Playstation 3 Pricing Announced

Demiurge

tommyboy wrote:

I have been checking out a lot of polls on the internet that asked which company took the cake as the most impressive system from e3 and the overwhelming majority picked the wii.

example:http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2374

I was expecting the 360 to maybe drop $100 right when the ps3 comes out. But since the price of the ps3 is 200 dollars more than the 360, there is no reason to now:( ... This might mean too that the wii might be more than 200 bucks.

sorry that I making a lot of points in this post but the ps3 controller is so stupid. can't sony be just a little original and not make their controller exactly like their ps1 controller 10 years ago? I kinda liked the one from e3 last year because at least it was different!

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

Mjr7531

Demiurge wrote:

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

As lame as this sounds, that's what Nintendo wants. Oh well, we'll see how it goes (Like I haven't said that a dozen of times ) I'm excited to see how Nintendo does, with the DS, it was a sleeper, and then absolutely took off, I hope the Wii does the same, it would be good news for everyone.

frdranger

Hmm, I think I will pass on the Playstation 3. I currently own an Xbox 360, and I love it to death. Plus, I find the games for the Xbox 360 more appealing than the Playstation 3's lineup for the next year or so. Alot of people think that just because the PS3 supports Blu-Ray, the games are going to be better because you can hold almost ten times the content on a Blu-Ray disc over a DVD. True, but, if you have a developer that lacks talent in say art design, or CG, or sound than it wouldn't be any better or worse than an Xbox 360 title.

Kris Siegel

neomagus00 wrote:

is there any difference between the high-end model and the base other than a bigger HD?

$499 Has a 20GB hard drive instead of a 60GB. It is also missing WiFi and a Sony Memory Stick slot. I heard it has less USB ports too but that hasn't been confirmed. Also, the PS3 will weight 11lbs. And people thought the original XBox at 7.7 lbs was heavy, heh.

Shizelbs wrote:

Seriously, why buy the PS3 when the Xbox 'could' look just as good, and my decent nothing special DVD player is going to look better playing movies anyways. Whoopdedoo, I've got a BluRay player.

What do you mean 'could' look just as good? It does and can even surpass it.

Sony's PS3 has more raw power than the XBox 360, this is true, but during real usage, it's probably about the same. Sony's cell processor has 8 SPEs (you can think of these as cores, like an Intel dual core, this has 8). 1 is reserved for redundency (so this 1 can never be used for games). 1 (possibly 2) is reserved for the Operating System for the PS3. The PS3 can claim 1 SPe at any time for its Operating System. That's 3-4 SPEs developers cannot use. This makes it about as powerful as the Power CPU in the XBox 360 that has 3 cores.

Plus, most gaming systems have decent graphics when the first generation of video games comes along but when it gets to the 2nd and 3rd generations, the graphics get better. XBox 360 is coming into their 2nd generation of games.

Both systems can do HD. Both systems will look great. It's not a matter of the XBox 360 'could' or 'might' look as good as the PS3 because it can and will.

cheddar wrote:

With Halo 3 delayed until Spring 2007 there's only going to be one must have during Christmas for the console gamer (or their parents) with cash. Let's face it, Sony will see millions of PS3s flying off the shelves this holiday season...

Delayed? It was never delayed. They have never announced a release date or even a time frame offically.

Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

Secondly, did you see the lines to even look at the Wii at E3? People were standing 6-8 hours in line to play with the Wii for 5 minutes.

This is what the holiday season will look like:
Wii (According to Sega, the Wii will be under $250. It's expected to be around $200 but no offical figure is available)

• Super Mario Galaxies
• Zelda: Twilight Princess
• Super Smash Brothers: Brawl
• Metroid Prime 3
• Mario Cart (this may end up being released in early 2007 though)
• Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent (looks awesome, btw)
• Maden

I could keep going on but those are the main titles

XBox 360 (Microsoft dropped the standard XBox 360 and the primuim is expected to drop in price well before the holidays to $299)

• Splinter Cell: Double Agent
• GTA4 (The XBox 360 verison will come out about a month or so before the PS3 version and you'll be able to download episodic content from XBox Live regularlly; the PS3 will NOT have this feature)
• Gears of War
• Sonic the Hedgehog

Again, just like with the Wii, those are the titles most are looking forward too. Halo 3, Fable 2 and so on will be very awesome but there is no release date so who knows if we'll see them at Christmas time or not

PS3 (Priced at $499 and $599)

• GTA4
• I'm still looking for any good games for the PS3 to be out in time for Christmas...

Some games like Final Fantasy XIII, Metal gear Solid, etc are not expected to be released until after 2007.

Heck the PS2 might do better than the PS3 at Christmas time. Final Fantasy XII and God of War II will be out soon. You can buy a Wii and an XBox 360 and be at the price of a PS3 and you can play the same games!

I have a PS2 and I've always been a fan of Playstation but I just can't see PS3 succeeding.

cheddar wrote:

I've seen production figures of between 4-6 million ps3s by Christmas. If there are shortages, then ps3 already wins. And I think that it's really about killer apps. Halo 3 might have been the ps3 killer if they could have simulatneously lowered 360 prices with a holiday must have like that.

You're right, it's about the killer apps. Unfortuantely, Sony doesn't have ANY before Christmas and only a handful after Christmas. Also, according to Sony, they won't have out more than 2 million consoles to buy by Christmas time.

cheddar wrote:

But isn't that the point? Nobody is going to pony up extra dough to buy Microsoft's HD-DVD player when they've already spent $400 bucks on the console. But Sony is willing to lose hundreds of dollars on each console so that each and every one of those millions sold means a blue-ray player in a household.

You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

Sony is expected to lose about $400 on every console. If manufacturing doesn't get cheaper and Sony really does sell the 10 million consoles they want to sell, they would have lost about $40 billion dollars on PS3 sales alone. Do you know how hard that is to make up?

VR3

Do you have any idea how much I want the PS3 to flop and Sony be out of the market?

ALOT

Shizelbs

Then do your share and buy a 360.

VR3

I am...

I am just waiting for Halo 3 - just saving up all kinds money between now and then...

Plan to buy a larger/HDTV along with the 360 when I do.

I dont have a reason to buy it now... Only 2 games have caught my interest, Gears Of War and Halo 3.

If the 360 goes down to 300 holiday season, Ill be all over it

tommyboy

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote:

If the 360 goes down to 300 holiday season, Ill be all over it

not likely... but keep hoping

If it does, Ill be buying two systems this fall

lanion

Demiurge wrote:

Too bad Yahoo News doesn't still have the link I saw on Monday in which 3 different gaming 'experts' said that the Wii wasn't even competition for the PS3 and XBox 360.

Monday was before Nintendo's press conference and before anyone got to play it at E3.

kingkip

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote:

Do you have any idea how much I want the PS3 to flop and Sony be out of the market?

ALOT

Why? Competition breeds newer, better, faster and cheaper systems. You don't want any one company owning a market, as that typically ruins it for consumers. Cable TV anyone?

cheddar

Geez,

Some of you hate Sony like other people hate Microsoft for its bloated over priced OSs. Not sure how to respond to that. To each their own hate, I guess...

Kris Siegel wrote:

Sony's PS3 has more raw power than the XBox 360, this is true, but during real usage, it's probably about the same. Sony's cell processor has 8 SPEs (you can think of these as cores, like an Intel dual core, this has 8). 1 is reserved for redundency (so this 1 can never be used for games). 1 (possibly 2) is reserved for the Operating System for the PS3. The PS3 can claim 1 SPe at any time for its Operating System. That's 3-4 SPEs developers cannot use. This makes it about as powerful as the Power CPU in the XBox 360 that has 3 cores.

Kind of speculation here since you're talking about two different technologies. PowerPC chips have been around for more than a decade in Macs and even Apple decided not to use them anymore and go with Intel. Although IBM makes both the PowerPC and the Cell, it's the Cell that's cutting edge and just released.

Kris Siegel wrote:

Both systems can do HD. Both systems will look great. It's not a matter of the XBox 360 'could' or 'might' look as good as the PS3 because it can and will.

I like the quotes from others that have actually seen the graphics for themselves. They seem to have a different opinion. And from the clips I saw, I really thought it was live action at first.

Kris Siegel wrote:

Delayed? It was never delayed. They have never announced a release date or even a time frame offically.

Bungie even jokes on its own site that Bill Gates has been spreading rumors for awhile now. And the biggest quote from Bill was that Halo 3 would square off against PS3 this Christmas.

Kris Siegel wrote:

Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

Last time I checked, Christmas was at the end of 2006. So, you're saying that until like the week before Christmas, Sony will store 2 million PS3s in its warehouses or is capable of producing like 1 million a week before New Years but only 2 million for the entire two months before? You're not making much sense here. There will be millions available by any count and the first movers and people joining the hype will buy almost all of them. What happens after that is far more uncertain.

Kris Siegel wrote:

You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

Actually more game levels and more complex graphics requires more game data. I remember swapping disks on Doom3 (PC) exactly because its bleeding edge gameplay required a lot of disk space. With the 360, even if you can swap disks, you're limited to less than 20 gigs of hard drive data. Blue-ray holds like 50 gigs on a disk, that's why they need the bigger hard drive on the premium edition.

Kris Siegel wrote:

Sony is expected to lose about $400 on every console. If manufacturing doesn't get cheaper and Sony really does sell the 10 million consoles they want to sell, they would have lost about $40 billion dollars on PS3 sales alone. Do you know how hard that is to make up?

With economies of scale it's not if it will get cheaper, but when. If you don't like the price, then just don't buy it when it comes out. Wait a year or so, and you can have it at a lower price. Mass production of the Cell processor and blu-ray drives will bring component prices down. Besides, Sony will be making up for the hardware loss with blu-ray movie and HDTV sales.

A lot of you seem pretty serious about this hating Sony stuff (or at least seeing doom and gloom in their future). So if you don't believe me, I'm ok with it. Let's all just wait until Christmas to see who is right. I'm with 7531, let's stop arguing and play...

lanion

If Blu-Ray succeeds (if it does, they will have PS3 to thank I'm sure) they get a cut from every Blu-Ray disc... that will be a ton of money for them.

drew spelts

I personaly really like the 360 (don't own one due to the cost) and have been a huge fan of Halo 1 but to me Halo 2 is horrible. I mean a guy that can drag a 10 ton (thats 20,000 punds for those that don't know) spiky looking bomb across a steel flore all by himself can't hold a gun on target while he squeezes the trigger????? God dang it all to hell...thats just moronic. After I played the first level I quit and told my friend to put in a different game. Still to this day I have never played more than the first level of Halo 2 and never will it just sucks, the guy sucks. My long winded point is that for me if halo 3 is going to intice me into buying a 360 the guy (mark III) has to be able to hold the gun on a target and not let it go haywire once I start juicing him. Halo 1=Sweatest game ever for the Xbox Halo 2= a game I will never play again for the Xbox. They had it right the first time, why oh dear god did they have to change the one thing I really liked about that game in the sequil? If the Halo 3 follows Halo 2 play action it will just be one more reason to push me to the PS3.

LiquidSound

Don't think it's been said..but wouldn't surprise me at all for sony to "unexpectedly" come out at a lower price. Some people would get a "sale" mentality.

John Carmack..FPS master said, himself, the PS3 is MUCH harder to program games on. Interesting...

I'll own it.

Tekken...come get some.

tommyboy

LiquidSound wrote:

Don't think it's been said..but wouldn't surprise me at all for sony to "unexpectedly" come out at a lower price. Some people would get a "sale" mentality.

won't happen, they are losing too much money as it is, sony went way over their heads when making this system. I think it will sell well but not nearly as well as the ps2 did.

Demiurge

For the record, I don't hate any of these companies. I have the most disdain for Sony because I have no clue what they think they're doing here and it doesn't make any sense to me. I can say the same for Nintendo, but if they think they have a hit on their hands and people are going along with it, excellent. Like I have said before I will believe it when I see it. The only way I would consider buying the Wii is if they decide they are going to get a little more well rounded with their gaming contracts. I can only take so many overtly cartoonish looking games -- it's not my style.

I am a proud owner of a lot of Nintendo systems, PS1 & PS2, XBox, and XBox 360. It's all about what these companies can offer someone like myself, so far Microsoft has been the only company that's been impressive -- Sony and Nintendo have to win me back. If they make a killer system with killer aps -- I'll be all over them both.

bknauss

Kris Siegel wrote:

$499 Has a 20GB hard drive instead of a 60GB. It is also missing WiFi and a Sony Memory Stick slot. I heard it has less USB ports too but that hasn't been confirmed.

Also missing HDMI and rumored to be missing wireless controllers. Although the $600 beast might be missing wireless controllers also.

Sony won't be seeing "millions" of PS3s flying off the shelves. First off, they're only planning to have about 2 Million systems available by the time christmas rolls around with about 4 million total at the very end of 2006. They won't have 6 million total until April (this information was released this past week).

And this is for a world wide launch. It'll be the 360 all over again this coming Christmas.

Secondly, did you see the lines to even look at the Wii at E3? People were standing 6-8 hours in line to play with the Wii for 5 minutes.

This is what the holiday season will look like:
Wii (According to Sega, the Wii will be under $250. It's expected to be around $200 but no offical figure is available)

• Super Mario Galaxies
• Zelda: Twilight Princess
• Super Smash Brothers: Brawl
• Metroid Prime 3
• Mario Cart (this may end up being released in early 2007 though)
• Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent (looks awesome, btw)
• Maden

I could keep going on but those are the main titles

After all of the dogging Nintendo took, they came out and dropped the hammer. A new controller and a new type of gaming. Good strategy. I'm still miffed about no HD though.

XBox 360 (Microsoft dropped the standard XBox 360 and the primuim is expected to drop in price well before the holidays to $299)

• Splinter Cell: Double Agent
• GTA4 (The XBox 360 verison will come out about a month or so before the PS3 version and you'll be able to download episodic content from XBox Live regularlly; the PS3 will NOT have this feature)
• Gears of War
• Sonic the Hedgehog

No GTA4 until Fall 2007. There was a misprint or a screw up by Peter Moore during the Xbox speeches. Also it should be restated that GTA4 is not a psuedo-exclusive for Sony anymore. Don't have to wait a year to get the latest GTA on a non-Sony system.

Gears of War looks like a must-own.

PS3 (Priced at $499 and $599)

• GTA4
• I'm still looking for any good games for the PS3 to be out in time for Christmas...

Some games like Final Fantasy XIII, Metal gear Solid, etc are not expected to be released until after 2007.

Only games right now that might make me buy a PS3 are MGS and GT. But with the 360 coming out with another version of Forza, that want list might get knocked down to MGS.

You're missing the point. The HD-DVD add-on isn't related to games but it's for those people who already bought an XBox 360 and decide "I wanna watch some HD-DVDs... since I got my XBox 360 I'll just go pick up the cheap add-on". The HD-DVD add-on is expected to be in the area of $100, cheaper than just about all HD-DVD players so anyone who happens to alreayd have an XBox, they can just grab 1 of those.

I might buy that HD-DVD drive just because its so cheap. Its a safe bet to spend $100 now, check out HD-DVD, and if its lasts, you can upgrade to a good player with much better video.

Kris Siegel

cheddar wrote:

Some of you hate Sony like other people hate Microsoft for its bloated over priced OSs. Not sure how to respond to that. To each their own hate, I guess...

I don't hate either. I own a PS2 and an XBox and think they're both great and I was even planning on getting a PS3. I didn't even get a Game Cube until recently because I've never been a huge fan of Nintendo's consoles but I'm all for getting a Wii. It's not that I hate certain companies; I just want the best consoles and games.

cheddar wrote:

Kind of speculation here since you're talking about two different technologies. PowerPC chips have been around for more than a decade in Macs and even Apple decided not to use them anymore and go with Intel. Although IBM makes both the PowerPC and the Cell, it's the Cell that's cutting edge and just released.

The PowerPC processor isn't the same kind that Apple uses. IBM makes many kinds. Before the 360 came out, many were speculating they might be able to run OS 9 or OS X on it but the processor is too different (plus, there is some other hardware restrictions since it's a console). They are both cutting edge. The Cell is a great processor, but it's very difficult to program for (I've done multi-threaded applications before and it can get a bit messy) and since the console itself will be taking many of the PSEs, I wouldn't expect it to be much more, if any, powerful than the 3-core PowerPC chip. Comparing Raw power, there is no contest but comparing how the console will be used, it'll probably be on par.

Besides, Microsoft's XBox 360 has more memory throughput from what I read which is crucial for pushing large amounts of data so that'll hlep it out a lot.

cheddar wrote:

I like the quotes from others that have actually seen the graphics for themselves. They seem to have a different opinion. And from the clips I saw, I really thought it was live action at first.

I've seen screenshots and played games on the XBox 360; they both look great and, depending on the game, the graphics look on par to me. Also, during the presentation and at many of the PS3 kiosks they were running at 1080P, something that just about all TVs cannot display so that may not be accurate as to what you may get at home. Besides, gaming shouldn't be all about the graphics anyway. Yeah, awesome graphics are nice, but what good are they if there isn't any good game play?

cheddar wrote:

Bungie even jokes on its own site that Bill Gates has been spreading rumors for awhile now. And the biggest quote from Bill was that Halo 3 would square off against PS3 this Christmas.

Bill was hoping but there was never an offical release date set.

cheddar wrote:

Last time I checked, Christmas was at the end of 2006. So, you're saying that until like the week before Christmas, Sony will store 2 million PS3s in its warehouses or is capable of producing like 1 million a week before New Years but only 2 million for the entire two months before? You're not making much sense here. There will be millions available by any count and the first movers and people joining the hype will buy almost all of them. What happens after that is far more uncertain.

Sony said it'll have 2 million at launch and 2 million additional units by the end of 2006. It's possible that the additional units could come in after christmas but I'm sure a good amount of them will come in before christmas. I thought I wrote my original comment off an article I was reading but can't find it again so just ignore it

cheddar wrote:

Actually more game levels and more complex graphics requires more game data. I remember swapping disks on Doom3 (PC) exactly because its bleeding edge gameplay required a lot of disk space. With the 360, even if you can swap disks, you're limited to less than 20 gigs of hard drive data. Blue-ray holds like 50 gigs on a disk, that's why they need the bigger hard drive on the premium edition.

That is not the reason for the hard drive. You don't install games on consoles, you just play them. You won't be storing all that data onto the hard drive, that would be way too slow. The hard drive in the XBox 360 is used for download games, additional data (like GTA4's episodic content) and saving music and games onto it. Sony's hard drive will be used for similar things: saving games, music downloads (they're going to have an iTunes like interface so you can buy music) but they won't support episodic content (not sure why but according to rock star it won't, which is why its XBox 360 version will have the extra content and the PS3 won't).

Also, I wouldn't expect to see many dual layer Blu-Ray discs (50GB) as they cost much more to produce than single layer(23GB). Using DVDs does have its drawl backs since it'll only hold around 9GB of data compared to Blu-Ray's 23GB but in this generation of consoles I don't think we'll have much of a problem. Games are slowly increasing in size but very rarely will you find a game over 2-4GBs.

cheddar wrote:

A lot of you seem pretty serious about this hating Sony stuff (or at least seeing doom and gloom in their future). So if you don't believe me, I'm ok with it. Let's all just wait until Christmas to see who is right. I'm with 7531, let's stop arguing and play...

I don't hate Sony stuff. In fact, I really like some of the things they've produced (PS2). I just don't see the PS3 succeeding. If some good games come out on it I'll definately buy one but so far the only good game I've seen coming out for it is Metal Gear Solid and that won't be out until after 2007.

karpiel666

Hmmm. I thought that xbox360 and ps3 are supposed to dominate pc gaming?
yet people dont seem to be willing to shell out 500 bucks for one, yet they are willing to pay that much for a graphics card ofor a pc. Seems to me like that sums up the console vs. pc war for now.:rolleyes: I am amazed that with all the claims they have they are selling it for 500, I was expecting it to cost atleast 1k bucks.:D

Demiurge

I don't know anyone who can seriously say that any console will be better graphically and all that than a top of a line PC. With that comes a lot of other variables, do you upgrade your Video Card every six months or every year? PC gaming for me has always been a huge money pit, and I have all but given up on it at this point. Just isn't worth it anymore.

Besides, I like being able to have my friends over to sit on my comfortable furniture and play a game on one screen without having to lug a huge box along and a bunch of cords. Consoles definitely have their place, and I am back to them again after a long stint with PC gaming.

So I am not sure that the 'War' was ever really valid to begin with. Both have their advantages and their weaknesses.

Sami

$500 goes a long way in PC gaming. Sure you need lots of money invested to get all the advantages the newest games offer but $500 is enough to rival the gaming experience of consoles. I doubt I'll be in the console camp anytime soon.

drew spelts

I just think that the consoles have the upper hand of playing on a large screen. However,PC's have 10 Times the buttons which is also nice for certain things like multitasking your barage of attacks. That is something that i dobt I will ever see on a console.
And to quote kris Siegel, "Yeah, awesome graphics are nice, but what good are they if there isn't any good game play?" It is my personal opinion that awsome graphics inspire great and new ideas for game play, not just to make the blood look more realistic.

lanion

a $600 is good for gaming for 1 or 2 years tops... then all the new games start looking really bad when you go to minimum settings... just not worth it to me anymore. I can afford a PS3, but I cant afford a PC good enough to play Crysis well for a long time. I have a 6800gt, and thats faltering with newer games now at high settings...

karpiel666

last time i checked you could hook a pc up to any screen, so that dosent really have any impact on my choises. Ill stick with pc caming untill i see something on a console that makes me go :eek: in the way that crysis dose.

avelanchefan

One other thing I want to point out about the Wii. Nintendo has sytsted that they want the Wii to be for the casual gamer. They want the titles to be simplistic enough to sit down and play it for an hour and not having to worry about finishing some level. (Like smash brothers, and Link also) Look at Oblivion, or the Grand theft Auto Vice City & San Andreas. This required you to invest at least a minimum of 2 hours. These are not games that you could sit for an hour and leave them.

Me I am all for getting the Wii. It looks like the Patton houshold will own all three consoles.

Sami

drew spelts wrote:

I just think that the consoles have the upper hand of playing on a large screen.

How's that?

lanion, the same goes with consoles, they are good for a year or two. Then the games fall behind the competition. It's not like they are in any better position than computers. First you bought PS2, now PS3, maybe XBox360 in between. The same moneypit really.

Demiurge

I strongly disagree. 1 or 2 years? You're lucky to get 6 months to a year out of just a VC at the rate in which games change. I know, I was in that camp, and still have a decent PC because my graphic design work requires it.

More titles for console and the me the graphics have always looked better than the PC since getting the 360. I don't have a top of the line PC, but it's up there. Plus, the game play is better.

Like I said before, both have their advantages, but I am much happier with the consoles now. Especially with the on-line gaming aspect of it.

Sami

Demiurge wrote:

I strongly disagree. 1 or 2 years? You're lucky to get 6 months to a year out of just a VC at the rate in which games change.

I still play games w/o any problems with several year old 6600GT and P4 3.4GHz. I know the VC could use upgrading, but it still works at 1680x1050 resolution. Nobody needs 100fps rates. The rate the games change, that's the catch really. Consoles are stuck with what they have now so there isn't room to grow on games where the PC games keep getting better and better. You need a totally new console to take that leap into new generation of games so how is it any different from upgrading your PC?

I need a computer so getting a console for games would require having both a PC and a console so for me the console route would be much more expensive. And really a downgrade in games (see below). At $150-200 I might consider it as a secondary system for rare occasions.

Demiurge wrote:

More titles for console and the me the graphics have always looked better than the PC since getting the 360. I don't have a top of the line PC, but it's up there. Plus, the game play is better.

Graphics, I'll give the edge to PC's but those are our opinions. I HATE the console gameplay, mouse+kbd is so much easier and better than those clunky pads. Titles, I thought it was the other way around but that might have changed. Of course you have the online game rentals for consoles but not for PC, which is the only thing consoles have the edge from my perspective.

unc2701

Just saw this today:


Inflation adjusted console prices.

Really doesn't play too much into the XBOX306 vs PS3 argument, but the good olds days aren't all that good.

Demiurge

What is that chart supposed to prove?