$499 for a PS3 = you gotta be kiddin me
- Thread starter fly
- Start date
taeric said:
You're simply comparing it against phones with features that are essentially useless.
No, it did not have a camera.
No, it did not have games.
No, it did not have "I smell pussy" by Fitty-cent as an available ring tone.
But in reality are those necessary features for a phone?
PS-I hate Fitty-Cent, I keep hoping he will be killed by gang violence.
KNYTE said:
No I'm not. I had it at the time. Service was DECENT at best. In most areas it plain didn't work. This was ok back then, because most phones would drop calls like it was the thing to do. Especially if you lived in a low coverage area. Nowdays, that isn't nearly as acceptable.
Like it or not, the main draw on power for a phone is not the display or games you don't use. It is the antena and speakers. (Granted, if you have a song for your ringtone, that probably eats a fair bit. Especially if you get a lot of calls. Same can be said for vibrate, too.)
yep. cheapest blu ray on the market.+gaming + online play= $$$$Drool-Boy said:
right now I'm getting a Wii first and wait for the ps3 prices to drop or try to win a contest.
Onnotangu said:
I had actually forgotten about the fact this was about the PS3.
Oops.I'm still on the boat right now. The Wii, despite the crap name, is definitely on route to being the most attractive. I don't know how I feel about Nintendo, though. The sad truth is that I will probably stick with whereever Square is, as they are the only ones that produce games I still consistantly like.
im really surprised that no one noticed here that the $499 playstation 3 is gimped.
No HDMI
No SD/Memory Card slots
No Wifi
So essentially it will be like the 360 core system, No one will want it.
No HDMI
No SD/Memory Card slots
No Wifi
So essentially it will be like the 360 core system, No one will want it.
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
Ryokurin said:
A few things, first I'm not so sure how gimped it truly is. How many of you actually have an HDMI television? The vast majority of the HDTVs out there aren't don't even use HDMI for their signal. The other two should be upgradeable to it. (The PS3 does have a USB connection on it, that would easily allow for the other two options.) This is definitely a case where I'd say the cheaper seems better. The only thing that would change my mind is if you can use it as a tivo, the extra 40 gigs would be nice.
Second, I really bloody hate the console range right now. Microsoft jumped the gun on a new system way too quickly and splintered it with 2 versions. Sony followed suite with the 2 systems. And Nintendo is just flowing with a rabid following.
The truly amusing thing is that in the long run the Wii will be most likely be more expensive than the ps3. Why do I say this, because I know I've spent more money on GB systems in the past 7 years than I have on the PS2 (or PSP, for that matter). Nintendo gets you by releasing systems that have obvious flaws so that when they correct them later it looks like a steal at the same cheap price. Meanwhile, you've actually spent more on their systems than if you had gone with the more expensive option at the beginning. Fucking brilliant, but pisses me off right now.
PC gaming just seems like a better investment becuase you can use your PC for so much more than gaming.
Fat Burger said:
I know I did. The PSP cost me about 230 bucks. The GBA cost me 90. The GBA SP cost me about 100. The DS cost me about 150. Simple math shows I've spent about 340 on gameboys in the past 5ish years. (This is just the systems.) Did I care too much about any single purchase? Of course not, the most I spent was 150.
So... what will Nintendo most likely do with the Wii? They'll have a strong starting lineup. Then a few really good games for about a year. After that, they will be ready to release their new system which will be small upgrade and cost at most 200*. Will people buy it? Probably, because Nintendo looks poised to dominate this generation. At this point, whether it is Nintendo or somebody else, the market is set to expect small upgrades every couple of years.
*Correct me if I'm wrong, the gamecube is the newest of all last systems. How many new games are slated for it? Even the Zelda was pushed to the Wii. The only system with more than one game getting released right now is the PS2. The oldest of the systems.
Also, I'll reiterate that the plan is bloody brilliant. Nintendo has basically banked on the fact that people have few problems shilling out up to $150 at a pop for something. They won't do it every month or so, but they will every couple of years no problem. (This is the same as cell phones and ipods)
They've always had quick, minor releases for their handhelds. Gameboy, Pocket Gameboy, Gameboy Color, etc. But they have NEVER done that with a console, and every console they've ever released has come out at a price of $199.99. That's my prediction, Revolution at $199.99 and no rereleases.
Fat Burger said:
You just supported my point. It doesn't sound the same because it is still slower than their handhelds, but they have the fastest turn around of any of the consoles out there with the GameCube to Wii and the price is most likely 199. This is exactly what I was describing. I just think they are going to stick with the quick console cycle they have started. If they speed it up any, which I would guess they might, the price will drop below 199.
Compare this with the PS2 which I bought day one. I just last month purchased a game for it that is incredibly fun and I would have considered getting the system for it. What is new for the GameCube? The Zelda was looking promising, but they pushed that to the Wii.
shawndavid
Are you wanting making fuck berserker?
taeric said:
Its late, but I can't let this slide.
What you said, would make sense, but Nintendo said that they would do exactly what they did handheld wise and has since the mid 90s. Its part of the reason why the Gameboy standard is coming in on 16 years, they perodically update the product and keep compatibility. Also, they have stated and are keeping the promise that the DS is a different platform than the Advance. They still make advance games and unless you want to play DS games that Advance you purchased 5 years ago is still good. If you had to get the SP, or the DS or Micro its your own choice.
At least in the US, Gamecube was last by two days compared to the Xbox. Zelda is getting released for the GC the same day as the Wii release. Also all the last gen systems are still getting at least 30 new games before the end of xmas as well, although Xbox is expected to fall off after the fall simply because there will be no systems available.
O
OddFactor
Guest
O
OddFactor
Guest
Ryokurin said:
I'm not saying that Nintendo was underhanded on anything they did. (Though, it could be argued the original advance had such a shitty screen that the upgrade was obvious.) I'm simply pointing out that they have found a way to make loads of money by doing smaller upgrades at a faster pace. I can't really fault them, as it works. However, I can only hope that they don't follow this path with the consoles, as I would just as soon not see that happen.
Ryokurin said:
If you are going to defend them by saying that they were close to the Xbox, don't. MS dropped support for that system so fast it is scary. I think only Sega has dropped a console faster. All one has to do is look at the E3 booths. Nintendo might have had 2 games for the GC on their booth. MS didn't have any. Granted, it is easily argued that Sony flopped the PS3 so bad they decided to keep focus on the PS2. It is still rather impressive how many good games are still headed to it.
And I just realized you said they are all getting 30 games..... name some.