October 20, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

PlayStation 3 shines in prelaunch test

Related Stories

Hands on the Wii

October 16, 2006

Xbox 360 in a league of its own

October 11, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO--I'm standing in a room full of gamers in what must certainly feel to some like heaven: Sony's PlayStation 3 prelaunch press event.

From the street, it's not clear why such an event would matter, but inside, on two floors filled almost literally to the rafters with high-definition TVs and PS3s, it's obvious that this is the center of the video game universe today. And that's borne out by the fact that nearly every important American video game journalist is on hand.

Earlier in the afternoon, the 200 to 300 reporters, analysts and video game industry professionals in attendance sat for an hour-plus press conference in which Sony unveiled the PS3 launch titles lineup, as well as information about the next-generation console's peripherals, online and networked functions and more.

PlayStation 3

But now, everyone has moved to two levels above for hours of video game play, cocktails and light snacks. And for anyone who has wanted to try out the PS3, this is the best chance they'll get before the Nov. 11 Japanese or Nov. 17 North American launch of the much-anticipated console.

This event, by the way, is being held at Dogpatch Studios, an increasingly popular events venue. I know that, in part, because Microsoft held an invite-only reporter's showcase for the Xbox 360 here last year in advance of that console's launch. And in talking with Sony PR folks, I'm not sure they were aware of that. It doesn't seem like they would want to convey the message that they're following Microsoft.

Some details on the machinery: There are two versions of the PS3, both of which come with Bluetooth wireless functions and a Blu-Ray drive for high-definition video. The low-end version, which has a 20GB hard drive, is priced at $499, while the high-end console swaps in a 60GB hard drive and adds Wi-Fi capabilities for a price of $599.

PS3 players who don't want to do their gaming in isolation will be able to use the PlayStation Network to indulge in multiplayer games and chat with other players. They'll also be able to download games, surf the Web, view photos and video, and listen to music.

Thursday's event, meanwhile, is a chance to compare the PS3 to Nintendo's Wii, which I tried out last week and Microsoft's Xbox 360. It's a bit of a challenge, since I'm not a hard-core gamer and many of the games that Sony and its publisher partners have brought together here are aimed at those who are nearly certain to be in line to buy a PS3 at 12:01 a.m. on launch day and who will no doubt be buying as many of the well-reviewed games as they can afford.

Click here to Play

Video: Hands on with Sony's next-generation gaming console.

Still, I'm attracted by a healthy number of the games in the room, even if I can't actually get close enough to play them all. That's because there are so many people in the room--which is small, and therefore overly crowded--that there seem to be at least three people for every available console.

Finally, though, I get to a console loaded with Sony's own basketball game, "NBA 07."

I'm excited to try this because I do like sports games, and because I'm eager to give the PS3's motion-sensitive controller a road test. After all, that was the feature I liked best about the Wii: A controller that removes some of the guess work by tying on-screen movement to the way you actually move your controller. On the Wii, it's a snap to learn, and as someone who has had trouble with the complex controllers of other consoles, motion-sensation is a real gift.

I'm certain I'm not the only one, of course, since the whole reason Nintendo and Sony have included this feature in their controllers is to give gamers an easier time. Plus, it's pretty cool to be able to control things simply by moving your hands, something that is a heck of a lot easier and intuitive than thumbing a joystick.

I start to play "NBA 07" and promptly get my head kicked in by the computer's Golden State Warriors team. But it's not as bad as it seems. For the first few minutes, my Seattle Supersonics team is playing the computer close. I hit about five straight baskets and I feel like I'm getting the hang of the controller and the game itself.

Ghoulish graphics
The graphics are beautiful--as should be expected. But as I've written before, the problem with such realistic graphics is that anything unrealistic stands out. And in every next-generation sports game I've seen where the realism is so good that you can see muscles rippling, the players' ghostly, vacant eyes leave me feeling so creepy I just want to slink away.

I wish there was something that could be done about this. But this is the curse of the "uncanny valley," a theory from robotics that applies to video games as well. In essence, it describes the reaction of people to nonhuman characters--the more realistic the character, the more favorable the reaction, except for a nearly human look that's lacking in some key detail. Think corpses, zombies, prosthetics and other things that create an uneasy feeling.

Regardless, I keep playing, and though I'm getting the hang of the game, I'm falling further and further behind. At first, I don't think the game utilizes the motion-sensitive feature of the controller, but then a helpful Sony representative shows me how to use it to do spin moves and all kinds of other tricks.

That's cool, I think, as I proceed to give up something like 15 straight points.

Frustrated, I walk over to a nearby machine and pick up a controller and begin to play "Formula One Championship," a cool-looking racing game.

I get behind the wheel and begin to drive. I gear up, I go fast and I'm in the thick of things. Until I miss a turn, smash into a wall and lose any chance of competing for the lead.

Strangely, this game doesn't utilize the motion-sensation of the controller at all, and that's a real shame. If it were up to me, every PS3 racing game would use the feature, because as has been shown with Wii racing games, there is very little that's more intuitive with a motion-sensitive controller than driving a car.

But I come to grips with the lack of the feature and soldier on. I fall further behind, but I get the sense that with a few more practice rounds, I could be a contender. And it's fun. I think to myself that I might well buy this game when it hits store shelves.

I then moved over to another PS3, where a TV crew was filming Sony Online Entertainment's "Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom."

The game looks good, but I can't figure out who's playing it, because there's full action on the screen, but no obvious players.

Then I turn around and I notice that a gentleman is standing about 10 feet away slashing and smashing monsters with a wireless PS3 controller. And while it should come as no surprise that a wireless controller can be used in this way--since both the Xbox 360 and the Wii offer such a wireless feature--it is a nice example of how it works.

I then went upstairs and watched someone playing 2K Sports' "NHL 2K7." Again, I couldn't get near a machine given the number of people in the room, but I could watch.

And I was impressed by this game, despite the fact that I can barely be bothered to acknowledge hockey in the real world. But this game looks good, and since it doesn't focus on the players' faces, I don't have to get creeped out by their eyes.

Instead, I focus on the stellar graphics, the realism of the ice, and I have to remind myself that this is not a televised hockey game.

Also not being televised is the Alpine racing track I see in a game of "Gran Turismo HD." The fellow playing it is racing his way through what appears to be some Alps, and I am stunned by the realism of the graphics. As he winds his way up and down the precarious mountains, I think, "Now this is truly an uncanny valley." And I mean it in the best-possible way.

At that point, I had to leave. But I walked away thinking, the PS3 is going to be tough to compete with. Of course, the Xbox 360 has a year's head-start and many more games, but given time, I trust that Sony will find a way to stay on top.

See more CNET content tagged:
console, video game, launch, Sony PS3, Nintendo Wii

82 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Hardly an evaluation !
This is hardly a professional evaluation to PS3 and comparison to Wii and X360, its just an opinion of a non professional player for very few things and games which we are not reading cnet news to get !!
Posted by egbas (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Professionalism?
Since I myself am a nonprofessional gamer, I would rather
reader articles such as these over professional tech reviews any
day. I don't care what the analysts think; what the MS, Sony and
Nintendo execs think; I care about what the gamer is going to
think.

So I say to you, CNET, brava! This was a welcome, down-to-
earth reprieve from all the analysis reports we've been getting
lately.

And to you, egbas, it sounds like you're just a PS3 hater, which
of course is a choice you're allowed to make, but still - do you
honestly have a problem with real gamers writing about their
real experiences? If so, maybe you shouldn't frequent sites such
as CNET.
Posted by anassassinoftime (170 comments )
Link Flag
Agreed...
They should have just sent my grandma in, who would have given more information. Personally, it sounds like this person was already biased to the PS3 when he walked in and was not qualified to write a review.

This would have been approprate as a blog, but not a news article.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
go away
go to gamespot or ign then.
Posted by stuff a dank 1 (4 comments )
Link Flag
I agree
How does the PS3 and its games compare to the Wii and XBox360? We are not told any of that in the article. This is definitely not a very objective evaluation of the PS3 considering the huge competition it faces.
Posted by ikenna4u (13 comments )
Link Flag
Weird conclusion
The reviewer says that the Wii was easier to learn and -- it sounds like -- more fun to play. Note that a Sony rep had to teach how to use the motion sensitive controller and that, even then, it was only used for certain functions and not available on all games.

Then the reviewer says that the high-def graphics of the PS3 are cool but creepy.

After saying that the reviewer concludes that the PS3 will do great. Why would anybody spend twice as much for a machine that's difficult to learn, that has more expensive games, and the creeps out users? I'm not a PS3 hater or a Wii lover -- I don't even play games much -- but it sounds like Nintendo has produced a much better platform for all but the "high-end" gaming crowd.
Posted by michaelo1966 (159 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Exactly,
MS and Sony both admit that they are targeting hard-core gamers. Nintendo does not even think it is competing with MS and Sony. Its game is targeted to everyone: to be accessible and game-focused.

I think the Wii will win out: just because I think everyone (non-gamers, 360 owners, PS3 owners) will have one based upon its price and innovation.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
Weird interpretation
Reading your comment, one is forced to wonder exactly what
article you were reading. First, at no point did the author state
the the Wii was easier to learn. Nor did he claim it was more fun
to play. He also did not write that the Sony rep had to teach him
how to use the controller. Even cursory reading shows that what
was said was that a rep showed him how to use advanced
features of the motion controller. With no obvious motion
analogy, this will be true of ANY controller for any game more
complicated than simple point and shoot or golf simulations.
Neither is the motion controller necessary on all Wii games, so
this contention is irrelevant, as well as erroneous.
Also, the review never claims that the PS3 graphics are "creepy."
What he writes is that a small facet of a single game was creepy.
this is hardly the same thing, and would apply equally to all
current platforms.
Lastly, to coryshulz, where do you get a $600 price tag?
Posted by DeusExMachina (516 comments )
Link Flag
Sony price a big factor
Usually pretty important factor forecasting which competitor will win, but I guess not for this author.

Prediction: Blu-Ray will be the next BetaMax, and go down as Sony's biggest blunder of all time.

Forcing Blu-Ray on PS3 customers will keep an otherwise nice machine from getting full traction.

And what's with the comments on the mountain?

I think, "Now this is truly an uncanny valley." And I mean it in the best-possible way. What planet is this guy coming from?
Posted by gbrayjr (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
They always overprice
Sony overprices everything they market.
So of course, it is no surprise that the ps3 is overpriced as well.

I was a bit anxiously awaiting the new playstation, but since the long wait, I've been checking out nintendo and I must say I am leaning that way... back to my original. I do miss it.
Posted by lifescircle (8 comments )
Link Flag
Forcing BluRay is a smart move
I think the BluRay inclusion in the system, while a big gamble, will ultimately result in BluRay's triumph over HD-DVD. A fair comparison: A movie can be a highly artistic masterpiece, but if it doesn't put butts in the seat, it isn't considered a "success".
Just as they helped to move DVDs with the PS2 (at launch time a relatively inexpensive DVD player that "also plays games"), they will do the same by building a user base for BluRay. Within a year or two, regular BluRay player prices will drop to where the PS3's retail price will be, and many consumers will buy a PS3 instead of a standalone player.
Posted by spm82 (59 comments )
Link Flag
PS3
I think I'll wait when it comes down to $299
Posted by kyle172 (65 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We will welcome you ...
to the PS3 community in about 4 years, then. To see a 40% price drop on the Base SKU (and 50% on the Premium), you'll probably be waiting that long, if these past few generations are any indicator.
Posted by spm82 (59 comments )
Link Flag
I'm left confused...
The topic says it "Shines in pre-launch test" yet after reading the article, I didn't get the impression that it shined at all.

Infact, I was left wondering what the writer was left with. Well, the controller is wireless, eyes creeped him out, Hockey looked neat, he crashed a car, some guy was hacking monsters, the PS3 will stay on top.

huh?

I'm not sure what this article does for the PS3 or CNet or worse yet, its readers.
Posted by BruceLawrence (90 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Weird
Review by a Non-Gamer.
The word is "Ghoulish" - Spellcheck before posting.
Posted by burnchotty (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Reality of Price
If you add up XBox360 + HD Drive + $50 Live Service Per Year and compare to PS3 you can quickly dispel the MYTH that PS3 is horribly overpriced compared to XBox360. I'm sick of the false marketing campaigns.

The truth is they are both great systems, even though I'm in favor of the PS3, I'm eventually going to get both.
Posted by senegorn (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Not true...
You cannot include "optional" components against "required" components when comparing prices.

HDDVD and Blu Ray are unnecessary, but PS3 owners are force to buy it. It is very unlikely that games will ever use Blu Ray in a fashion that would "require" it. In fact, most PS3 games will also be on the 360, and will look the same while running off DVD.

The PS3 is over-priced because Sony is stuffing things down your throat that are completely unnecessary and will only be used by 10% of the consumer base that buy the product.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
Another point...
In your "optional" price scenario you would also have to include $100 for a HDMI cable which the PS3 will not include. However, 360 will support 1080p over other connections which are cheaper. PS3 will REQUIRE the HDMI cable for 1080p because all their TVs require HDMI for 1080p, which is just a way to make the consumer pay to protect their content.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
Not targeting who?
That is so not true. They are of course targeting a much broader consumer base than just hardcore gamers. Are you kidding me?

It seems to me that you're saying that they are targeting playstation fans. Those who have been waiting for the next generation and who will buy it regardless.

Totally disagree with you on that one. Totally.
Posted by lifescircle (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sounds like
a Fanboy...

Where is the fact that they didn't meet delivery projections.

The great Gran Turismo HD he mentions doesn have a ship date and will be severly limited when it does 2 tracks / 30 cars currently.

He must have been awed by the Marketing muscle that Sony presents.
Posted by JMZorich (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wow, what a fluff piece
Seriously, describing it as heaven is a little weird and not based on anything. If you're going to draw comparisons, here's an idea, tell us about the games. I've yet to see any compelling reason to buy one of these things. I have a 360, and it meets my needs. The Wii has my interest, and I'd sooner buy one of those because it has a lot of games I really want to get my hands on.
Posted by Jeff Putz (302 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hd
if you do not have hd then which system should you get?
Posted by vrcat50 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
every important American video game journalist
Ha!
Posted by The Noble Robot (101 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Of course the PS3 will enjoy solid sales figures...
It is obvious that many of the previous comments were biased towards one console or another. But in reality, all three systems (PS3, XBOX 360, Wii) will enjoy success in the short term (the next 1 to 12 months). It's the long term success that is harder to predict. PS3's initial $500 to $600 price tag will not deter many households from buying the system, especially during the Christmas season. Case in point, the price tag for a Lexus or a Mercedes is noticeably higher than for the typical passenger car, but luxury cars typically have more features and more positive qualities than a Toyota or Chevy. Also, while $600 is a lot of money for some families, it is just a drop in the ocean for others. In my opinion, Nintendo has the biggest chance of losing market share in the long run simply because the Wii is not a home entertainment system like the XBOX 360 or PS3. Yes, one could argue that the the Wii has more quality games, it has a motion-sensitive controller, etc., but these details are not long term competitive advantages.
As a consumer, it is in your best interest to encourage competition between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Only if you're a shareholder in one of these companies is it in your best interest to promote one system over another. To defend one console over another because of blind loyalty is foolish, at best.

By the way, because of my family's gaming tastes, I am leaning towards buying a Wii. But it wouldn't take much to persuade me into buying a $600 Blu-Ray player (er, console).
Posted by mkao1 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Consoles as entertainment centers
Gaming experience (game quality, control schemes, graphics, etc...), combined with price, is precisely the thing that will determine long term success of consoles. All of this add on home entertainment nonsense is just flashy bells and whistles.

The problem is that nobody has shown yet that making a console system a home entertainment center in a box will really increase value to consumers. My guess is that it won't. Users will ultimately opt for cheaper, higher quality standalone equipment. In the past, the DVD players that were stuffed in units were of exceedingly low quality. Given the prices they're selling for in the current systems, I'd wager the same holds true for this generation. In the short term, this might still yield sales since for about the same price as a standalone player, you get a console to boot. At the same time, I don't think enough people care about HD DVD formats at present for that to be a huge advantage. In the long term standalone player prices will drop and the quality will far surpass what is available in the consoles. In 2 years when standalone prices have reached sub-$200, few people will care that there is a crappy Blu-Ray player built into the PS3.
Posted by someguy389 (102 comments )
Link Flag
Disappointing coverage
After the author talked about the opportunity to compare and
contrast all three games, I finished the article wondering where
that comparison was.

From what I've read elsewhere, I'm likely to go with Wii. I'm not a
hardcore gamer, I like that the price is reasonable has a cool
controller, is targeted for us non-hardcore folks and that can
play Game Cube games. It's the first time I've even been
seriously interested in picking up a console for myself.
Posted by m.meister (278 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Umm...
I wouldn't say that the Wii is reasonably priced, but close to it. But for what you're getting it is the most reasonably priced.
Posted by aka_tripleB (2211 comments )
Link Flag
to the haters
After reading the article very plainly, and quickly, i came to the conclusion that this article was very objective and well done. It was not too hardcore and it provided an interesting perspective on the casual gamer's response. I too am also looking forward to the Wii. As a Nintendo system, I am sure it will do very well. I just want to put a few things into perspective, and set a few things straight.
The uncanny valley that the author spoke of can be found in all technology, as the author stated, from prosthetics, to robotics, to (Xbox360 commercial with shaq sweating) to his review of the basketball game on PS3. At no point does he say it is the fault of the ps3 specifically, but of the technology behind all videogames and all modern electronics.
Also he was not shown how to use the controller but was shown how to use a complicated technique, which can be applied similarly to dribbling skills in any basketball game or soccer game.
Now for the article title "PS3 shines..."
He went he saw and it shown.. simple as that, he said it looked cool and was interesting, sounds like it shown to me.
Now if someone had made an "xbox360 shines.."
and said the boxing was really fun, but it was hard to keep from accidentally pressing the start button, and the boxers looked like dolls when healing them..."
Half of you would have said "hardly seems like it shines from that article" and the other half of you, (whom are now saying that very line for the ps3) would say stop hating the 360, fanboys! It's fact. He saw a showing, and it looked good. Done..

They are not appealing to the hardcore gamer, They are simply trying to be the best, and who doesn't want that.
I can name several games that are not targeted towards the hardcore aspect that were only ps2, or only xbox, or gamecube. Don't say that because they are trying to be the best, only people who are really into video games will buy it. For the most part people will buy what they think is the best, naturally. If you think Apple is the best, you will spend extra for it. I think PC's are the best, but Apple is still a very well put together computer and it better in many aspects than a PC.
Finally to end my shpiel, the PS3 is a steal at it's price. It has already SOLD OUT worldwide, and it will remain sold out for the next few months. Sony will make a crapload of money on this. Think about it. Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 and sold maybe 25 million compared to ps2's 100 million units, ps2 which, are still be manufactured, and xbox which has been abandoned. Needless to say, where you spent 900 dollars on Playstation systems on release over 6 years, you spent 800 on xbox systems on release over the course of four years, so stop claiming that sony is stealing your money. And a lot of people have been saying sony's 1080p will not be on most games, which is true. But the best games will. gamecube also only shared about 20 percent of the market as well. The DS sold maybe a million units less than the xbox... now im just spitting out facts. So face them. REgardless of what everyone thinks with market strategy or their own personal beliefs, Sony will control the market. And with Kutaragi saying the ps3 will have a close to seven year lifetime, it makes you wonder how soon it will be that microsoft releases a new console, and releasing it's only profitable game franchise Halo.
Posted by theprof00 (50 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are just spitting out facts?
What reality do your "facts" live in then? Ok let's do what you ask and face them then:

"The PS3 has soldout worldwide".

Um no. No, no, and no. The US and Japan is not worldwide. I dont live in either place and I do live in this world. This again must be due to your differing reality that this little fact exists. In mine the PS3 is going to be released in TWO countries out of 193! I say GOING because in my reality the fact is it hasnt been sold yet it has just been ordered and in my reality many stores dont do preorders so their stock will go on sale the day of the actual release. Thus on my Earth it isnt even remotely close to sold out, but your drugs are obviously working far too well, so lets look at some more of your facts.

"Sony will make a crapload of money on this."
Based on the many reports by various financial analysts such as Merrill Lynch and others Sony will be losing as much as $100 for every PS3 sold, and will have to sell between 2 and 4 games with every console to just break even. I think in the short to medium term Professor the correct statement would be Sony will make crap all money on this, but of course again you are just spitting facts.

It was years before the Playstations made money, and DVD had been adopted as THE standard long before. The fact that Bluray is not THE standard and may not ever be is a critical downside to Sonys decision put it in the console. Making buying it compulsory is another critical downside to the console. Having to make the price so high just to stop insane rupture in losses as a result is near commercial suicide. This really could and may well be the best console ever made but the way Sony have gone about it make profit and Ps3 two phrases that wont go together in Sony boardrooms for quite some time if ever.

"And a lot of people have been saying Sonys 1080p will not be on most games, which is true. But the best games will."

And most of the first years buyers of Ps3's will be conned again. Far too people seem too Sony struck to see that the real cost of a PS3 is the console plus whatever it costs to get a tv that runs native 1080p. People seem rather slow to appreciate that running a PS3 on any tv that doesnt run that resolution isnt using the "greatness" of the product they are paying for, and that if you arent then the graphics resolution wise are simply are no better than any other console. So paying extra for 1080p is a cool rave point until someone points out your tv is running at 720p at best and the PS3 is downscaling the signal! Most people simply dont have 1080p yet, it hasnt been available long anyway, and its far from the cheap end of the tv market.

"the PS3 is a steal at it's price."

No not at all. As a game console it is way more expensive than anything else. If I want to (GOD FORBID) - PLAY GAMES, I have to shell out far too much compared to what is solid competition.

As a movie player it is overpriced too, an HD-DVD player is cheaper at 500 (though you could say the same for the mini-me PS3) but again unless you already have a very good high def tv, you need to shell out lots more to use it, otherwise you are getting just as good results from 10 dollar dvds and 40 dollar players on older tv sets.

Oh as a high def player that plays games too - yes but in reality very few people really want both things as much as the other - one is usually the real reason the other is a bonus. For those that do really want both, cool. And remember while you use that blue laser for two hours straight watching Braveheart, the blue paint being leaked all over the place represents the laser life of your gaming drive being wiped out.


"REgardless of what everyone thinks with market strategy or their own personal beliefs, Sony will control the market."

This is another objective, substantive, unquestionable fact then right - because the Professor says so? Sony is having a hard time controlling the speed they are making mistakes in the last few years - never mind whats going on in the marketplace. Cd blunders, saying MP3 would never catch on, PS2 power cord worries, oh and a couple of hundred zillion battery packs that nobody noticed at all, oh yeah wed better recall ours too, those Vaio things use them dont they - oh are we last of everyone to recall? Oh well thats because we control the market.

Im not an anything fan boy, I dont care who wins what console war, I dont play games - period. But I do read about tech news every day, so Professor you cant go around spieling off your "facts" in this reality - keep them in your own world they are much less likely o draw comment there. There is nothing worse than the person who says I just want to tell you the facts & and fills the page with conjecture, opinion and misinformation as you did.
Posted by xphile (3 comments )
Link Flag
You are just spitting out facts?
What reality do your "facts" live in? Ok let's do what you ask and face them then:

"The PS3 has soldout worldwide".

Um no. No, no, and no. The US and Japan is not worldwide. I dont live in either place and I do live in this world. This again must be due to your differing reality that this little fact exists. In mine the PS3 is going to be released in TWO countries out of 193! I say GOING because in my reality the fact is it hasnt been sold yet it has just been ordered and in my reality many stores dont do preorders so their stock will go on sale the day of the actual release. Thus on my Earth it isnt even remotely close to sold out, but your drugs are obviously working far too well, so lets look at some more of your facts.

"Sony will make a crapload of money on this."
Based on the many reports by various financial analysts such as Merrill Lynch and others Sony will be losing as much as $100 for every PS3 sold, and will have to sell between 2 and 4 games with every console to just break even. I think in the short to medium term Professor the correct statement would be Sony will make crap all money on this, but of course again you are just spitting facts.

It was years before the Playstations made money, and DVD had been adopted as THE standard long before. The fact that Bluray is not THE standard and may not ever be is a critical downside to Sonys decision put it in the console. Making buying it compulsory is another critical downside to the console. Having to make the price so high just to stop insane rupture in losses as a result is near commercial suicide. This really could and may well be the best console ever made but the way Sony have gone about it make profit and Ps3 two phrases that wont go together in Sony boardrooms for quite some time if ever.

"And a lot of people have been saying Sonys 1080p will not be on most games, which is true. But the best games will."

And most of the first years buyers of Ps3's will be conned again. Far too people seem too Sony struck to see that the real cost of a PS3 is the console plus whatever it costs to get a tv that runs native 1080p. People seem rather slow to appreciate that running a PS3 on any tv that doesnt run that resolution isnt using the "greatness" of the product they are paying for, and that if you arent then the graphics resolution wise are simply are no better than any other console. So paying extra for 1080p is a cool rave point until someone points out your tv is running at 720p at best and the PS3 is downscaling the signal! Most people simply dont have 1080p yet, it hasnt been available long anyway, and its far from the cheap end of the tv market.

"the PS3 is a steal at it's price."

No not at all. As a game console it is way more expensive than anything else. If I want to (GOD FORBID) - PLAY GAMES, I have to shell out far too much compared to what is solid competition.

As a movie player it is overpriced too, an HD-DVD player is cheaper at 500 (though you could say the same for the mini-me PS3) but again unless you already have a very good high def tv, you need to shell out lots more to use it, otherwise you are getting just as good results from 10 dollar dvds and 40 dollar players on older tv sets.

Oh as a high def player that plays games too - yes but in reality very few people really want both things as much as the other - one is usually the real reason the other is a bonus. For those that do really want both, cool. And remember while you use that blue laser for two hours straight watching Braveheart, the blue paint being leaked all over the place represents the laser life of your gaming drive being wiped out.


"REgardless of what everyone thinks with market strategy or their own personal beliefs, Sony will control the market."

This is another objective, substantive, unquestionable fact then right - because the Professor says so? Sony is having a hard time controlling the speed they are making mistakes in the last few years - never mind whats going on in the marketplace. Cd blunders, saying MP3 would never catch on, PS2 power cord worries, oh and a couple of hundred zillion battery packs that nobody noticed at all, oh yeah wed better recall ours too, those Vaio things use them dont they - oh are we last of everyone to recall? Oh well thats because we control the market.

Im not an anything fan boy, I dont care who wins what console war, I dont play games - period. But I do read about tech news every day, so Professor you cant go around spieling off your "facts" in this reality - keep them in your own world they are much less likely o draw comment there. There is nothing worse than the person who says I just want to tell you the facts & and fills the page with conjecture, opinion and misinformation as you did.
Posted by xphile (3 comments )
Link Flag
I could have written this!
Here's my entire article:

Look at the pretty colors! Vroom vroom! Hey that guy has no wire on his controller! I hate hockey. I suck at basketball. SONY paid me to write this.
Posted by gernblan (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
$100 for a 40 gb hd upgrade and wifi?
I wish they would just sell a version without a hard drive and let you get your own. I can buy a 120 Gb drive for $55 or so and a wifi card is $20.
Posted by coganjd (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No, not necessarily
Selling a version without a hard drive would be counter-productive. See, with both versions containing a hard drive, developers are able to program their games to take advantage of it and use it as a cache for data, which slashes loading times.

Also, you might be able to buy a 120GB desktop hard drive for $55, but the PS3 uses 2.5" laptop drives, which are far more expensive. A 60GB laptop drive off of one of the computer parts sites I'm looking at now is between $55 and $85, depending on the quality.

I think it's also worth mentioning that Microsoft charges $100 for their 20GB hard drive and $100 for their wi-fi.
Posted by StealthHit06 (5 comments )
Link Flag
I don't believe that's true
I don't believe that better graphics have attributed to worse games. Making a game look pretty is easier than making a game fun to play, so a lot of unskilled development teams will be making pretty games with the same poor gameplay they've always made.

So it's not about "graphics have come into play and as a result, gameplay has gone down". It's more about, "gameplay has always been down, but since it's easier to make graphics, let's focus on that".

You'll be seeing a lot of pretty games but the same amount of bad ones, because the bad developers will still be there even though technology is improving. The developmeant teams who are skilled and experienced in what they do will provide an excellent gameplay experience coupled with superb graphics.

This is simply an example of how important the human element is in game design.
Posted by StealthHit06 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Woops..
This post was meant to reply to another, not to start a new thread.

Please ignore.
Posted by StealthHit06 (5 comments )
Link Flag
Here is my problem with the PS3's BETTER graphics.
I am 24 and work in the computer industry, I know friends who live with their parents and parents who have kids. Now in order to enjoy the "Better" graphics one needs and HD tv, but therin lies the problem. The HD (if it exists in the house) is normally in the living room, but most parents relegate the console to the kids room where it is played on a <=19" SD TV. So exactly who will see the better graphics? As far as I can tell only the ones who live on their own and can afford an HD tv, because I doubt the parents will allow them to hook up to the main tv.
Posted by pmfjoe (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Could be...
That's an interesting point. Certainly in a lot of house holds, the video games get put in the basement or a rec room someplace, where the best tv in the house doesn't likely reside. What I'd be curious to know is which market segments really drive console purchases. If it is in fact families, then this might be relevant, at least in the short term (before HD set prices drop to the point that they are truly standard). On the other hand, it may not matter that much. The general public isn't particularly aware of what HD really means. Not understanding the formats, it may not affect their purchasing. If they're told the PS3 is better, they will probably believe it. Add to that the fact that HD resolutions or not, the PS3's (and 360's) additional horsepower will give it a graphical boost over say, the Wii, might give enough graphics advantage even at none HD resolutions to make a difference.
Posted by someguy389 (102 comments )
Link Flag
Here's another problem witht the graphics
The console doesn't come with a cable to display HD graphics. In order to do that you have to spend another $50+tax(+gas/shipping if you don't buy the cable when you buy the system). Now you're up to $550-$650 in price, which doesn't appeal to me at all. At that price it would need to do more than just 3 things (and 2 of them I won't use a gaming console for).
Posted by aka_tripleB (2211 comments )
Link Flag
Here's another problem with the graphics
The console doesn't come with a cable to display HD graphics. In order to do that you have to spend another $50+tax(+gas/shipping if you don't buy the cable when you buy the system). Now you're up to $550-$650 in price, which doesn't appeal to me at all. At that price it would need to do more than just 3 things (and 2 of them I won't use a gaming console for).
Posted by aka_tripleB (2211 comments )
Link Flag
Doesn't make sense
Are you telling me that families are going to buy a $400-$500
console to watch on a $100 TV? I don't think the PS3 is meant
for that. It is like buying a NAD amp to connect to some cheap
speakers from Walmart. PS3 is a high end gaming system meant
for high end customers. For lower end customers, go with PS2.
Sony is continuing to sell PS2 for a long time. That is actually
their goal.

People that have a HDTV and want a BD player and a high end
gaming machine will buy a PS3. Some of those people will buy
the XBox360. Some of them will buy both.
Posted by bommai (172 comments )
Link Flag
Here is your solution
Tell your friends to either grow up and move. Or get a job and pay
for their own TV.

Yes, the games will even look better on a 19" SD TV. I'm sure you
can tell the difference between MGS1&2 and MS3. Yes you will need
an HDTV to get the full graphical benefit. But there will still be a
noticeable difference, even on standard "old" TVs.
Posted by MidniteRaider (94 comments )
Link Flag
Not sure if this is really going to be a problem&
I was under the impression that at least 80% of people can't tell the
difference in HD and regular TV anyway, so will this even be a
problem? I have friends who own HDTVs and they swear they can't
tell a difference (and yes they were watching the TV stations that
are supposed to be broadcast in HD) and wonder why they spent
the extra money on it. So as I said will this even be a problem if
most people can't tell the difference between HD and normal TV?
Posted by jones_8099 (177 comments )
Link Flag
interesting article
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.cbsi.com/Sony+Staying+in+battery+business+despite+recalls/2100-1041_3-6128837.html?tag=nefd.top" target="_newWindow">http://news.cbsi.com/Sony+Staying+in+battery+business+despite+recalls/2100-1041_3-6128837.html?tag=nefd.top</a>
says batteries account for 1.5billion a year,
makes you wonder how much s ps3 failure would really hurt the company, my thoughts say it would hurt, but only like a monkey bite.
Posted by theprof00 (50 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.