What do you think about the PS3 and Blu-ray?
We wanna know! Tell us about your thoughts concerning the PlayStation 3 and Blu-ray. It's hard to go a week without having someone say something about the issue, so here's your chance to finally throw down. Check out the poll below and see what's up. And no, you won't find an "Other" option for those of you not interested in purchasing the system. So what are you waiting for? Cast your vote and leave a comment![The poll is officially closed! Check the results here.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Elric @ Jun 19th 2006 1:15PM
I smell BS already, how can that many people think it's a GREAT idea when I bet at the MOST 1% of those people can ACTUALLY watch their games in true HD! I don't think people as a general rule have ANY idea what HD is. Everyone spouts HD "Ready" etc but none of the TV's in my area have the capability of true HD. Blu Ray and HD-DVD are about 2 years ahead of their time.
Lame. I smell PS3 fanboys ;)
SuicideNinja @ Jun 19th 2006 1:15PM
Wow. The naivite on the so-claimed DVD replacments is astounding! I voted optional, as some people might actually want Bluray, just like some people actually want HD-DVD.
Julian @ Jun 19th 2006 2:04PM
Making blu-ray optional is nonsense. Think back to PS2, what if DVD had been optional there?? That wouldve been very bad.
Sony wants every PS3 to support every game. That is not possible when there are games on blu-ray and some people decided not to buy a PS3 with blu-ray.
boots @ Jun 19th 2006 4:07PM
Elric, you might smell fanboys, but I smell ignorance. Blu-ray is not only needed for HD-content. It's simply needed for bigger games in general. Games will naturally occupy more content; Oblivion occupies something around 5 GB of space, even with procedural generated content, and even when it was meant to be a launch game. That's also assuming it isn't compressed. The game doesn't have FMV, does it?
FMV is sometimes needed, I don't care how powerful you think PS3 or 360 are. Both consoles have limits, and where hardware ends, pre-rendered CGI starts. If it's a 1080X1920 video, then developers better have some space. Also, assuming development tools aren't becoming better, i.e. content is being made faster than before, is foolish.
Blu-ray is not here for making 25-50 GB games. Blu-ray is here for making games that are *larger* than just 9GB, and that require a single disc, such as fighting games or whatnot. Too bad cross-platform titles are made for the lowest common denominator. Then again, who cares? You buy the console for its exclusives, and the exclusives usually exploit the system's strenghts, that's why PS3 sounds a lot better.
Anyway, don't believe me, believe the developers such as EA, Ubisoft, Mark Rein of Epic Games, Squaresoft, Team Ninja, and even PGR3's developer. I sent this in before, but I don't understand why it didn't get mentioned, so here it goes, why is Blu-ray needed for movies, and especially for games (scroll down):
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24703960
There are some games that you'll see and think "but they do fit on DVD!", but the question you should pose is, "What are they missing now that they fit?". It's only the beginning of the generation and there are already complaints. If only Microsoft had chosen a much bigger sized hard drive as a standard, only the next-gen discs would have been pointless.
Games on 360 cost 60 dollars, but why should I pay more if it's the same amount of content?
And by the way, check this out:
http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/05/12/blu-ray-movies-are-cheaper-than-hd-dvd/
I thought HD-DVD was cheaper ;), even when more blu-ray movies were averaged. And saying the difference in quality from SD to HD movies is not noticeable is like saying the same for gaming. But let's assume it's noticeable more for gaming, it is still noticeable in movies. Hell, the Sony presentation for HD movies had two Blu-ray playing laptops, one with a Blu-ray disc, and another one with a DVD disc (which excited trolls and made them post missinterpretations in several websites), but anyway, the quality was noticeable, even when you looked at it through small pictures in your computer monitor.
rothgar @ Jun 19th 2006 5:03PM
boots
Thank you for your comment. Blue-Ray should be required not to force a format on you but to allow for games that are more than even 9 gb (dual layer) or multiple disks. The hard drive should also NOT be optional because this can greatly decrease load times if EVERY ps3 has it.
the 360 will never be able to take advantage of any game that is more than a dual layer DVD.
naggs @ Jun 19th 2006 6:51PM
the whole idea of going to the store and buying a box that contains a game is going to be gone in 5 years. everything should be downloadable, have a free trial, then pay to continue. about 3 years after ps3 comes out i will buy one and i expect all games to be this way.
Kid Muscle @ Jun 19th 2006 6:59PM
I am pleased PS3 will use BD.
Gives Developers the ability to add what they want, without having to reduce Graphics or Content.
Also gives them the ability to code all regions onto 1 disc.
I also await the day, I can buy a television series, and have it all on 1 BD, instead of 3-4 DVD's.
boots @ Jun 19th 2006 8:29PM
No problem rothgar. I think the same... I want longer console lifespans, even if I have to pay 100 bucks extra, which is a steal for two more years, which means more games on a single generation, which means more price drops for casuals and non-gamers (when there are a good bunch of games already), which means more profit and cost amortizing for developers, which means more life to the gaming industry and gaming in general.
I also forgot to point out, did you notice the prices in HD-DVD and Blu-ray? I know I pointed out how Blu-ray movies are cheaper by 3 dollars on average (as of now), but also they are not so expensive. On average, both cost *less* than 25 dollars, and Blu-ray discs are near the 20 dollar price point, which leads me to think that PS3 games might not be more expensive than Xbox 360 games (for us consumers).
In fact, if you read how Blu-ray is made, it could eventually (and totally) replace DVD, as it only needs one coating, so after some time it would become cheaper. If it was more expensive, it was only because it's a new technology, but not because it is simply more expensive. And that's not to mention that it has a lot more potential than HD-DVD.
chris @ Jun 19th 2006 9:38PM
I am a big fan of anything HD and am happy that Sony put Blu-Ray in the PS3, however.........
There are definitely a few issues I have with it. For starters, I have been a Playstation fan and owner since the original ps and worked for Sony as a QA tester for 2 1/2 years. The PS3 has me worried because Sony wants it to do way too much. How many of you have had more than one PS2? I personally have had 2 and I have friends who have been through 3-4....and this is with it being used 80% for gaming and an occasional DVD thrown in.
They want the PS3 to be a primary ceterpiece for home entertainment yet the durability displayed in the PS2 makes me weary, especially at $600.
Secondly, if Blu-Ray is the sole reason the PS3 has been delayed and has caused many of the touted features to be out of the PS3 (because of the Blu-Ray cost), then it definitely wasn't worth it.
Also, what kind of loading times are we looking at with 25-50 gigs of data to spin through (though the hard drive will help this, it is still first gen with a read/write speed far subpar to what is available on DVD)?
Negatives aside, developers are already running into game size limitations on disc and the Blu-Ray output is at 1080p with a player that can handle it, oh did I mention it has 25-50 gigs of space? Fortunately, I do have a Hi-Def 50" plasma for my primary TV and my gaming TV is a 37" 1080p LCD (purchased specifically for the PS3 and my XBOX 360). I can't wait to get Hi-Def movies for the TV's and really hope that Sony beats the Betamax (or UMD) curse
matjet @ Jun 20th 2006 3:11AM
gaaarg.
can you make the words next to each option, continue on to the right, as opposed to the current short wrap around. you get the words attached to the options mixed up.
chris, the 2x blu-ray drive in ps3 is not so much subpar with current gen speeds as you presume, becouse the blu-ray discs are read 4 times faster. this means it is the equivelent of an 8x dvd.
Jim N. @ Jun 20th 2006 6:44PM
While I am amazed that 54% of prespective buyers want Blu-Ray included, I still think Sony should remember that 46% are either against Blu-Ray being put in or are not exactly excited about it. Frankly I think they should give developers and buyers the choice if they want a Blu-Ray drive included.
Now that Sony has changed their minds again, and are now offering a two SKU option I think a much more fair offering would have been this. The premium system could have the Blu-Ray drive installed. The cheaper system could have a regular DVD drive in it, but have the 60 gig hard drive, the card reader ports, and the HDMI port. Later on if all the fun games started coming out exculsively on Blu-Ray they could sell an add on Blu-Ray drive so I could and still get the full experince. This would also allow them to sell the cheaper package for a little less cost since the Blu-Ray drive is probably one of the biggest expenses in the system. This gives the consumers time to see which format if either format will prevail, and gives developers time to also plan and prepare to make larger content games.
But if they did this then they could not force developers to publish on Blu-Ray, they can not claim a large install base of Blu-Ray drives to try to convince movie studios to release movies on Blu-Ray.
Here is my question to everyone. I think that allot of exculsive titles for the PS3 will probably take full advantage of Blu-Ray and games will eventually programmed for the Cell processor. But for cross platfrom games such as Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Madden Football, do developers want to go to the extra expense of publishing on Blu-Ray disks, and developing games specifically for the Cell processor. And who do you think is going end up paying for all these little extras. Second are game developers going to make a game that plays on the 360, Wii, then create tons of extra content for the PS3 version so they can fill up a Blu-Ray disk? Now I suppose you could say that all that extra content could then be downloaded to the 360 and Wii. I am assuming that game programming is similar to regular business programming. And everytime new programming software comes out, companies need to send their programmers to classes to learn how to fully take advantage of all the new features and new ways of programming. These classes are very expensive. So I am wondering if there is not going to be allot of start up expenses for companies who want to publish games to take full advantage of the PS3’s cell processor.
boots @ Jun 22nd 2006 12:39AM
"While I am amazed that 54% of prespective buyers want Blu-Ray included, I still think Sony should remember that 46% are either against Blu-Ray being put in or are not exactly excited about it. Frankly I think they should give developers and buyers the choice if they want a Blu-Ray drive included."
As I said, developers already *want* Blu-ray. Also, 54% of gamers is more than enough, as for now. There is no console made for 100% of gamers (but Wii possibly comes close to that). However, most people saying "it should be optional" are ignorant of what Blu-ray is, what it is good for, and so on. When that number grows (because it probably will), the price will be lower, and everyone will win.
"Now that Sony has changed their minds again, and are now offering a two SKU option I think a much more fair offering would have been this. The premium system could have the Blu-Ray drive installed. The cheaper system could have a regular DVD drive in it, but have the 60 gig hard drive, the card reader ports, and the HDMI port."
That wouldn't make sense. The point of two different SKUs is not to cripple one (like the case of 360), but rather, to make the difference only accessory-wise.
"Later on if all the fun games started coming out exculsively on Blu-Ray they could sell an add on Blu-Ray drive so I could and still get the full experince."
32X anyone? SegaCD anyone? This is exactly what has to be avoided.
"This would also allow them to sell the cheaper package for a little less cost since the Blu-Ray drive is probably one of the biggest expenses in the system."
Sony doesn't care about this. Again, that would cripple the console.
"This gives the consumers time to see which format if either format will prevail, and gives developers time to also plan and prepare to make larger content games."
Umm, the consumer makes the choice which format prevails. If you and all other gamers that want a PS3, chances are Blu-ray will win. Michael Moore agree's that Sony will sell out their first PS3 shipments, regardless of Xbox 360's cost. You know how many HD-DVD players predicted toshiba to sell till the end of 2006? Hint: Much less than 100,000. On the other hand, Sony will likely sell 6 million PS3s by March 2007. Now, combine PS3 with all the Samsung, Pioneer, Sony, Panasonic, etcetera Blu-ray players on the market, plus the fact that there are a ton more movies for Blu-ray (that cost similar to HD-DVD).
"But if they did this then they could not force developers to publish on Blu-Ray, they can not claim a large install base of Blu-Ray drives to try to convince movie studios to release movies on Blu-Ray. "
EXACTLY, and since Blu-ray is a superior format for near every application, it was a wise choice to include it. PS3 had to have a next-gen format anyway.
"Here is my question to everyone. I think that allot of exculsive titles for the PS3 will probably take full advantage of Blu-Ray and games will eventually programmed for the Cell processor."
Which is what matters anyway.
"But for cross platfrom games such as Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Madden Football, do developers want to go to the extra expense of publishing on Blu-Ray disks, and developing games specifically for the Cell processor."
Maybe developers will program the same amount of content for both, and then cut it down so it fits on Xbox 360, or compress it (which is not the best solution, you lose quality, and it costs processing time).
"And who do you think is going end up paying for all these little extras."
You are already paying extra for no extra content on 360, but at least you'll pay extra for extra content on PS3.
"Second are game developers going to make a game that plays on the 360, Wii, then create tons of extra content for the PS3 version so they can fill up a Blu-Ray disk?"
That's the same question. Why would developers develop for 360 and Wii anyway? They are very different machines. Chances are each machine will get a different version: PS3 the next-gen one, 360 gets the left-overs of the next-gen one so it can fit, and Wii gets the dumbed down (but cheaper) version with intuitive controls. That, or PS3 gets the same thing as 360, which is likelier, but what I'm saying here, is that PS3 has the edge if the developer becomes ambicious. It also doesn't have to get info as compressed as 360 has to.
"Now I suppose you could say that all that extra content could then be downloaded to the 360 and Wii."
No. It wouldn't fit, and Wii doesn't even have an HDD. It'd be useless. PS3 will get either an uncompressed version, or the same version as 360. It doesn't matter anyway, as almost anyone chooses a system for its exclusives, not for the cross-platform titles (unless you only play cross-platform games, such as sports games).
"I am assuming that game programming is similar to regular business programming. And everytime new programming software comes out, companies need to send their programmers to classes to learn how to fully take advantage of all the new features and new ways of programming. These classes are very expensive. So I am wondering if there is not going to be allot of start up expenses for companies who want to publish games to take full advantage of the PS3’s cell processor."
This is all speculation. No need to worry about all this, just wait till all consoles are out and you'll see the outcome.
Jim N @ Jun 22nd 2006 11:02AM
“That wouldn't make sense. The point of two different SKUs is not to cripple one (like the case of 360), but rather, to make the difference only accessory-wise.”
The Cheaper Sony product is crippled, there is NO HDMI port and there is no way to get that functionality by addons. The 360 on the other hand you can purchase some addons and get to the full functionality of the premium system. So I do not agree with your comments there. If Sony changed its offering to have a Blu-Ray drive as the optional equipment, and added back all the other functionality of the PS3 they could probably offer the lower end PS3 cheaper then the low end 360, there by making it more competitive. What was the big news at E3, it was the price of the console. Second this would allow the market to drive itself. If game manufactures choose to publish games on Blu-Ray then they make that choice based on their companies position in the market and the type of games they produce, if they feel that their games will work just fine on a DVD then they can also do that. If consumers feel that they will initially watch the Blu-Ray movies or play the games that come out on Blu-Ray then they have the choice to either purchase the premium system or later on upgrade their PS3 with an add on Blu-Ray drive. I am not arguing whether Blu-Ray is good or bad, frankly I do not know yet. What I am arguing is that I should have the choice.
“Umm, the consumer makes the choice which format prevails. If you and all other gamers that want a PS3, chances are Blu-ray will win. Michael Moore agree's that Sony will sell out their first PS3 shipments, regardless of Xbox 360's cost.”
Here again consumers are not making the choice. Sony is making that choice for us, if you want to play the PS3 you will have a Blu-Ray drive. I am sure the PS3 will sell out right away, it is a great system. Some of the games look incredible. But how many of us consumers are going to utilize the Blu-Ray technology right away. Since Sony is calling the PS3 a computer why can not give me the option to upgrade to a Blu-Ray drive later on.
“EXACTLY, and since Blu-ray is a superior format for near every application, it was a wise choice to include it. PS3 had to have a next-gen format anyway.”
As for a media format it probably is the better format, so hopefully after 20 years a Sony format will finally catch on. But now in the age of digital media we really do not need a new media format for movies or games. We should be looking at digital downloading.
“You are already paying extra for no extra content on 360, but at least you'll pay extra for extra content on PS3.”
That is a good point currently most of the 360 games have the same content levels at the PS2, and Xbox 1. They usually look much nicer but that is it which in my mind does not justify an extra $10 to $20 dollars. But that is a developer issue not a console issue. Splinter Cell:Double Agent promises extra content for all the next gen consoles, while the Xbox, PS2, and Game Cube will have cut scenes in place of next gen game play.
“No. It wouldn't fit, and Wii doesn't even have an HDD. It'd be useless. PS3 will get either an uncompressed version, or the same version as 360. It doesn't matter anyway, as almost anyone chooses a system for its exclusives, not for the cross-platform titles (unless you only play cross-platform games, such as sports games).”
Nintendo came out months ago and said that you will be able to hook up any USB hard drive (of you the consumer’s choice) to the Wii and use that to store downloaded content (In my mind this is what the 360 and the PS3 should be offering). Hmmm games like Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Madden, Max Payne, Grand Theft Auto, Tony Hawk Stakeboarding, and the list goes on and on, there are enough cross platform titles that I think this is a valid concern. I really do not think that developers of those titles are going to create double the content of those games just for one of the three consoles. And if those are the games that you play how much extra benefit are you going to see from Blu-Ray.
Your right this is all speculation. I honestly did not believe that this many consumers wanted Blu-Ray but since they do maybe Sony is making the right decision to make it standard. But I was mistaken. But look at the poll when I checked it just now only 780 people had voted, and if they are projecting to sell 6 million in a little under a year I think that is a very small sample of people who are probably very tech based, not the average consumer. I guess I am just upset that they are pushing a fairly expensive piece of equipment on me that I am not sure at this point I really need. It will be at least two years before I can afford to upgrade my current 1080i television to a 1080p. Seeing some huge games like Oblivion that only takes up 5 gig on a standard DVD drive makes me believe that there is not a huge need just yet for larger media formats. Here again in two to three years maybe that will change and then an add on drive would be something that I would be excited to have.
boots @ Jun 22nd 2006 9:20PM
"The Cheaper Sony product is crippled, there is NO HDMI port and there is no way to get that functionality by addons."
False. The HDCP Token is pressumed by analists to not be used in a long time. By then, Blu-ray players will be *much* cheaper.
"The 360 on the other hand you can purchase some addons and get to the full functionality of the premium system."
The 360 is crippled because it doesn't have an HDD out of the box, not to mention the possibility of games having to be cut down (or they have possibly done that).
"So I do not agree with your comments there. If Sony changed its offering to have a Blu-Ray drive as the optional equipment, and added back all the other functionality of the PS3 they could probably offer the lower end PS3 cheaper then the low end 360, there by making it more competitive."
And where would the differentiator be? I like PS3 because of its superior technology, and I consider a next-gen format necessary, at least this generation. Read the link I posted.
"What was the big news at E3, it was the price of the console. Second this would allow the market to drive itself."
So Sony isn't part of the market? I disagree, Sony *is* part of the market.
"If game manufactures choose to publish games on Blu-Ray then they make that choice based on their companies position in the market and the type of games they produce, if they feel that their games will work just fine on a DVD then they can also do that."
One reason (of the many) that Sony decided all games to be published on Blu-ray, is not only make it a driving force for Blu-ray, but also for games to stop being pirated. So if developers don't want to protect their business from piracy, good for them, but there is no reason why Sony shouldn't protect themselves from piracy. This should please developers, such as Ubisoft and EA (as posted above). How does this benefit us? Publisher/Developer don't have to rake in costs of piracy. Furthermore, a publisher might want to make every game a single worldwide SKU to rake in less costs. As you said, who will pay for costs? Us. And who will benefit from cheaper costs? US.
"If consumers feel that they will initially watch the Blu-Ray movies or play the games that come out on Blu-Ray then they have the choice to either purchase the premium system or later on upgrade their PS3 with an add on Blu-Ray drive. I am not arguing whether Blu-Ray is good or bad, frankly I do not know yet. What I am arguing is that I should have the choice."
You said that already, and I told you how that would have been a huge mistake: remember SegaCD or 32X? It's just good to have that "little extra" as stated by developers already.
"Here again consumers are not making the choice. Sony is making that choice for us, if you want to play the PS3 you will have a Blu-Ray drive."
Just for 100 bucks extra. If you want to simply play games, you just have to pay 100 bucks extra. Why is it worth it? Because you are ensured that your library of PS2 and PS1 games are compatible (and if you had none of those, you can play those games), and furthermore, because you have the guarantee that the exclusive games you get won't have to be cut down in order to fit on a single disc.
"I am sure the PS3 will sell out right away, it is a great system. Some of the games look incredible. But how many of us consumers are going to utilize the Blu-Ray technology right away."
From day 1. Games will come on Blu-ray, so you'll be using Blu-ray.
"Since Sony is calling the PS3 a computer why can not give me the option to upgrade to a Blu-Ray drive later on."
Because that would hurt the console, the developers, the publisher, and so on. It's just 100 bucks, if you can afford a 400 dollar 360, you can most likely afford a 500 dollar PS3, with more guarantee's and benefits.
"As for a media format it probably is the better format, so hopefully after 20 years a Sony format will finally catch on. But now in the age of digital media we really do not need a new media format for movies or games. We should be looking at digital downloading."
This pisses me off. Do you really think no Sony format has ever picked up? CDs, 3.5" diskettes, PS1, and PS2 are successful formats. Furthermore, Sony (with PS2) is one of the primary causes of DVDs success (they also hold some patents on it, although Toshiba has most), and Betamax didn't die in its entirety; videocameras kept using a version of it.
Digital Content? Blu-ray is closer than digital content. Besides, that would have needed a *huge* hard drive, and banking entirely on the net, which is much worse than including Blu-ray (which is a good thing) as of now.
"That is a good point currently most of the 360 games have the same content levels at the PS2, and Xbox 1. They usually look much nicer but that is it which in my mind does not justify an extra $10 to $20 dollars. But that is a developer issue not a console issue. Splinter Cell:Double Agent promises extra content for all the next gen consoles, while the Xbox, PS2, and Game Cube will have cut scenes in place of next gen game play."
That is also Microsoft's problem. They are justifying developers in doing this. They even say that content size will be "reduced", so why should we pay the same, or more? Especially if we're guaranteed that there will not be games that utilize the full potential of a next-gen disc (because some would be impossible on multiple discs).
"Nintendo came out months ago and said that you will be able to hook up any USB hard drive (of you the consumer’s choice) to the Wii and use that to store downloaded content (In my mind this is what the 360 and the PS3 should be offering)."
PS3 is offering a 60 GB HDD, plus upgrades in the future, plus being able to use any HDD. 360 has an optional HDD (which is near worthless for games), and on the Wii, the situation is worse because you won't use it for games. So developers will mostly be able to take advantage of the PS3 HDD, on the 360 risking some market, and on the Wii it will be even less, since the space of its flash memory is minimum.
"Hmmm games like Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Madden, Max Payne, Grand Theft Auto, Tony Hawk Stakeboarding, and the list goes on and on, there are enough cross platform titles that I think this is a valid concern. I really do not think that developers of those titles are going to create double the content of those games just for one of the three consoles. And if those are the games that you play how much extra benefit are you going to see from Blu-Ray."
Of course they won't. That's why I said that either the Ps3 version will be uncompressed, the 360 version will be cut or heavily compressed, or neither, both will have very little content. Wii will not get a port, but rather, an exclusive experience (yet cheaper), as it is too different from the other two. Besides, I don't think many people decide which console to buy according to cross-platform games. Then again, many would, such as casuals and non-gamers, but for such to buy the console, they must see some added value to actually buy it, and they will see: Wii is cheap and a new experience, PS3 is expensive yet it plays nearly every format and is prepared for the future, or Xbox 360 which is just an old-fashioned games console that gives them nothing besides the console and the games for it, such as an HD player, backwards compatibility, or a new experience.
"Your right this is all speculation. I honestly did not believe that this many consumers wanted Blu-Ray but since they do maybe Sony is making the right decision to make it standard. But I was mistaken. But look at the poll when I checked it just now only 780 people had voted, and if they are projecting to sell 6 million in a little under a year I think that is a very small sample of people who are probably very tech based, not the average consumer."
Yes, the poll is most likely biased, but 6 million customers is probably more than enough to overwhelm the HD-DVD population with 100,000 users at best.
"I guess I am just upset that they are pushing a fairly expensive piece of equipment on me that I am not sure at this point I really need."
I don't think you need to worry much about that. By the time you are able to buy it (since it'll be sold out), a price drop will be inminent. Furthermore, Yakuza, God Hand, FFXII, God of War 2, Okami, Street Fighter Alpha Compilation, and God Hand are coming to PS2, so you'll probably have plenty of time before deciding for a next-gen system (those are more great games that the 360, PS3 or Wii will have by January 2007). And that doesn't include all the ones you haven't played yet.
"It will be at least two years before I can afford to upgrade my current 1080i television to a 1080p. Seeing some huge games like Oblivion that only takes up 5 gig on a standard DVD drive makes me believe that there is not a huge need just yet for larger media formats. Here again in two to three years maybe that will change and then an add on drive would be something that I would be excited to have."
I think that it wouldn't be exciting to have to buy an add-on. 32X and SegaCD flopped. And, to me, knowing that oblivion is a 5GB game, when it lacks some things to make it look better, CGI cut-scenes, and it is a first-generation game for 360, is worrying, not otherwise.
Jim N. @ Jun 23rd 2006 2:09AM
“This pisses me off. Do you really think no Sony format has ever picked up? CDs, 3.5" diskettes, PS1, and PS2 are successful formats. Furthermore, Sony (with PS2) is one of the primary causes of DVDs success (they also hold some patents on it, although Toshiba has most), and Betamax didn't die in its entirety; videocameras kept using a version of it.”
Honestly where do you come up with this stuff everyone know that Phillps came up with the CD format. DVD was mainly invented by a company called “Matshusita” but Sony along with a few other companies how different license pateints. And the DVD format was going strong long before the PS2 came around. The fact that the PS2 had a DVD player in Japan is one of the main reasons the system took off so well. And OK you are right they came up with the 3.5 inch floppy disk. As for hardware no one is arguing that they have always created great hard way. I have never bought a digital camera that was not a Sony, most of my TVs, VCR, and DVD players were all Sony. But that has nothing to do with the mountain of failed media formats.
“False. The HDCP Token is pressumed by analists to not be used in a long time. By then, Blu-ray players will be *much* cheaper.”
With no HDMI port how do you plan on getting the 1080p output? You can not and there fore the thing is crippled.
“The 360 is crippled because it doesn't have an HDD out of the box, not to mention the possibility of games having to be cut down (or they have possibly done that).“
The PS2 does not have that either, so are you saying the PS2 is a crippled game system? But it comes with a memory card that will allow you to store 64 meg of data that is allot of games plays and some extra content. It will allow you to set up a profile on Xbox live. And the simple fact is that if you want you can get your system to the same level as the premium system if you want to at a later date. With the cheaper PS3 unless you are cracking open the case and moding it you are stuck with a small hard drive and absolutely no way to output HDMI.
“So Sony isn't part of the market? I disagree, Sony *is* part of the market.”
The market is customers choosing what they want.
“One reason (of the many) that Sony decided all games to be published on Blu-ray, is not only make it a driving force for Blu-ray, but also for games to stop being pirated. So if developers don't want to protect their business from piracy, good for them, but there is no reason why Sony shouldn't protect themselves from piracy. This should please developers, such as Ubisoft and EA (as posted above). How does this benefit us? Publisher/Developer don't have to rake in costs of piracy. Furthermore, a publisher might want to make every game a single worldwide SKU to rake in less costs. As you said, who will pay for costs? Us. And who will benefit from cheaper costs? US.”
Honestly you believe that Blu-Ray is unhackable? I do not even know where to begin with that statement. Since Blu-Ray disks are suppose to be released sometime in June I thought. If they are not being hacked and copied by the middle of August I will be completely baffled. Acutally the idea of unhackable uncopyable format is so ludicrious I can not even begin to believe that someone would acutally believe that.
“You said that already, and I told you how that would have been a huge mistake: remember SegaCD or 32X? It's just good to have that "little extra" as stated by developers already.”
That was a much different market then. And since you bring that up, look at what developing a larger more expensive format then what the market needed at the time did in the past.
“Just for 100 bucks extra. If you want to simply play games, you just have to pay 100 bucks extra. Why is it worth it? Because you are ensured that your library of PS2 and PS1 games are compatible (and if you had none of those, you can play those games), and furthermore, because you have the guarantee that the exclusive games you get won't have to be cut down in order to fit on a single disc.”
Just a $100 extra, yeah on top of another $100 extra for the PS3. I do think that is interesting that they are including all the PS2 hardware inside the PS3 so that it is backward compatible. That is a nice feature, and since most Playstation fans are very loyal to the Playstation brand that will be a benefit to a majority of users. This is an extra feature that we are probably paying for but is a feature that I think most PS3 buyers will enjoy.
“From day 1. Games will come on Blu-ray, so you'll be using Blu-ray.”
Right but you are missing the point. Are all these games going to need the extra space that Blu-Ray has to offer or is it simply going to be a disk that has about 5 gig of content on it and the rest is empty space, there by it could have been released on a regular DVD.
“Because that would hurt the console, the developers, the publisher, and so on. It's just 100 bucks, if you can afford a 400 dollar 360, you can most likely afford a 500 dollar PS3, with more guarantee's and benefits.”
All of the developers that have made statements about the PS3 say that its processing power and setup is not going to produce a substantially more power. So I am curious where I am getting more Guarantees. As for benefits, the cheap Blu-Ray player is the only benefit I really see. And since companies like NetFlix are starting to come out with downloadable movies on demand, they I am sure will allow you to download HD movies without any sort of proprietary formats.
“That is also Microsoft's problem. They are justifying developers in doing this. They even say that content size will be "reduced", so why should we pay the same, or more? Especially if we're guaranteed that there will not be games that utilize the full potential of a next-gen disc (because some would be impossible on multiple discs).”
The first part of that statement went right over my head I am not even sure what you ment by that. The second part about utilizing the full potential of a Blu-Ray disk, is that for publishers to create enough game content to fill a Blu-Ray disk they would probably have to charge about the cost of a Nintendo Wii. If it already costs them several million dollars to produce a game that takes some where between 3 and 5 gig, the time and man power to create levels, characters, voice acting, and coding 45 gig of data would be incredible. If a game that takes up 5 gig costs us $40 it would stand to reason that a game that takes up 45 gig would cost $300 or more.
“PS3 is offering a 60 GB HDD, plus upgrades in the future, plus being able to use any HDD. 360 has an optional HDD (which is near worthless for games), and on the Wii, the situation is worse because you won't use it for games. So developers will mostly be able to take advantage of the PS3 HDD, on the 360 risking some market, and on the Wii it will be even less, since the space of its flash memory is minimum.”
How is the HDD on the 360 near worthless? If so the HDD on the cheaper PS3 would be also just as worthless. Gaming wise what are you possible going to store that will use 60 gig? I have an Xbox 1 and I downloaded tons of extra maps, golf courses, missions, and what not and never even came close to filling it up. I have game demos, movie trailers, expansion packs on my current 360 HDD and I am no where near close to filling that up either. Second Microsoft has said they will release larger HDDs in the future too, but I do not believe everything I am told. Where has Sony ever stated that you can hook up additional HDD for gaming? I have never seen or read anything about that? And not using a HDD for games on a Wii where do you think all the retro console games are going to be stored that you download? The Wii has no sort of storage unit with it because you can use any USB HDD that means if you have tons of money and are a huge retro gamer you could download their entire game library onto a large USB HDD, I call that using it for gaming.
And as stated before there is no game saves that will not fit on a 64 meg memory card that comes with the Core 360.
“Of course they won't. That's why I said that either the Ps3 version will be uncompressed, the 360 version will be cut or heavily compressed, or neither, both will have very little content. Wii will not get a port, but rather, an exclusive experience (yet cheaper), as it is too different from the other two. Besides, I don't think many people decide which console to buy according to cross-platform games. Then again, many would, such as casuals and non-gamers, but for such to buy the console, they must see some added value to actually buy it, and they will see: Wii is cheap and a new experience, PS3 is expensive yet it plays nearly every format and is prepared for the future, or Xbox 360 which is just an old-fashioned games console that gives them nothing besides the console and the games for it, such as an HD player, backwards compatibility, or a new experience.”
If you believe that publishers are going to give content away to PS3 users and charge the rest of the world for the same content you are crazy. Publishers are crying poverty and using advertising in games to generate more revenue. Madden, and Grand Theft Auto are two of the largest selling franchises both are cross platform. You are thinking like a gamer but a there is a large portion of the market that the console that is purchased is based on the parents decsion not the person playing the games themselves. And if you can get all the same games on either console the fact that one is $200 cheaper will probably have a major role in that decision. It would be nice if the 360 was backwards compatible this has been a complaint of mine ever since they started the BC list. But the PS2 is not completely backwards compatible (while it is much closer the Xbox 360 is at this time).
“Yes, the poll is most likely biased, but 6 million customers is probably more than enough to overwhelm the HD-DVD population with 100,000 users at best.”
But of that 6 million how many plan on buying Blu-Ray movies. How many PSP users went out and stocked up on UMD movies. Sure UMD games formats are good. I have a PSP and love it, the UMD format is what is killing the PSP. Running the drive to load the data off a disk kills the battery life. If they made it possible for users to transfer the games from the UMD disk to the memory stick so it could be run off the memory stick but just checked and verified that you actually still have the UMD disk the battery life would be much longer. And since I am on the topic of PSP. The PSP is a much more powerful, better looking, more media friendly and advanced system. But the Nintendo DS weekly stomps the PSP in sales. Compare hardware in the PSP to the DS (and even the DS Lite) and the PSP out and out kills it. But the PSP is not even close in market share. Why? I think it is because Sony wanted so badly for the UMD format to take off thinking everyone is going to buy these big movie collections of UMDs. They did not concentrate on the games, and games are what sell systems. And the PS3 is following the same marketing path as the PSP. They are pushing the Blu-Ray drive more then anything else on the whole PS3.
“I think that it wouldn't be exciting to have to buy an add-on. 32X and SegaCD flopped. And, to me, knowing that oblivion is a 5GB game, when it lacks some things to make it look better, CGI cut-scenes, and it is a first-generation game for 360, is worrying, not otherwise.”
Are you kidding that is a first generation game of the 360 and it is outstanding, by the time the third generation comes around they will have perfected the programming skills and the games will be light years better. Look at the first gen PS2 games compared to some of the latest ones, or the Xbox one games compared to the latest games. They are way better. Microsoft has announced that they have and HD-DVD add on drive coming out later next year. And if Blu-Ray wins this format war do not think for a second Microsoft will not issue an add on Blue Ray drive for the 360. They use DVD and that has ties with Sony, they do not care as long as there are big selling games coming out. And if and when that day ever comes the technology will be so much cheaper that they will not have to hit you for $200 dollars.
I am actually amazed that you are so against Microsoft and Nintendo. You honestly sound like you are a Sony PR person. In all your coments I have ever read Sony can do no wrong, and everybody elses consoles are worthless. I have enjoyed some PS2 titles and find it to be a good gaming system. It seems that most of my complaints about the PS2 have been addressed and fixed with the PS3. And if there are enough exculsive titles I will probably by a PS3 eventually. But I just wish Sony would not mandate so many things and give users more options.
boots @ Jun 23rd 2006 4:30PM
"Honestly where do you come up with this stuff everyone know that Phillps came up with the CD format. DVD was mainly invented by a company called “Matshusita” but Sony along with a few other companies how different license pateints. And the DVD format was going strong long before the PS2 came around. The fact that the PS2 had a DVD player in Japan is one of the main reasons the system took off so well. And OK you are right they came up with the 3.5 inch floppy disk. As for hardware no one is arguing that they have always created great hard way. I have never bought a digital camera that was not a Sony, most of my TVs, VCR, and DVD players were all Sony. But that has nothing to do with the mountain of failed media formats. "
Sony has some patents on CD. If Phillips would have been the only one in the CD venture, today CD would be partially different. However, Sony did help into the production and perfection of CD, look it up. Furthermore, DVD is not Matsushita's, it's Toshiba's creation, but Sony also has some patents in it, and thanks to Sony and PS2, DVD took off the way it did. That and PS1, PS2 among other things are successful formats made by Sony. Betamax didn't even die in its entirety, and who cares about the "mountain" (of 3) dead formats if there are several other successful formats? Especially one that is riding on many companies and PS3's back.
"With no HDMI port how do you plan on getting the 1080p output? You can not and there fore the thing is crippled."
False. You *can* get it without an HDMI, you can do it through component. By your logic though, you are also crippling the 360.
"The PS2 does not have that either, so are you saying the PS2 is a crippled game system? But it comes with a memory card that will allow you to store 64 meg of data that is allot of games plays and some extra content. It will allow you to set up a profile on Xbox live. And the simple fact is that if you want you can get your system to the same level as the premium system if you want to at a later date. With the cheaper PS3 unless you are cracking open the case and moding it you are stuck with a small hard drive and absolutely no way to output HDMI."
You are not getting the point. First, you are comparing a last-gen system with a next-gen system, which makes your claim invalid. Second, the point of an HDD is reducing load times, but it only works if the developer has the guarantee of *every* console of the format to support it, otherwise their market is reduced and no publisher wants that.
"The market is customers choosing what they want."
The market is a combo of customers and suppliers, not simply customers. The suppliers have needs too.
"Honestly you believe that Blu-Ray is unhackable? I do not even know where to begin with that statement. Since Blu-Ray disks are suppose to be released sometime in June I thought. If they are not being hacked and copied by the middle of August I will be completely baffled. Acutally the idea of unhackable uncopyable format is so ludicrious I can not even begin to believe that someone would acutally believe that."
Umm, I never said unhackable. They are harder to hack though. The encription is dynamic, as opposed to the static one for DVD. Look it up. Furthermore, even if it was as hackable as DVD, Blu-ray discs and burners are more expensive to buy, so that makes piracy even harder.
"That was a much different market then. And since you bring that up, look at what developing a larger more expensive format then what the market needed at the time did in the past."
You release a peripheral where games depend on, your console dies, it's a principle of the gaming market, period. Also, Blu-ray is not as expensive as you think. The average price for Blu-ray movies, as I stated above, is near 20 dollars, which is very near to that of DVD. You also get some benefits with it, as opposed to cartridges, which were way more expensive, and yet held less information.
"Just a $100 extra, yeah on top of another $100 extra for the PS3. I do think that is interesting that they are including all the PS2 hardware inside the PS3 so that it is backward compatible. That is a nice feature, and since most Playstation fans are very loyal to the Playstation brand that will be a benefit to a majority of users. This is an extra feature that we are probably paying for but is a feature that I think most PS3 buyers will enjoy."
Uh, you only need to pay 100 extra on top of the 400 for the 360; you have higher perfomance (as John Carmack said at E3), bigger games, and games that utilize the hard drive, not to mention backwards compatibility and HD movies out of the box (HDMI won't be needed in a long time, this has been stated several times now, so I don't know why you ignore that). All that in the 500 PS3.
"Right but you are missing the point. Are all these games going to need the extra space that Blu-Ray has to offer or is it simply going to be a disk that has about 5 gig of content on it and the rest is empty space, there by it could have been released on a regular DVD."
Do you know how much they meassure? No, you don't. Until the games are out, you can make yourself sure that the games are less than 9GB... or not. It doesn't matter anyway, since it's not about the launch titles, but about ALL the titles for a console that should last SIX YEARS (at least), not just 3 years.
"All of the developers that have made statements about the PS3 say that its processing power and setup is not going to produce a substantially more power."
False. Carmack said it will produce more power, couple that with other abilities that not even the most expensive 360 will give you, and you've got a 100 premium that is well worth it.
"So I am curious where I am getting more Guarantees.
As for benefits, the cheap Blu-Ray player is the only benefit I really see."
Games that are not crippled? Backwards compatibility? Better performance by taking loads off the processor among it being better? HD movies? Using the hard drive to reduce loading times? What else do you want?
"And since companies like NetFlix are starting to come out with downloadable movies on demand, they I am sure will allow you to download HD movies without any sort of proprietary formats."
Umm, so you are saying NetFlix will pick up faster than Blu-ray or HD-DVD? Give me a break. For content on demand to pick up, especially HD content, you need much faster internet connections, and people willing to not own content on discs. Content on demand is the future... the *distant* future.
"The first part of that statement went right over my head I am not even sure what you ment by that. The second part about utilizing the full potential of a Blu-Ray disk, is that for publishers to create enough game content to fill a Blu-Ray disk they would probably have to charge about the cost of a Nintendo Wii. If it already costs them several million dollars to produce a game that takes some where between 3 and 5 gig, the time and man power to create levels, characters, voice acting, and coding 45 gig of data would be incredible. If a game that takes up 5 gig costs us $40 it would stand to reason that a game that takes up 45 gig would cost $300 or more."
Your logic fails to impress me. In game development, what usually takes most time is making the first level, i.e. the engine and getting everything ready. The rest is homework, i.e. is make a lot faster. So the first Gig of content will take the same time as the last 8 gigs, as they already have all the templates they need. Also, you are making the false assumption that all games have to reach 50 gigs, and that the tools for development haven't advanced (which is wrong). As long as a game surpasses 9 gigs, it needs the Blu-ray disc, say, 12 Gigs for example. That's not a lot more content, especially if you couple that with better development tools, and better hardware for development, let alone the immediate bump you'll get just by upscaling video, sound and textures to more channels/resolution.
The developer is simply going to need to sell more games, and for that they are going to have to make the games be *good*. So you'll see less games than last gen, but more quality in them; you'll also see developers get efficient. Ask Mark Rein how he thinks it is ridiculous to raise prices on games, and that Epic games will reach something around 20 and 30 GB this generation. Did you read the links I posted above?
"How is the HDD on the 360 near worthless? If so the HDD on the cheaper PS3 would be also just as worthless."
False. The HDD on the 360 is worthless because it is not a guarantee to developers that it exists on every 360. Every PS3 has guaranteed at least on HDD with a 20 Gig size.
"Gaming wise what are you possible going to store that will use 60 gig?"
A lot more downloadable goodies than the measly 13 GB of the 360 HDD.
"I have an Xbox 1 and I downloaded tons of extra maps, golf courses, missions, and what not and never even came close to filling it up."
Comparing to last gen doesn't make any sense.
"I have game demos, movie trailers, expansion packs on my current 360 HDD and I am no where near close to filling that up either."
Uh, the generation barely started, and again, it's not being used for slowing loading times.
"Second Microsoft has said they will release larger HDDs in the future too, but I do not believe everything I am told."
For more content, but not for taking advantage of it in the middle of the game. That is left up to the developer if he wants to sacrifise potential customers without HDD.
"Where has Sony ever stated that you can hook up additional HDD for gaming? I have never seen or read anything about that?"
Have you been living under a rock? It has been stated tons of times by Phil Harrison.
"And not using a HDD for games on a Wii where do you think all the retro console games are going to be stored that you download?"
On the included flash memory, duh? The retro games are too small so they fit, but that's pretty much it... and still, I don't find 512MB enough for many N64 games.
"The Wii has no sort of storage unit with it because you can use any USB HDD that means if you have tons of money and are a huge retro gamer you could download their entire game library onto a large USB HDD, I call that using it for gaming."
I wouldn't be so sure you will be allowed to use any HDD for retro gaming, as Nintendo has to protect themselves, but even if you do, no hard drive will ever be used for virtual memory, for reducing loading times, etcetera. You are only mentioning one possible use for the HDD, which won't maximize the potential of games in the middle of them.
"And as stated before there is no game saves that will not fit on a 64 meg memory card that comes with the Core 360."
I wasn't talking about game saves. I was talking about using the HDD for reducing load times, which is a great thing and can only be used on PS3 as all PS3s have an HDD (unless developers for 360 want to have less potential customers), and also for virtual memory (but the last one is not likely to be used by any console, however).
"If you believe that publishers are going to give content away to PS3 users and charge the rest of the world for the same content you are crazy. Publishers are crying poverty and using advertising in games to generate more revenue."
I'm tired about this. I've said it tons of times already, and you have to read what I posted. If you post next time something that has been cleared up already, I will not longer explain it to you again.
"Madden, and Grand Theft Auto are two of the largest selling franchises both are cross platform. You are thinking like a gamer but a there is a large portion of the market that the console that is purchased is based on the parents decsion not the person playing the games themselves."
1. Few people buy games based on cross-platform titles
2. Parents base their holiday gifts on what their children ask for, not only on their wallets.
"And if you can get all the same games on either console the fact that one is $200 cheaper will probably have a major role in that decision."
It's not 200 cheaper. Everyone wants the 400 buck 360, yet a lot of people want the 500 PS3, so the difference is more like 100. Of course, the biggest difference is 300, but you get a cripple versus a full-fledged system. You also think that everyone cares about cost only, not value.
"It would be nice if the 360 was backwards compatible this has been a complaint of mine ever since they started the BC list. But the PS2 is not completely backwards compatible (while it is much closer the Xbox 360 is at this time). "
PS2 is 99.9% BC. Xbox 360 is 25% BC at best, if you call that backwards compatible.
"But of that 6 million how many plan on buying Blu-Ray movies. How many PSP users went out and stocked up on UMD movies."
More than 10% PSP owners have UMD movies, even when UMD is a lot weaker than Blu-ray. So I'd say that at least 10% of these PS3 owners will, if not significantly more, which is a ton more than HD-DVD will be selling.
"Sure UMD games formats are good. I have a PSP and love it, the UMD format is what is killing the PSP. Running the drive to load the data off a disk kills the battery life."
On that I agree. I have a PSP and I hate it. I'm getting a DS Lite soon.
"If they made it possible for users to transfer the games from the UMD disk to the memory stick so it could be run off the memory stick but just checked and verified that you actually still have the UMD disk the battery life would be much longer. And since I am on the topic of PSP. The PSP is a much more powerful, better looking, more media friendly and advanced system. But the Nintendo DS weekly stomps the PSP in sales. Compare hardware in the PSP to the DS (and even the DS Lite) and the PSP out and out kills it."
I agree on most of these, but...
"But the PSP is not even close in market share."
Not on this. As of now, they are neck and neck. In fact, the PSP is beating it by a little. Except PSP is distributed all over the world, and DS is a huge success in Japan (it has become the fastest selling console).
"Why? I think it is because Sony wanted so badly for the UMD format to take off thinking everyone is going to buy these big movie collections of UMDs. They did not concentrate on the games, and games are what sell systems."
I agree on this, but...
"And the PS3 is following the same marketing path as the PSP. They are pushing the Blu-Ray drive more then anything else on the whole PS3."
I disagree. There are plenty of games I want for PS3, yet for PSP there is only one I want, which is a FF7 spin off. For PS3, there are lots of games I want, more than I want on 360, even when 360 seems to have a much better line-up than the original Xbox.
"Are you kidding that is a first generation game of the 360 and it is outstanding, by the time the third generation comes around they will have perfected the programming skills and the games will be light years better."
Light years better... and heavier. Xbox 1 titles grew 74% in their whole life time... so titles *will* get heavier.
"Look at the first gen PS2 games compared to some of the latest ones, or the Xbox one games compared to the latest games. They are way better."
And many are heavier.
"Microsoft has announced that they have and HD-DVD add on drive coming out later next year."
It won't work for games, period.
"And if Blu-Ray wins this format war do not think for a second Microsoft will not issue an add on Blue Ray drive for the 360."
They said they wouldn't, but even if they will, it won't be for games. I wouldn't be surprised if they release Xbox 720 early again.
"They use DVD and that has ties with Sony, they do not care as long as there are big selling games coming out."
They do care, that's why they are taking sides with HD-DVD, and said that no Blu-ray will ever come out for 360.
"And if and when that day ever comes the technology will be so much cheaper that they will not have to hit you for $200 dollars."
The time when PS3 is also cheaper and has a market where everyone has Blu-ray and HDD, unlike the 360 which would be fragmented if your prophecy comes true, which is unlikely.
"I am actually amazed that you are so against Microsoft and Nintendo."
I'm not against them, for fuck's sake. I love Nintendo, despite their enormous mistakes. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, since most of the things they make are of poor quality. I'm getting an Xbox 360 as soon as the first price drop comes in, and there are a bunch of good japanese games.
"You honestly sound like you are a Sony PR person. In all your coments I have ever read Sony can do no wrong, and everybody elses consoles are worthless."
That's not true. I have criticized Sony, but you, like others, are conveniently manipulating the information to make me look as if I support Sony blindly. I thought Sony's decission to exclude HDMI was a mistake so I did criticize them, and I also thought that scrapping the Boomerang was a mistake. But then they made amends for that, such as making HDMI not necessary till after 2010, and their controller has some nice new features. I still think it is a mistake that there is no rumbling in their controller. And yet, they usually amend their mistakes, contrary to Microsoft, or even Nintendo.
"I have enjoyed some PS2 titles and find it to be a good gaming system. It seems that most of my complaints about the PS2 have been addressed and fixed with the PS3. And if there are enough exculsive titles I will probably by a PS3 eventually. But I just wish Sony would not mandate so many things and give users more options."
I'm buying a PS3 for a lot of reasons, the games included. Sony is giving me a lot of reasons to buy it, including BC and the games, among a lot others. Nintendo is giving me too many reasons to buy a Wii, since it is cheap and innovative. But 360? It is not bringing, to me, new things to the table, and it is expensive for the few things it offers. 360 is going to need plenty of more good games than it has now because that's the only reason that would make me buy it, as opposed to Wii or PS3. 360 is just an expensive console, Wii is a cheap innovative console, and PS3 is a fullfledged media center, which is backwards compatible with PS1 and PS2, and it also has a lot of new technologies which I'm really looking forward to.
jpxdude @ Jun 28th 2006 9:23AM
I think someone doesn't know the definition of a something that is crippled and unfixable.
The cheaper PS3 variant will have no HDMI port, and no multicard read/writers, and NO way of upgrading to the $600 without either opening the PS3, or having external components somehow bolstered on (USB possibly?)
The difference is that even with the cheaper core 360 model, you can buy the additional components that will give you exactly the same functionality as the premium bundle, without opening the console, or having any extra dangly bits. With the additional components, a core edition 360 can be made physically equivalent in every respect to a premium bundle. This is not possible with a PS3. Your comments on the 360 being crippled compared to the PS3 are redundant to this fact, which you can read up on Wikipedia.
I will inevitably get a PS3 once the price has dropped, and there are a good crop of games that come out. Blu-ray sounds like fantastic technology, but I believe they won't use it to it's potential for at least a year or 2, even PS2 games were pretty much CD based for a while when it was released...I remember my first backing up of Tekken Tag :-P
I am currently expecting to get an xbox 360 core for FREE, which is currently happening in the UK on the purchase of mobile phone contracts. I plan to 'uncripple' my system and upgrade each component to match a premium bundle, which in total will cost me about the same as a PSP.
I'd love for a scheme to get a PS3 to exist eventually so I could get one of those for free and upgrade later on. Too bad the cheaper model will be physically crippled compared to the expensive one.