Does the PS3 SUCK ?

[patrickl]

Also, on the noise, I have always understood that the PS3 runs super quiet and relatively cool.  I know that the Xbox 360 sounds like you have a jet engine running in the house, but I thought the PS3 was supposed to be quiet.  Can any other PS3 owners comment on this?

True, the fans are inaudible and indeed it's more quiet than an Xbos 360, but still.

It's the DVD player that I can hear. I think it's the head moving back and forth or something. It sounds like seek noises.

The Wii is has a lovely design.

Seriously? A white rectangular box is lovely? It looks like a (white) 80's cassette player to me.

[Grasshopper]

The PS3 is a lot bigger than the 360 but let's not forget that it has an internal power supply unlike the 360 which has a separate power brick (which is large and ugly).

If the 360 had been designed with an internal PSU, and enough ventilation to prevent overheating, then it probably would have ended up being at least as big as the PS3.

[Daniel270]

I've pretty much decided I'm not going to buy the PS3.... altho there is a game or two I wouldn't mind having now, it's still not enough to warrant buying the system.

However...  if I got one as a gift, I wouldn't refuse it.

BTW...wouldn't this be better suited in Consoles??

[skim36]

I own a PS3.  I bought my son a wii.  I love the wii, I think it's fun.  I love my ps3.  It is big and heavy, but it looks nice.  It's whisper quiet, and very stable.  I've had Folding at Home running for days on it with no issues.  I have the original 60 gig version so no compatibility issues and it plays everything it says it does.  I've slapped a 250 gig hard drive in it in 2 minutes.  I bought one simply because I've owned the last 2 consoles from Sony and enjoyed them both.  I've never owned an xbox.  Not that I don't like them, I think the xbox and 360 are impressive machines.  Just was content with my sony consoles.  Not sure about the 360 but most games on the sony are 720p.  I have 8 games and maybe 2 go up to 1080.  Ridge Racer is in 1080p and is jaw-dropping impressive in HD.  Assassin's Creed is in 1080i, but you can finish it in a day.  Mostly because it takes space to make these impressive graphics in HD....most developers would rather have more game.  Only so much medium to work with.  And developers are not making better graphics for one system or another on these multi-port titles.  Exclusive content is another story.  Don't say the PS3 sucks because it doesn't do one thing you want it to.  You love SACD's, buy an SACD player.  I use it as a blu-ray player and it's damn impressive as well playing DVD's.  Ok, now someone can chime in and call me a sony fanboy.  I'm a gamer.  I like games period.
     

[shmokes]

Seriously? A white rectangular box is lovely? It looks like a (white) 80's cassette player to me.

Sure.  It's simple and elegant.  Outside of its stand, it looks dumb.  Just like a plain old, external CD-Rom drive.  But standing vertically in its stand, it shines (literally and figuratively, I suppose).  Nothing wrong with a white rectangular box, so long as they get it right, see Apple iPod, Sonos.  Doing the diagonal thing with the stand was brilliant.  It gives it impressive lines that would otherwise not be worth mentioning.  It's like some art deco industrial design out of an Ayn Rand novel (BTW, I can't stand Ayn Rand).  How can you not appreciate this design:

[RandyT]

I dislike it because it killed HD-DVD (no, I didn't own a player......)

Movie studios gear up to support the format with the most players in the field.  So by virtue of the slow HD movie player sales in general, and the fact that the PS3 also plays HD movies, movie producers dumped the more consumer friendly HD-DVD format for the one more likely to make them money (Blu-Ray). 

The games seem ok.  But nothing I would consider dropping $500 to be able to play.

[shmokes]

Speaking of $500, it's only $400 now.  And you can get a $100 gift card when you buy it from Wal-Mart which, in a way, makes it kind of like $300.  You can also apparently use this to bring the Metal Gear Solid bundle (80GB PS3 with MGS 4 and a dualshock controller) from $500 to $400.  Of course, you might say that it's not the same as taking $100 off the price, which is true.  But if you were going to buy $100 worth of groceries anyway, and you were, and you use the gift card to buy $100 worth of groceries, you've done it.  So, in other words, it's kind of up to you whether you use this as a discount or an excuse to buy more games.  Either way, though, it's a pretty hot deal.


edit: It's an online gift card, so no groceries.

[Havok]

The PS3 sucks. Sony sucks. Do you want to support a company that has no problem with installing rootkits on your computer?

Plus, the Xbox arcade system is $279:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360arcadesystem

And it includes Pacman!

Also, I really like the media extender option, if you are running Windows Media Center...

[patrickl]

Sony sucks. Do you want to support a company that has no problem with installing rootkits on your computer?

Pffft, so you are saying MS has a squeeky clean record? They have been handed huge fines for their unfair practices.

BTW using Windows Media Center is hardly a selling point for The Xbox. It's a kludge. It was actually one of the reasons for me NOT to get an Xbox. The PS3 plays files straight off my file server.

[RandyT]

Speaking of $500, it's only $400 now.  And you can get a $100 gift card when you buy it from Wal-Mart which, in a way, makes it kind of like $300.  You can also apparently use this to bring the Metal Gear Solid bundle (80GB PS3 with MGS 4 and a dualshock controller) from $500 to $400.  Of course, you might say that it's not the same as taking $100 off the price, which is true.  But if you were going to buy $100 worth of groceries anyway, and you were, and you use the gift card to buy $100 worth of groceries, you've done it.  So, in other words, it's kind of up to you whether you use this as a discount or an excuse to buy more games.  Either way, though, it's a pretty hot deal.

edit: It's an online gift card, so no groceries.

I was basing that on the non-backwards-compatible 40g version at $400 + a decent game (the non-existent "killer app" I mentioned before) and some sort of accessory to actually make it usable (there always seems to be one that they don't include).  Maybe I'm just a very jaded old gamer .

But the $100 incentives, not only on the PS3, but apparently upcoming for all Blu-Ray players is interesting.  Apparently, even after decapitating HD-DVD, the uptake on the current crop of players hasn't been as swift as was hoped.  Possibly a sign that the HD video market still isn't mature enough to make Blu-Ray a big selling point for the PS3...at least at the current price point of the players and discs ($35 for a video in 2008?...yeah, sure  ....)

[Havok]

Sony sucks. Do you want to support a company that has no problem with installing rootkits on your computer?

Pffft, so you are saying MS has a squeeky clean record? They have been handed huge fines for their unfair practices.

BTW using Windows Media Center is hardly a selling point for The Xbox. It's a kludge. It was actually one of the reasons for me NOT to get an Xbox. The PS3 plays files straight off my file server.

Unfair practices are part of big business, both companies are guilty there. But, who did the rootkit? Sony. Sony can suck it. They can suck it long, and they can suck it hard Trebek. No soup for you Sony. I will not buy any Sony product, movies included. Blu-ray? Not in my house. I'll hold on to DVD's until the end. By that time, there will be a new technology. My brother in law just got a Sony player - it really pisses me off that they restrict what you can do with the f'ing video even more with Blu-ray. Want to fast forward the stupid "don't copy this disk" warning - can't. Want to stop the disk while it is playing it's stupid "don't copy this disk" warning - can't. Want to skip the FBI garbage by going to the main menu so you can play a movie you PURCHASED - can't. You've got to wait for what they determined is a reasonable time for you to see all the this that and the thing is illegal, blah, blah, blah before you can actually control what the player does. They started to do this junk with DVD's, now they've gone too far restricting when you can stop, fast forward, etc. Next, you're going to see these Blu-ray pieces of crap force you on a broadband connection, just so they can update the anti-piracy firmware. If you are not broadband connected, there will come a time when you want to buy a new movie, and your $400 Blu-ray player can't open the CD. F that!

As far as Media Center, you say kludge, I like it. It's pretty, and it works extremely well, especially if you are using the Vista Ultimate edition. It's not an add on any more, it's integrated into the operating system, and I haven't had any problems with it whatsoever.

[patrickl]

I was basing that on the non-backwards-compatible 40g version at $400 + a decent game (the non-existent "killer app" I mentioned before) and some sort of accessory to actually make it usable (there always seems to be one that they don't include).

It comes with either Gran Turismo 5 prologue, GTA IV or Ratchet and Clank (+ some other game). Those are all pretty much "killer apps". Depends on your budget maybe, but I'd gladly pay $400 + $50 for a $100 gift coupon, GTA IV, Race Driver GRID, Blu ray player and a proper standalone HD media player.

I haven't needed an accessory yet. Maybe a second Sixaxis controller, but I hate splitscreen multiplay and if I want to play together with friends I'll go on the innernets.

[patrickl]

I will not buy any Sony product

Ah so you have a nicely balanced opinion. Very useful 

[Havok]

I will not buy any Sony product

Ah so you have a nicely balanced opinion. Very useful 

And before I decided this, was very open to using Sony products. So yes, very useful.

 

[DaveMMR]

Nonsense. The Blu-Ray player doesn't diminish gaming capabilities. It simply makes sense to use the tech, that enables gaming, also for viewing movies. The Xbox does exactly the same, but it lacks a Blu-ray player (and doesn't even have the HD DVD player as standard) so it's stuck on DVD.

I'm not saying it physically affects the game capabilities.   The PS3s potential remains unchanged.  I was saying that Sony is just playing the movie angle a little too much and it seems that game selection is taking a backseat. 

How would that work then?

The same way the PS1 and PS2 did (if I'm understanding the question correctly).      It should be "Here's a game machine (it also plays movies but that's a bonus)" instead of "Here's a new movie machine, we have a couple of games coming out for it too!".  Again, I think Sony misused their established product line to win some format wars.   And while it worked (HD-DVD is dead), it also cost them an easy slam-dunk in this generation.   They should have been in 1st out of the gate.   

But honestly, this two page thread is pretty much a repeat of the "Nintendo is childish, Sony is expensive and the Xbox 360 blows up" arguments that have come up a dozen times before.   My advice: Have fun with your console of choice, don't let anyone else convince you otherwise (even me). 

[patrickl]

The same way the PS1 and PS2 did (if I'm understanding the question correctly).      It should be "Here's a game machine (it also plays movies but that's a bonus)" instead of "Here's a new movie machine, we have a couple of games coming out for it too!". 

What earth shattering game did the PS2 come out with then? I bought the PS2 close to release and there wasn't an even remotely worthwhile game on it for a long time. I think mine came with Ridge Racer (which sucked). Gran Turismo 3 only came out a year later.

I'd say it was the same with the Wii. The Wii came with Wii sports which is basically a small demo. At first only a game like Zelda was worthwhile and only a few months ago did the Wii lineup start to include some real games of the "must have" category

It takes a while for good games to be finished and they won't be ready at the launh of a console. It's actually pretty common for the first great games to start appearing about a year to year and a half after launch of a console.

The PS3 actually had some pretty good games available from day one. Like:
- The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Bethesda Softworks
- Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas Ubisoft
- Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 Electronic Arts
- Call of Duty 3 Activision
- RIDGE RACER 7 NAMCO BANDAI Games
- Tony Hawk’s Project 8 Activision
- Madden NFL 07 Electronic Arts

Besides, they were talking about the DVD player of the PS2 a lot more back then than now about the Blu-Ray player in the PS3. DVD was a huge step forward and DVD players where pretty rare still. Blu-ray just not is a big deal for most people.

[DaveMMR]

The same way the PS1 and PS2 did (if I'm understanding the question correctly).      It should be "Here's a game machine (it also plays movies but that's a bonus)" instead of "Here's a new movie machine, we have a couple of games coming out for it too!". 

What earth shattering game did the PS2 come out with then? I bought the PS2 close to release and there wasn't an even remotely worthwhile game on it for a long time. I think mine came with Ridge Racer (which sucked). Gran Turismo 3 only came out a year later.

I'm not even referring to specific games at this point.  I'm just looking at what is my impression of Sony's direction with their gaming division that, as a consumer of their goods, I find slightly dissatisfying. 

Yeah, the PS2 had a crappy launch lineup as did the PS1 (well, actually the PS1 was a little better).  But when the PS2 was released, it had a low, UNIFORM price point and it was designed as a game machine with almost 90% backwards compatibility with its former library.   True, it was purchased as a primary DVD player by many in Japan, but it was technology that was a few years old and already fast working towards an affordable price here in the states. 

The PS3, on the other hand, launched at $200 ~ $300 more than it's previous two consoles because they wanted Blu-Ray in there.  Sure, those discs can hold 50GB which is mighty impressive, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that half that space isn't going to waste.  Actually what I envision is 5 extra hours of cut-scenes that somehow ties together the little bits and pieces of action where you're actually controlling what's on screen.  Of course, its nice that you get to watch Blu-Ray movies on it, but, as someone who was originally planning on getting a PS3 (before the initial price announcement), it would have been nice to have a choice between next-generation games OR next-generation DVD's.  I still have an old TV and I'm not repurchasing my DVD collection, so Blu-Ray is pointless for me right now.   But if I want a PS3, too bad for me, I still have to essentially pay for a player I may not use anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the PSP has been out for over 3 years and I still feel that everyone who mentions the system talks only about the movie watching capabilities.  I hardly ever hear actual games discussed*.  Yeah, there's more than a enough decent games for the system and I've managed to find a couple that I enjoy, but I've turned mine into a NES emulator/portable movie player.   

(* Of course this thread pops-up and throws my comment in the crapper.   )

Sony's not all that foolish.   There's more moneymaking potential with a movie format than with games.   I'd bet anything that they'd throw their entire Playstation brand off a steep cliff to establish Blu-Ray as the ONLY option for purchasing discs. 

[patrickl]

But when the PS2 was released, it had a low, UNIFORM price point

I paid about $1000 for my PS2. I hardly call that a low pricepoint.

The PS3, on the other hand, launched at $200 ~ $300 more than it's previous two consoles because they wanted Blu-Ray in there.

Nonsense. The Blu Ray player doesn add that much. Anyway, Sony was taking the loss for that initially. The PS3 had the same price as the Xbox. The reason the Xbox is getting so cheap now is the dollar (and of course that MS and Sony can now produce the consoles without taking a loss). I'm amazed sony is keeping the price of the PS3 in the US so low actually. Overhere a PS3 costs $600 (400 euro)

BTW the original PS3 had almost complate BC didn't it? They only dropped it recently (well only PS1 is left).

Meanwhile, the PSP has been out for over 3 years and I still feel that everyone who mentions the system talks only about the movie watching capabilities. 

It's more like 2.5 years, but the only one mentioning the Blu-Ray player was me. The reason I mentioned it was because for me it's the only distinguishing feature between the Xbox and PS3. Xbox 360 has better online (although it costs money) and PS3 has a Blu-Ray player. Besides that there is hardly a difference. Well I guess price and that the PS3 is much less restricted than the Xbox (ie lets you install Linux and is able to stream media from any system instead of only through a proprietary MS format which only MS software supports)

I hardly ever hear actual games discussed*. 

GTA IV has it's thread and I mentioned Race Driver GRID.

[Samstag]

The PS3 doesn't suck.  It's a nice machine, if ugly and unstackable.

The game library sucks, as does the cost of Bluray movies.  Both of those are slowly improving.  I was thinking again about picking up one for $300 but after looking at the upcoming game releases there's nothing I want that I can't get for the 360.  And after Toshiba folded, I stocked up on dirt cheap HD-DVDs, so I'm set for a while.

[DaveMMR]

But when the PS2 was released, it had a low, UNIFORM price point

I paid about $1000 for my PS2. I hardly call that a low pricepoint.

What you paid an opportunistic 3rd party and what it actually costs when purchased at retail are two different things.  In the US at least, the PS2 was released at $299. 

The PS3, on the other hand, launched at $200 ~ $300 more than it's previous two consoles because they wanted Blu-Ray in there.

Nonsense. The Blu Ray player doesn add that much. Anyway, Sony was taking the loss for that initially. The PS3 had the same price as the Xbox. The reason the Xbox is getting so cheap now is the dollar (and of course that MS and Sony can now produce the consoles without taking a loss). I'm amazed sony is keeping the price of the PS3 in the US so low actually. Overhere a PS3 costs $600 (400 euro)

BTW the original PS3 had almost complate BC didn't it? They only dropped it recently (well only PS1 is left).

You're telling me a sudden jump of way above the average cost of a recently launched new system because of the Blu-Ray player isn't that much?  Well, perhaps compared to a stand-alone, yeah it isn't.   But to those who couldn't care less about higher quality DVD watching, it's $200 extra for something they don't need but have to take.  That's like three or four new games (those games that Sony needs to be selling to make back it's initial loss).   

Again, the last two generations, Sony had the magic $299 price point.  The launch prices for the PS3, when announced, seemed almost like a cruel joke to everyone in attendance at the press conference.  Sony defended the "sticker shock" with arrogant hubris (read some of the quotes from Ken Kutaragi).     

But, OOPS, some gamers actually want to play games and found that the Xbox 360 is comparatively powerful with a similar lineup of games, but much cheaper.  So what does Sony do?   Lower the price by getting rid of GAMEPLAY features (i.e. backwards-compatibility).   After that decision, it still seems to me their more interested in having a movie machine in your house than a game machine.
 

Meanwhile, the PSP has been out for over 3 years and I still feel that everyone who mentions the system talks only about the movie watching capabilities.

It's more like 2.5 years,

I have to warn everyone that my figures and quotes are US-centric.  The PSP was released here in March of 2005, making it over 3 years old.   

I hardly ever hear actual games discussed*. 

GTA IV has it's thread and I mentioned Race Driver GRID.

You quoted that from the paragraph discussing PSP games (and the lack of actual discussion - though in fairness, I soon posted a link on this board that somewhat debunked that claim).

I know I rant about this sometimes but in all reality, those that are looking for a Blu-Ray player AND a next-gen system will find that the Playstation 3 is an outstanding choice.   But again, it would have been nice to those just want gaming to not be the unwilling participants in the expensive format war.

[Daniel270]

In all fairness, unless Sony plans on releasing games that will use the Blu-Ray function for the video aspect of games (like possibly Final Fantasy cutscenes), they should've released a basic system without the Blu Ray option instead of the multil-size hard drive choices.  Cut about $150 off the price tag and still make a modest profit.

[patrickl]

But when the PS2 was released, it had a low, UNIFORM price point

I paid about $1000 for my PS2. I hardly call that a low pricepoint.

What you paid an opportunistic 3rd party and what it actually costs when purchased at retail are two different things.  In the US at least, the PS2 was released at $299. 

That was retail. Maybe the exchange rate was slightly different though.

:edit: Ah oops, messed up the exchange rate   It was more like $450

Meanwhile, the PSP has been out for over 3 years and I still feel that everyone who mentions the system talks only about the movie watching capabilities.

It's more like 2.5 years,

I have to warn everyone that my figures and quotes are US-centric.  The PSP was released here in March of 2005, making it over 3 years old.

I didn't notice you suddenly changed the subject to PSP. Not sure why you did, but I was talking about the PS3. Which was launched at the end of 2006.

I know I rant about this sometimes but in all reality, those that are looking for a Blu-Ray player AND a next-gen system will find that the Playstation 3 is an outstanding choice.   But again, it would have been nice to those just want gaming to not be the unwilling participants in the expensive format war.

I'm sure there were people complaining about the same back when the PS2 was launched. Why did they put an overly expensive DVD player in the PS2? It would have worked perfectly well with a CD player and could have launched for $100 less. Maybe even the same with the PS1. Why on earth put a CD player in there? Who needs 650MB disc when a 32MB cartridge works perfectly fine?

Sony has a bit more vision though and designs these consoles to have a 10 year lifetime. So they go with the technology to accommodate that life span. It took quite a while before the DVD player of the PS2 was actually put to good use, but still. It happened. With the Xbox 360 they will never be able to incorporate HD material in the games. The PS3 is able to do so and I'm sure they will.

I'm personally glad that Sony does have the vision to make sure their console works with future improvements in software in mind and/or that $100 extra for a Blu-Ray player is a good buy. More people are buying PS3's now than Xbox 360's so apparently more people are coming to this conclusion.

[shmokes]

There are a large number of games for both systems (the vast majority) that run in HD, some in full 1080p.  I have read from at least a couple of developers, though, that they are already filling up BluRay discs completely.  I don't know if they were talking about single-sided (25 GB) or double sided (50 GB), but either one is a helluva a lot bigger than a double-sided DVD (9 GB).  All those high-res textures for 1080p games take up a lot more space than what was needed for Xbox and PS2 games.  On the other hand, GTA IV and Oblivion seem to fit on a DVD and they seem pretty big.  Worst case scenario is that some Xbox 360 games will be mulit-disc affairs.  We've dealt with that in the past and it hasn't been too bad. 

[Daniel270]

Not a problem with me...  been there, done that with the Final Fantasy VII game quite a few times.  Multiple discs are fine.

[DaveMMR]

I didn't notice you suddenly changed the subject to PSP. Not sure why you did, but I was talking about the PS3. Which was launched at the end of 2006.

My original post was about Sony's direction with their Playstation brand in general, which included the PSP.   Sorry for the confusion. 

I'm sure there were people complaining about the same back when the PS2 was launched. Why did they put an overly expensive DVD player in the PS2? It would have worked perfectly well with a CD player and could have launched for $100 less. Maybe even the same with the PS1. Why on earth put a CD player in there? Who needs 650MB disc when a 32MB cartridge works perfectly fine?

I don't think there were many complaints with the PS2's inclusion of DVD playback because it launched at the same price point as the last generation (PS1).   There was no sudden, dramatic price increases to compensate.   Also, DVD was fairly established by then (beating out Divx discs) so there was less risk of having worthless technology in your investment.

And I'm sure no one complained about PS1's CD-playback considering their machine was $100 cheaper than Sega's offering (the Saturn) and being able to play CDs was something even the Sega CD (Mega CD) was able to do.

Sony has a bit more vision though and designs these consoles to have a 10 year lifetime. So they go with the technology to accommodate that life span.

Okay that's just paraphrasing Sony's marketing department.  That was pretty much their way of justifying their decision to price it unconventionally high.  And it's great that they want their technology to last 10 years, but they'll still be competitors releasing more graphically powerful consoles in 5 (well except Nintendo).   

It took quite a while before the DVD player of the PS2 was actually put to good use, but still. It happened. With the Xbox 360 they will never be able to incorporate HD material in the games. The PS3 is able to do so and I'm sure they will.

I'm sure the PS3 will use the Blu-Ray to the full extent on their machine, but at what cost?  Games that take longer to load (or that have to be partially installed)?   Ten hours of cut scenes with phoned-in dialog?  In fairness, I'm sure there will be a few games that will use the insane amount of space available wisely.  Hopefully, it will be the standard rather than the exception, but history has taught me otherwise.

More people are buying PS3's now than Xbox 360's so apparently more people are coming to this conclusion.

True.   But more people are buying Wii's than 360's and PS3s.   And if you're counting all generations, the Playstation 2 beat all three new consoles last holiday season.  Some people just want to play games...

[ark_ader]

I have owned a PS3 since last november and i gotta be honest here it SUCKS ASS ! everything about it is shocking !

i bought it to play SACD's but wait it will only play them in stereo even thou the disc is 7.1 ! i mean what is going on here !

ok the games are now fully dolby digital not prologic which is a shocker anyway ! but the games are crap !

the console is huge

the games amount to about 2 good games !

You are living in the UK with a PS3 and it sucks?

Living in the UK without a PS3 sucks, and your point is?