Has the PS3 flopped?

JUMPURS said:
Yeah, and your point being?
Click to expand...

His point was that it was more justifiable to buy an Amiga for 400 quid back in its day, and it's not quite so justifiable spending 400 quid on a PS3 today. Not difficult to work out.

Later down the line, when the price drops eventually and the games come thick and fast, more and more will look at the PS3. But right now, it's had a very dry and rough launch, and anyone can see that.
 
Last edited:
KNiVES said:
I still have the desire to stab people in the face over the internet who even considers Killzone a 'heavyweight' game :p . The first one sucked. The PSP game sucked. The sequel trailer was a hoax. :confused:
Click to expand...

It wasnt a hoax.. it just wasnt in game. I actually thought the PS2 one was very good.. at least technically just needed some story work.
 
They passed it off as ingame graphics though. They literally said at the e3 booth 'this is ingame graphics'. It's one of the 'cringe' moments that Phil Harrison referred to in some interview he did recently, can't remember which with though, gamesindustry.biz probably.

It's stupid stunts like that, that undermines confidence in the system.
 
JUMPURS said:
Yeah, and your point being?
Click to expand...

From the off people could see the Amiga 500 was the superior games machine with its exta colours and 4 channel music

You got what you paid for and games looked better on it.

At the moment the PS3 doesn't enjoy this luxury.
 
KNiVES said:
I don't see PS3 spanking the 360 or Wii, though. And there's inflation, as well. 10-15 years ago, it was easier to spend 400 quid or so. Now in today's society where everyone is being ripped off left and right, where mortgages, bills and taxes are stupidly higher than the last few decades, it's not exactly like you'll see children walking into the shops, asking for a PS3 in shrill voices and then handing over nearly half a grand for it.
Click to expand...

Inflation devalues money, not the other way around. £400 is, equivilent wise, worth much less than it was 15 years ago... It has less buying power than it did in general, the fact that most electronic goods have become much cheaper, both in relative and absolute terms, is neither here nor there.

Back on topic, after trying (and eventually succeeding) to buy a Wii yesterday, and seeing the relative stock levels (given that the Wii is being produced in large numbers anyway) in nearly every store I went in, it would certainly point to the PS3 not selling well...
 
KNiVES said:
Just a small note



'Casual gamers' won't buy a 425 pound console :rolleyes:

And kids won't have much chance asking for a 425 pound console for christmas either :rolleyes:


This isn't some 300 pound console anymore, it's a small remortgage's worth of hardware that isn't even comparable to the competition right now. There is a reason why it's not exactly selling like hot cakes. When I bought my PS3, I inadvertently starved myself for a few weeks without realizing it :p
Click to expand...
Everyone rants on about the price of the PS3, but by the time you had the hd dvd and wireless adapter to the xbox 360 premium its more than the PS3
 
KNiVES said:
They passed it off as ingame graphics though. They literally said at the e3 booth 'this is ingame graphics'. It's one of the 'cringe' moments that Phil Harrison referred to in some interview he did recently, can't remember which with though, gamesindustry.biz probably.

It's stupid stunts like that, that undermines confidence in the system.
Click to expand...

Voila, thank you. The interviewer even says to the Sony suit "So is this in game graphics?" and the guy says yes. Do a search for it, it's ridiculous.

There can be an argument for programmers not knowing the system yet, but really, there's a lot of it going around. COD3, Splinter Cell Double Agent (the comparison to 360 is crazy, I think it was on IGN?), and now FEAR apparently has a terrible framerate and comms issues.

Some of this is undoubtably lazy porting, but how hard is it to get textures right? The machine can obviously do these things (textures in LBP and Motorstorm are great) so what's going on?

I have a 360 and love it. I may well get a PS3 one day (despite Sony's best efforts to alienate me from it). I'm certainly not anti the MACHINE itself, but right now there's no compelling reason for me to have one, and I think there are a very large number of people in the same position.
 
Bradmax57 said:
Everyone rants on about the price of the PS3, but by the time you had the hd dvd and wireless adapter to the xbox 360 premium its more than the PS3
Click to expand...


before everybody goes down this route AGAIN. let's drop this argument now. The ps3 only appears as good value IF you are interested in a wireless adaptor and hi def playback. It's not for everybody, so you cant try and tell people its better value for money than an xbox360
 
james.miller said:
before everybody goes down this route AGAIN. let's drop this argument now. The ps3 only appears as good value IF you are interested in a wireless adaptor and hi def playback. It's not for everybody, so you cant try and tell people its better value for money than an xbox360
Click to expand...
which i am thankyou :P
 
smcshaw said:
From the off people could see the Amiga 500 was the superior games machine with its exta colours and 4 channel music

You got what you paid for and games looked better on it.

At the moment the PS3 doesn't enjoy this luxury.
Click to expand...

Graphical differences between the ST and Amiga where negligable.

Even then the PS3 has the extra stuff that can be used in bumf etc over the 360 to try to justify it's price tag.

james.miller said:
before everybody goes down this route AGAIN. let's drop this argument now. The ps3 only appears as good value IF you are interested in a wireless adaptor and hi def playback. It's not for everybody, so you cant try and tell people its better value for money than an xbox360
Click to expand...

It is also good value if it doesn't break after 16 months and you need to buy another one :p
 
JUMPURS said:
Graphical differences between the ST and Amiga where negligable.

Even then the PS3 has the extra stuff that can be used in bumf etc over the 360 to try to justify it's price tag.



It is also good value if it doesn't break after 16 months and you need to buy another one :p
Click to expand...


this point, i will concede :p
 
In response to the why buy ps3 360 has better games etc well because people who want one will buy one and what the 360 has is irrelevant to them. As I stated in another thread 360 is almost at the halfway mark of the original xbox lifespan and it has sold just under half of that consoles total installed userbase, not exactly runaway success or brand expansion either, and in 6months wii is almost at two thirds the 360s install base and ps3 at one third which is not bad for a far more expensive console. The ps2 took almost two years to sell over 10 million so talk of flop at this early stage is foolish and so is the talk of 360 dominance especially when most of it sales were gained during a period of no competition, except for last gen consoles as the 360 has yet to beat ps2 in monthly sales figures
 
Mr Men said:
Buts its beating the PS3 right? which is kind of the point
Click to expand...

no the point was is ps3 a flop, so can 360 be considered a flop if it is beat in sales by an almost 10 year old console just an example of the broken logic being displayed in this thread on wether the ps3 is a flop or not
 
Needles said:
no the point was is ps3 a flop, so can 360 be considered a flop if it is beat in sales by an almost 10 year old console just an example of the broken logic being displayed in this thread on wether the ps3 is a flop or not
Click to expand...

so therefore the PS3 is more of a flop then as its beaten more by a 10 year old console :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom