
Also, don't say the PS3 won't be as much of a success until a year or two passes. That's when I would start saying that stuff, just so it doesn't come back to haunt you.
Peace.
I think with MS stepping with up the 360 and the Wii doing well the PS3 won't do as well as previous Playstation's have done. Not to say it won't do well though, just not as well as Sony are used to. Of course this is imo - so please don't jump down my back (there's only just room for me in there anyway :p)
I think we hear earlier about new technology nowadays which is why R&D seems to take longer.
Also 1080p is very nice on a native huge 1080p screen, but I have to say 720p looks pretty damn awesome on a huge native 720p screen too. And ye 1080i ~ 720p not much of a muchness between those two.
Anyhoo bedtime for me, I'll eagerly await the replies in the morning :)
Dude, they thought that a) I didn't know the 360 could display 480i/p and 1080i because I focused primarily on 720p and b) that I didn't know the difference between 1080i and 1080p.
That, mate, is abuse. I wouldn't be posting my comments on here had I not known everything that both consoles offered.
That applies to everyone...
nope, it is not abuse, i was simply saying, IF you or anyone that was reading my post did not know what was the difference they should go and search it on wiki or on google. ;)
Peace.
I dont buy anything bleeding edge because of the price and only that, and I hope that many others are the same. I have just got my parents to buy me some hard drives while they are with friends in the US. I am happy to pay ~$100 for each drive, but if I was to get them over hear I would pay more than £100 each (might even be more) and I see no reason for it to be this way... other than the manu's think we will put up with it