PS3 = Mo' Money

Pablo72 · 23 Mar 2007 at 12:17

From Trusted Reviews...

"As big an issue as the reduced backwards compatibility is, the most significant stumbling block is the price. No matter how you look at it £425 for a games console is a lot of money, and once you’ve added on the cost of a couple of games, a second controller, a Blu-ray remote and an HDMI cable, you’re looking at close to £600!

Of course Sony will tell you that with the Blu-ray functionality and the potential power and versatility of the PS3 it’s still a bargain, and when you look at how much Blu-ray players cost, there’s some substance there. However, when I bought my PlayStation 3 out in Japan in January it cost me around £250, which means that we’re paying over 40 per cent more in the UK. And it’s not even as if we’re paying over 40 per cent more for the same hardware, we’re paying more for LESS hardware, because the PS2 chips are missing from the UK machines."

Emlyn_Dewar · 23 Mar 2007 at 13:24

I personally don't care about backwards compatibility, I've never used it on my 360 and would not need it on PS3. It's the fact we're forced to pay MUCH more for a console that should be cheaper to make than it's US/Jap counterparts. Until the price is sorted out there'll be no PS3 for me.

Tommy B · 23 Mar 2007 at 14:12

Yet people on here readily spend £500 on graphics cards.

Logsi · 23 Mar 2007 at 14:20

Tommy B said:
Yet people on here readily spend £500 on graphics cards.

I agree with this, i am either going to get the PS3 or the R600. The PS3 gives you a lot more back and arguably lasts a lot longer!

Josh

malachi · 23 Mar 2007 at 14:38

Tommy B, thats a fair point.......Ive brought every console on day of release since the Xbox 1, the PS3 I have been tempted but the £425 price is off putting.
All Sony goes on about is Blu-Ray, why go on about a form of technology that isnt main stream yet and wont be for years.
I remember when the PS2 came out and all the hype was the Emotion Engine and the DVD play back. Within a year and a half, stand alone DVD players were affordable and played DVD's better than the PS2. Blu-Ray with the PS3 will be going the same way.
If the PS3 Cell CPU is really that powerful then we probably never see the true power of it because the GPU is base on Nvidia G70, I see that as being a bottleneck in the performance of the console.

ic1male · 23 Mar 2007 at 14:40

For graphical purposes, yes, but the Cell could really show its prowess with AI and physics.

GarethDW · 23 Mar 2007 at 15:03

Tommy B said:
Yet people on here readily spend £500 on graphics cards.

Good point, but I think it has to be considered in context.

I concur that some early-adopting gamers will pay £500 for a bleeding-edge video card, similarly I know people that will pay hundreds of pounds for speakers for their car, or a new ecu, etc... They argue that they're getting the best-of-breed and that the cheaper alternatives don't perform at the same level.

However, PS3 owners who aren't interested in having a BluRay player could have comparable performance from the much cheaper 360. I don't want to open the "cheapest BluRay player around" can of worms, as I appreciate that it is value for money if you're a gamer looking for a BluRay player. I'm just not sure that the majority of PS3 owners really are that interested in having a BluRay player.