The bad news about Sony's upcoming PlayStation 3 console continues to flow in. One of the first bad things we heard about the console was about a year ago when Sony's president Ken Kutaragi claimed the PlayStation 3 would be expensive.
I remember some sites stating that this may be a trick to fool Microsoft but later it turned out the PlayStation 3 will in fact be launched for $499 or even $599 if you want one with a 60GB hard disk, HDMI support, Wi-Fi and Memory Stick, SD and CompactFlash card support
The cheapest Xbox 360 only costs $299 and the Premiul model with a HDD retails for $399. Additionally, according to some rumours Microsoft is planning to drop the prices to respectively $219 and $299 in October.
If this is true the PlayStation 3 will be very hard to sell. The PS3 has the advantage of having a Blu-ray player but by the time the PS3 is on the market Microsoft will have launched its HD DVD add-on drive. The price of this HD DVD drive isn't officially announced yet but according to some rumours it may be close to $100.
At this week's E3 show Microsoft said it thinks the PlayStation 3 will be way too expensive, pointing out consumers will be able to buy both the Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii console for the price of a PlayStation 3.
About a year ago Sony defended the PlayStation 3 by stating the PS3 is "a box made of future technology opposed to Xbox 1.5, which seems to be a combination of things available today." However, this week The Inquirer talked with several game developers and heard they aren't really impressed by the performance of the PlayStation 3. The performance isn't really there yet in many cases and they say that both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 don't have enough horsepower to run state-of-the-art PC games like Crysis. Game developers say they are disappointed because they aren't able to do what they've planned to do.
However, Sony's president Ken Kutaragi is still confident they will reach their shipment targets and he even points out the console is "probably too cheap".
In the meantime, Microsoft owns 100 percent of the next-generation console market and it's up to Sony and Nintendo to steal marketshare from the Xbox 360 console.
Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Friday, May 12 2006 @ 23:19:57 CEST
by stating the PS3 is "a box made of future technology opposed to Xbox 1.5
Sounds like Sony was already worried, makng those childish remarks
Reply by Anonymous on Friday, May 12 2006 @ 23:36:46 CEST
I dont think it will be to hard for Sony and Nintends to take market share from Microsoft. At least not in Japan. Maybe here in the US will be another story. I for one am all for getting a Wii AND a 360 for the price of just a PS3.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 01:25:11 CEST
The Nintendo Wii will be something I will be getting, the XBOX 360 however, will not. The fact so many people have had problems, it's gameplay is shit, and Halo 3 is the only good games on it, are just a few reasons as to why I won't be. I would only need one reason to get the PS3, Final Fantasy 7 Remake. Besides that, Sony has brought us the Playstation 1 and 2, which knocked the ***** out of everyother system around. I'd buy another PS2 at its original price as a backup to make sure that in 15 years mine right now didnt break down, before I'd go buy an XBOX 360. Why doubt a company like theirs that has done so well for so long? They've been put up against the odds before, and they ***** succeeded. Stop this stupid bitching about whether it's going to be good or worth it or not, and wait till it ***** comes out before you say anything else.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 01:48:14 CEST
I'll just say one thing then. YOU are an idiot.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:46:27 CEST
Sony must be insane "too cheap". The damn thing is way too expensive and if you don't have a TV that supports HD you're just paying a hell lot of money for something that won't even be used. They should've left the blueray drive for the PS4. Not only that but Microsoft is lowering its prices when the PS3 hits. Sony better get their heads out their asses and see what happened to Nintendo will probably happen to them.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 05:18:42 CEST
I have an xbox 360, there are several good games for it and it
was affordable... I started with the core and bought the accessories
over a period of time. I will probably buy the wii for the same reason
I bought the Gamecube it was cheaper and it had mario, and zelda
I will eventually get a PS3 but not until the second price drop most
likely... I'm a hardcore gamer but this it's just out of my budget
also it sounds like the core system is not upgradeable incrementally
to the features of the full fledged system. How do you add-on hdmi?
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 16:32:52 CEST
e3 more worthless trailers than fema!!!!!
Reply by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 30 2006 @ 11:33:57 CEST
The second post hit the point exactly.
I believe its not about HD or Blueray or who has the most power, it's about who has the ability to present a better gaming experience, as we all know, the 360 is not Gate's vision of "bringing entertainment to gamers" its just about bringing in more cash. (As we all know he tried to buy out Nintendo)
Basically. it all comes down to gameplay, who cares if one console can punch out lifelike, streamline graphics, if the game plays crap whats the point. Its all about quality, not flexing your GHz.
ps. They should just rename the 360 the "Halo" console. Its the only comback Xbox has for any attempt to talk down their console.
"Oh yeah, well we have Halo3!!!"
Get over it.
man shoots gun, alien goes splat, ring goes boom.
Prepare for next halo..and next...and next.
It's all they have.
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 01:55:55 CEST
Are you kidding me?
In what way is 8x2.3 ghz processors weak? The $100 extra for HD-DVD support is simply the reprecussions of a rushed and incomplete product (what microsoft seems to do best). 360 and ps3 aren't even on the same playing field.
the earlier launch, lower cost, and ease of programming for a system that's the same thing, just a tad faster, is the only thing going for xbox.
ps3 is a full generation ahead of 360 in terms of power, fully operational linux OS, native blue ray support, more last gen games to play on the system, higher resolution HDMI (the only format that can play protected content), more intuitive controls with more means of input, free to connect online environment, wifi, larger HD...
as far as the games go, it's opinion, but in mine, halo is the only game xbox has going for it.
this writer's logic is only matched by the bush administration.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:07:12 CEST
You're clearly not a programmer. The only developer who has said it's easy to develop for the PS3 is Tim Sweeney... right before he "demonstrated" UT2007 - oh yeah, that's right, the supposedly in-game footage which was in fact pre-rendered!
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:07:41 CEST
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:22:40 CEST
Uh... because coding for 8x2.3GHz processors is a pain to do? So its really like 1.5x2.3GHz processors? I'd say its more than just a "tad". That, and it lacks cell's software overhead. It will probably be until the end of this console cycle that programmers will even be able to take advantage over 8 cores effectively, if then.
Graphically, the 360 and ps3 are about even... they both use derivatives of 7800/x1900 GPUs. Linux... is great, but its not a whole new world of performance. Since the HD-DVD spec will be going for the xbox several months before the ps3, the market may tend to shift that way, making blu-ray more of a curse than a boon later on when (and if) the hd market matures. As for more last gen games... don't you already have a console to play those? If not you can go pick one up for $130 or so and have something to take up your time until november. You have a TV that you can run those high resolutions on? I sure don't, but then again if you're shelling out 5-600 on a console its all the more likely that you can afford one. Intuitive controls? You mean a ps2 controller with no rumble and has a gyro-sensor? Hey, those Wii those are aweful cheap compared to this, and they do more than just note which way you're pointing the controller. Free to connect online online environment? Oh, you mean xbox live (the silver version is free, which I guess you didn't know...). Wifi? I can strap an adapter onto an xbox for a lot less than the premium ps3 (the cheaper version doesn't have all those nifty features such as HDMI and Wifi if i remember correctly). I'd prefer a trusty cat5 though. Larger HD? Granted, MS could probably have done a little better than just 20GB, but then again are you really going to need a 60GB HD for this? It's not like youre using it for video editing!
Rumor also has it that developers are leaving the PS3 camp for the xbox and Wii, both for easier coding and more innovative features and the better press for the time being.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:29:42 CEST
*7* cores for the first statement, actually. Cell has 1 main core and 6 secondary cores, unless there is some change I'm not aware of.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:25:45 CEST
you realise that when you say 8 processors it is actually 7. The system only uses 7 to increase the possible yields of the chip. Also Pure processing power is not enough to deliver great graphics. In this respect the PS3 is left wanting.
First of all the 360 has a unified shader system which allows the GPU to render both vertex and pixel shaders in the same process. The PS3 GPU does not allow this which means the rendering of shaders is a balancing act between the 2 shader types.
And before you go on about how the 360 is "the same thing just a tad faster". You do realise that the slightly faster system is actually considerably faster in fact.
I would like to go on and explain everything in full detail, but really your own ignorance is so laughable.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 09:28:20 CEST
1 PPU and 7 SPU = 8 processors idiot.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 02:45:33 CEST
Its one thing to have the main risc chip and its SPEs. It's quite another thing to program for them. Most if not all games are NOT threaded, and by this I mean their rendering engine. Not to mention most of the bottleneck is in memory and not the speed of the processor. The bottom line is, no matter how fast your proc is, you have to be able to program for the SPEs and you have to have fast memory. They could have a 200000ghz proc in their system but it won't mean dick if the memory is dirt slow or they can utilize but 1/10th of a percent of the proc speed because they don't know how to program for it.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 05:07:23 CEST
Ps3 will never be able to compete with microsoft now, sure a couple of thousand people will buy it for the freaking outragous price, sure some of them will want all of the add ons like CF HDwhatever and whatever else they can throw in there to make the price higher.
As it stands now with the numbers as they are, nintendo will have a better chance of beating out microsoft than sony will.
I'd also like to point out a few historical facts about sony.
1)They are involved in an illegal DRM schema with rootkits and spyware of the like
2)First the beta, then the minidisc, and now bluray.
3)Its 500 bucks! At the CHEAPEST! who seriously has 500 bucks to just throw down for a game system that isn't that great.
I will now procede to destroy every point you have made.
8x2.3ghz processors running at 2.3 together. Its not faster, it just manages tasks better. Like having a HT Intel with 8 "logical" cpus but really only one chip.
360 and the ps3 arent on the same playing field, your right. As of now 360 is ABOVE the ps3
$100 extra bucks...boo hoo, your complaining about 100 when your spending and extra 100 anyway to get what...CF card support?
lower cost...very good
Ease of programing....very VERY good
A tad faster? Contradicting yourself I see?
The ps3 is a full generation behind the 360. Microsoft used what they had to make a great and affordable product that has ease of use and ease of programming.
Linux...one thing about linux, its for servers and workstations, end of disscussion, sure use it as a gaming system, just call up linus torvaldus when you get an error like grub no path to boot
HDMI...protected content my ass. Proctected content is another word for "we have software to track you and see what you have done and custom make ads for you" Oh wait, they already did that. My bad
Free to connect online enviroment...yeah...360 got that. Wifi? Pretty sure thats an addon card for like 40 bucks...larger HD...ok whatever go and store your "illegally downloaded music colletionc"
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 05:56:08 CEST
can you say "I'm a wanker"
cause you are.
Grub? Linus? Get a clue.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 09:30:43 CEST
omg what a fanboy, lamer!!
360 doesn't have free online, you gotta pay to play online lamer
Reply by Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 00:25:19 CEST
well it does have free online, like downloading stuff. It doesn't have free online gaming. There is a difference.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 06:49:29 CEST
I completely agree. I have friends who work for EA games, and have access to the PS3 Dev Kit. When he took me in one day to show me it we compared it to the 360. He said that they originally develop most of the stuff for PS3 and then rip out tons of code and features (Graphics and Physics) that the 360 can't even begin to handle. Or even hold on a standard DVD. Plus who wants a Add-on sitting next to there console with the rest of the crap.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 08:36:24 CEST
I completely agree. I have friends who work for EA games
No you don't.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 13:17:37 CEST
Haha, well said. That claim was so obviously BS.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 13:30:43 CEST
Saying the PS3 has 8x2.3ghz processors is, on a technical level, comparable to saying water can explode because it contains hydrogen.
Linux OS - means nothing at all. Uninformed fanboy buzzwords.
Native blu-ray support - in theory the games can hold more raw data. In reality, games still arent even maxing out dual-layer DVDs. Basically a moot point.
HDMI isnt higher resolution. Furthermore, youll notice the games coming out for ps3 are only 720p, whereas the 360 launch titles are even 1080i.
Wifi and larger HD are just convenience features, also available on 360 for a better price differential.
Basically, here is the thing. The xbox 360 architecture is faster at every task except floating point calculation. It absolutely kills the PS3 in memory bandwidth. Its difficult to say how this translates to real world performance. It would be logical that this would suggest that the 360 has an edge in graphics and the PS3 an edge in physics, if both are used to their maximum potential. In theory, that is.
In practice, the PS3 architecture is so foreign and the code is so non-portable, that its a lot more difficult to even use the extra FPU power if its there. It also becomes more expensive, having to rewrite big parts of your game from the ground up.
It will be at least a year or 2 before we see titles that really push the limits of either console. No one can really say how its going to pan out. More importantly, who cares? Didnt we lose the "my console is better than yours" in elementary school? Buy what you want and have fun with it. If you need to know the console youre playing is better than the one your neighbor is having fun on next door in order to sleep at night, youve got bigger things to worry about ;)
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 07:39:36 CEST
Hmm... Sony seems to have definitely dropped to ball, but they still have a chance to pick it back up in the long run. There's alot of time between now and November, but I doubt there will be too much of a change. I'd have to say, to me, they made the 360 seem a alot better (and cheaper!)
As for me, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost, and I'll most likely get a Wii, mainly because it is cheaper. I don't want to spend an assload of money on something I'm not gonna use as much anyway.
Whiny console kiddies, FTL.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 12:28:44 CEST
XBOX 360 HAS ALREADY PROVEN ITSELF BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF DEVELOPERS IT HAS OBTAINED ACCEPTANCE OF GAMERS. SONY FAILED TO IMPRESS DEVELOPERS AT THE BEGGINING AND IT SHOWS IN THE POOR TRAILERS THEY TRY TO PASS OFF AS GAME SCREEN. THIER DESPERATIONM SHOWS WORSE IN THE FACT THEY HAVE COPIED MICROSOFTS PRODUCT PLAN OF 2 DIFFERNET BUNDLE SYSTEMS, CONTROLLER CHARGE CABLE, AND Wii STYLE PLAY WHICH THE CLAIM WAS IN PLANNING SINCE 1994. SONY ON-LINE PLAY...WHAT ON-LINE PLAY. MEANWHILE ON XBOX-LIVE PLAYERS PREPARE FOR FUN AND ENJOYMENT.
Reply by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 13:20:11 CEST
First off, it's 7x3.2 Ghz, not 8x2.3.
The Cell is different from other processors in that it focuses on vector based processing as opposed to pixel based processing and it can merge two instructions into one. The problem is, developers don't know how to program for it yet. Near the end of its life games will be more than twice as processor intensive as they are now.
The $500 PS3 is a failure, it is simply too expensive for what you are getting. They should have given it just one hdmi port instead of two for the $600 model.
The $600 model is still a bit high in my book, unless it gives you access to a linux desktop and a compiler. That would make it a competitive computing system instead of an overpriced console.
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Saturday, May 13 2006 @ 22:40:30 CEST
I'm betting on the Blu-Ray for next gen movies so 600 for a Blu-ray player is a freaking deal of a lifetime, not to mention its also a console! That negates the first "Bad thing" stated on this article. There's a possiblity PS3 may not put out enough power for next gen games, but from what ive seen so far, they look awesome. #2 negated.
While I loved my xbox for games such as Ninja Gaiden and Halo, I love my Playstation more. I will not be getting Xbox1.5 which I deemed it myself before hearing anyone else call it this. I may be getting the Wii though if I can spare the money.
I'd say I'm pretty fair in judging both Xbox and Playstation, if anything I'm biased against Nintendo for the Gamecube which I hate. This article sounds to me like a Microsoft fanboi and I couldn't take it seriously. I believe xbox 360 will take 3rd in the next gen war with Wii tied or trailing shortly behind the PS3.
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 06:14:59 CEST
Currently, a Blu-Ray player costs 500 dollars... And the 100 dollar "projected" cost is just rumor. Even then, that's 500 dollars for a system that runs a HD-DVD, which btw, is the cost of the lower end PS3, which btw, would have the same stats as the xbox360, which btw, has HDMI support, which the xbox360 does not. And with the xbox360, they are gambling their chances with HD-DVD since they are not compatible with each other. So, this article doesn't provide any new infomation. For 600 dollars, a system that has new disk technology, can play HDMI, and games, it's about right.
Reply by Anonymous on Sunday, May 14 2006 @ 08:12:59 CEST
BTW, the low end PS3 modem does not have HDMI support.
Reply by Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 04:13:24 CEST
actually, the lower end PS3 does NOT support HDMI
Reply by Anonymous on Monday, May 15 2006 @ 13:38:43 CEST
No one is forcing you to buy the attachment
Reply by Anonymous on Friday, May 19 2006 @ 20:50:47 CEST
what a bunch of whiners some people are. first off the blu ray player is 1000-2500 dollars and so that alone is because the bluray has to have special processors made to make it run. Second all the shit that is going to be in the PS3. I mean come on people. I would pay 600 for a console like that. As far as I am concerned there will be tons more people who buy the PS3 than what is stated in this article.
Reply by Anonymous on Thursday, May 25 2006 @ 15:17:50 CEST
Oh and BTW the lower end ps3 will not suport high defintion in a few years http://gear.ign.com/articles/709/709495p1.html
Reply by Anonymous on Thursday, May 25 2006 @ 20:10:35 CEST
im not getting a ps3 till the price drops dammit i love sony over anyone of them all although im a game fan not a console fan but the price is just too expensive i dont even have a job.......yet maybe when im 16 but damn 600 dollars might as well get a car sheesh what does sony think i dont crap money god damn it
Re: Sony PlayStation 3 - from hero to zero? by Anonymous on Monday, May 29 2006 @ 05:48:12 CEST
Ok, you guys who keep posting about "Bluray"... Its pretty much a SONY product and therefore, in putting it into the ps3, they are creating a gateway to dominate the video medium from already dominating the videogame industry. remember MMCD? I am not going to be spending assloads of money on a nexgen video format until the cards fall whereever they may. Many americans will do this as well. SO, unless bluray wins against hd dvd, its just novelty crap. oh, and just because ps always has more titles doesnt mean those games are quality. I am also sick of Sony ripping off other systems (HDD, eyetoy [ripoff of dreamcast product], the ps3 controller). It just shows how low a company can stoop to make money off of other peoples ideas. The only reason to buy a ps IMO is for traditional RPGs, which seems to be changing for the nextgen consoles... Xbox360 and Wii, ftw.
p.s. I have a sony free home, 2 dreamcasts, an Xbox, and a Gamecube.
Reply by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 07 2006 @ 15:45:39 CEST
The Playstation consoles may have a greater variety of games but most of them just aren't terribly interesting. If I walk into a store I mostly walk right on by it's section, but XBox almost always has a game I will buy, and I am next to never dissapointed in them. Now everybody wants a Playstation 3 because it has
. Who buys a game console so they can watch movies? Who? I mean, who even has $600 to spend on a game console? I don't. But I could buy an Xbox 360 for $300 and still have a little left for games.
Reply by Anonymous on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 23:25:50 CET
Wow Get laid. You know nothing about tje next Gen so ***** off the blue ray play will play HD DVD and the Blue Ray disks so blow me. Whats wrong with the Large selection of games? nothing. Everyone gets what the want. Sony doesnt rip off of other companys. The eye toy is original b/c of the way it is used. It was totaly used differently in the Dream cast. The Xbox then came out with a Camera Shortly after the eyetoy so blow me. The Hard drive is a gay example Eventualy all of the systems will have a hard drive. And for the Tilting controller, There was a tilting Psx controller in 1999 so ***** OFF, YOU HAVE NO CLUE ON WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW SUCK A FAT ONE