CNN Money: PS3's a "Sinking Ship"

I have a PS3 and I'm thrilled with it. Most of the xbox games are crap for my tastes they may have more games but BFD if I don't like them. I love the blu-ray player I use it almost every day and I can in fact see a nice difference even on upconverting regular DVD's.

 

i use my PS3 mostly to watch Blu-rays. The Dark Knight FTW

 

My PS3 is now solely a Blu Ray player.

 

All three points are false, or at least are not totally true.

1: CNN compared the cheapest 360 to the cheapest PS3. They fell into Microsoft's price trap: the 360 Arcade exists only for sites like this to spread the word that the 360 is cheap and the PS3 is expensive. Equalize the features between the two consoles and the 360 is more expensive--and lacks a Blu-Ray drive.

2: False. There's a clear difference between DVD and Blu-Ray quality. If the quality difference was indiscernible, why would companies go to the trouble of inventing and manufacturing DVD players with upscaling capabilities? I suspect this point comes from the tech press, which has been bashing Blu-Ray and pimping direct downloads simply because they like to be on the cutting edge of tech: direct downloads are newer than optical disks, therefore sexier.

3: Uh. Metal Gear Solid 4? Uncharted? Gran Turismo? The upcoming God of War 3?

Heavily disagree with this article. The 360 is clearly above the PS3, but that doesn't mean the PS3 is pulling a Titanic.

 

Its so weird Cnn reports on stuff they really shouldn't be talking about.

I use my PS3 more for games than Bluray. Bluray discs are still a little expensive. There are plenty of great games.

Don't forget about Killzone 2 in February. Check out the videos, KZ2 looks AMAZING.

 

Wow, I agreed with some of that but I can tell the differance between 480i and 1080i/p ANY day of the week. Watching normal non upconverted DVD's make me feel like I have sand in my eyes.

 

I agree with most because a $400 system in a bad economy will just sit there. The DVD comment is stupid but the rest is fairly accurate.

 

Reason three is the only one with even a small amount of validity. 360 gets their games out faster for sure. PS3s library is pretty strong right now. They just needed to get to this point faster than they did. Half of the Xbox right now is hype. Hype goes a long way, look at the Wii. A year's head start didn't hurt either. Maybe Sony should make a cheap, piece of crap version of PS3 with no hard drive and sell it for $199.

I would slap whoever typed that if he was standing in front of me. Then I'd send him to the nearest eye doctor.

 

Xbox 360 has a bigger and better game library. and its cheaper how would anyone not want a cheaper console with better games?

 

Yeah the 50 inch or less tv comment they made is seeing the difference between 1080p and 1080i not overall HD vs SD.

Plus I think a cheaper $199 PS3 would be a great idea for the casual gamer. Although it would be impossible without dropping Blu-Ray support so I don't see it.

 

It is not really cheaper though. The "360" Elite" and the 80GB PS3 are comparable and they are the same price. PS3 has a Blu Ray and you play online for free.

Everyone gets stuck on the "$199.99 X-Box arcade" or "the XBOX is cheaper". Well after you buy "XBOX Arcade" for dirt cheap you'll need to get an external hard drive of some sort and pay to play online and you won't get to watch Bluray until Microsoft brings out the add on, which will cost you more money.

The bang for the buck in systems is the PS3 it's just too bad they are getting their asses handed to them regarding "exclusives", otherwise people would be flocking to the system.

I really think Sony missed the boat here though on a few fronts. they should have come out with a "starter system". One with a small amount of internal memory and priced it in the $250.00 range. they also should have worked harder to gain exclusive titles.

As for the articles assertion that "no one cares about BluRay and you can't really tell the difference" that is a TOTAL fallacy. The guy must have been watching it on a small TV without surround sound or a piss poor surround system. I have a $600.00 upscaling Denon DVD player and BluRay blows it out of the water.

I have a pretty decent surround sound setup, DVD's and music sound fantastic. It was designed for music though but BluRay changed my movie watching habits. When I was hooked through the HDMI cable I was impressed with the picture and sound but when I added the "Optical cable" as the carrier of the sound to my amp I was BLOWN AWAY. The sound is stunning. I've watched more movies in the year I've owned my PS3 then I did in the previous 5 years.

I don't own an XBOX and I doubt I ever will unless the PS3/Sony totally die out. I'm not giving Bill Gates any more of my money. PS3 has more than enough games for me, I don't have time to play all the games I already own. Between NHL 09, Madden, Call of Duty 5, Guitar Hero and Rockband the time I have for gaming is filled up.

 

Maybe a Lusitania?

 

Only if CNN Money is playing the role of the Germans.

 

I said "I'm not giving Bill Gates any MORE of my money". I am currently running Windows XP Pro but my computer is gradually becoming a dinosaur, I've had my current configuration for almost 3 years. By Spring I am buying a 15" iBook Pro, just have to put another $500.00 away. My PC will remain but it will be reformatted and be a glorified storage space since I have 2 terabytes of hard drive space. Billy boy gets no more of my loot.

 

Just bustin your balls!

 

most people dont' care if the PS3 is the better bang for their buck...they want cheap consoles to play the new games on.

and digital download is the way of the future...not blu ray

 

People should care. I would think bang for your buck would be very important.

You can DL movies on both systems.

 

*plays Super Mario Galaxy on his Wii, on his standard definition TV no less, and enjoys*

Sometimes it's just not about the power of the system, or what DVD formats it can play. Sometimes its just about having fun playing games.

Sony will take this generation on the chin and learn from it. Being in last place will certainly humble them.

(oh and then theres that other handheld thing they make thats also been dead last since it's debut)

 

Optical can't handle 7.1 just so you know. Also the hdmi (having the ps3 decode internally on anything 5.1 or less) is the same sound as having it bitstreamed through optical. It is just with the optical that you get the little light on AVR to light up, and with LPCM you don't.

 

In a market with only two devices, second place is automatically dead last. Doesn't mean the PSP isn't a relative success.

Look up Monster Hunter sales.

 

In japan, yes. But they already lost that exclusive. Monster Hunter 3 will be on the Wii. (as if the Wii needed help selling in japan as it was)

The PSP is still getting crushed, and it's an inferior device in just about every way except graphics. Terrible battery life, no library to speak of, and mainly used for piracy.

 

I'll take my PSP over my ex-DS any day.

 

So the fact that a sequel is on another console (and by the way, it's not Wii-exclusive) somehow invalidates both the hardware and software sales that have already happened?

8 hours of battery life is pretty good, it has plenty of games worth playing, and every console has piracy, DS included.

 

i will add...the ps3 isnt just a blu ray player...its a very good blu ray player. not all of them are.

 

the Washington Post did a follow up counter punch to this article:

washingtonpost.com

Both sides have valid and stupid points. Neither side seems unbiased.

 

One of the arguments that keeps getting thrown about loosely is how the PS3 is a better value if you "consider all it's parts".

That means nothing in the history of consoles. The history of consoles has always shown that price points matter over everything else. Sure to the hardcore it matters about the extra features but the hardcore generally only makes up 10-15% maximum. The rest make up those that are price watchers and generally on a budget.

Think about when you were a kid. You really think your parents (unless your were born into good money in the first place) would have bought you a PS3 at it's price point? I know mine wouldn't have. Heck they balked at the original NES price point till it hit a price cut a couple years after release.

Say what you will about the arcade but it gives Microsoft the ability to crow about price and aim for at least a small share of those parents who'd pick up a Wii. Lets face it the only reason the PS3 hasn't flopped completely is because it's Sony living off it's brandname. If it was any other company that came out like this it woulda been long dead and buried already.

I do have a feeling that when history looks back it'll always be remembered as Sony's big mistake.

Finally sold mine off a couple months ago and I honestly don't miss it. It sat unused way too often.

 

I agree with you on all the price points but I would never sell my PS3...I love it.

 

Funny, I say the same thing about my Wii.

 

Same here

 

Im still using a PS2

 

It's a great system with a lot of great games. Plus they are still making games for it.

 

I just upgraded to PS3 in the last week. And Blu-Ray is a big reason why.

 

Took you long enough.

 

And we just hooked up the HDTV today. Now, if only my HDMI cables would get in.

 

I think the only advantage to having blu-ray on PS3 is that in the future, games will be better because of the massive storage the blu-ray holds. When game programmers finally learn to maximize the benefits of the blu-ray storage space, the game will be off the hook. But until then the 360 is still my console of choice.

If your buying the PS3 just to get a blu-ray player your wasting your money IMO. Stand alone players can be bought for $200 now.

BTW, If you constantly watch movies on your game console(Xbox 360 or PS3), doesn't it wear the motor out faster? just food for thought.

 

Metal Gear Solid 4.

Unfortunately, those players only support Profile 1.0 or 1.1, not the newer (and far, far superior) Profile 2.0. They also have inferior video hardware compared to the PS3 and higher-priced Blu-Ray players, meaning both DVD upscaling quality and Blu-Ray movie quality isn't quite what one would hope for.

 

Please tell me you used monoprice?


And what about the sound system?

 

Facts?or opinion?

OK bro that Profile 2.0 thing is really worth the extra $200....NOT!

Panasonic DMP-BD35K is the model I bought on Black Friday for $229. and guess what it supports BD-Live which is Profile 2.0.