should i sell my 60gb PS3 now while the goings good?

[TheVoice]

So from a pure gaming stand point....what does the PS3 offer over the Xbox?

My arguement is that for 300 as a games console alone it offers no more than a 120 quid Xbox.

Online gaming is not as good on PS3 for a kick off.

People justify the pricing of the PS3 because "it does other stuff"

My arguement is its not wirth the 300 quid price tag any more and the other stuff it does it doesn't do it well enough to warrant the price premium.

Just a small point, but they're available for far less than £300.

From a gaming standpoint, the PS3 has the games I want, the 360 doesn't. That's an entirely subjective thing though; for other people, it will be vice-versa. I personally also like the fact that it has wi-fi built in, rechargeable controllers as standard and a bigger HDD (which can be changed at any time cheaply), and it's very quiet.

I'm definitely not against a PS3 pricedrop, but I don't think you can ever expect it to be the same price as the normal 360, because the PS3 comes with more hardware as standard.

 

[Mujja]

I have done my research and my finding were not good.

Please tell me I'm wrong if the things I am stating are BS.

A firmware update a couple of months back enabled sequential playback.

The PS3 doesn't have a 4GB limit, I have files are big as 12GB on my HDD, which is also made easier as the PS3 HDD is easliy ugraded upto 500GB.

The PS3 can't play .TS but most HD content is available in .MKV format. Does the 360 playback .TS and/or .MKV?

How is ripping a DVD to the 360 HDD any quicker/easier than ripping to PS3 HDD?


I sold a 360 and bought a PS3 to use primarily for media playback. Preferred the way the PS3 plays music and displays photos. Neither device supported Divx playback then so can't compare.

 

[Surfer]

online gaming is better on ps3 imo.

the price of ps3 doesnt bother me coz i got loads of money

The great MS scam is getting millions of online gamers to pay for smt thats free on other gaming platforms hehe

 

[Buzza]

Why does it?
It needs to be the same price as the 360 elite surely?

360 elite, £225
PS3 £279.

Combine that with the fact it does more than the 360, has sold more units at this point in its lifespan than the 360 did, why does it need to be any cheaper?

It needs to be at a price people are willing to pay, especially in the current climate.

Also, some people are quite happy to buy extras like wireless adapters and HD drives later on when they can afford them or not bother with them at all. Excluding things like that has allowed the XBox to be cheaper and sell more machines. Besides If your in it for the gaming, you dont lose anything by not having a Blu ray drive or a wireless adapter built in anyway.

 

[Johnz0r]

online gaming is better on ps3 imo.

the price of ps3 doesnt bother me coz i got loads of money

The great MS scam is getting millions of online gamers to pay for smt thats free on other gaming platforms hehe

Is it **** you can't even have a private chat with your mates easily (without playng the same game) or even create parties like you can on the 360, not to mention the awful voice communication that comes with the PS3 in the form of cheapy £10 woolies-esque Bluetooth headsets. Even the crap ones that are bundled with the 360 are way better.

 

[atpbx]

It needs to be at a price people are willing to pay, especially in the current climate.

Also, some people are quite happy to buy extras like wireless adapters and HD drives later on when they can afford them or not bother with them at all. Excluding things like that has allowed the XBox to be cheaper and sell more machines. Besides If your in it for the gaming, you dont lose anything by not having a Blu ray drive or a wireless adapter built in anyway.

Yes exactly, but people are paying it, and it selling better than the 360 did at this point in its lifetime.
You only have to look at egay to see how in demand all types of PS3 are, there are still people willing to spend £400 on second hand 60gb models, and £300 on second hand 80gig models, even though they are available (when in stock) for as little as £249.99 from some places.

Besides if i look at it like this, I've had 3 360 consoles in 3 years, 2 of which i had to pay for (£249 new, that was replaced after RRODing, and then a replacement base unit when that died for £90 which itself now needs replacing as the dvd drive is on the way out) In fact, if i dont find another cheap base unit to replace it with, i wont be buying another one.

So in 3 years Ive spent £339 just on the console, £50 on the wireless adapter, £50 on the HDD, nearly £90 on live, for a total cost of £529 just to have a working 360 with less features than my PS3, which i bought on launch day, for £325 on import.

Telling me how great value the 360 is holds no water with me, because it ISNT great value, they were not cheap to start with, break down with worrying frequency and dont do as much as the PS3.

 

[.one.]

If i could sell my PS3 60 gig for good money i would go for it.

 

[Nanoman]

Im failing to understand peoples logic when they say the PS3 is overpriced/better to get 2 seperate devices. A premium with a wireless adapter is about £200. Blu-ray players are like £150. Maybe im missing something here?

If youre angry that your PS3 isnt washing the dishes Id sell it. Its suppose to be for games not slavery.

 

[ps3ud0]

If youre angry that your PS3 isnt washing the dishes Id sell it. Its suppose to be for games not slavery.

Get a wife tbh, cheap initial purchase, but very expensive running costs which include many returns to manufacturer (M-i-L) when periodically noisy

Dont even question the build quality

ps3ud0

 

[Buzza]

Yes exactly, but people are paying it, and it selling better than the 360 did at this point in its lifetime.
You only have to look at egay to see how in demand all types of PS3 are, there are still people willing to spend £400 on second hand 60gb models, and £300 on second hand 80gig models, even though they are available (when in stock) for as little as £249.99 from some places.

Besides if i look at it like this, I've had 3 360 consoles in 3 years, 2 of which i had to pay for (£249 new, that was replaced after RRODing, and then a replacement base unit when that died for £90 which itself now needs replacing as the dvd drive is on the way out) In fact, if i dont find another cheap base unit to replace it with, i wont be buying another one.

So in 3 years Ive spent £339 just on the console, £50 on the wireless adapter, £50 on the HDD, nearly £90 on live, for a total cost of £529 just to have a working 360 with less features than my PS3, which i bought on launch day, for £325 on import.

Telling me how great value the 360 is holds no water with me, because it ISNT great value, they were not cheap to start with, break down with worrying frequency and dont do as much as the PS3.

It "appears" great value to the masses though. Some owners of XBoxs. like my dad and some freinds, dont even know what XBox live/Bluray/media players etc are?

Im on my 5th XBox, and it hasnt cost me a penny as ive always replaced them at the shop at no extra cost. Im not using a wireless adapter as i dont need to, so no cost there. Live has a cost but its spread over such a long time, i dont think its really an issue, especially since its funtionality is so good and integrated so well into "every" game.

PS3 hardware is well built and good value if you need all its functions, but not everyone wants to pay for features they dont need.

Hardware sales in the last year:
http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php

 

[Streeteh]

The PS3 is overpriced to **** and back.

I disagree with you there i'm afraid. It's expensive, no doubt, but it's good value for money. I can't be bothered looking but i would wager that to buy separate units to accommodate for all of the features the PS3 offers (Blu-ray player, 'next-gen' games console with harddrive, wireless connectivity, media streaming and media playback from its own harddrive) you would be spending quite a bit more.

Sony sells every unit at a loss, that in itself surely means that the PS3 is good value for money IF you take advantage of every feature it has to offer. However, just because it's good value for money doesn't make it cheap by any means, i'm certainly not pretending it doesn't carry a large price tag. It's certainly too expensive for someone just looking to play games on it, but for people like me that actually wanted all of those things, it was a bargain, especially considering at the time i bought it standalone bluray players were more expensive.

 

[Buzza]

Is it **** you can't even have a private chat with your mates easily (without playng the same game) or even create parties like you can on the 360, not to mention the awful voice communication that comes with the PS3 in the form of cheapy £10 woolies-esque Bluetooth headsets. Even the crap ones that are bundled with the 360 are way better.

I agree, me and a mate tried to do a party chat, we managed it, but we couldnt chat and then run a game without quitting the chat room first. Not to mention the sony headset was expensive and if your batteries run out, you cant recharge it as you use it like on the XBox.

 

[NokkonWud]

online gaming is better on ps3 imo.

It would have been if it offered the same in-game accessibility of OS features, party play, bundled headsets in to chat to people online with consoles.

But it doesn't. PS3 online is like a disjointed network between console and online and without people talking. It just lacks the social aspect that Xbox360 offers, which is why Sony have been piling cash into Home.

 

[Demon]

Im failing to understand peoples logic when they say the PS3 is overpriced/better to get 2 seperate devices. A premium with a wireless adapter is about £200. Blu-ray players are like £150. Maybe im missing something here?

If youre angry that your PS3 isnt washing the dishes Id sell it. Its suppose to be for games not slavery.

Having a seperate Blu-ray player so the kids/missus can watch Santa Claus 3 while I kick some ass in RfoM2 in another room is priceless

 

[KNiVES]

I disagree with you there i'm afraid. It's expensive, no doubt, but it's good value for money. I can't be bothered looking but i would wager that to buy separate units to accommodate for all of the features the PS3 offers (Blu-ray player, 'next-gen' games console with harddrive, wireless connectivity, media streaming and media playback from its own harddrive) you would be spending quite a bit more.

Sony sells every unit at a loss, that in itself surely means that the PS3 is good value for money IF you take advantage of every feature it has to offer. However, just because it's good value for money doesn't make it cheap by any means, i'm certainly not pretending it doesn't carry a large price tag. It's certainly too expensive for someone just looking to play games on it, but for people like me that actually wanted all of those things, it was a bargain, especially considering at the time i bought it standalone bluray players were more expensive.

When something is good value for money, it tends to mean it can offer what other similair devices can do for a much lower price. Let's not kid ourselves here. The PS3 is first and foremost a gaming console, and it is far more expensive than the alternatives. How anyone can say it's good value for money is beyond me. It doesn't matter if it's selling at a loss or not, it's the consumer that matters at the end of the day. It's your wallet, not Sony's. Saying a £300 console is good value while we're seeing £60 360s out there is nonsensical and deluded. Just because it can play blu-ray movies doesn't mean it's magically the most wallet-friendly console out there. I am more than willing to bet the vast vast majority of the PS3's usage in general is on video games. Otherwise those sub-£150 blu-ray players would be flying off the shelves.

Can argue about featuresets and capabilities until we're all blue in the face if one would like to, but at the end of the day, we can simply go back to the most basic example of pricing: if you want to play on a PS3 game you will have to spend well over £300. If you want to play on a 360 game, you most likely won't even go over £100. Three times as cheap.

 

[easyrider]

A firmware update a couple of months back enabled sequential playback.

The PS3 doesn't have a 4GB limit, I have files are big as 12GB on my HDD, which is also made easier as the PS3 HDD is easliy ugraded upto 500GB.

The PS3 can't play .TS but most HD content is available in .MKV format. Does the 360 playback .TS and/or .MKV?

How is ripping a DVD to the 360 HDD any quicker/easier than ripping to PS3 HDD?
.

Why would I want to copy my DVD's over to the PS3 if the PS3 cannot upscale them from the HDD during playback?


Also 500GB just aint enough storage lol. Another PS3 Flaw.

So it plays Vobs seemlessly without pauses in between them?

I would not rip the HD content direct to the HDD what I would want to do is stream HD Vob and M2TS files with DTS audio from a PC to a PS3

Sadly the PS3 is not capable of this.

 

[atpbx]

: if you want to play on a PS3 game you will have to spend well over £300. If you want to play on a 360 game, you most likely won't even go over £100. Three times as cheap.

What nonsense is this?
Microsoft do a one off holiday special deal of old stock 360 arcades at £65 for a few units, and now the 360 has a street price of £65?

The PS3, which comes bundled with 3 games for £289 or on its own for £249 (£25 more than an Elite, its direct competitor) and it all of a sudden has a street price of £300 on its own?

At least post something near the facts if you are going to argue.

 

[daveydave]

Why would I want to copy my DVD's over to the PS3 if the PS3 cannot upscale them from the HDD during playback?


Also 500GB just aint enough storage lol. Another PS3 Flaw.

Are you for real?

It's a games console with benefits...not a PC!!! Seriously!

A PS3 is like a brand new bmw with nearly all the optional extras, whereas the 360 is like a Ford Mondeo with all the optional extras.... where there are some overlaps in 'extras' offered the PS3 still does 40% more than the 360...and it has 'that' badge on the hood!

 

[Streeteh]

Stuff

I think you missed the point i was trying to make which was that many people want more than just a gaming console. I wanted a console yeah, but i opted for the PS3 as it boasts other features i really did want, especially blu-ray. I have a large collection of blurays that is constantly growing as i think films (and band of brothers) just look fantastic in HD, so i view bluray as one of its primary uses, just behind playing games. I did say at the end of my previous post; if you just wanted a games console then yes the PS3 is overpriced, but to say that just because you want a games console without these extra features doesn't make it overpriced for everyone. For people that actually want the other features it has it is good value for money.

For a games console, yes, it is overpriced. But it does many more things than play games and quite a few people want those features. For me, the PS3 is not just a games console, and i'm certain i'm not alone in that opinion.

 

[Demon]

Are you for real?

It's a games console with benefits...not a PC!!! Seriously!

A PS3 is like a brand new bmw with nearly all the optional extras, whereas the 360 is like a Ford Mondeo with all the optional extras.... where there are some overlaps in 'extras' offered the PS3 still does 40% more than the 360...and it has 'that' badge on the hood!

LOL at that..

If the 360 is like a Mondeo, then the PS3 is a Mondeo with a blu-ray player built into the dash.. plain and simple..

And on the subject of media capability, the consoles are almost identical in outline features (delivered differently) with the only exception being the PS3 has blu-ray playback..
Both are a bit crippled when you are serious about media, and have things like the Popcorn Hour A110 or a HTPC to compare against!