PS3 Pre-Orders

I added the latest info about PS3 Pre-Orders as a news article

so that 360 fans can check up on whats going on with the PS3

Pre-Order Price - £424.99

Article Link - HERE

thats really steep, but still i can see it doing really well, but ill wait afew months and let the price drop before i get one

I would never pay that for a console. Plus your games etc.
Thats going to burn a hole. But if people try the console out and think its good enough then it might just sell...

£425 + another controller and two games, and you're way over £500, which I think it shocking.

it would be quality if the final was more than that, gamestation owuld have alot of unhappy customers

I'll again point out, a Blu Ray player alone will cost £600 a least. PS2 was also £600 for the console with 4 games and considering how much the PS3 offers in comparison, it's really not that bad. There is always the option though that if you think it's too expensive, you don't buy it and in turn, you then don't have to complain!

Originally Posted by Mez I'll again point out, a Blu Ray player alone will cost £600 a least. PS2 was also £600 for the console with 4 games and considering how much the PS3 offers in comparison, it's really not that bad. There is always the option though that if you think it's too expensive, you don't buy it and in turn, you then don't have to complain!

sony fanboy
the point is, what if you dont want a bluray player? you have to pay for one to play the ps3, which is stupid. what if your down with just dvds and dont have a hdtv? you dont need the bluray, i hate it when people say "oh but man your paying for the bluray in it, and even then itll be cheaper than a normal bluray player" i dont want a bluray player, i dont, lots of people will, but i cant see the parent of little johnny saying " yes ill buy you one son, since it has bluray capabilities, and you have explained that it is cheaper than a standalone"

in my point of view ive got two choices

Sell my 360 on release and buy the PS3 fro MGS4 and the Blur Ray

or dont buy the PS3 instead opting to get a HDDVD player for my 360 and the new Wii

Ill give you a Wii clue as to which option im goin for (clue already stated )

Wii think alike

Clever

So Sony arent releasing a games console they are releasing a "Blu-ray player"
MS has added lots of Media functions to the 360 but tbh I havent touvhed Windows Connect stuff. Its the games and online and in my opinion that is what the consoles should be judged on.

Yes but media functionality will attract people who arent gamers. In the end, it doesnt matter which console is better.

Xbox killed the PS2 in comparision of features..which was more successful? Now PS3 has more features than the 360? I think the success of Sony will continue. More information on the console pack will be released as the Summer goes on..still 600 dollar is alot...But I have an evil idea....

1) Summer 2006- Preorder a Wii.
2) Early Fall 2006- Preorder a PS3
3) November 2006- Wii comes in on time, as they are selling out worldwide in stores.
4) Novemebr 2006- Buy Twlight Princess and SMG.
5) December 2006- Finish games, and sell Wii and TP and SMG for a good 500 dollars on ebay.
5) Christmas 2006- A personal present to me- A PS3.
6) May 2007- Re unite with my Wii.
7) May 2007- Halo 3 baby. At this point everything above wont really matter.

Originally Posted by Steve Xbox killed the PS2 in comparision of features..which was more successful?

which was out longer?

still 600 litre is alot

its pronouced "D-O-L-L-A-R-S" put those drugs away steve

PM, shut up. Look at the stats for the Xbox and then the PS2. PS2 almost tripled in sales. Think an extra year made the difference?

Sorry for doubling posting, but you guys are into the gaming industry. You know how it works, so it seems to you like the 360 will match up with the PS3 in sales, but I was once an average gamer. Meaning Id buy a game just by the title, before looking it up...like Pokemon Snap or Jurassic Park: The Lost World. Now these people- average retarted "dont-no-how-to-use-the-inet" gamers, will go with the PS3 even if it is more expensive simply by the name and the number of games Sony had to offer last gen comapred to what the Xbox had to offer.

And how many 5-10 year olds are seen playing GTA 4, Halo 3, and Oblivion..none.

Originally Posted by Steve PM, shut up. Look at the stats for the Xbox and then the PS2. PS2 almost tripled in sales. Think an extra year made the difference?

why are you so mean to me
im not denieing the ps2 was more popular and i do think the extra time made a difference, but this time round i think the ps3 wont do as well

oh and YOU shut up steve

£425 is steep but I paid around that or more for other consoles on release....Sega Saturn I think cost me the most..around £500ish.

Originally Posted by Steve And how many 5-10 year olds are seen playing GTA 4, Halo 3, and Oblivion..none.

your right none, i see em playing with their Wii's

Steve, the early launch did have a hell of a lot to do with the PS2's success. The PS2 was released early, so within a year loads of people had picked them up, which then led to more sales and a bigger lead being built up by a combination price drops and peer recommendations.

The year of selling at a high price had given Sony a lot of money, and as a result a price drop was affordable. This took many people away from the Xbox simply because the PS2 was going to be much cheaper. The fact that loads of people had played their mates' PS2s meant that they were more likely to get one as well.

There are quite a lot of people who have now played Xbox 360s, and will want one instead of the PS3 they may have originally been planning. It's all part of the mega advantage which can be gained by an early launch.

Originally Posted by phatmuther Wii think alike

ahhh...touche my good man

NO PHATMUTHER YOU SHUT UP! And Im mean to you because your a worthless peice of life created from too much of Xbox fanboyism surrounded by a comma a Halo 3 hype. RAWR! That made no sense! Btw, dont take my anger seriously at all , most of the times Im just pretending to be angry.

And AJ, the advantage of the PS2 still should not have winded up to 3x the sales of the Xbox. This is because Sony just rocks at the console industry, and it would take the Next Next generation to deny them of that...

And speaking of early debuts...the Dreamcast debut earlier than the PS2...where is it now? I doubt the Xbox 360 will fall apart like Sega did and then become Sony's ***** (I Really hope that doesnt happen) but saying it will take over the console industry is absurd.

Originally Posted by Steve . And AJ, the advantage of the PS2 still should not have winded up to 3x the sales of the Xbox. This is because Sony just rocks at the console industry, and it would take the Next Next generation to deny them of that...

3 Words Grand Theft Auto 3.

The Dreamcast debuted early and failed because SEGA were in a financial mess at the time, and couldn't support the Dreamcast.

Originally Posted by Steve NO PHATMUTHER YOU SHUT UP! And Im mean to you because your a worthless peice of life created from too much of Xbox fanboyism surrounded by a comma a Halo 3 hype. RAWR! That made no sense! Btw, dont take my anger seriously at all , most of the times Im just pretending to be angry.

alright steve, calm down

Oh my god. I seriously need to regulate this.

First of all. My god. I'm flabbergasted. First of all. There -are- hardcore Sony fans, and the first shipment will instantly be picked up. The first shipment will burn through the pre-orders, no matter what. It will sell out. And it would sell out if it came packed in rotting baby corpses. So we need to think about the later adopters. It wasn't the first 2 million that made the PS2, it was the other 98 million. So let's use that framework, ok?

We cannot keep comparing the Blu-Ray to the PS2's DVD. Just stop, alright? The truth is people won't be buying this as a blu-ray player, not in the droves that did the PS2. Guys, look at when DVD first came out, then look at when the PS2 came out. More than a full year later- more than two years later, when there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of DVDs available. Not a mere months with only a dozen titles on the shelves.

Moreover, the upgrade to DVD from VHS was a giant leap, way beyond the just noticeable difference threshold. However, the upgrade from DVD to Blu-Ray is far more subtle, even if you have an HDMI HD TV. Sure, -we- would all say it looks better, because we've been told it does, we know why it does, and as gamers, we're far more tuned to pick up resolution differences. But would the average Wal-Mart shopper? I don't know. VHS didn't have scenes and chapters, different audio tracks, different angles. It wasn't just the picture that made DVD appealing, it was that it now made movie watching like playing a CD. This is important, because the move to CDs from audio cassettes had already been absorbed by the mainstream audience. And they liked not having to sit there as a magnetic strip got fast forwarded or rewound. But aside from the picture quality, there aren't these big differences between DVD and Blu-Ray. It's still a disc, it's still got chapters, etc. I don't know of anyone who is ready to replace their DVD collection after only five or six years for the marginal upgrade of Blu-Ray.

But before I'm completely finished with Blu-Ray, let me say this. Only the $600 dollar version is a true Blu-Ray player. The $500 lacks the HDMI, and presumably lacks the HDCP, and will therefore only play the Blu-Ray discs that are printed in the first 2 years someone owns this. Now, let's assume that they are informed enough about HDMI and HDCP to know this, or that they have an honest, informed salesperson at Best Buy or Wal-Mart or.. English-Mart, whatever it is. So, for comparing this to a Blu-Ray player, we can only use the upper tier model.

So what does the PS3's upper tier offer that makes it's price tag so much worth it? A wireless adapter. Media card readers. A sixty gig drive. Will the media card reader matter to a late adopter? I can't see why. Useless tech Sony forces on you if you want a Blu-Ray player. Will a 60 gig drive matter to a late adopter? Well, only if Sony comes out with downloadable movies and games. But, of course, they won't be high-def movies, because those take up a whole Blu-Ray disc, don't they? Well that's nice. The wireless adapter is probably the most useful of these functions, but I have to think that -most- of the 100 million PS2 owners Sony is trying to retain have wired LANs. Media functionality will attract people towards buying a wireless adapter, Media card slots for cards they don't use or own, Gigabit they don't even understand? Not likely.

So let's assume that most of the late adopters aren't that interested in the $600 model, and just want their new gaming 'Station. The problem is, even if you won't be able to play Blu-Ray movies after a couple of years, you're still forced to pay for the drive. And the trend of forcing useless tech on the consumer, without the ability to opt-out, still continues at this level. How many of your home LANs can handle the full bandwidth of Gigabit ethernet? Almost none of you? Well, thankfully, Sony bothered to put it in! Sony's whole mentality seems to be: 'Oh my god, we've dropped the ball. And while we're playing catch up, let's do one-better. Even if the competition almost definitely had sound business reasons for not including, say, Gigabit ethernet, let's do it just to say we did. It's gonna cost more? Screw the price. People will pay what we tell them to pay. Because the next-gen starts when we tell them it starts.'

But not only can you not opt-out of marginally useful tech, you can't opt-in, either! Microsoft's core bundle can be upgraded to the premium at a later date by the consumer, with the exception of a little chrome. This isn't true for the PS3.

Microsoft also offers their own wireless b/g adapter, and has a small list of third-party adapters it's willing to support. Microsoft also has an add-on media player, in case you're looking for more than games.

The truth is, Microsoft's Xbox 360 does offer almost all of the functionality of the PS3. (With the exception of built in card readers and Gigabit ethernet. And a larger hard drive, but this is something Microsoft almost definitely can offer later.) But it doesn't force you to take it and pay for it. You can opt in or out at your discretion.

All the crap Sony offers does justify the price. What can't be justified is making the average consumer get all of it. Not buying the console doesn't mean a consumer shouldn't complain. I would argue they should, because they've been prohibited from enjoying their MGS4 by an out-of-touch Sony.

So, can you really think that so many people will buy the PS3 just because they owned a PS2, in light of allllll the **** Sony forces them to pay for? I don't see how that's possible. Remember, Sega's Genesis took number one from Nintendo for a while, and the PlayStation took number one from both of them. Brand loyalty is not so blind.

Oh. I forgot about Cell. You're paying for the feature of Cell. Huh. Well, I gotta say, nothing at E3 looked that great. Clearly the Cell's abilities aren't being squeezed. But neither are the 360's. And this means that when the PS3 launches, the 360 will be on its second or third wave of games, and will probably look -better- than the PS3's mediocre launch games. And since Microsoft is so good at helping developers use system resources, I honestly think this will continue.

GTA3 was -huge- for the PS2, and I'm sure a number of people would've gone for the PS3 just for this franchise. Microsoft has handled that. And yes, a great many of 5-10 year olds played both GTA and Halo. Even if they didn't, the 5-10 year olds have always been Nintendo's bag anyway.

Steve, I'm not sure I know what your argument is.

Originally Posted by Steve media functionality will attract people who arent gamers. In the end, it doesnt matter which console is better. Xbox killed the PS2 in comparision of features..which was more successful? Now PS3 has more features than the 360? I think the success of Sony will continue.

So, what is it that helped Sony? The DVD playback? The lack of features? Or was it that first year? I don't get it.

The PS3 might win this one. Might. But even if it does, don't expect them to triple anyone's sales. Sony's going to lose huuuuuge market share.

Originally Posted by steve This is because Sony just rocks at the console industry, and it would take the Next Next generation to deny them of that...

Oh my god! Who's the blind fanboy now? Sony rocks at nothing other than baseless hype. Emotion Engine! Repeat it with me! Emotion. Engine.

Dreamcast? You think the 360 is anywhere near the same position as Dreamcast? I'm going to answer this as briefly as I can. The Dreamcast had Peter Moore. Xbox has Peter Moore. Do you think anyone is in as good position to see why the Dreamcast failed as Moore? Do you think there's any possible way Moore isn't the best person on the planet to avoid doing exactly that?