Buying a console

kk. · 20-01-2010, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Sergio

It's the very fact that wifi isn't included that helps make the 360 cheaper :S. The whole point of a 360 is to be JUST games console for those of us who just want to play games. That is why it doesn't need things like Blu-ray. You might say you may as well get it, but people who just want to play games, don't want all these little extras that just increase the price.

Besides, even if Blu-ray is the future, DVDs are doing a great job for now and I don't see why they won't be doing the same in years to come. If you think Blu-ray is the next big thing, then congratulations to Sony for making you think that.

Thats also my point. The 360 has missed out a key component in modern gaming which is wireless. The price of the 360 (elite) is £190. then you'd have to buy a wireless adapter, £50. Then the price of live, £35. Along with the play and charge kit, £15. thats £290. The PS3 costs £250. So even if you didnt want to play online, or didnt want wireless (which is doubtful since considering hes only just thinking of upgrading from the ps2 i doubt hes a hardcore gamer and would want wired), it would be the same price as the ps3. (prices from play.com btw)

Im sorry but if Hi Definition isnt the next big thing, then ive been fooled. But if you look around, HD tvs, HD broadcasting, HD gaming. The only thing stopping me from buying blu rays is the price, and once they come down, it will pick up in sales.

EDIT: damn u xuzii ;l I did all that research as well

~~Stryderman~~ · 20-01-2010, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by kk.

EDIT: damn u xuzii ;l I did all that research as well

Sorry :eusa_danc

kk. · 20-01-2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Xuzii

Sorry :eusa_danc

haha, at least mines up to date and in pounds ;D

Black_Apalachi · 20-01-2010, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Xuzii

... Ka-ping idk if that was any help or not but it shows you pretty much what you save by buying a ps3. ...

I don't know about Slims. The PS3 I'm comparing to cost me 300 pounds (not dollars).

Originally Posted by kk.

Thats also my point. The 360 has missed out a key component in modern gaming which is wireless. The price of the 360 (elite) is £190. then you'd have to buy a wireless adapter, £50. Then the price of live, £35. Along with the play and charge kit, £15. thats £290. The PS3 costs £250. So even if you didnt want to play online, or didnt want wireless (which is doubtful since considering hes only just thinking of upgrading from the ps2 i doubt hes a hardcore gamer and would want wired), it would be the same price as the ps3. (prices from play.com btw)

Im sorry but if Hi Definition isnt the next big thing, then ive been fooled. But if you look around, HD tvs, HD broadcasting, HD gaming. The only thing stopping me from buying blu rays is the price, and once they come down, it will pick up in sales.

EDIT: damn u xuzii ;l I did all that research as well

Like I said, it's not missed out by accident. As it isn't necessarily an essential feature, it was left out to make the product more affordable for the customer. Besides, if you're going to complain about missing features, it is completely unacceptable for the PS3 to not have backwards compatibility. Sony left this out to reduce costs on their part, which in my opinion does not justify including the likes of Blu-ray. Likewise, the play and charge kit isn't essential. There are cheaper alternatives such as rechargeable batteries so it wouldn't be necessary to create an additional cost.

Dunno why you're goin on about HD, never said anything about that but at the end of the day, Blu-ray would be a nice extra, if that's what it was. But in actual fact, it's a substitute for other features which you would assume would be included.

**dbgtz** · 20-01-2010, 07:41 PM

Yes but not all xbox games work on there so if you think about it they both have like 50% backwards compatability. Also totally contradicting you here, it was left out to make the product more affordable and considering sony had millions of sales for the ps2 and being it's more recent then the PS1, chances are people will still have it. Also Sony would want to support bluray more then the PS2 (and the fact it would pretty much be a new console if they removed the bluray).

"Dunno why you're goin on about HD, never said anything about that but at the end of the day, Blu-ray would be a nice extra, if that's what it was. But in actual fact, it's a substitute for other features which you would assume would be included."
A substitute for other features that would be included? ...

~~Blinger1~~ · 20-01-2010, 07:53 PM

WiFi is necessary. I prefer that over cables any day. The performance is still pretty good, imo.
Blu Ray is much better then DVD or HD-DVD. HD-DVD is a dead format, it lost the "format war". And DVD just looks crap if you compare it to Blu Ray, it just looks, small?

And I like how the PS3 upscales the media you play (videos etc). And how you can record TV with it using PlayTV.

Smits · 20-01-2010, 07:55 PM

get what your friends have

**Sly** · 20-01-2010, 09:52 PM

I have both and the only reason I play my xbox more is because it's in my room.
The ps3 is better for gaming and for blu rays and the wireless is free

Black_Apalachi · 20-01-2010, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Yes but not all xbox games work on there so if you think about it they both have like 50% backwards compatability. Also totally contradicting you here, it was left out to make the product more affordable and considering sony had millions of sales for the ps2 and being it's more recent then the PS1, chances are people will still have it. Also Sony would want to support bluray more then the PS2 (and the fact it would pretty much be a new console if they removed the bluray).

"Dunno why you're goin on about HD, never said anything about that but at the end of the day, Blu-ray would be a nice extra, if that's what it was. But in actual fact, it's a substitute for other features which you would assume would be included."
A substitute for other features that would be included? ...

How is the PS3 even 50% backwards compatible? :S It wasn't a case of making it more affordable, it was a case of making it actually affordable at all. As it was, the £300 price tag meant they were already making a loss on each console. What I meant about substitutes, is that while Blu-ray looks like an "extra", it is just another cost which was favoured over others such as backwards compatibility. I would consider it more of an actual extra if other features didn't have to be sacrificed for the console to maintain a price that people will actually be willing to pay.

I know the PS2 was very successful, but incorporating Blu-ray into a games console so that you don't need a separate Blu-ray player, kind of contradicts the philosophy of making do with two separate games consoles for essentially the same games (Sony). Anyway, a new console is what it is supposed to be so don't know what you mean by that.

~~Blinger1~~ · 20-01-2010, 11:58 PM

It's marketed as a media center I thought?

Thread: Buying a console

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions