Sony CEO: Sorry, No PS3 Price Cut

[decepticon]

[citation][nom]hakesterman[/nom]When you take the Xbox360pro at $ 299.00 plus addyour wireless controller for $ 99.00 your at 399.99 [/citation]


Where are you buying your wireless controllers? Aren't they like 49.99? And the Pro 360 comes with one wireless controller.

 

[dman3k]

[citation][nom]mook33[/nom]The reason I don't have any games for the PS3 isn't because there aren't any good ones, but because I STILL HAVE ALL OF THEM FOR THE 360.[/citation]The only good PS3 exclusive multiplayer online game is Killzone 2. It's mostly a useless POS3 after that. When is the last time I even turned on my POS3? May?

 

[Xuzial]

Half of you goons arguing about a 400$ PC running games smoother than a PS3 have no idea what you're talking about so just stop. 400$ is gonna get you the cheapest shit. You'll barely play the high end games at optimal settings. PC's are more than just a video card. Gonna spend about 400-500$ on a video card that runs the nex-gen games at max settings. But you need other components such as high end CPU's fast ram to accompany the video card. Then you're gonna need a case with good fans to keep that thing cool and also change the stock heatsink on the proc to a good one in th 60$ Range. Case+Heatsink alone is gonna be close to 150$ Long story short, a 400$ PC is gonna run the games at lesser quality than a PS3 and maybe the older games at high quality. New game comes out and you think replacing the video card is gonna cut it, you are wrong. Replacing the video card might cause you to have to buy a new power supply. Ooh look 150$ that doesn't include the video card price. Oh yea, then you need a monitor to support those resolutions that these games have to offer. You can't buy a 17" monitor and think you're gonna get 1920x1200. You have to buy at least a 24" to support all those pixels and that right there is 300$. I own both a high end gaming computer and a PS3, cause some titles don't come out on the PC, and sometimes I just want to sit away from a screen and play a video game on the big screen and sit on the couch. Hell, even invite friends over and play instead of crouch up on a computer screen. PS3 is more interactive than a PC, but a cheap PC won't run these high end games. If they did, there wouldn't be such expensive parts if all it takes is investing in a video card. I think a computer GURU would save their money and just buy a 250$ barebone and slap in a video card if it were that simple. Gimme a break guys.

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]jalpaugh1978[/nom]with that build there isnt a game out there that wont be playable at med-high settings other then possbly Crysis or GTA 4[/citation]
uh, did you read the OS he listed? nuff said and good luck to you sir! you must be a PC guru and should be writing tom's budget build articles. (and I didn't even rate you down)

[citation][nom]Greg_77[/nom]Uhhh... yea. The graphics chip in a PS3 is way more powerful than the ati 4850. Are you smoking crack? The 4850 is way more powerful that the PS3 graphics. The graphics chip in the PS3 is made by Nvidia and is similar to the 7900 gt, and just as powerful. Oh, and a 1080p tv does not have that high of a resolution, 1920×1080. Yea, my monitor is higher resolution than that. So what was your point about using a 4850 to play games on a 1080p TV?[/citation]
correct me if I am wrong but I hardly think consoles handle graphics the way a PC does. definitely not the sony consoles. so I think you're comparison is a little absurd. and saying 1080P isnt that high of a resolution - well that just doesn't make it so. there is plenty of tests showing 4850's losing lots of performance with just such a resolution depending on the settings of course.

and the original XBOX was a geforce 3 basically and still running games people were buying gefore 5900 ultra's and geforce 5950 ultra's if not higher if I remember correctly to play some of those same games. sure maybe the detail wasn't exactly the same but it wasn't that huge a difference either.

[citation][nom]kgrach[/nom]Next person who says a PS3 is too exspensive so I am getting an XBOX gets a beating for being too stupid to be allowed to breed. The XBOX 360 is far more costly to own.I paid 599 for my PS3 and my XBOX cost twice that to get home.AGAIN LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN!!! THE XBOX360 IS FAR MORE EXSPENSIVE THAN A PS3. SIMPLE MATH PEOPLE!!!!!360 rechargable battery EXTRAPS3 rechargable battery included360 plug and play cable EXTRAPS3 standard USB cable included360 Wifi ExtraPS3 Wifi included360 Online gaming EXTRA monthly feePS3 Online gaming included360 needs special HDMI cable (my XBOX does not have HDMI early proPS3 Standard cable360 expanding that patheticly small 20 gig hard drive cost me 179ps3 came with 80gig large enough and can be expanded to any size 2.5" sata hard drive without voiding warrantyI also got the XBOX HD drive cost me 199all and all the xbox was far more exspensive to ownThe 199 xbox is nearly useless except as a spare Xbox which is what most 360 owners do. Becuase YOU NEED A HARD drive for an 360 to be usefull unless you are a total idiot and spend money on the small exspensive memory card.[/citation]
now to you sir, I believe you are perhaps the one that needs to be the recipient of you're own beating and be looked at for possibly being excluded from breeding.

if you paid twice as much, something is really wrong with you. why did you not just get an XBOX360 elite? uh - do I have to say - duh? or even the PRO version at the time if the elite wasn't out. and some of the stuff you mention is just fluff stuff anyways of you're own choosing and not required to "get home". I have a wireless controller with my elite and I even have rechargable batteries but hell I just leave the charging cable connected anyways.

not to mention you complaining about $199 for an HD-DVD add-on - I won't even go so far as to say - haha? cause personally I was rooting for HD-DVD. But the point is that was you're gamble and you lost. better luck next time. those things even dropped down to like $20 or $25 dollars if you just had to have one. but who in their right mind buy's something like that with a pending DVD format war going on? Do I need to go back to the breeding comment? that's pretty simple common sense.

as for an actual wireless connection - my XBOX360 seems to get on XBOX Live without it

so basically if you want you're XBOX360 to have the same features as a PS3 sure it might cost similar or a little more but with the XBOX360 it CAN cost much cheaper and gives you the option to have versions without all the little luxury extra's that not all of us need or even want. does the PS3 offer that?

 

[Xuzial]

Hmm, let's see.. It costs $840 to manufacture a PS3(Large HD) and about $325 to manufacture an XBOX 360. Now would you as a company cut the price if you're already loosing so much money per console or keep it as is. Either way if they cut the price I don't think they'll have anything to gain or lose. They will however gain a larger fan base in turns of their next console since obviously the PS3 failed with their large price tag to begin with. However I give sony credit. I went through 3 XBOX's in about a year and a half. I still have the same PS3 I bought the same time I bought my 360. They are more reliable and last longer. Yes I had my 360's isolated, on a cooling pad etc. I own high end PC's I know all about ventilation etc. I think Sony knows that the economy is really bad and that they too are suffering, but consumers don't really have $400 to cough up. So it's their choice, drop the price tag, loose 100$ per console which will add up. Or leave it as is and don't worry about consumers buying their PS4 if they make one. If I were sony I would just drop the price and rebuild the Fanbase. The more consoles out there, the more profit they can make from games and the larger support Sony will keep in their next console. Let's hope they aren't dumb enough to make a 600$ machine this time.

 

[Xuzial]

[citation][nom]Greg_77[/nom]Uhhh... yea. The graphics chip in a PS3 is way more powerful than the ati 4850. Are you smoking crack? The 4850 is way more powerful that the PS3 graphics. The graphics chip in the PS3 is made by Nvidia and is similar to the 7900 gt, and just as powerful. Oh, and a 1080p tv does not have that high of a resolution, 1920×1080. Yea, my monitor is higher resolution than that. So what was your point about using a 4850 to play games on a 1080p TV?[/citation]

Good luck running complex games at a higher resolution than 1920x1200 with more FPS than 25. After 1920x1200 you're in the 2048x1536 range. Haven't seen that card show satisfying frames on high end games. In fact it's not even worth playing those resolutions yet. Obviously PS3 Games aren't filled with so many details like PC games. But that card is really nothing to brag about on those settings you mentioned. OK you play WOW at 80FPS woopey. Is the card better than PS3 graphics yes. But can it run new high end games over 1920x1200 at highest settings and smooth no. Cod4 is built on an older engine so please don't bring that game up.

 

[Greg_77]

[citation][nom]thegh0st[/nom]uh, did you read the OS he listed? nuff said and good luck to you sir! you must be a PC guru and should be writing tom's budget build articles. (and I didn't even rate you down)correct me if I am wrong but I hardly think consoles handle graphics the way a PC does. definitely not the sony consoles. so I think you're comparison is a little absurd. and saying 1080P isnt that high of a resolution - well that just doesn't make it so. there is plenty of tests showing 4850's losing lots of performance with just such a resolution depending on the settings of course.and the original XBOX was a geforce 3 basically and still running games people were buying gefore 5900 ultra's and geforce 5950 ultra's if not higher if I remember correctly to play some of those same games. sure maybe the detail wasn't exactly the same but it wasn't that huge a difference either.now to you sir, I believe you are perhaps the one that needs to be the recipient of you're own beating and be looked at for possibly being excluded from breeding.if you paid twice as much, something is really wrong with you. why did you not just get an XBOX360 elite? uh - do I have to say - duh? or even the PRO version at the time if the elite wasn't out. and some of the stuff you mention is just fluff stuff anyways of you're own choosing and not required to "get home". I have a wireless controller with my elite and I even have rechargable batteries but hell I just leave the charging cable connected anyways.not to mention you complaining about $199 for an HD-DVD add-on - I won't even go so far as to say - haha? cause personally I was rooting for HD-DVD. But the point is that was you're gamble and you lost. better luck next time. those things even dropped down to like $20 or $25 dollars if you just had to have one. but who in their right mind buy's something like that with a pending DVD format war going on? Do I need to go back to the breeding comment? that's pretty simple common sense.as for an actual wireless connection - my XBOX360 seems to get on XBOX Live without itso basically if you want you're XBOX360 to have the same features as a PS3 sure it might cost similar or a little more but with the XBOX360 it CAN cost much cheaper and gives you the option to have versions without all the little luxury extra's that not all of us need or even want. does the PS3 offer that?[/citation]

If you lower the quality of the graphics to that of PS3 quality (ex. lower anti aliasing), you would realize that the 4850 can easily play at equally high frame rates. It isn't like the PS3 has some magical code that can make games on cheap hardware look they are 295 gtx quality.

[citation][nom]Xuzial[/nom]Good luck running complex games at a higher resolution than 1920x1200 with more FPS than 25. After 1920x1200 you're in the 2048x1536 range. Haven't seen that card show satisfying frames on high end games. In fact it's not even worth playing those resolutions yet. Obviously PS3 Games aren't filled with so many details like PC games. But that card is really nothing to brag about on those settings you mentioned. OK you play WOW at 80FPS woopey. Is the card better than PS3 graphics yes. But can it run new high end games over 1920x1200 at highest settings and smooth no. Cod4 is built on an older engine so please don't bring that game up.[/citation]

That's not the point, the 4850 can beat the PS3 at the same resolution and quality. I didn't say at all high settings. I meant at same quality settings as the PS3, which means not very high. I am not disparaging the PS3, I am simply saying that when paired with a decent CPU, the 4850 will beat the PS3 frame rates when doing comparable quality settings. This is one of the main reasons people make gaming PCs. Remember, I am not saying the 4850 is a high end card (it's not), just saying that it will play games at higher frames rates when using comparable quality settings.

 

[kgrach]

@greg_77
I brought early and the 20gig was the highest xbox available.

Yes you can get started cheaper on the xbox than the PS3 but in the long run the xbox is much more costly to own. As that gold membership has added over $200 to the cost of owning the 360 and continuing to add up
plus

On the Xbox you need a harddrive as buying those 360 memory cards are cost prohibative.

On the 360 you need to buy the plug and play cable and battery unless you own duracell stock and like clogging the land fill.

on the 360 you need to buy gold subscriptions to play online unless you like playing with yourself.

Don't get me wrong I like my 360 it fun but its not cheaper to own than a PS3.

I just really hate stupid reporters who post this same lame story.

Ohh Infamous is a really cool PS3 exsclusive and is much better than prototype.

I am not a MS or sony fan boy I own both consoles and a tricked out water cooled quad core PC running Vista, 7, XP and ubuntu. Plus a slew of Amigas.

No macs but one of my PPC amigas has MacOS sherlock installed

I like toys and this generation of consoles can hold thier own against a PC

While the Xbox is maxed out the PS3 has that really under utilized cell processor which gives it considerable grunt. Which you are not gonna get in a sub $1000 dollar intel processor.
I really don't even think a Sub $1000 intel cpu can beat the trio of 4 gig PPC's in the 360.

The shorter PPC pipeline and better chip arch leave X86 chips in the dust.

So while you can get faster graphics cards both consoles have the advantage of not having to haul around the two ton major CPU hog of a MS OS

 

[Greg_77]

[citation][nom]kgrach[/nom]@greg_77I brought early and the 20gig was the highest xbox available.Yes you can get started cheaper on the xbox than the PS3 but in the long run the xbox is much more costly to own. As that gold membership has added over $200 to the cost of owning the 360 and continuing to add upplusOn the Xbox you need a harddrive as buying those 360 memory cards are cost prohibative.On the 360 you need to buy the plug and play cable and battery unless you own duracell stock and like clogging the land fill.on the 360 you need to buy gold subscriptions to play online unless you like playing with yourself.Don't get me wrong I like my 360 it fun but its not cheaper to own than a PS3. I just really hate stupid reporters who post this same lame story.Ohh Infamous is a really cool PS3 exsclusive and is much better than prototype.I am not a MS or sony fan boy I own both consoles and a tricked out water cooled quad core PC running Vista, 7, XP and ubuntu. Plus a slew of Amigas.No macs but one of my PPC amigas has MacOS sherlock installedI like toys and this generation of consoles can hold thier own against a PC While the Xbox is maxed out the PS3 has that really under utilized cell processor which gives it considerable grunt. Which you are not gonna get in a sub $1000 dollar intel processor.I really don't even think a Sub $1000 intel cpu can beat the trio of 4 gig PPC's in the 360.The shorter PPC pipeline and better chip arch leave X86 chips in the dust.So while you can get faster graphics cards both consoles have the advantage of not having to haul around the two ton major CPU hog of a MS OS[/citation]

I wasn't trying to recommend the 360. I don't even think I mentioned it (although I own one). Although I think the PS3 is a superb machine, I don't see why a PC, at $400 US dollars, couldn't beat it. The PS3 had the advantage of being designed entirely for gaming. Its CPU focused almost completely on graphics. That being said, the PS3 has serious hardware shortcomings as well. Although the PS3 has a much lighter OS, it also has little RAM. In total (graphics and system in general), the PS3 has 512 mb of RAM. A PC with 4 gb of cheap DDR2 should easily handle a windows OS and a game. The graphics chip of the PS3 is also a disadvantage. It is based on the 7900gt from Nvidia and is quite out dated, especially when compared to the ATI 4850, a fairly cheap card. The PS3's only real trump card is its CPU, which helps to make up for the lack of RAM and GPU power. I know that a 4850 or equivalent card could play games, even FPS, on a HDTV with decent frame rates at low quality settings. The CPU doesn't need to be that good, a dual core processor above 2 ghz should do, especially of its a Core2duo. In the end, it's not that I am recommending a PC over the PS3, just saying that a PC can equal the PS3 at a comparable price. Also, although the Cell processor may be under utilized, consider if it will ever be brought to its full potential. Game developers don't seem willing to get the best out of the PS3. When you are programming for two consoles (360 and PS3) you may not be willing to put in the effort (and money) into making the slower selling console meet its potential. I believe the PS3 and the 360 will most likely have the same graphics quality until their eventual replacement. The new playstation well be released at a similar time to the 360 and the next console battle will begin. In the end, it's not that the PS3 is a bad console, but that a PC can meet or surpass it at the same cost. That's what happens when you don't upgrade a consoles hardware for several years, PCs surpass them. It's just the way of life, with really no way to avoid it.

 

[reichscythe]

[citation][nom]Xuzial[/nom] ...a 400$ PC is gonna run the games at lesser quality than a PS3 and maybe the older games at high quality.[/citation]

A $400 PC will actually have no problem running this gen's games at about 1280 x 1024 with details on Medium/High... which, is not "lesser quality" than a PS3 since most of the time, the PS3 STRUGGLES to produce current gen games at the equivalent of Medium/High quality PC graphics at even 720P!! You DO realize the PS3's graphics technology is based on a graphics card that you can now pick up for $20 (or find for free at the bottom of the "lame, outdated and obsolete parts" bin at any OEM PC dealer)

[citation][nom]Xuzial[/nom] ...You can't buy a 17" monitor and think you're gonna get 1920x1200. You have to buy at least a 24" to support all those pixels and that right there is 300$.[/citation]

This is purely asinine... Factoring in the cost of a new monitor to a PC's price to get higher resolutions is the same as factoring in the price of the new HD TV you'll have to purchase to play PS3 games at 1080P (all 3 PS3 games that can actually play in 1080 that is)... so now you're lookin' at... what? an additional $1200 tacked on to the price of your console?

[citation][nom]Xuzial[/nom] I own both a high end gaming computer and a PS3, cause some titles don't come out on the PC, and sometimes I just want to sit away from a screen and play a video game on the big screen and sit on the couch ... some titles don't come out on the PC ... a cheap PC won't run these high end games. [/citation]

Why do console gamers INSIST on shooting up these same, previously deflected arguments??? I mean really? Buy a new brand of ammo people! ANY PC you build now can EASILY plug straight into a plasma or flat panel TV set... a wireless keyboard/mouse combo only costs $25-- so you can play games from your couch, all you like. And hell... if you really want the "authentic, across-the-like-a-couch potato-console experience" on your PC, just buy a few wireless console gamepads and plug'em in... cripes... (incidentally, the system in my living room could probably be purchased in full, now, for about $400--even with an outdated 3870HD and a 5200+ Dual Core, it still smokes the snot out of the PS3 [graphically and general performance] on all cross-platform titles I've played this gen: Oblivion, Bioshock, UT3, The Orange Box, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Farcry 2, Fallout 3, DMC4, DEADSPACE, PROTOTYPE, GHOSTBUSTERS, SFIV, Crysis and Mass Effect... oh... wait... no.. sorry.. Crysis and Mass Effect didn't actually come out on PS3.)

[citation][nom]Xuzial[/nom] Gimme a break guys.[/citation]

Very well. You have been broken.

 

[reichscythe]

Ohh Infamous is a really cool PS3 exsclusive and is much better than prototype.

You, sir, are CRUISING for a duel...

 

[vfighter]

I own a PS3, most games max out at 720p, so when putting together your budget box you only need to get good framerates whith decent image quality at about 1366x768 res. You can do that with a $400 PC. A legit copy of Windows is the priciest part of a $400 PC probably, and would most likely drive the price over $400. You can talk Linux all you want but that would limit the games you could play, just like pulling out the HD on your PS3 would limit what games you could play.

 

[Guest]

GENTLEMEN, PLEASE : JUST BUY A NINTENDO DS AND TAKE IT OUTSIDE : YOUR GAME THAT IS. A VERSATILE PLATFORM.

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]vfighter[/nom]I own a PS3, most games max out at 720p, so when putting together your budget box you only need to get good framerates whith decent image quality at about 1366x768 res. You can do that with a $400 PC. A legit copy of Windows is the priciest part of a $400 PC probably, and would most likely drive the price over $400. You can talk Linux all you want but that would limit the games you could play, just like pulling out the HD on your PS3 would limit what games you could play.[/citation]
finally someone with a brain. exactly. a legit copy of windows, even OEM, would bust their $400 dollar PC. sorry you lose, better luck next time.

well ok so maybe a real deal OEM version of XP they might score for $40 or $50 bucks if they were REALLY lucky but that's not something anyone could just go look for and get soo lucky I doubt. more like $65 dollars plus on a good deal but more likely $75 to $90 now?