Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games)

Should You Wait For The PS3? 110

Posted by Zonk from the good-question dept.
News for nerds writes "Though Xbox 360 is launching tomorrow in the U.S. to usher the next-generation of game consoles, the champion of the current generation has been quiet... until now. From the CNN Money article with words from Sony's CEO, Sir Howard Stringer: 'Sir Howard said the PS3 will sell for $300 to $400 and will come with a bundle of games, movies, and TV shows, many of which Sony also makes. The question is whether the titles will be bundled on Blu-ray DVD discs or on a built-in hard drive.'" Update: 11/22 22:22 GMT by Z : Chris Morris over at CNN emailed to let us know that there have been signifiCant changes to the story since it was originally posted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should You Wait For The PS3? More

Should You Wait For The PS3?

Comments Filter:
  • With Sony's recent behaviour, is it really a company you want to support? Is Microsoft?
    • Why not wait for Nintendo?
    • If I had to choose between Microsoft and Sony (as this article implies), I'd go with Microsoft. I think Sony is much worse than Microsoft, in terms of how the companies treat their customers.

      I'll probably buy an Xbox 360 some time next year, but I am never going to buy another Sony product again.

      • > I'll probably buy an Xbox 360 some time next year, but I am never going to buy
        > another Sony product again.

        No music CDs, DVDs, camera, laptop, cinema release, walkman etc..? Really? For how long?
      • Don't be stupid. This problem with Sony's DRM (you know Microsoft includes a DRM scheme of their own already in the operating system) is the fact that it had a security hole (unlike Microsoft software which never has any security problems whatsoever in the sotware that they gave you, excuse me SOLD YOU). This Sony thing is blown way out of proportion (compared with the deeds of its competitors). Don't like how they behave, fine don't buy it. But don't for a second conclude that Microsoft is somehow more
        • You're right on about MS being just as bad. People tend to forget that MS doesn't *need* a rootkit. Windows is its own rootkit, when you're the one writing the OS!

          That said, though, Sony was very wrong for releasing such a nasty piece of software. If I put a CD in my machine and it installs spyware, I'm going to be PISSED.

          As for being a hypocrite, though, it's really unavoidable. The world is too complex to always behave consistently, and nobody has time to keep track of every issue even within their o

      • You might want to do some serious investigation of the next vehicle you buy, then...because a good many of them use Sony head units that have been re-branded as their own.

        No offense, but that's like boycotting Wal-Mart...if you do it alone, you're pretty much just a loon on a street corner predicting the end of the world.

    • Re:Another way of posing the question... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SimplePaul ( 807846 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:15PM (#14084453)
      Sony is such a big company - the PS3 guys have absolutely nothing to do with the recent audio-cd issues.

      The Sony Playstation people I have spoken to / met (both online and in real person) all seemed nice and down-to-earth - not evil, moneygrabbing monsters.

      The 2 issues don't need to be mixed, imho.

      • Re:Another way of posing the question... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:24PM (#14084557) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, but do the Xbox guys have anything to do with the executives at Microsoft who try to squeeze out the competition? Chances are, they just want to build a nice box.

        Sony and Microsoft are both about the same. Feel free to buy the system of your choice, but don't fool yourself into thinking one company is signifigantly better then the other. Either way you're money is feeding the beast.
      • I work in a company of under 300 people, and most every department is almost wholly ignorant of the goings-on of the others. I'm sure Sony is the same way.

        • I work in a company of under 300 people, and most every department is almost wholly ignorant of the goings-on of the others. I'm sure Sony is the same way.

          Tell me which company that is so I can short the shares.

          Seriously though, if one department is doing the wrong thing you can't buy a product and say "Don't give any of this money to department X". And if you find out that your company is doing something wrong, very wrong, you can't just wash your hands of it and say, "That's not my department".

          • Actually, you don't even have to ask them not to give any of the money from a PSP purchase to the music division. Each division's sales and expenses are tracked wholly seperately. They only add up together when the most high-level analyses are done, like the Earnings Per Share (EPS). And the analysts can see exactly where any shortfalls from expectations came from. Other than pretty much that, in any large corporation each department will be budgeted and tracked seperately.
            • If that were true, Microsoft would only have two divisions, given that everything other than Windows and Office make a loss.
              • Pick a harder counterexample. Microsoft is using its profits from Office and Windows to extend its domination to other segments. It's funding MSN not so much to make a profit as to try and keep Google from owning that space. They occasionally get their wrist slapped for this, you can't legally use monopoly leverage in one market to hurt your competition in another (cf. Netscape).

      • Re:Another way of posing the question... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @04:03PM (#14084919)
        Sony is such a big company - the PS3 guys have absolutely nothing to do with the recent audio-cd issues.

        Of course not. Its the people above them that are the problematic persons.

        The Sony Playstation people I have spoken to / met (both online and in real person) all seemed nice and down-to-earth - not evil, moneygrabbing monsters.

        There are nice people that work for telemarketing and companies that border line in fraud. I don't have anything against them either and I'm not going to chastise them for trying to make a living.

        The 2 issues don't need to be mixed, imho.

        If my money indirectly or directly supports their profit margin then yes it does.

        Secondly, how do you not know that DRM technology from another department will be used on the PS3?

        Sure the nice guy geeks in PS3 won't include DRM, but what if the upper management or VP says they will use it? I remember a few kickass software devs that worked for a particular gaming company who were forced by their publisher to include pervasive anti-copying software on their game which they themselves disagreed with on their own forums.
      • Sony is such a big company - the PS3 guys have absolutely nothing to do with the recent audio-cd issues.

        The Sony Playstation people I have spoken to / met (both online and in real person) all seemed nice and down-to-earth - not evil, moneygrabbing monsters.

        Too bad for them. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. If they don't like it, they can go form their own company that doesn't put the word "Sony" on their products.
      • I have a reply to make to this, but another slashdotter put it in much better terms. The comment can be found here [slashdot.org]. It is posted below:

        If Sony didn't want to milk its name recognition for every dime it's worth, they wouldn't have "SONY" written on everything they sell. Even if they didn't want to spin off their hardware division, they still could have followed Disney's example of "Touchstone," et al. They want to make money on the Sony name, period. If there's going to be a consumer response, then the

    • Actually, since both companies are selling their console at a loss, buying either actually does the opposite of support them. I for one, like many a Slashdotter, am not quite partial to Microsoft in general. But I love the XBox. So I'm buying the 360 at their loss and I got a gamefly account. :-D

      • " Actually, since both companies are selling their console at a loss, buying either actually does the opposite of support them."

        Since Sony isn't actually selling the PS3 yet, you don't know that they will be sold at a loss. Second point, you're wrong if you think sales of Xbox 360s don't help MS.

        If you were to buy 30 million XBox 360 units, developers would see the 360 as a successful platform, more games would be developed, and more people would buy the hardware. If you were joking, it wasn't funny. If

        • Haha. Ok:

          Point A: Developers are going to make games for the 360 anyway, even if it starts off selling bad. Look at the Dreamcast for proof of that.

          Point B: It's quite clear that the PS3 will be sold at a lost. I think you could ask anyone who knows anything about it at this point and 99% of them would be sure it will be... I mean the chips themselves cost $175 a piece as it is right now.. that's already as much as they could afford for the entire console at $400 on the standard retail scale.

          Point C:

    • Considering that Sony has becomes a multimedia giant, I highly doubt the corrupt big-wigs in one sector will really have any clout in another. The only reason I have doubts about PS3 is that PS2 and PSP have largely become systems of mindless sequels. Though there are titles to break this trend, they are very few and far in between. If they can get more great things coming like Magna Carta and DDS, then I'm all for it, otherwise, I'm sticking with a PC

  • here's a novel idea... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Khyron ( 8855 )
    Maybe you should skip them both, and just buy a nicely decked out new home computer instead - or how about a nice home theater package?

    Seriously the prices on these things are just insane.
    • I'm with you. I'm just going to build myself a new computer. I don't see any reason to get a console if you are a computer gamer. Not only are computer games much more in-depth and detailed, but the only advantage to a console is the ability to have 4 players in the same room playing all together without having to worry about moving heavy computers around and setting up network connections. Even with the online play, the hard drives, the DVD playback, and all the features they have been adding over the y
      • Not only are computer games much more in-depth and detailed, but the only advantage to a console is the ability to have 4 players in the same room playing all together without having to worry about moving heavy computers around and setting up network connections.

        PC games are not more in-depth and detailed. That's a myth. I don't know where it came from, but it sure gets repeated a lot. I spend about half my gaming time on a PC, half on a console. The games are pretty much the same, except the PC has all t

        • I've been a gamer for a long time, and it is difficult to explain how computer gaming is more in-depth than console, but I will try.

          First, I just want to say that I was trying to reinforce the post I replied to. I think it's better to just upgrade or build a new computer than get the 360 or PS3.

          Now, I will try to cite some examples of the differences in depth of play. Let's start with FPSs. Halo 2 is the current most popular online console FPS, but how does it compare to PC games? I find several computer FP
          • If you're judging consoles purely by how well they play games designed for PCs, i.e. FPS, Strategy and Western RPG, then it's little wonder you think that. I'd rather play Battlefield 2 than Halo 2 any day.

            But there are many other classes of games that PCs do poorly, if at all. There's nothing that comes close to Super Monkey Ball, Katamari Damacy, Gradius V, Soul Calibur, OutRun 2, SingStar or Mario Sunshine, to pick just a few games I play on consoles.

      • Also, if you are a real gamer, graphics shouldn't matter.

        See, now... graphics are one of the main things I play PC games for. In my experience, PC games are where you get the best experience if you're looking for a game that rehashes an old idea, but does it prettier, with better sound, and maybe a tiny new gimmick or two. Now, that's good. I like PC games for that.

        However, if you're talking about quality gaming where graphics don't matter, it seems to me that you should actually be talking about Nintendo.

    • Game consoles are much cheaper than computers. Could you buy a computer for $400 that will play new games for the next 5 years? I'm thinking not.
  • At the present moment, the current estimated cost per wafer is $9000-$10,000 [theinquirer.org], with about 65 good chips per wafer. So, the current estimated cost per chip is $150 and $175 on the board. Now, don't get me wrong, Sony is pretty wealthy. But how can they afford that? $175 and no drive, GPU or anything. Sony will obviously go into the red in order to be competitively priced. Sony: A) Wants to sell it in the red to be competitively priced. While standalone Blu-Ray players will be an estimated $1,000 , you can
    • Did you pull all these numbers out of your ass? There's already a lot of BD devices on the market in Japan - not the final BD specs that will be the basis of standalone BD players and the PS3, but basically the same hardware. I'm pretty sure they're not running $1,000 per unit.

  • Yes, you should wait for the PS3 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:04PM (#14084354)
    Yes, I'd highly suggest waiting until the PS3 to buy an XBox 360. After the PS3 hits, the XBox 360 will likely come down in price, and a whole host of good games should be out for it at the time.

    As for getting the PS3, I'd highly suggest you pass.
    • This is actually pretty good advice, although I don't see why you would skip the PS3. Just wait a year or two until it comes down in price and there's some good budget priced games on offer.
    • Following that advice would almost ensure the PS3's success. Publishers see that the 360's not selling and move all of their titles in production over to the PS3, the news of that prompts more people to get PS3's, and we get the last generation all over again.
    • After the PS3 hits, the Xbox 360 with HD-DVD drive will show up on the market. For $400 it seems like a decent buy to get a good game system coupled with one of the first HD-DVD players. I sure hope I can trade in my UMD movies to get them on HD-DVD!

  • Consumerism (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tachikoma ( 878191 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:05PM (#14084362)
    I am a mindless consumer and will buy both
  • PS3 will be harder to develop for and has only a slight power advantage. That plus it will cost more and come out later. Easy choice.

  • They're both not worth the dough (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RotHorseKid ( 239899 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:08PM (#14084403) Homepage
    I will wait for the Nintendo Revolution.

    XBOX360 and PS3 bring nothing new to gaming, in my opinion. I AM really tired of things like FIFA 2023 and Splinter Cell XVII.

    But if Nintendo really pull off their controller ideas... I believe this is good for a genuine gaming experience.
    • Just as much to the point, I expect Nintendo to launch the console at around the $200 mark, which is far more like a price I'm prepared to pay for a games machine. It's what I waited for the XBox and PS2 to hit before I bought them, and it's what I paid for the Gamecube at launch.
      • Ack.

        Nintendo got the pricing right with the GC and will stick to that if they're not totally braindead.
        We have four kids, and no other gaming console could ever beat the fun the Nintendo boxen are when played by a mixed-generation crowd.

        Uh, it just occured to me that maybe this is not what the XBOX360 or PS3 are about...
    • How different was the gameplay of Zelda on the N64 compared to the GC? On the Revolution it'll have a sword-like controller which will be new and different, but the plot will still be the same right? Nintendo doesn't have the guts to let Ganon die and introduce a new enemy into that universe. Why is it so fun to beat Ganon if he'll just come back again in the future, or in the past?
      • If they decide to use Wind Waker as back story to a new game, I think Gannon will be quite dead. However he could have that whole Voldamort thing going on.
        Maybe not all Zeldas take place in the same time line/dimension. So in universe #65545 Gannon wasn't bested by a boy with a magic sword at a particular point in time.
    • I AM really tired of things like FIFA 2023 and Splinter Cell XVII.

      As opposed to Super Mario Revolution, Metroid Prime Revolution, Legend of Zelda: Revolution, Pokemon Revolution, Donkey Kong Revolution, Resident Evil Revolution, F-Zero Revolution, Mario Kart Revolution and Harvest Moon Revolution?

      (I own a GameCube.)

  • Neither (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quattro Vezina ( 714892 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:18PM (#14084478) Journal
    I'm waiting for the Revolution.
    • I am with you. Why buy a console that can do what my computer can already do. I am going to wait for the Nintendo Revolution. For me the whole idea of a gaming system or console is to get away from my desk and relax. Also my fondest memories are from playing games with my friends (on past nintendo systems.) Also I find my self less willing start playing very deep and involving games(mostly because I dont have the extra 20+ hours a week.) Give me arcade fun, give me a Revolution
  • Was I the only one who went "huh?" at the "sir" part?

  • More games (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StreetChip ( 870758 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:20PM (#14084503) Homepage
    There are hundreds if not thousands of more games available for the PS3. You're looking at all of the old PS1 and PS2 games which will run on the PS3. Not to mention the fact that once the PS3 comes out all of these fantastic games will be bargain bin priced. With Xbox 360 'maybe' being able to run some of their very small collection of Xbox 1 games, who cares? The games make the difference and PS3 will continue to slaughter the Xbox for that very reason.

    • Re:More games (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Workshed ( 838497 )
      With that logic why spend a small fortune on a PS3 when you can wait until it comes out and pick up a bargin PS2 that will play all of the PS1 and PS2 games? I really don't see why backwards compatibility is such a big deal, sure its nice to have but there's no way it would be the swaying factor when I choose a console for the reason you have already stated, you can usually pick the previous console up very cheaply!
    • The reasoning you describe isn't for buying a PS3 in a year. It's for buying a PS2 right now or, if you have one already, just continuing to play PS2 games - just as that reasoning would mean folks should have been playing PS1 games up until about now. Backwards compatibility is about the dumbest reason I can think of for buying the sequel to a console. The only reason it MIGHT be nice is if Sony steps up and actually makes PS2 games look better on the PS3, but given they didn't do jack for PS1 games pla
      • the ps2 does offer extra anti-aliasing for ps1 games. BUT you have to turn on the feature to do that first. its built into every ps2. i dont see why they couldnt do something similar with the ps3.

        i am an xbox and playstation2 owner, so i happen to disagree with you on your second point as well. the xbox is nice, but i would truly feel burnt if i bought my xbox at the full release price. ive gotten my enjoyment out of it, but there are not nearly as many games available for it as i would like. i still want t
    • Is doubtful that the PS3 will play all the PS1 and PS2 games due to some slight compatibility issues, but it should play most of them. When the PS2 came out, there were a handfull of PS1 games that could not be played due to changes to the emulation hardware, and the new PS2 slimline is having a similar problem with some of the older PS2 games. Another issue to beware of is that there does not appear to be anyway to get the info stored on the Memcards onto the PS3 as that port does not appear to exist on
    • The games make the difference and PS3 will continue to slaughter the Xbox for that very reason.

      Wow, can you tell me who's going to win the superbowl this year? I'd like to make some extra cash from your clairvoance.

      The systems aren't even out. PS3 can't slaughter anything yet.

    • Re:More games (Score:3, Informative)

      by ad0gg ( 594412 )
      Got love the sony fan boys. By a small collection of games you mean 200+ games [xbox.com] that are certified to run.
    • Backwards compatability is still up in the air for the PS3, as far as I know...

  • PS3 rootkit? (Score:1, Troll)

    by manJerk ( 853898 )
    will this system be riddled with rootkits and other crazy software to render CDs and DVDs that are not made by sony usable only as a coaster after atempting to watch it on your PS3? or will it only destroy games that you borrow from your friends?
  • Great, they'll throw in some games, some tv shows, and what more? Soon they'll be offering Sony's entire back catalogue of music just so long as you please, please, pretty please don't buy the Xbox 360.

    This is the PS2 campaign all over again...

    (And I bet it won't cost anywhere near $300-$400 either.)

  • This article seems like shameless advertising for the 360. And it's not even well-written. I mean, "bodacious"?

    Perhaps he's part of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure [imdb.com] in poor writing".

    • 'Even if the Xbox 360 is a rousing success, Sony will likely still dominate the console universe.'

      Is its sub heading.

      Hardly shameless advertising, the recent CNN articles have actually been some of the more balanced views on whats going on.

  • What would really be a killer move on Microsoft's part would be to apply their apparent emulation software savvy to drive a spike into one of PS3's best features: backwards compatibility.

    I mean, if the XBox 360 can support emulating the XBox, what would stop Microsoft from writing emulators for other consoles such as Playstation and Playstation 2? I mean, sure, they can't use the BIOS but it's already been proven that you don't exactly even need it anyway.

    And, legally speaking, Bleem! already set pre

    • Because their emulation software isn't very good. They can barely emulate the Xbox, it will only support a limited list of games, all of which had to be recompiled and downloaded to play. Its not like they have true emulation here.

      If anything, look for that sort of move from Nintendo. Nintendo does seem to have true emulation, look at the Zelda disk for the Cube- it has Zelda I, II, Ocarina, amd Majora's Mask on it. They have simialr setups for other series, and they plan to use it for backwards compat

      • Re:Killer move... (Score:2, Informative)

        by MorgyTheMole ( 932893 )

        Barely? In a limited amount of time of development, they were able to ABLY develop an XBox emulator way better than anything else you'll find right now, that emulated both the CPU and GPU rather precisely. A few of the games on the list have a few problems, but many are minor and are expected to be fixed in the next update.

        It also upgrades the graphics resolution quite a bit with antialiasing and 720p. Pretty nice.

        Nintendo will definitely make good on their first party titles being emulated as well as

        • Its still a limited collection requiring a recompile. If you have to recompile, you aren't emulating.
        • This one is kind of obvious and stupid, if you ask me. YES it is hard for Microsoft to emulate hardware that they designed. How much more difficult would it be for them to emulate hardware which they would have to reverse engineer?
          Besides the fact that Bleem! does not set the precedent for something like this and I'm sure Sony's lawyers would sue Microsoft all the way from here to Japan if they tried emulating the PS1 or PS2.

  • PS3 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doomicon ( 5310 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @03:25PM (#14084560) Homepage Journal
    I have an Xbox, when I go to my local BestBuy there are three times as many games for the Playstation. There are some really cool games for Playstation that just aren't available for Xbox. I just purchased a PS2 for my son;-), and will get a P3 when avail.

    If Xbox 360 has some really cool games that I really want to play then sure I'll get a 360, until then PS all the way.

    The whole Sony/Microsoft whose worse just doesn't matter to me, as it probably doesn't matter to the %99.99 that aren't registered to slashdot.

    doomicon
    • I have an Xbox, when I go to my local BestBuy there are three times as many games for the Playstation

      I've always felt Sony followed the quantity over quality approach. Especially when the Playstation One was out. Sure they had some great games but there were a lot of other that were pure crap. More so than the other systems. I think Sony just wanted to get as many out as possible so that when people went to the store, saw all the games that Sony offered compaired to Nintendo it'd be a reason for a person t

  • No matter how good it is, the PS3 isn't coming out for several months (at least). And we adults don't have to beg mommy for an advance on our allowance to get a console any more. The idea that console platforms are mutually exclusive and buying into one makes all others "the enemy" is obsolete.
    • I dunno, I'm older and I earn my own money now, but I'm not likely to buy both. You're looking at around $800 for both systems, just including the console hardware. And while I'm living comfortably, and I could afford to get them both, there are plenty of other neat things that I could spend that money on. Factor in the reality that most publishers are leaning towards multiplatform games, and suddenly having two consoles that play 90% of the same games becomes almost silly.

      In that case, it comes down to wha
    • And we adults don't have to beg mommy for an advance on our allowance to get a console any more.

      Unfortunately, we now have rent/morgages and utilities to pay, food to buy, student loans to pay off, medical bills... I'm asking my mommy for a gamecube for Christmas.

      No, actually, I'm not willing - or able, honestly - to pay $400 for a freaking game console, plus $50 per game. My SNES has served me well all these years, but I've just about played it out and it's time to upgrade. Even as a gift, though, I

    • I think that a lot of people will eventually have multiple systems, but as people have stated before, not all of us can affored $800 to buy two gaming systems. Not only that, I'm sure that I'm not alone in having limited space for consoles in my entertainment center (right now I can just barely fit my GC and PS2 in the entertainment cener with controllers and games, DVD player is in the entertainment center too, but DVDs are on a spare row in one of the bookshelves).
      For myself, I plan on probably buying a

  • All About the Games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Winterblink ( 575267 ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @04:06PM (#14084945) Homepage
    To be honest, I don't give a rats ass about tech specs anymore. It's all about the games.

    With the last generation, I picked up a PS2 and a Gamecube (not at the same time mind you). I had friends with XBoxen, and they had some decent games, but nothing that was exclusive that would make me go and spend more money on hardware to play. And the PS2 and GC had titles that I had wanted to play more.

    This generation, I'm waiting. I might pick up the YBox, I might not. Ditto for the PS3, or the Revo. All three sound good, sound like they've got some pretty impressive specs and design philosphies all around. But I'm going to wait until the PS3 comes out to see how the games play on it, and see which of the first two I'm going to go for. Not to discount the Revo of course.

    But I'll base my decisions on how developers use the new hardware to do something interesting, because I don't care to play yet another console FPS or RPG unless it's different, and not just in the better graphics department.
  • (Disclaimer - my current game systems are PC, Xbox and PS2)

    I have trouble believing I enjoy reading all the hype about the systems.
    But I guess that is how you find the killer game (app).
    The Xbox 360 will likely have a shortage no matter what.

    For me, it is all about the games.

    1. Most systems that first launch are pricey, have issues and don't have great games.

    2. Wait until the dust settles, take a look at a variety of systems and games over time.

    3. And when your awesome games debut, buy that system and the g
    • MGS2 was the reason I bought the PS2.
      MGS3 was a joy to play as well.

      I also discovered Singstar, which is great fun (and oops, non-violent)
      Great Strategy in Front Mission 4.
      Good fighters such as Naruto or Soul Caliber.

      Get a PS2 today and treat yourself to a great library of games (Heck, get it secondhand, with networkcard, hard drive, mod chip for more fun fun fun)
  • Everyone talks about making a choice.... I say get them both and a Revolution :-) There are going to be great games on all 3 systems, don't settle for one. Any kid or adult who enjoys games can save together a couple hundered bucks if they really decide to. Just dont waste your money on the poorly designed flashy games and sign up to some unlimited rental service at gamefly or blockbuster. :-)
  • No, i'll wait for the Revolution. New consoles that put almost all of their focus on graphics don't impress me. I mean, how many xboxen cores or ps3 cells do you really need to make changes to the numbers in the title of your game and update textures, lighting, and add a few polys to the character models?
  • It's simply not worth $400 for a console. I didn't buy a single console until the cube dropped down to $100. There is a chance that I'll pick up the Revolution if it's in $150-200 range, but I certainly won't be purchasing a PS3 or a 360. I have more important things to spend my hard earned money on (heating bills anyone?).
  • The XBOX360 sucks and here is why. I played it at Best Buys for a few hours and its nothing special. Controls for FSP such as Call of Duty 2 are terrible making the FPSs worthless and oh man was I disapointed to see some better graphics, I had better graphics 6 months ago on my PC. The bottom line is if I wanted a computer i'd buy a computer, not a crippled immitation thats already outdated without the ability to upgrade called the XBOX360. The games selection for the PS has always been better while any ga
  • I would have bought one. I had the money. But I am not such an IDIOT as to wait in line for 8 hours to spend $400.
    This truly proves that MicroSoft is a company built on luck and monopoly.

    My jaw dropped as I saw a fat, stupid manager at WalMart actually be AMUSED that he turned away dozens of people willing to spend $400 EACH on a product from his store.

    So now I am so pissed off, I will not buy a 360 until the price goes down. Good job, Bill!!!!!!!!
  • This is Pete Lewis at Fortune. "Should You Wait for PS3?" was simply sloppy deadline reporting on my part. I spoke to a senior executive at a major videogame company who had read an interview with HowardStringer in The Hollywood Reporter, and most likely I misunderstood the executive's comments about the article. I failed to follow up with Sony, and the rest is history. My apologies to Slashdot for spreading misinformation. I have no excuse for using the word bodacious. A corrected version of the story is n

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close