GameBanshee Forums

Well, what do you think folks? Is it worth it spending 500-600 dollars for a PS3 and then another 75-84 USD for a game?
I think that in a year or so the price will definetly go down by at least 100 bucks. What I'm curious about is if the new Blu Ray technology will become widely accepted. It was relatively easy going from the cd to the dvd, but moving to blu ray, with 1000 bucks a reader unit...kinda expensive, don't you think?

Considering that there were no other good games after the PS1, I voted no. With games like Xenosaga, Final Fantasy X and X-2, and Drakenguard for RPG's, they really just aren't good in my opinion, and I've opted to never buy another PS system ever to be made.

I will buy a 360 though for Elveon, Ninety Nine Nights and ES4 Oblivion. That'll be the last system I buy before just staying straight with PC upgrades.

For me a ps2 is a cheaper alternative to playing games than a computer. Yes, it's true there aren't many good RPG's for the console (and those that exist are of Jap influence instead of d&d). However, there are a bunch of great games to be played, like Hitman Bloodmoney or Bully (big Rockstar fan ) that my poor computer couldn't possibly run.
But since the poll refers to the ps3, no way I would pay so much for it. :speech:

Daianara wrote:What I'm curious about is if the new Blu Ray technology will become widely accepted. It was relatively easy going from the cd to the dvd, but moving to blu ray, with 1000 bucks a reader unit...kinda expensive, don't you think?

Right now, the debate between the HD-DVD and the Blu-Ray DVD seems to be at an impasse. That's the main worry. If either one of them becomes the leading format, the other will become obsolete. I think this scenario might happen though it will be a while before it does.

Daianara wrote: For me a ps2 is a cheaper alternative to playing games than a computer. Yes, it's true there aren't many good RPG's for the console (and those that exist are of Jap influence instead of d&d).

Agreed. There is a Baldur's Gate for the consoles but that game was more of a hack-and-slash from what I saw from a video review of the game. Anyway, I'm not a fan of D&D based games so I don't really mind.

For that price?!?
My view is they *must* be joking...

Depending on the route you go, that is about half to a third of the cost of a good gaming computer..
Why on earth would I spend so much on something that *only* plays games and basically does nothing else?
Plus, as of now, there have been no games made for the PS3 I'd even play. Certainly not Oblivion, if I ever play that it will *only* be when enough player-made mods have been created to actually make it worthwhile, and (to the best of my knowledge) those are largely for the PC version.

As it stands, Sony is lacking a key element to make such a price tag worthwhile: Launch titles. As is, there are very few high quality launch titles that are not already on another system (360, or PC), and the ones they have that are unique to them are not that highly anticipated. In fact, the large titles that people want for the PS3 are not even due out for a year following its launch, and both of them (Metal Gear Solid: 4, Final Fantasy XIII).

However, that is not to say that the price of the system is not justified. Blu-Ray techonology, specifically the players, typically run $1000, but one has been included in the PS3, as it is Sony's pet project. This means one good thing for entertainment enthusists, in that they can pick up a Blu-Ray player for a couple hundred less than normal pricing. This, though, is where one of the PS3's issue lie. The PS3 is a gaming console, yet Sony is pushing it as an all-in-one media centre, which is off base, as those who have ture, high quality media centres can tell you: theirs is always better.

The problem comes with the fact it is Blu-Ray. Much like Beta before hand, Sony is keeping Blu-Ray to themselves. Not enough of the market is going to that particular medium because much of the market is still DVD, and will probably remain so for some time. It is much like the VHS and Beta of early recording media, in that Sony shot themselves in the foot by not sharing the superior technology, and thus let it die out because of that.

My personal feeling, the console of the next generation will be the 360. In the last year it has made tremendous leaps forward with the quality of games, as well as the customer support it offers. Add to that many developers have been in talks with Microsoft about 360 exclusive games (for instance, Capcom and their Dead Rising). Though the Wii will provide a nice challenge for it, Nintendo's latest will not be the hardware powerhouse the other two are. Instead, Miyamoto is going the route of nostalgia and gameplay, focusing on the fundementals of gaming. It will be a good system, it just will not be home to many of the most anticipated games. But then, that is subject to change upon release possibly.

@Siberys: No offense, but do some research before making such a statement regarding console RPG's. There is far more available for the PS2 than that, and quick frankly you named a niche RPG and a consumer beast. If you want to talk about RPGs for the console, always be sure to take in account games like: Shadow Hearts 1 and 2, Disgaea 1 and 2, Wild Arms 1, 3 and 4, Romancing SaGa, Magna Carta, Atlier Iris 1 and 2. This, of course, is not even mentioning many more of the small niche games which slipped under the radar because of the larger marketing beasts, as well as the backward compatibilty of the system allowing many of the great PS1 RPG's to be played on the newer system with improved frame rates and crisper image quality.

No, you should not get it, it isn't worth it. The xbox 360 was a big enough dissapointment for its cost, I think the PS3 would be an even bigger one.

The Playstation has a huge range of games, more than any other console at current (though the Wii will soon beat that). I was going to get a PS3 but wait until the price drops and Sony irons all the inevitable bugs out.

I think the Blu-Ray will be the dud of the up coming technology, mainly because Sony is behind it. Sony as far as I've seen has been behind all the losing sides of technology wars so far and getting an extremely expensive console for something that most likely will be useless puts me off.

Still there will be many good games on the PS3, I don't like how people are saying otherwise. So in the future I could still get PS3 and pick up the exclusive titles like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Devil May Cry 4, but at the moment my money will be spent elsewhere.

I don't plan on buying any of the next gen consoles.

Blu-ray will take off, its only competion will be the HD-DVD format and I don't hold up much hope for that. The only reason I can see it coming off as a success is with the new advances in LCD televisions on the market, the Sony X Series LCD's which I think are the only screens capable of putting out full 1080i HD picture. No other television can currently do that, I've got mine on order for some time next year, 1st quarter I hope. If you have ever seen raw true HD footage either at expo's or trade shows then you'll be familiar with what I'm referring to. As for the price of the units, DVD players were very expensive at one stage as well.

Think of the video improvement from VHS to TV and TV to DVD. DVD to Blu-ray/true HD will be fairly similar.

Will I get a PS3, bah I wouldn't even bother. I'm a tech/geek at heart and I've invested too much into PC's to back out now. I've got a PC that can currently outperform a 360, and by the time the PS3 is released it'll be the same story. It will sell though, once people see the graphical improvements that it has over the 360.

Tamerlane wrote: Will I get a PS3, bah I wouldn't even bother. I'm a tech/geek at heart and I've invested too much into PC's to back out now. I've got a PC that can currently outperform a 360, and by the time the PS3 is released it'll be the same story. It will sell though, once people see the graphical improvements that it has over the 360.

Agreed. Next-gen consoles today (Microsoft's XBox 360, Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PS3) will surely outperform the current generation of PCs but sooner or later, the technology for the PC will surely outperform those on the consoles. It's a common trend.

Also, I sometimes feel like consoles are like high-end gaming PCs but sold at a much lower price than any gaming PC out in the market today. It's not that I have anything against consoles, to be honest. It's just that I feel like the consoles have an unfair advantage over the PC in terms of the cost. It's like you have to invest a lot of money on upgrades or when purchasing a high-end PC but for the consoles, they have the high-end components found in any high-end gaming PC but are sold at a much lower price compared to the PC. Thus, people would rather choose the cheaper alternative and that's the consoles.

You can get a good PC for that money. And in my opinion a good PC beats every console no matter what it provides. I won't buy a system purely for games, therefore for me such an investment is nonesense. Would I have the surplus money and time though I'd probably go for a PS3. Right now, the Nintendo Wii is more interesting - you can get it for less than half of the PS3's price.

600 hundred dollars for a playstion 3 just seems way too expensive. I have a xbox 360 and will probably get the Nintendo Wii, and when all is said and done, it comes out to about the same price.

don't hurt me

I will not be buying the ps3, mainly bc it is soooo expensive and does not do anything special compared to all the other crap i own - a tv, satellite dish, dvd player, vcr, xbox, 360, and a gaming pc. all i need is a tivo, i think
does the ps3 tivo?

also to the guy about a dissapointing 360, i feel that a lot of the game makers weren't fully prepared for the 360. i hope that they will release games that actually need the graphics and memory of the 360. microsoft only built the machine, now we need games that were built for it.

i have no real idea on which technology will be picked up. i feel that it may take a little while before we know for certain. blu still seems really expensive, but a better choice in the long run bc of its higher size capacity.

guys - relax. this isn't a pc vs console thread and god knows we have plenty of those. :mischief:

stanolis wrote: guys - relax. this isn't a pc vs console thread and god knows we have plenty of those. :mischief:

No, it isn't But given that so many people here play games mostly on PCs, comparisons are inevitably going to be drawn.
The thing is... this is *a lot* of cash for just a console, I feel exactly the same about the XBox 360. And, if you have a tight budget, blowing so much money on something with such a singular use seems just crazy. As I wrote above, $500 or $600 dollars is a decent start toward a good gaming PC.... and a PC is far more versatile.

dw said it well - it is a lot of money for a console. With a PC you can do well numerous things other than gaming, and the money would indeed be a good start towards a decent PC.

Anyway, I have never owned one, nor will I, I think it's a waste of money but if I were by some small miracle to get myself one now I think I would go for Wii for sure. From what I've read it seems a much better choice considering all the factors, including money.

Wow, a lot of answers piled up, nice to see there's interest in the matter.

Right now, the debate between the HD-DVD and the Blu-Ray DVD seems to be at an impasse. That's the main worry. If either one of them becomes the leading format, the other will become obsolete. I think this scenario might happen though it will be a while before it does.

Well now, from what I understand it's like this: the XBox 360 uses dvd's to run games. There is the extra HD-DVD thingy but it costs extra to get and Microsoft, if I'm not mistaken, already agreed not to impose the format on gamers.

As it stands, Sony is lacking a key element to make such a price tag worthwhile: Launch titles. As is, there are very few high quality launch titles that are not already on another system (360, or PC), and the ones they have that are unique to them are not that highly anticipated. In fact, the large titles that people want for the PS3 are not even due out for a year following its launch, and both of them (Metal Gear Solid: 4, Final Fantasy XIII).

[url="http://www.ps3land.com/article-419.php"]Here[/url] you can find a list with over 50 exclusive ps3 games. Also, I disagree with the statement that thery're not highly anticipated. Take a look at God of War. As for the launch titles that aren't already on another system, that's a bit misleading. The games I really excited about (Assassin's Creed and GTA 4) have been announced for both ps3 and xbox 360, true, but simultaneously not first on one then on the other.
Also, in Europe the ps3 will only be available from March, next year so...

Why on earth would I spend so much on something that *only* plays games and basically does nothing else?

Who said it doesn't do anything else? On a ps you can play, watch movies and listen to music. For something that really does one thing look at the Ipod. Now that is overpriced, IMO. At least here it is.
Anyway, I'm sure the price for a ps3 will drop with at least 100$ in a year or less.

Daianara wrote: Who said it doesn't do anything else? On a ps you can play, watch movies and listen to music. For something that really does one thing look at the Ipod. Now that is overpriced, IMO. At least here it is.
Anyway, I'm sure the price for a ps3 will drop with at least 100$ in a year or less.

Okay, I guess that is technically true However, I find the quality of my stereo and DVD player far exceed that of any console.

You do have a point though, it does seem more and more that there is a move towards "complete" entertainment systems.
Could be I'm just a dinosaur

Plus, I suppose it also boils down towards the types of games you like to play most. FPS and more action-oriented games tend to be best suited to consoles, and the controllers seem designed to increase the fun factor of the above.

Though, that still doesn't convince me of the PS3's worth

Regarding the Ipod, I think that is also a matter of preference and interest. For people who like personal music while in the gym or running... they are really excellent.

Daianara wrote: [url="http://www.ps3land.com/article-419.php"]Here[/url] you can find a list with over 50 exclusive ps3 games. Also, I disagree with the statement that thery're not highly anticipated. Take a look at God of War. As for the launch titles that aren't already on another system, that's a bit misleading. The games I really excited about (Assassin's Creed and GTA 4) have been announced for both ps3 and xbox 360, true, but simultaneously not first on one then on the other.
Also, in Europe the ps3 will only be available from March, next year so...

I would just like to point out two things: First, of those 50 titles for the PS3, only 11 are 'confirmed' titles. Of those confirmed titles, the highly anticipated ones are not launch titles, and will not be seen for roughly a year after its release. The point was not that the PS3 will not have games for it, but rather, will have very few games worthwhile for it come its launch.

Just a note to Aegis, but since the date of the article, I know 15 more of them by heart have been confirmed as in production. However, that doesn't change too much, as none of them are launch titles either.

As for myself, I won't be picking up a PS3 for at least six months after release, depending on when things like Assassin's Creed comes out. Until then, I suppose Final Fantasy XII and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic will have to tide me over.