PS3 Pros And Cons [Archive]

Guy Mariano

08-01-2006, 09:49 PM

The Pros and Cons (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/49170/pros_and_cons_of_playstation_3.html) of the Playstation 3:

PROS

The technical power of the Cell
Blu-ray: more space (52G) is only a good thing
PlayStation is still the leader in the gaming industry
PSX, PS2 backwards compatibility (huge library of games)
Strong 3rd-party support

CONS

Cost: we've said it a million times
Size: the thing is big
Architecture: Cell is too unique and could cause developer problems
Even with redundancy, PS3 might have high defects at launch
Ken Kutaragi (will ruin the PS3?)

It's a simple list, straight to the point. What do you guys think?

Editor's Note: Full List edited. Click the link above to read the article and get the rest of the points.

Scaryboy

08-02-2006, 05:08 AM

I have to say the Pros are a lot more convincing than the Cons. The only con with any real merit is the cost.

SexualChoc

08-02-2006, 05:12 AM

You either want it or you don't. Take it or leave it.

DingBat

08-02-2006, 05:24 AM

I have to say the Pros are a lot more convincing than the Cons. The only con with any real merit is the cost.

Actually the biggest worry would be the architecture. Well, not necessarily the architecture but the development tools.

If the development tools are poor it's going to have an effect on the game pipeline. It's going to take longer to produce games, their quality may be affected, and, if things are really bad, some developers may simply say "To hell with it, we'll just ship for XBox and Wii".

A complicated architecture implies to me that it's going to be more difficult to produce a toolkit that allows the developers to concentrate on their games.

That's a worst case scenario, but it's the only con I see that could be truly worrying.

Savok

08-02-2006, 05:36 AM

Backwards compatible is yet to be seen. Granted they did well on the PS2, after the 360 lets just wait and see.

phantomhitman

08-02-2006, 05:41 AM

jBusy

08-02-2006, 05:42 AM

Backwards compatible is yet to be seen. Granted they did well on the PS2, after the 360 lets just wait and see.
Right, because Sony had so much to do with the XBox360's compatability problems.

Zeal

08-02-2006, 05:48 AM

PROS
PlayStation is still the leader in the gaming industry
Give it a year.

Savok

08-02-2006, 05:53 AM

Right, because Sony had so much to do with the XBox360's compatability problems.
The 360's is such a fuckup they can afford to slack.

TRiLoGY

08-02-2006, 05:55 AM

I personally think that the PS3 will have a better Games catalog than the 360..
I am getting all 3 systems so I can experience the best that they all have to offer :)

EvilBob46

08-02-2006, 06:09 AM

yes, all of my ps1 games are now playable, I cannot wait to play twisted metal 1 and 2 after a 8 year wait.

I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you implying not all PS1 games work on the PS2? You are correct. Only ~95% of the them do. I always thought how complaining about the PS2 backwards compatibility was a bit lame when it works...95% of the time. It's a different story when that percentage hovers under the 40% mark somewhere *cough* 360 *cough*

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 06:17 AM

yes, all of my ps1 games are now playable, I cannot wait to play twisted metal 1 and 2 after a 8 year wait.
I still cannot see dropping that much on a console, especially when the launch lineup doesnt include anything that I want. Maybe I will buy a few and sell them on ebay to those nutty people.
I still play some PS1 games on my PS2. I know I'll be playing SotN on my PS3 (when the day comes where I need to buy one), but while BC isn't the biggest factor with the PS3, it's an awesome bulletpoint.

Hopefully I can buy one at launch, sell it on eBay or something, and use the profit to put towards my own PS3 eventually.

needoptic

08-02-2006, 06:24 AM

I never play old games. :)

Backward compatibility is really a moot point for me.

Crap, I wish I had enough time to play all the new games that are comming out.

easi

08-02-2006, 06:25 AM

Thanks, Kelegacy.

cppcrusader

08-02-2006, 06:36 AM

PROS
Blu-ray: more space (52G) is only a good thing

I thought that it was stated a while back that games weren't going to be on Blu-ray discs.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 06:38 AM

Thanks, Kelegacy.
Whatever you wrote, I'm glad to be of service....?

cppcrusader, all games will be on Blu-Ray. Even if they are small games that could fit on one side of a DVD.

Mike Jones

08-02-2006, 06:38 AM

Backwards compatible is yet to be seen. Granted they did well on the PS2, after the 360 lets just wait and see.

How can it not be good. The are putting the PS2 chip in the PS3 until they figure out how to emulate it another way.

Plays4Pants

08-02-2006, 07:03 AM

How about the con that ps3 games look worse than 360 games. How about the con that there will be no good games to buy for launch...not even a decent game...and that you'll have to wait at least a year to get one. How about the con of the fact that if you buy a ps3 you're supporting a group of smug, arrogant assholes and their products. How about the fact that if you buy a ps3 you're supporting more lame japanese products (err err final fantasy 202X) and not good innovative japanese products (err err Nintendo DS/Wii). How about the risk of the whole blue-ray. what if hd-dvd wins?

jacktion

08-02-2006, 07:04 AM

The list says that Blueray can only be a good thing but I think that's arguable. What if it tanks and no one supports it and it is a 500 dollar anchor around the PS3's neck? That is a very real possibility. Look at it like this. What if the PS1 came attached to a betamax player? How well do you think that would have worked?
And the list says that more space can only be a good thing. But that isn't really true. If more space is always better than why don't we sell games on a 500gb hard drive? Sometimes you can have too much space. There is a sweet spot of price to space and the PS3 is totally missing it. That is why it is so expensive. What game are they going to sell that is 50gb? There aren't any. I guess you could fill up the rest with movies so that will probably be the final fantasy series.

direwolf

08-02-2006, 07:11 AM

The technical power of the Cell -- Which means what? Has anybody realized this "technical power" compared to what else is out there? I was under the impression that the "technical power" of both the PS3 and 360 were very close, has it seen some recent revision where it's now all powerful?
Blu-ray: more space (52G) is only a good thing -- Remember that you are going to be PAYING for this on EVERY title you purchase whether it needs the space or not. How many games span more than 1 DVD now or will even in the next 3-5 years?
PlayStation is still the leader in the gaming industry -- This is very subjective. They will be playing catch-up as it is and haven't made many sound business decisions lately. This may have been true last year, but remember how Nintendo was the leader in the gaming industry too at one point. Nothing lasts forever.
PSX, PS2 backwards compatibility (huge library of games) -- This is very nice, much better than the 360. However, once again everybody will be paying for this whether they use it or not due to their method of implementing backwards compatibility (using hardware instead of emulation). This is still great news for those that really want to play old games on new hardware, especially since they won't have much else to play for quite a while after launch.
Strong 3rd-party support -- How is this specific to any 1 console? Is there a console out there that doesn't have "Strong 3rd-party support" on their next gen units? This whole bullet point and their paragraph behind it doesn't seem very strong when they are using words like "probably".

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 07:13 AM

needoptic

08-02-2006, 07:13 AM

How about the con that ps3 games look worse than 360 games.

No. They will look just as good. What are you basing this on? Have you seen the latest trailers of the dirt racing game? Looks very promising to me.

How about the con that there will be no good games to buy for launch...not even a decent game...and that you'll have to wait at least a year to get one.
We'll see about that when it launches. Xbox 360 had a bunch of sad ports at launch and Project Gotham 3. Ok, so 1 game worth having.

How about the con of the fact that if you buy a ps3 you're supporting a group of smug, arrogant assholes and their products. How about the fact that if you buy a ps3 you're supporting more lame japanese products (err err final fantasy 202X) and not good innovative japanese products (err err Nintendo DS/Wii).
I buy consoles to play games. If you want to play politics - perhaps you should start a website and draw more like* (narrow) minded individuals and post rants like this. These same arrogant assholes gave me a ton of good games in the previous generation, so I know they'll deliver again.

How about the risk of the whole blue-ray. what if hd-dvd wins?

That is one of the two concerns I have. Blue ray and price. Those two issues aside - I'm sure it will be a lot of fun.

I'll just wait for the price to drop a little.

needoptic

08-02-2006, 07:13 AM

Man, there is so much wrong here that I won't even attempt to tackle it.

I just did. :D

needoptic

08-02-2006, 07:24 AM

It's just sad that there are people who literally HATE the corporation. Newsflash retards, both MS and Sony are out there to make money. They are not there to please you. Not directly.

It is in their greatest interest to provide a vehicle that delivers enterntainment to people worldwide and so far I think both companies have been doing just that.

I wish Sony wouldn't alienate their customers by calling their hardware the "ferarri" of consoles - because, I agree, that does sound smug... but you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Mr.Green

08-02-2006, 07:26 AM

I just did. :D
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

alejandro79

08-02-2006, 07:48 AM

xbox 360 is getting a lot of support from every company

t3kl3r

08-02-2006, 08:14 AM

How about the con of the fact that if you buy a ps3 you're supporting a group of smug, arrogant assholes and their products.

True... but wait. You don't see Microsoft acting that way right now because they're still trying to win the market. If they DO win, they'll be just as bad if not worse. Just wait. Nintendo had the same problem back in the day. That's why competition is so important.

I probably will eventually get a PS3, but I don't see how they could maintain a console price of $600 for long, so I'm waiting for the first price drop. I'm betting we'll see it about 6 months after launch. There just aren't enough people out there willing to shell out $600 for a game console. Sure, the early adopters will, but after they all have one, sales will probably drop until the price becames more reasonable.

Reanimated

08-02-2006, 08:22 AM

I thought that it was stated a while back that games weren't going to be on Blu-ray discs.

They're using blu ray, but they're actually using the single layer 25GB discs.

Here's a con:

The launch lineup looks terrible. Even worse than the PS2's lineup.

EternalGamer

08-02-2006, 08:32 AM

They're using blu ray, but they're actually using the single layer 25GB discs.

Here's a con:

The launch lineup looks terrible. Even worse than the PS2's lineup.

Well, they do have that Insomniac game. Yeah it's a FPS, but hey, it's Insomniac. These are the guys that have enough talent to put out a brand new Ratchet and Clank game FOUR YEARS in a row and have each one still be better than 90% of the stuff on the market. Beyond that and maybe Untold Legends and GoW clone (whatever it was called), there isn't much to get excited about, I'll agree. Then again, Kameo was the only thing on the 360 that was worth my time for the first several months.

gzsfrk

08-02-2006, 08:40 AM

The list says that Blueray can only be a good thing but I think that's arguable.

Actually, the actual article lists Blu-ray as both a pro (due to more space) and a con (due to initially high disc production costs).

Manzy

08-02-2006, 08:46 AM

It's just sad that there are people who literally HATE the corporation. Newsflash retards, both MS and Sony are out there to make money. They are not there to please you. Not directly.

I think its fair to "hate" a corporation that was a big factor in the down fall of my beloved Sega (NOT the only factor, but a factor nonetheless). I mean it's OK to hate EA for bastardizing so many franchises and tanking others, but not fair to hate Sony? What about Enron? I can hate corporate entities!

Mike Jones

08-02-2006, 08:48 AM

Here's a con:

The launch lineup looks terrible. Even worse than the PS2's lineup.

How is that a con? Early adopters don't care, they are still going to buy it. A con would be no good games coming in 2007.

needoptic

08-02-2006, 08:52 AM

I think its fair to "hate" a corporation that was a big factor in the down fall of my beloved Sega (NOT the only factor, but a factor nonetheless). I mean it's OK to hate EA for bastardizing so many franchises and tanking others, but not fair to hate Sony? What about Enron? I can hate corporate entities!

So will you never play a single EA game or would you stop using energy because you hate a corporate entity?

All I'm saying is that there are people here who dismiss the ps3 only because they dislike the corporation.

I don't particularly like Microsoft due to their past fuck-ups, but I'm not going to stop playing games on the Xbox 360. Those two things are separate in my mind.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 08:55 AM

Manzy

08-02-2006, 09:01 AM

Sega killed themselves. Don't blame it on Sony.
Christ man, I said Sony helped. I hate them for it, and I also hate Sega for it. When I said not the only factor, I hoped everyone would understand that I knew Sony didn't kill Sega. Sony's excessive hype and "toy story like graphics" just didn't come off as good business to me, and it helped aid in Sega's downfall. I never blamed Sony for killing Sega, only helping it happen.

So will you never play a single EA game or would you stop using energy because you hate a corporate entity?

I wouldn't support a coporation that did practices I did not like, if that's what you mean. If EA suddenly changed light on me, I wouldn't hold it against them.

Plays4Pants

08-02-2006, 09:01 AM

So will you never play a single EA game or would you stop using energy because you hate a corporate entity?

I for one have not bought an EA game since i heard of the way they treat their employees.
Politics is business. Business is politics. Business influences the customer. Business influences the product.

Nintendo right now has good political standing which is a PRO for everything they do!
Sony right now has shitty political standing which is a CON for everything they touch.
It doesn't necessarily influence everyone right now. But if one company gets the "political jive" to not make a game for sony but instead for the wii. Guess what...that just influenced you now didn't it.

For example -
You wanna watch an old mst3k on the sci-fi channel? Too bad, they were in bad political standing with the network owners. That show is history for television and when it was really getting popular. They pulled the plug...forever. Pure politics.

Being smug and arrogant is probably the biggest con of them all and will influence everyone...even if you don't care. If one guy at the top DOES CARE then you will be impacted.

And no, the ps3 games that YOU CAN SEE AND PLAY look worse than the 360 games THAT YOU CAN SEE AND PLAY. The textures are muddy. very muddy.

MoJoBehaumat

08-02-2006, 09:05 AM

I really dont see how the cell processor itself is going to be that much of a con in the end. Need we forget that Sony co-developed the processor, that will not just be used in the PS3 but in other electronic devices. Plus the fact that they have hugh third party support, between all of the companys its only a matter of when, not if, they start sharing shortcuts or optimizing the processer as a whole. :o

Zurik

08-02-2006, 09:18 AM

Man, there is so much wrong here that I won't even attempt to tackle it.

It would be some fun morning reading if you did try to tackle it though. Plus you stole my idea to sell a PS3 on ebay so I can make enough money to actually afford my own PS3. Then again, I'm sure alot of people are thinking about that.

Manzy

08-02-2006, 09:29 AM

How is that a con? Early adopters don't care, they are still going to buy it. A con would be no good games coming in 2007.
Early adopters think their will be good games- that, or they are fools. What's the point in buying it now if your not gonna use it? Especially when its 600 freaking bucks.

Khash

08-02-2006, 09:34 AM

Early adopters think their will be good games- that, or they are fools. What's the point in buying it now if your not gonna use it? Especially when its 600 freaking bucks.
Because it's new.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 10:07 AM

Early adopters think their will be good games- that, or they are fools. What's the point in buying it now if your not gonna use it? Especially when its 600 freaking bucks.
It's 500 bucks.

Mike Jones

08-02-2006, 10:15 AM

Early adopters think their will be good games- that, or they are fools. What's the point in buying it now if your not gonna use it? Especially when its 600 freaking bucks.

Go look at the PS1 and PS2 launch titles. Why did they sell out then? It sure wasn't because of great launch titles.

DoubleUranium

08-02-2006, 10:24 AM

Manzy

08-02-2006, 10:28 AM

It's 500 bucks.
:rolleyes:

Go look at the PS1 and PS2 launch titles. Why did they sell out then? It sure wasn't because of great launch titles.

I can only assume people bought them because there were going to be fun launch titles on them. You can't justify buying a game console if there are no game to play on it.

Now, you can go on and say "but the people that bought it, bought it for the FUTURE games!" To which I would say, "I don't know about you, but I'm not about to put my hard earned cash down on what has potential to be fun. I'll wait to the reviews are out and I can hear word of mouth if a game is fun. If I'm buying a console, there better be games that are badass on it right when I buy it."

Then you could go on to say "but PS3 isn't just a videogame console, it's a <insert 'ENTERTAINMENT ORGY' 'PLETHORA OF PLEASURE' etc.> that's why I am buying it at launch." Which is fair, but I can't justify to myself that what Sony has said about its non-gaming features for the PS3 would make it worth $600 (or $500, if you are a Kelegacy). If you can justify that cost to yourself, more power to you.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 10:35 AM

It's 600 bucks. Why pay the blu ray tax and not get real blu-ray? Don't give me anything about them "agreeing" not to use the broadcast flag until 2010. Seen a written contract from a studio saying that? If not, you're just hoping for their good will. The more successful the PS3/Blueray is the sooner the broadcast flag gets used because the customers are getting locked in.
I don't see anything pro about the Cell processor. It's a pain in the ass. Everything you can't compact down into a 256k chunk needs to run on the single main processsor, which is anemic due to lack of brance prediction and out of order instructions.
You'll still be able to enjoy BR movies via component in 1080p if you choose. If you want the super PS3, sure it'll be 600 bucks, and that extra 100 does offer a wealth of features, but for most people, and gamers in general, the PS3 will be 500. We'll still be able to watch BR movies, play PS3 games, so what's the problem? It has all the stuff the 360 Premium has and then some.

I'm not really defending the pricing, because we can all agree it is too high. But the idea that the PS3 is 600 bucks isn't exactly correct.

MosBen

08-02-2006, 10:41 AM

Setzer_83

08-02-2006, 10:42 AM

... The ps3 doesn't have huge 3rd party support. Development companies are canceling games because of HUGE development costs. Sure, EA and Ubisoft will be developing for the ps3, but most studio's (like the one I work for) won't be able to develop for it. It will kill innovation.

Microsoft and Nintendo are (get ready for it) encouraging small companies to develop innovative games. The Marketplace is allowing indie devs to make games and not need the support of a super power like EA. Sure sony says they will have something that will probably rhyme with Marketplace or Arcade, but it isn't going to do well. Sony promises big, delivers horribly.

Phanto

08-02-2006, 10:51 AM

I have to say the Pros are a lot more convincing than the Cons. The only con with any real merit is the cost.

Cost & Architecture may be the real cons in the console for now..
If architecture comes a real problem the PS3 could lose some third party support from games, we can only hope that will not happend, but who knows ...

Dag-Sabot

08-02-2006, 11:07 AM

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 11:10 AM

Even if the ps3 turned out to be the next best thing since sliced bread, i for one have spent my console money for this and next year. As far as I am concerned, MS brought a good/better product to market first. They got my money. Theres too many "what if's" with SONY's product and i just didnt have the faith in them to ignore the 360.
Very true, that's the same with me. However, I do want a Wii, barring any unforseeable problems. I bought a regular DS, a DS Lite, and a 360 this year. A PS3 would be way too much for a system that won't come into its own until mid 2007 at the earliest. Plus, there're too many good PS2 games coming out that will get my dinero instead of a PS3.

tombofsoldier

08-02-2006, 11:13 AM

You can cross out the "technical power" bs, most developers say with hard work its only slightly more powerfull than the 360. Gone also is "strong 3rd party support" every console seems to have that, so how is it a pro?

As for cons, defective product launch? Hmm, giant speculation thier, and Kutaragi and his "The PS2 is like teh Matrix!11" didn't ruin the PS2, so thats gone. So you end up with the same amount of cons to pros, hmmm.

Major Dan

08-02-2006, 11:20 AM

Honestly, I don't care about backward compat, it really doesn't matter. The only game I have really played on the 360 with bc is Halo 2 and that really works well...go figure.

I have never use bc with the PS2. I tend not to go back once the generation has arrived.

The cost is really the biggie here. I am planning on waiting until it gets to around $400.

Blu-ray doesn't really matter, as long as it doesn't make it more expensive...which it all ready has. But will the games be more then $60? Sounds like they want them to be, so that will be another CON.

Don't get me wrong I want one, I just want a sanely priced one.

Runaway987

08-02-2006, 11:22 AM

PS is the leading brandGive it a year....

Well we gave it 8 months and all I have to play on it is geometry wars, a demo of lost planet and a bunch of ported hand me downs like FFXIII and BF2.

Before you all talk about what is superior and what looks better and what hardware does what you should think about the games. 360 has a pathetic offering of them for the time it has been on market. Period.

I dont know what console is going to "win" the war nor do I care, id like some games on my box that I currently have that is worth the £50 tag, if the PS3 "matches" :rolleyes: the 360 then ill get rid of both to be frank, I have more entertainment from my PS2/Xbox and DS.

Zanzibar

08-02-2006, 11:29 AM

Here's a con:

It's up against the Xbox 360, which costs less and has a significantly larger (and BETTER) library of games available.

I'm curious what context this pro/con list is about. Is it about why to buy a PS3 PERIOD, or why to choose the PS3 over the X360? Isn't that the basic question anyways?

Runaway987

08-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Zanzibar

08-02-2006, 11:36 AM

Tell that to Japan. Sonys PR is terrible for sure and the playstation 3is expensive and might be hard to program for, this was no different to the PS2. We all play and love Halo 2 but honestly I have a lot of conversations like this.

Person: "I need to save up for my PS3 soon"
Me: "What about a 360?"
Person: "nah"
Me "Why not?"
person "Dunno, just not bothered by it"
me "Why are you buying the PS3?"
Person *Looks at me like im quite possibly the dumbest person in the world. "Its the PS3!"
Yeah, you are absolutely right. It sucks.

I'll disagree with you on the X360 library - I'm having a great time with it. But I'm not really a 'hardcore' gamer. Honestly I've been playing more demos than anything else simply because I don't have the time to devote to it. Hell, I had to give up on Oblivion because my short attention span clock went off.

rainbowblack

08-02-2006, 11:38 AM

how about we wait for it to come out before listing things we think it may or may not be

eatme

08-02-2006, 11:52 AM

I have to say the Pros are a lot more convincing than the Cons. The only con with any real merit is the cost.

Have you tried to program for the thing!? It seriously is problematic.

eatme

08-02-2006, 11:54 AM

Person: "I need to save up for my PS3 soon"
Me: "What about a 360?"
Person: "nah"
Me "Why not?"
person "Dunno, just not bothered by it"
me "Why are you buying the PS3?"
Person *Looks at me like im quite possibly the dumbest person in the world. "Its the PS3!"

Yup. Brand is huge. Even with this misstep, they aren't going to lose more than 10% or so in the U.S., and in Japan... well, I guess they could lose share to the Wii....

jacktion

08-02-2006, 12:07 PM

You'll still be able to enjoy BR movies via component in 1080p if you choose. If you want the super PS3, sure it'll be 600 bucks, and that extra 100 does offer a wealth of features, but for most people, and gamers in general, the PS3 will be 500. We'll still be able to watch BR movies, play PS3 games, so what's the problem? It has all the stuff the 360 Premium has and then some.

I'm not really defending the pricing, because we can all agree it is too high. But the idea that the PS3 is 600 bucks isn't exactly correct.

Ok let's all just stop. Do we all see what's happening here? This is exactly what the marketers at Sony planned out in countless meetings. They predicted this exact moment and their plan is now coming to fruition. They decided to market a 600 dollar "real" version and a 500 dollar crippled version. The 500 dollar one is a nonfunctional piece of trash that is only there so that Sony can say the PS3 is 500 dollars. The big problem with that crippled version is that the blueray player will not play movies back in its top resolutions. This kind of kills the whole point of having a blueray player. You are essentially paying 500 bucks for a dvd player and a PS3. So if you want a PS3 with reduced features that plays expensive blueray discs like they are dvds than go for it.

Mike Jones

08-02-2006, 12:11 PM

Have you tried to program for the thing!? It seriously is problematic.

Funny... it's so hard, yet every dev says it's easier that the PS2 to program for and we all know how the PS2 flopped because it was hard to program for. The 360 nor the PS3 is easy to program for if you want to get the most out of it.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 12:17 PM

They decided to market a 600 dollar "real" version and a 500 dollar crippled version. The 500 dollar one is a nonfunctional piece of trash that is only there so that Sony can say the PS3 is 500 dollars.
Nonfuctional? Does it not play play games? I think many people are seriously misinformed if they think the PS3 is nonfuctional and crippled. The PS3 will still play BR movies just fine at the 500 dollar level. The "core" PS3 is essentially the "real" PS3. The other gadgets on the higher version are frills that you really do not need to enjoy games. Gamers do not need the higher version, but multimedia afficionados might crave it. That's why there's an option. I think the higher version should be 499, but I do not set the price.

Again, I come across as a fanboy because I'm coming to the system's aid. I'm just trying to clear this misinformation up. I was one of the guys who said I wanted the higher version, the real version, and then after people talked sense into me--Kefkataran, EternalGamer, etc.--I realized that I really do NOT need the 600 version. The 500 is the real PS3, the 600 is the suped up, frilly console.

DeadScreenSky

08-02-2006, 12:17 PM

What about BluRay read times? I remember way back when reading that it was going to read about the same speed as current DVD players, just with five times the capacity. To me that said that load times would be frequent and long, but then I'm neither an expert or up on the most current information.
It's worse than that. The PS3 has a Blu-ray drive that only reads data at half the rate of the X360's DVD drive (which is already a little slower than would be ideal). Blu-ray's extra capacity is only a pro if you love long loading times.

DeadScreenSky

08-02-2006, 12:23 PM

The 500 is the real PS3, the 600 is the suped up, frilly console.
You're going to be in a for a shock when you see how rare Sony makes your 'real' PS3. In many markets it won't even be available.

Personally I don't see the value in spending an extra $100-200 on a system for Blu-ray without getting the real Blu-ray capabilities, but once the castrated PS3 gets much cheaper (like $200) I may consider going with that model. Hopefully by that point standalone HD movie players will be reasonably priced, too.

Mr.Condescension

08-02-2006, 12:55 PM

It's worse than that. The PS3 has a Blu-ray drive that only reads data at half the rate of the X360's DVD drive (which is already a little slower than would be ideal). Blu-ray's extra capacity is only a pro if you love long loading times.

That's complete misinformation. The blu-ray drive will be just as fast or faster on any disc with more than 3.5 Gigs of data (which is pretty much all of them). DVD drives read DVD9 much slower than DVD5.

Mike Jones

08-02-2006, 01:11 PM

It's worse than that. The PS3 has a Blu-ray drive that only reads data at half the rate of the X360's DVD drive (which is already a little slower than would be ideal). Blu-ray's extra capacity is only a pro if you love long loading times.

It would be nice if you had a clue. Regardless your forgetting that the standard hardrive will also aid in load times.

michaelwhite

08-02-2006, 01:13 PM

Back then they didn't want me, now I'm hot they all on me.

DeadScreenSky

08-02-2006, 01:34 PM

That's complete misinformation. The blu-ray drive will be just as fast or faster on any disc with more than 3.5 Gigs of data (which is pretty much all of them). DVD drives read DVD9 much slower than DVD5.
None of the research I've read suggests that to be the case. A 2X Blu-ray drive is roughly equivalent to a 6X DVD drive when it comes to data read speeds. Seek speeds of the PS3 drive are still publically unknown last time I checked, but if it's anything like their standalone Blu-ray player it is also slower.

I'd love to be proven wrong, so feel free to point me to some technical information that says otherwise.

Khash

08-02-2006, 01:41 PM

Here's a con:

It's up against the Xbox 360, which costs less and has a significantly larger (and BETTER) library of games available.
Yes, you're right. There are currently many more quality games available for the 360 then there are for PS3. I think we all can agree that any number is greater then zero.

F3nyx

08-02-2006, 01:43 PM

Yes, you're right. There are currently many more quality games available for the 360 then there are for PS3. I think we all can agree that any number is greater then zero.Made me laugh, but the point he was aiming for is still valid: when the PS3 does launch, its library will have a hard time catching up to the 360's.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 02:47 PM

Made me laugh, but the point he was aiming for is still valid: when the PS3 does launch, its library will have a hard time catching up to the 360's.
No it won't. I mean, yeah the 360 will have had a year headstart, but the only true killer app exclusive will have been Gears of War, if it's released this fall, with a few other decent titles to pick up as well. Sony won't have a killer title for a bit, unless Heavenly Sword, Resistance or Warhawk turn out amazing, but if Oblivion does come to the PS3, there's one other must have stolen from the 360.

GRAW will be the only other game that can't be gotten on the PS3, and who knows...

I was happy with the PS2 library, I can't imagine I will be disappointed with the PS3 games...but of course you'll have to give it a bit of time. That's why buying systems at launch is usually a stupid idea.

Manzy

08-02-2006, 02:49 PM

That's why buying systems at launch is usually a stupid idea.
QFT
To this day I have yet to buy any console on launch. Dreamcast was the earliest console purchase I have ever done, and I got royally screwed cuz they recalled it about 4-6 months after I got it.

Kelegacy

08-02-2006, 02:53 PM

QFT
To this day I have yet to buy any console on launch. Dreamcast was the earliest console purchase I have ever done, and I got royally screwed.
I bought a 360 in March with Oblivion and didn't own another game until July. I wasn't too happy, but I NEEDED Oblivion. So I made my own bed...

...I won't do the same with the PS3, unless I buy one at launch, sell it, and make enough to go back and buy another when a second shipment comes in. Then it all depends on how much the games will be priced at. If games are over 60 bucks EVER, the PS3 can rot on the shelves. I already refuse to buy a 360 title at that price, but I had to cave with Oblivion of course.

Never again.

Mr.Condescension

08-02-2006, 03:18 PM

None of the research I've read suggests that to be the case. A 2X Blu-ray drive is roughly equivalent to a 6X DVD drive when it comes to data read speeds. Seek speeds of the PS3 drive are still publically unknown last time I checked, but if it's anything like their standalone Blu-ray player it is also slower.

I'd love to be proven wrong, so feel free to point me to some technical information that says otherwise.

I'll send you some links to a previous thread with all the references in PM. I doubt the EvAv readers want to read the entire discussion all over again.

edit: looks like you don't accept PMs, so here's a link to the old discussion/epeen war (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13734&page=10&pp=10&highlight=assassin)
It's probably a rather tiring read. Pages 10 and 12 are probably best, with examples and general conclusions on page 12. Hope this helps with any confusion you may have on the issue.

DeadScreenSky

08-02-2006, 03:48 PM

I'll send you some links to a previous thread with all the references in PM. I doubt the EvAv readers want to read the entire discussion all over again.

edit: looks like you don't accept PMs, so here's a link to the old discussion/epeen war (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13734&page=10&pp=10&highlight=assassin)
It's probably a rather tiring read. Pages 10 and 12 are probably best, with examples and general conclusions on page 12. Hope this helps with any confusion you may have on the issue.
Thanks!

It does look like there's some confusion (and maybe misinformation) on both sides of the issue. Not to single you out or restart that little war (like you say, EA readers don't want that shit), but I know dummy data files and correctly placing the data that actually needs the highest DVD read speed is extremely common on X360 titles, not to mention PS2 and Xbox1 games, so the ~15% 'fast space' issue isn't quite as big of a deal as you are suggesting. But the other guy was also being an asshole, so you definitely win points for putting up with that. :D

I am glad to see the issue with the PS3's disc speeds isn't as dire as I feared. Thank you.

Kamalot

08-02-2006, 03:50 PM

I probably will eventually get a PS3, but I don't see how they could maintain a console price of $600 for long, so I'm waiting for the first price drop. I'm betting we'll see it about 6 months after launch.
Just like the PSP? I mean, it has had TONS of price drops, right?

Mr.Condescension

08-02-2006, 04:05 PM

I am glad to see the issue with the PS3's disc speeds isn't as dire as I feared. Thank you.

Any time. I'm always glad to share research with people. As for the rudeness level, I'm used to people resorting to insults when they're losing a debate. To me it just means I'm on the right track.

The 360 and PS3 are both going to have longer load times than last generation simply due to the ram increasing much more than the drive read speeds on either console. The difference in read speeds will be negligible in most cases, with hard-drive caching being the real difference between the systems media reading and streaming performance.

Major Dan

08-02-2006, 04:44 PM

Just like the PSP? I mean, it has had TONS of price drops, right?

True, but sales are lagging, so maybe, just maybe they should ;)

zeonxavier

08-02-2006, 07:34 PM

I'm taking a wait and see approach myself, as most systems don't really merit a purchase in my opinion until they've got at least a year's worth of game development under their belts. I had a PS2 the first winter they came out and had trouble finding much of interest to play on it besides PSone games and DVD's for that first year.

Sure, I have trouble justifying $600 for a PS3, but I am in the process of considering a purchase in the same dollar amount for components to build a new PC. For games, no less! Heck, there's a lot of PC enthusiasts who drop that much cash on videocards alone. The PS3's not even priced too bad if you want Blu-Ray, since a PC Blu-Ray drive costs $1000 by itself. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Kamalot

08-03-2006, 07:11 AM

I'm taking a wait and see approach myself, as most systems don't really merit a purchase in my opinion until they've got at least a year's worth of game development under their belts.The problem is, a growing number of developers are taking a 'wait and see' approach to the PS3 as well. They realize that spending a ton to develop for a new platform that won't have many installed units is bad business.

Result? Their development efforts will go elsewhere, to the 360 or Wii. 360 and / or Wii will have bigger libraries, which attract customers more than hardware. PS2 was successful, why? Due to its awesome technical abilities? No. PS2 was successful due to its tremendously large library of titles.

PS3 isn't getting the benefit of the doubt putting it in a catch-22. Developers won't make games for it if the install base isn't there. Consumers won't widely adopt it if the game library isn't there. The whole time, people are buying 360s / Wii and developers are making games for those platforms.

The biggest Con of the PS3 is the shrinking developer support that will turn the PS3 into a niche product, not the mainstream success that the PS2 was.