What is Digg?134 Comments
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41I think by making blu-ray optional, Sony could have avoided having to deal with some of the sticker shock they're getting now. 360 is in a much better position, being $200 cheaper.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Sony didn't make a game console, they made a Blu-Ray advertisement.
- CapAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37One thing I think alot of people still forget when it comes to Blu-Ray movies is the fact that the industry is divided, Half of them are backing HD-DVD and the other half is backing Blu-Ray. DVD did not have this problem.
Everyone who keeps saying that the PS3 is worth the extra money cause it has a built in Blu-Ray player needs to take a step back look at what their favorite movies are and which format they will show up on.
Once I did that I realized that nearly 80% of my DVD collection would only show up on HD-DVD, Sony really doesn't have a whole lot in the good exclusive area. At least not in my collection. You also have to keep in mind that companies like Disney have said that they will be supporting both formats.
If your like me and can't wait to get your hands on HD movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Army of Darkness, Matrix, Batman, Superman, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future or TV series like Star Trek and Red Dwarf your out of luck if you think you'll be able to watch them on your PS3. Anything made by Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. will only be showing up on HD-DVD.
This is why I see HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both failing, you need to own both formats to watch all your favorite movies.
Sony putting a Blu-Ray player in the PS3 was a very bad move. They should have stuck with DVD made the system cheaper, then later down the road add a Blu-Ray add-on like what MS did with HD-DVD. And not only that but offer a HD-DVD add-on or a Combo HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive.
Sony being so obsessed with their formats will be the end of them. Think about it BetaMax, MiniDisc, Memory Sticks and now UMDs. The 3 1/4" Floppy was Sony's Only successful format, that I'm aware of.
Sorry for going off a bit, I just get sick of people trying to justify the Blu-Ray player and not thinking it all the way through. - jjk5, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33Just an aside:
Doesn't the point of abbreviating fly out the window when you have to define it in parentheses immediately after? - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24coheedcollapse, why is blu-ray useful gaming ? it's not, it's simply overkill.
oblivion, which is a huge game uses half of the max capacity of dvd's available for the dvd drive in the x360, and what games has sony shown that are anywhere near the size of oblivion, let alone demanding 50gb or so of storage space ?
as said, it's just overkill caused by sony's obsession with creating new formats when there are others which are perfectly fine, and better.
.. maybe in like 6 years blu-ray will be useful, but i probably not even then, consoles will have huge hard drives by then and i'm sure downloadable games (as in, not demos, but bought ones) will be just hitting off (for consoles anyway, we can already do it on pc's with steam, direct2drive and so on).
rybrye, sony's memory sticks are horrible and aren't popular, at all, sd and others is where it's at. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23RyeBrye, just because YOU use the memory stick format doesn't mean it is successful.
- modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I think the key points he hit on in that whole article were in the last couple of paragraphs. The capacity of DVD9 hasn't even been maxed entirely. The arguement that you need more capacity for the games is total garbage. Compression technology is getting better all the time, so to have high resolution textures in a game shouldn't be drastically ballooning the size of games. With the processors in these systems they by rights shouldn't need tonnes of prerendered graphics with how good the rendering engines are supposed to be.
Other then Sony being greedy and wanting to leverage new proprietary formats on people, there really is no need to include the unproven Blu-Ray technology. - SimonX314, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Agreed estvir. Bluray capacites are not required for gaming, few games if any come close to filling the capacity of DVDs. And the PS3's bluray drive loads half the speed a 12X dvd drive loads, like in the 360 and Wii.
- VertigoOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Personally, I buy a video game console to play games on. Games. Not movies. If it plays DVD's because the drive needs to be in there and it's a matter of 'why not?' then cool. But forcing all gamers to pony up extra for a feature that not everyone wants is just, using the market.
I guess if it works, it works.. but I certainly don't consider blu-ray 'added value'. I see it as 'added cost', and it's not to my benefit, it's to the company's. I'm not going to pay a premium to be used. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Sony put way too much emphasis on Blu-ray to make it optional. If they had, however, they might actually be able to compete with the 360. $600+ is WAY too much to spend on a console.
They pretty much shot themselves in the foot. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Philodox: Did you just make that up? Cause your figures are complete BS and without source.
Assuming Sony does do 2x then 12x DVD is 2 times faster. If they stick with 1x it will be 3 times faster just like I said.
2x Blu-ray is 8MBps and 12x DVD is 16.5MBps (note: Mega BYTE, not bit is listed here)
Here is my source:
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek
What is your source? - Bob82, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@superkendall
Gregg works for ... wait for it, wait for it ... Sony. He technically works for Naughty Dog but they're a first party Sony developer who was purchased back in 2001. I'm sure he has very objective views on the issue; he couldn't possibly want to justify his parent company's actions or put down a competitor's decisions.
Feel free to check his info page if you would like to confirm where he works: http://www.greggman.com/pages/personal.htm
As far as what Itagaki said, that sure didn't stop DOA4 from being a beautiful game and it also hasn't stopped Tecmo from committing at least 2 more titles to the Xbox 360. The main issue he brought up was pre-rendered cutscenes, not a single thing about game content. If Bungie can tell a compelling story with in-game cutscenes, Japanese developers can do the same - they just need to make the effort. If the Xbox 360 brings an end to 4 hours of pre-rendered video in Japanese games, I applaud it loudly. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20I agree with BloodJunkie. Having a low end model that just plays games on DVD format would have 2 benifits.
1) those that dont care about YAOPMFBS (yet another over priced media format by sony) could just get the gaming system at the same price as a 360
2) game developers wouldn't be FORCED to use Blu-ray discs for games which happen to be 2x-3x slower than 12x DVD. Thus we would have much quicker load times. - cebbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I am just concerned about blue ray's DRM policy. Both hd dvd and blue ray can require HDCP-compliant monitors to display video at full quaility (which is bad enough). However, blue-ray takes it even further by being able to disable compromised dvd players, and changing encryption schemes...
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Honestly, when the HD players (by this I mean HD DVD and BluRay) come down in price, I'd rather buy a $150 or $100 player and use it to play my movies (a mechanically-intense process for players, since games can be partially transferred to the hard drive in a console, while movies are not) and see something much less expensive than my $600 PS3 die because of that. Anyone who has used their PS2 or XBox to watch DVD movies can attest that those drives, only very slightly different than common PC DVD-ROM drives (in their somewhat more proprietary nature) don't last long under such strenuous use. Several of my friends had to replace drives in their consoles because of this effect. Meanwhile, my happy little DVD player is still kicking, as is my XBox.
- fani, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Its all about perception. Sony did make a mistake by bundling expensive options right at the start instead of slowly trickling it out like MS is doing. MS is employing a more convincing strategy though in the end a fully loaded X360 costs more than the PS3 but is not apparent.
Also, customers feel they have more choice with X360 by not choosing the options they don't want.
Consider this -
X360 pro - $399
Xbox live adapter - $99
Xbox live 12 months - $69
Xbox360 HD-DVD add on - $150 (estimated)
Xbox 60GB HDD option (if they offer this later ) - $50
----------------------------
Net cost = $770 ( approx )
PS3 Pro ( BluRay , Bundled Free Online , Bundled Free wifi adapter , 60GB HDD) - $599
----------------------------
Net cost = $600 ( approx )
Now you see ? Its very clear that the bundled PS3 is cheaper than the fully loaded X360.
However, its not apparent as you can first buy the lower priced X360 and then add options per your convenience and if you want to. Its all about giving the consumer choice but making him pay more for those options if he does choose.
I think the PS3 should've had the BlueRay, HDD etc. optional for lower costs to match the X360. Let us add what we want later on.
Also, the whole 2 models concept with the next-gen is flawed and stupid. Make a single model, but with upgradeable options. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Yep, content. Graphics, textures, models, sound, etc.
Wonderful.
Now where's the gameplay?"
I really wish morons would stop acting like a system being more capable somehow means the games won't have gameplay. You realize the lack of gameplay is the fault of developers and not the console makers right? Having more storage space than is given to most PC games actually opens up the possibility for devs to add more gameplay elements. Plus the extra 'content' helps the immersive factor of the game, which to me is also important. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7xenoandroid:
Actually at Sony's GDC keynote (I was at it) they said that all games will be required to be Blu-ray because of the copy protection. You can prolly download the video on youtube, but I'm too lazy to find it. - htr701, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think Sony is running too much into computer territory with two things, the cost and the blue-ray. Is it really that amazing that it is a must option and adds about 200 dollars to the overall price? I think they should of at least tried to compete with the 360 and make it the same price with or without blue-ray. IMO Sony tried to be king Kong and knock out all competition, but I can't help but to think that they just knocked themselves out!
- treachen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You have a very valid point. The price is high, but considering all the high priced useless things I've purchased over the years, it doesn't seem to bad. E.G. $800 for a couch, what was I thinking. Anyway I'm still not gonna rack up my credit card with this one, back to nintendo for me.
- JangoFett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Thank goodness the base PS3 is $500 then, for a console that can play games at 1080p, and movies at 1080i."
Too bad the $500 PS3 doesn't come with HDMI outputs which are needed for 1080p. - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7gincarnated, where are you getting your info, because I'm seeing stuff like this:
"And an impressive list of entertainment content companies has thrown their weight behind HD-DVD, including Paramount, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. (along with Time Warner-owned New Line Cinema). All of these studios have already announced a significant amount of titles on HD-DVD to be available at the time HD-DVD players are introduced." (http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/129058.html)
Also I've read that Disney initially joined the Blu-ray side but has since waffled and implied that it is going to stay neutral and support both. On the format side of it, the consumers are the ones who are going to get screwed for right now, but no one can argue that Sony is completely screwed if Blu-ray loses whereas MS, by maintaining the HDDVD as optional equipment, will not have much damage done if HD-DVD loses.
No Digg on this article because while the writer points out that Sony is losing a similar percentage on each unit as MS, he's clearly not smart enough to point out that they're losing nearly twice as much money per unit (~$300 vs. ~$125). Relying only on the percentages is a cheap accounting trick used to make investors think things are rosier than they really are and it belies a pro-Sony bias on the part of the article's writer.
Also its a questionable comment about E3 "reports" of Sony's graphical superiority. First, Sony showed little to no in-game graphics and instead tried to pass off pre-rendered movies as in game by compositing HUD displays over them. Second, while most analysts believe the Cell proc might be slightly more powerful, it takes years of development on a console to take full advantage of the proc's capabilities neither Sony nor MS are running at capacity so its impossible to really make a call at this point. Third, if Sony's in game shots are so good, how come there are almost no gameplay movies for ANY of their games? MS went out of their way to show that the Halo teaser was done real-time, Sony did...what?
I recall Sony hyping the PS2 as amazing, and showing off phenomenal graphics, and then it came out and didn't even have anti-aliasing and nothing except pre-rendered movies resembled what they had advertised. - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Like you guys have said so far, Blu-Ray just isn't needed right now. There's nothing that even comes close to needing that much space.
There are a few games that would benefit from the format... The singing one they showed, with the HD Music vids. That's one. The other use is more making of, concept etc, could be put on to the disc rather than having a seperate one... But that's all I can really think of. Maybe bigger sound tracks?
PC Games have been getting bigger and bigger as time goes on, as have other consoles, (Using PCs as an example because untill now, they're had the higher resolution textures, etc) but we're not close to the need for multiple DVDs yet, and I'd have prefered that to adopting another format so swiftly.
The sad thing is, I can see Blu-Ray winning if the PS3 sells high. Why? Each of those PS3 sales is a possible sale for any Blu-Ray movie released, which is then an insentive for movie publishers to put their movies out on that format.. Ah well. It's all a case of waiting.
On the original topic... To push their format? Brilliant idea. For gamers? No, it drives the cost up and that sucks.
Another little point, how much do Blu-Ray discs cost to produce? Would that increase the price of PS3 games? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14No, Blu-ray should not have been optional. Sorry I don't agree that the PS3 is "too expensive"... If a 60GB iPod (MSRP) is $399, then $599 for a PS3 is certainly not too much. Personally, I want a game console and a media center in one box, the PS3 was designed to do this. I don't have the room under my TV for a game console and a DVD player. Convergence is good.
If you can't afford it, don't buy it... simple. Leave some for the the other 6 million people who can.
[ can't wait to see how quickly this post is buried - i give it about 3 minutes ] - Intrepion, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Does having a Blu-Ray drive make the games any better? Nope. Then why would any gamers be interested?
This isn't early adoption, this is forced adoption. - gk128, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Sony has yet to show WHY the Blu-Ray and Cell processor is needed to be truly "Next-Gen". Sure there will be games we all want to play, and a lot of us will buy it just because we are that hardcore of a gamer or a Sony fanboy.
The fact is that Sony has never said WHY the PS3 is worth the $600 and WHY we need Blu-Ray. - Minosha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with you on the above, but also would like to add one point. Consumer confusion. having 2 ( or 3 if you count regular DVDs ) is going to cause a lot of confusion among buyers and headaches for store personnel. I'm glad I don't work retail.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5From Wikipedia
"This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future product(s).
It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available." - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16furtwan1: A 1x Blu-Ray drive is only slightly slower than a 16x DVD drive. The PS3 is being shipped with a 2x Blu-Ray drive so it stands to reason the drive will be significantly faster.
The disc capacity issue is much bigger for the PS3 than it is for the 360. From my experience, Japanese games like to use pre-rendered cut scenes a lot more than North American developers, who tend to use in game cut scenes. I have a whole bunch of PS2 games that require more than one disc because of this. If the trend continues, and these cut scenes are being put out at high definition resolutions then I can easily see a PS3 game requiring the extra capacity offered by Blu-Ray. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12I agree with coheedcollapse (so I guess you can start burying me now...)
Look at what happened with the HDD on the PS2. It was optional, and it never took off. That hampered developers from being able to develop better games because they couldn't assume that everyone had a hard disk.
I don't know if Blu-Ray will be a boon or a bust, but at least every developer knows they have it available. They can make huge games with tons of assets, and know it will all fit on one Blu-Ray disk instead of having to release a Blu-Ray version and a 3 DVD version, etc.
If you want to debate an "All or Nothing" decision, that's one thing, but when you make it optional, it's just a mess... - snownskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have kept very quiet in all of these arguments regarding the console war....but the time has come to give my opinion. Yes Sony's blu-ray is a gamble, yes it's a force upon their own proprietary formats, yes it's expensive as hell for a gaming system.
That being said there is one saving grace to this PS3 madness, Linux. Once this thing has been tapped the possibilities are going to be endless and I see no problems running games on different types of media thereafter....and believe me it won't take long with the current Linux community. If I were going to spend $450 (thinking 360+ridiculous add on drive) for a gaming console I would happily shell out the extra $150 for the PS3, basically an HD gaming computer which couldn't be built for cheaper (or sexier/slimmer) today.
Of course I can't fathom spending that much on a gaming console with today's games that bore me, if anyone is getting my money it's Nintendo. - Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Perhaps someone will enlighten me, but I was under the impression that Sony can fab the Cell processors and Blu-Ray drives themselves. Being that they are part of the "consortium" developing the Cell and Blu-Ray standard, I've read that they have license to make both parts themselves, rather than relying on other manufacturers.
So that makes the common conception that the Blu-Ray drives and Cell are the components that make the PS3 so expensive, a little confusing. Anyone know whether this is true or not? - gk128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5True a fully loaded 360 is more expensive, but that is only if you buy all the extras.
The $99 WiFi adapter is a joke. You can however use any $20 USB WiFi adapter for the same effect.
XBOX Live is only $49.99 a year. The premium 360 comes with the headset needed to talk over Live. So you don't have to buy the more expensive kit. There is also talk of Live going free, but I hope they keep a pay aspect. It's nice not seeing tons of ads to support my online gaming.
The HD-DVD and a lager HD will cost more, but they will not be required. Those who want these extra features can pay for them if they desire. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Philodox:
I dont "require" sources for every post someone makes, but you tried to call me out on it so I expected a source. If I parsed your latest post right it sounds like you agree with me now that blu-ray 2x is 2x slower than DVD 12x. - Bob82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The point is, with the Xbox 360, I have the CHOICE of deciding what I want and need.
I don't need a WiFi adapter, I have Cat5 in my walls.
I don't want an HD-DVD (or Blu-ray, for that matter) player; I have no interest in "HD Movies".
I don't need 40GB more space, I know how to use the delete function for files I'm done using.
By Sony making the above choices on my behalf, their machine costs more for features I won't use. Before you even try to go on about the $500 version of the PS3, it still includes a Blu-ray drive that I do not want or need. - kemche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Having more storage space than is given to most PC games actually opens up the possibility for devs to add more game play elements. Plus the extra 'content' helps the immersive factor of the game, which to me is also important."
Actually it makes developers more lazy. They will not optimize the contents for size. If you think more space of blueray is good then do you know how much time it's going to take for blueray to copy all of it's data to memory? you will be waiting long long time to play your game while the contents are being copied. It would be good if the contents were compressed and unloaded in the memory and then have the processor decompress. This would be much faster then having uncompressed data on disk. - Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yep, content. Graphics, textures, models, sound, etc.
Wonderful.
Now where's the gameplay? - gk128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And qk128 or gk128 (can't tell if it's a q or a g from the line under your name): from what my local game store manager/friend has told me, the only Wi-Fi adapter that will work for 360 is the one Microsoft sells for the system. I can't go out and buy a D-link or Linksys USB adapter and use it."
Your local game store is just trying to sell them. You can use most USB WiFi adapters. I don't use one personally, but I know people who do. The only advantage the official one has is how it looks natural with the system. - kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Most things sony do lately is a bad decision.
What happened after the PS1?
To be honest i cant wait to see how it pans out but the PS3 has gone way down in most peoples estimation, i know i dont want one more than i want a 360. - FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is a huge difference between the PS2 DVD and PS3 Blu-ray.
When the PS2 was launched, 100% of households with televisions could take advatage of better dvd quality.
But right now the majority of people do not have televisions capable of exploiting the advantages of HD. - cebbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wonder if Sony vists sites like this and sees what the public opinion about blue-ray and the PS3 is. I think if Sony and Microsoft read the comments on some of these sites, they might end up with better products.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"game developers wouldn't be FORCED to use Blu-ray discs for games which happen to be 2x-3x slower than 12x DVD. Thus we would have much quicker load times."
You do realize that game developers can still use one of the many other media supported by the PS3. Just like how the PS2 supported PS2 games on CD (blue discs) or DVD (silver), the PS3 will also support the ability to have PS3 games on DVD and I bet even CD. - prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Did games require the space that a DVD offered when the PS2 was released?"
Yes... there were a LOT of multi-disc games on the PS1. FFVIII was *4* CDs. Are there any 4 DVD games out there for the PS2? - PJLess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3After reading all these comments I have to add a question of my own. Let’s just assume this is a great idea for a moment. Sony is getting blue-ray out there. They will make tons of money on the format. Everyone in the world likes blue-ray movies. Ok follow me here, what makes Panasonic, Sharp, Toshiba, LG, or any other manufacture want to make a blue-ray player. Sony is under pricing the player to get it on the market. Now they can make money off the games, controllers, movies, and system (since the technology is licensed from them). How will other companies make money off their players? They can’t even make a player that will play both HD and Blue-Ray because of their Sony license agreement. So I guess my question is, why would I support Blue-ray if I was another manufacture? What am I getting out of it. I know the price should be lower by Christmas but if the players come out in July do you really think they would drop the price over $400 in 4 months for the Christmas buying season?
- grat2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most companies use the PR dept. or some company to look around the Internet to get a general since of public opinion. The point is do they care???
All my electronics are Sony, and I was looking forward to the PS3 till the $750 bomb dropped (system+ tax+ controller+ game). With 2 kids the 360 is the best option for my money. I just wish that ugly power brick would go away! - trocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i've been saying since it was announced that this decision was going to be sony's downfall in this generation. this shows their basic misunderstanding of the gaming market. the vast majority of the people that bought and played the PS2 and make up the huge PS fanboy demographic are middle class. they scrimp every penny they can today to play the latest games on there relatively cheap console, that most of their parents helped buy. . these are the same gamers (and parents) that can't afford to blow $600+ on a game colsole even before they've bought a game... and why sony is basically committing platform suicide with this ridiculous approach to the PS3. They will lose their leadership position... and MS and Nintendo will reap the huge benefits. this will go down in history and one of the biggest and most costly business blunders.
- gk128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What? The 360 still lack any web browsing, but in reality it doesn't at all need it.
The PS3 does have a built in browser as does the Wii.
This will probably force MS to add one in the Fall Dashboard update, but as of right now where you can get through XBL is all you can assess online on the 360. - KJSatz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting article I suppose. One problem is with his phrase "The company wedded ('til death do they part) the PlayStation 3 to Blu-ray." Now, this is obviously a reference to some wedding ceremonies, where the phrase "'til death do us part" is often uttered at some point. However, "they" is a nominative, rather than objective, pronoun. Thus, the phrase actually means "they are parted until death, at which point they will no longer be parted." Clearly, he meant to say "'til death do them part," but decided it sounded "wrong" for some reason. In a similar fashion, some use "I" when it should be me, such as "Stop following Michael and I," when it should be "Stop following Michael and me."
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i find it all great.. this is the final blow to sony.. when Blue-ray fails due to all the overpricing.. and worst of all drives that detect pirated software then selfdestruct(like hell im hookin one of those up to my $4,500pc)
- Nineset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sony has to bank on Blu-Ray because it's their own format and they get royalties for people using it. It has been shown in other articles that Sony really needs the PS3 to push some of their formats into the market. The PS3 is being looked at as the savior of Sony as their profits have become very narrow. The PS3 is introducing some major technology for Sony that will help many of their major business interests from electronics, home movies, music, and games. It has pretty much been said that over the next year Sony will take a major hit financially due to the PS3, but that they hope that Blu-Ray will catch on and that Cell will take off might save them in the future.
Overall, only a couple of things bother me about any of it. It feels sleazy that Sony is pushing Blu-Ray onto the PS3 owners/future owners for the survival of other parts of their company. Granted the extra room on a Blu-Ray disc will allow companies to add in more HD cut scenes, Textures, and content, but it comes with a lot of extra cost to the game company and to the consumer to support this new format. And basically that is the second gripe I think everyone has is the cost. So far I've owned almost all the major consoles to date and bought most of them when they first came out starting with Atari 2600, but every system I have own has sucked money out of my pocket like a hoover. Games and accessories, face plates, and game genies it all adds to the overall expense. I nearly had a heart attack when I was walking home with my Xbox360 and a receipt for around 650 for games and an extra controller/play and charge and even for that much I would not be walking home with a PS3 and a game, that's scary to me. I don't think I could actually justify any game to be worth it for me to spend that much on a console to play it on not right now at least. And it seems a majority of people seem to feel the same, which makes this seem like an even bigger risk for Sony.
So Mark, you're right. It is risky for Sony to put so much on Blu-Ray, but they have to. Will it be successful? I guess we will see. -
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is