Sony Cuts Price of PlayStation 3 to $410

[sirgod]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4206127.html


Sony will cut the price of its basic PlayStation 3 model in Japan to 47,600 yen ($410), from an originally planned 59,800 yen ($515). That puts the PlayStation 3 in the same range as the combined basic Xbox 360 and HD DVD player in Japan, where the duo will sell for 49,600 yen ($427).


The price cut affects the basic PlayStation 3 model, which comes with a 20 gigabyte hard drive. Another upscale version of the PlayStation 3 will have a 60 gigabyte hard drive, but Sony is leaving its pricing to retailers.

It's abit better, and It goes along ways for me personaly justifying the cost when the new FF comes out.

stephen

[Tadhg]

Only in Japan.

[sirgod]

Only in Japan.
Oh crap, I missed that. Erm... Nevermind everyone. Nothing to see here, Move along. :D

Stephen

[hoffmandu]

But if I showed up with Yen, will I still get the discount? We can work this angle people, I know it.

[Jmacq1]

Only in Japan.

Seems unlikely they wouldn't do the same thing here. They may just not have announced it yet.

But who knows?

[Uatu]

Seems unlikely they wouldn't do the same thing here. They may just not have announced it yet.

But who knows?

I doubt it'll happen here. It was probably only done in Japan because big bulky exspensive consoles have a history of failing to the point that they can't be given away. Just look at the original Xbox, and how the 360 is quickly following suit.

[Tadhg]

Seems unlikely they wouldn't do the same thing here. They may just not have announced it yet.

But who knows?

From the ArsTechnica article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060922-7805.html)


Sony did not announce any price cuts for North America. Based on the company's moves in Japan, we wonder if a similar 20% price reduction could be planned for the US market. This would bring the low-end to $399, right on par with the Xbox 360 premium system. Sony spokeswoman Nanako Kato has said that there are no price cuts planned for North America. In addition, the pricing of the high-end 60GB PS3 is unchanged.

[Black Atom]

Pfft. Can you say "import"?

[Jared H.]

Remember, the price quoted originally was "599 US Dollars."

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stuck with that for the US release.

[Tadhg]

Pfft. Can you say "import"?

I can. I can also say "Would make no sense."

[Xero Kaiser]

Ohh...a price cut in a country that'll have almost no PS3s anyway.

Good move Sony.

[CDB]

Only in Japan.



......That's f**ked up!!!:mad: :mad:

[sirgod]

To Hijack my own thread, HAs anyone seen this months Game Informer? One of the feature articles deals with Inflation. I'll try and type out the little chart they have.

Console Cost inflated cost
Odyssy (1973) $100.00 $487.00
Atari VCS (1977) $200.00 $672.00
Intellivision (1979) $299.00 $838.00
NES (w/ rob(1985)) $249.00 $472.00
NES (1985) $ 199.00 $376.00
Sega Master system (1986) $199.00 $369.00
Sega Genesis (1989) $200.00 $328.00
Neo Geo (1990) $650.00 $1,012.00
SNES (1991) $199.00 $297.00
3DO (1993) $700.00 $986.00
Sega Saturn (1995) $399.00 $533.00
Playstation (1995) $299.00 $399.00
N64 (1996) $199.00 $258.00
DreamCast (1999) $200.00 $244.00
PS2 (2000) $ 299.00 $353.00
GameCube (2001) $ 199.00 $228.00
Xbox (2001) $299.00 $343.00
Xbox 360 (2005) $399.00 $416.00
--------------------------

anyway I thought It was kinda interesting, besides I like charts. :D

Stephen

[Wild Card]

I doubt it'll happen here. It was probably only done in Japan because big bulky exspensive consoles have a history of failing to the point that they can't be given away. Just look at the original Xbox, and how the 360 is quickly following suit.
I think the reason X-Box and 360 failed in Japan was becuse Microsoft is an American company and the Japanese tend to be loyal to their own products.

[Black Atom]

I can. I can also say "Would make no sense."

Why's that? It's region free, right? Maybe I'm missing something, but if you can buy it for less money (including having it shipped) somewhere else, why doesn't that make sense?

[Gargus]

I doubt it'll happen here. It was probably only done in Japan because big bulky exspensive consoles have a history of failing to the point that they can't be given away. Just look at the original Xbox, and how the 360 is quickly following suit.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again dont blame consoles, blame the games on them. A console is only as good as the games on it. Hell playstation was a fortune when it came out originally, look at it now.

Im a real gamer so I dont care who makes the console as long as the games on it are good. And honestly, I can count the good xbox games on one hand and the good xbox360 games on the other even if I lost 3 fingers on it from a farming accident.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again dont blame consoles, blame the games on them. A console is only as good as the games on it. Hell playstation was a fortune when it came out originally, look at it now.

Im a real gamer so I dont care who makes the console as long as the games on it are good. And honestly, I can count the good xbox games on one hand and the good xbox360 games on the other even if I lost 3 fingers on it from a farming accident.

Well, that's not true. There may not be as many good Xbox games compared to Playstation, but that's because Playstation has wayyyyy more games.

And besides, there are plenty of good Xbox games and 360 games, you just haven't played them yet. Which led to that false statement.

[Urusai Wrangler]

Why's that? It's region free, right? Maybe I'm missing something, but if you can buy it for less money (including having it shipped) somewhere else, why doesn't that make sense?

The main reason not to import it is because Sony is giving japanese retailers "open pricing" authorization, which means that even though the MSRP may be $410, Japanese retailers can charge however much they think they can get for them.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

"Im a real gamer so I dont care who makes the console as long as the games on it are good. And honestly, I can count the good xbox games on one hand and the good xbox360 games on the other even if I lost 3 fingers on it from a farming accident."

Kameo
Condemned
Fight Night Round 3
DOA4
LOTR: BFMEII
Dead Rising
Saint's Row
Enchanted Arms
Oblivion
Call of Duty 2
Burnout Revenge
The best versions of multi-console games, like Hitman, Tomb Raider, NHL 2007, Lego Star Wars II, etc.
And plenty coming like Lost Planet, Fable 2, Forza 2, Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Smackdown vs. Raw 2007, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, and so on, and so on...

The 360 has a LOT of great current and upcoming games.

[sirgod]

I have to admit, I kinda agree with Gargus, but only on one front, the RPG front.

The original Xbox had very few RPG's, and let's face it, Fable was not the creme dela Creme that it could have been.

That being said, IF the 360 pulls out some great RPG's, I'll be praising it like a rabid Fanboy myself.

As It stands, Unless the PS3 comes down, I doubt I'll get it, as I can think of a few other things that I'd like, Esp. on the pc front for the same price.

If the 360 pulls out some good titles, (Yeah I know Oblivion, but I have the PC version already), then I'd consider it.

The Wii, I'm afraid I'd hurt myself with the controller, I'm a clumsy old man Damnit.

Stephen

[Xero Kaiser]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again dont blame consoles, blame the games on them. A console is only as good as the games on it. Hell playstation was a fortune when it came out originally, look at it now.

$300 =/= a fortune. Besides the Xbox didn't have any problems in the US or Europe


Im a real gamer so I dont care who makes the console as long as the games on it are good. And honestly, I can count the good xbox games on one hand and the good xbox360 games on the other even if I lost 3 fingers on it from a farming accident."

For a "real gamer" you sure haven't been paying attention

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The 360 will deliver RPGs where the original XBOX did not. There's a whole slew of RPGs coming out over the next year or so.

Right now, aside from Oblivion, there's also Enchanted Arms...and it's actually pretty good. Nothing revolutionary, but a very solid game that does the fundamentals well.

[Leslie Lee III]

The best versions of multi-console games, like Hitman, Tomb Raider, NHL 2007, Lego Star Wars II, etc.

I think my PC would like to have a word with you.

[BlairH]

And plenty coming like Lost Planet, Fable 2, Forza 2, Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Smackdown vs. Raw 2007, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, and so on, and so on...

The 360 has a LOT of great current and upcoming games.
And you didn't even mention Gears of War...

[sirgod]

The 360 will deliver RPGs where the original XBOX did not. There's a whole slew of RPGs coming out over the next year or so.

Right now, aside from Oblivion, there's also Enchanted Arms...and it's actually pretty good. Nothing revolutionary, but a very solid game that does the fundamentals well.

I really need to re-consider then. If that's the case, I might just go ahead and pick up an X-box 360 next month.

Stephen

[Astonishing X-Fan]

"I think my PC would like to have a word with you."

I said multi-console. I don't consider the PC a console. PC gaming is a very different beast than console gaming.

Lots of people, including me, don't even factor PCs into the equation. If a game comes out on the Wii, PS3, 360, and PC...I'll get whatever console version is the best...even if the PC version beats them all.

[cactusmaac]

I have to admit, I kinda agree with Gargus, but only on one front, the RPG front.

The original Xbox had very few RPG's, and let's face it, Fable was not the creme dela Creme that it could have been.


I thought there was plenty of good stuff RPG-wise. Fable, KOTOR 1, KOTOR 2, Jade Empire, Farenheit\Indigo Prophecy, Elder Scrolls were all quite enjoyable.

In contrast on the PS2 the only one I enjoyed was FF X.

[Grazzt]

"I think my PC would like to have a word with you."

I said multi-console. I don't consider the PC a console. PC gaming is a very different beast than console gaming.

Lots of people, including me, don't even factor PCs into the equation. If a game comes out on the Wii, PS3, 360, and PC...I'll get whatever console version is the best...even if the PC version beats them all.

Do you just have a really crappy PC? If not, why would you bother getting a console version of a game if the PC version is obviously better?

[sirgod]

I thought there was plenty of good stuff RPG-wise. Fable, KOTOR 1, KOTOR 2, Jade Empire, Farenheit\Indigo Prophecy, Elder Scrolls were all quite enjoyable.

In contrast on the PS2 the only one I enjoyed was FF X.

True, But outside of Farenhiet\Indigo prophesy, I had the others on the PC. Still you are correct on that account.

But I also on the PS2 enjoyed the Xenosaga, Wildarms, Suikoden, etc. It's just a matter of taste for each individual gamer.

Stephen

[Urusai Wrangler]

Do you just have a really crappy PC? If not, why would you bother getting a console version of a game if the PC version is obviously better?

For a great many people, sitting on the couch with a 48" TV > hunching over in an office chair with a 21" monitor.

And yes, for the great majority of people, a console will be technologically superior to their PC.

[Uatu]

I think the reason X-Box and 360 failed in Japan was becuse Microsoft is an American company and the Japanese tend to be loyal to their own products.

Loyalty didn't have much do with the original xboxs' failure. Like I said, size definately played a factor, but more importantly the system lacked the all important RPGs, 2D fighters and simulation/strategy games, which pretty much make or break consoles over there.

[cactusmaac]

True, But outside of Farenhiet\Indigo prophesy, I had the others on the PC. Still you are correct on that account.

But I also on the PS2 enjoyed the Xenosaga, Wildarms, Suikoden, etc. It's just a matter of taste for each individual gamer.

Stephen

Well, if you have a top-end PC there is little point in getting an XBox of any variety.

[Leslie Lee III]

For a great many people, sitting on the couch with a 48" TV > hunching over in an office chair with a 21" monitor.

I like how the average consumers television changes whenever we're talking about different game systems. Talk PC and it's always huge, take next gen, and it's always small and incapable of showing a difference between PS3 and a N64.

[Grazzt]

For a great many people, sitting on the couch with a 48" TV > hunching over in an office chair with a 21" monitor.

And yes, for the great majority of people, a console will be technologically superior to their PC.

I'm not arguing either of those points, and I can understand buying the console version over the PC version if all other factors are equal. Except maybe first person shooters, but thats because I prefer a mouse to a controller for those sorts of games, and I know I might be alone in that.

But Astonishing X-Fan was saying he'd buy the console version even if the PC version was obviously superior. How do you justify that? I'm willing to hunch over a little monitor if I get extended modding capabilities, more content, extra features, or whatever advantages a PC version has over a console version. Assuming your computer is up to snuff for the game, I think all of those things would be worth it, and it seems irrational to me to sacrifice them just to play a version that your able to clearly admit as being inferior.

[Leslie Lee III]

I face the choice regularly. As long as the PC version has decent controls I'll use it. Hell, with Hitman 3 I got the far superior PC version in spite of not liking the controls. It just looks so good.

[cactusmaac]

I'm not arguing either of those points, and I can understand buying the console version over the PC version if all other factors are equal. Except maybe first person shooters, but thats because I prefer a mouse to a controller for those sorts of games, and I know I might be alone in that.

But Astonishing X-Fan was saying he'd buy the console version even if the PC version was obviously superior. How do you justify that? I'm willing to hunch over a little monitor if I get extended modding capabilities, more content, extra features, or whatever advantages a PC version has over a console version. Assuming your computer is up to snuff for the game, I think all of those things would be worth it, and it seems irrational to me to sacrifice them just to play a version that your able to clearly admit as being inferior.

You skip having to deal with assorted hardware and software issues.

[sirgod]

Well, if you have a top-end PC there is little point in getting an XBox of any variety.

True. I'm abit overzealous when it comes to my PC's. This next month, I'll probably build another one, to Downgrade for older Nostalgic games.

Right now, I have My main gaming PC, an old 486 that I use as a firewall router, two small ones for Lan games/ Internet, and of all things, an Amiga. But I digress. I'm giving some serious thought now to the 360.

Stephen

[Jmacq1]

You skip having to deal with assorted hardware and software issues.

Bingo. Even with a relatively high-end computer, you may end up with games that just plain don't work right without a ton of tweaking and/or patching (or both). Heck, sometimes even games that you would think wouldn't be the slightest strain on your comp can crash every five minutes.

From my experience...it's pretty rare for console games to "crash".

[Grazzt]

Bingo. Even with a relatively high-end computer, you may end up with games that just plain don't work right without a ton of tweaking and/or patching (or both). Heck, sometimes even games that you would think wouldn't be the slightest strain on your comp can crash every five minutes.

From my experience...it's pretty rare for console games to "crash".

Yeah, but we're speaking of PC games that are strictly superior to their console versions. If the PC version crashes on your system, then it can't be said to be strictly superior. :p

[BlairH]

For a great many people, sitting on the couch with a 48" TV > hunching over in an office chair with a 21" monitor.

I have my PC hooked up to my digital home cinema projector :D

[BlairH]

Bingo. Even with a relatively high-end computer, you may end up with games that just plain don't work right without a ton of tweaking and/or patching (or both). Heck, sometimes even games that you would think wouldn't be the slightest strain on your comp can crash every five minutes.

From my experience...it's pretty rare for console games to "crash".

This is true in most cases. However, I personally have not yet built a PC that has given me any major problems with games. On the other hand, I've owned a few consoles that had to be replaced early on in their life cycle (I attribute this to my "early adopter" policy)

[DrewTheXenocide]

Holy crap on a pike shaft. According to the CNet Podcast, some PS3 games could be 70 to maybe even 100 dollars. Screw that. Royally.

[Mike Pothier]

You skip having to deal with assorted hardware and software issues.

Considering how much research I do into a game's PC requirements before I buy it, I can count the number of hardware/software issues I've had with a game on one hand.

[Jmacq1]

Not everyone cares to do that much research. If the freakin' game's minimum (and/or "Recommended") requirements (according to what's on the package) are all met or exceeded by your computer, then it should run smoothly.

Which is -not- always the case. Hell, these days you can look up the forums of 3/4s of the major releases for PC out there and see thousands of pages of people who have game-killing flaws when trying to run the game, despite going above and beyond the listed requirements to play the game.

Not everyone has the time, patience, or know-how to "tweak" everytime a new game comes out to play. And besides that...when you compare the cost of keeping a "high end" gaming PC at that "high-end" for longer than a year or so (IE updating/upgrading costs), you're probably paying nearly as much for parts as you would be for a console, anyhow.

[BlairH]

Not everyone has the time, patience, or know-how to "tweak" everytime a new game comes out to play.
And not everyone has to. I've owned PCs all my life and I've never "tweaked" any of my PCs to get a new release to run. I usually upgrade the hardware every 1.5 years, and sell the old hardware to absorb the costs so it isn't that costly. It's more of a chore -granted- than just sticking a game in and playing it, but I feel that the experience, in the end, is more rewarding, especially given the quantity and quality of user-created content in PC games. You just can't get that with consoles (yet).

[Xero Kaiser]

Not everyone cares to do that much research. If the freakin' game's minimum (and/or "Recommended") requirements (according to what's on the package) are all met or exceeded by your computer, then it should run smoothly.

Which is -not- always the case.

Hell, if you're talking about minimum specs, it's never the case.

[Mike Pothier]

Not everyone cares to do that much research. If the freakin' game's minimum (and/or "Recommended") requirements (according to what's on the package) are all met or exceeded by your computer, then it should run smoothly.

Which is -not- always the case. Hell, these days you can look up the forums of 3/4s of the major releases for PC out there and see thousands of pages of people who have game-killing flaws when trying to run the game, despite going above and beyond the listed requirements to play the game.

Not everyone has the time, patience, or know-how to "tweak" everytime a new game comes out to play. And besides that...when you compare the cost of keeping a "high end" gaming PC at that "high-end" for longer than a year or so (IE updating/upgrading costs), you're probably paying nearly as much for parts as you would be for a console, anyhow.

If you're going to get into PC gaming, you damn well better take the time to make sure your PC can run a game you're interested in playing. If you don't, then you deserve all the headaches you get.

Honestly, I think the problem isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

A good 95% of the time...and I'm not blowing it out of proportion here...when I buy a PC game that I KNOW I have all the requirements listed...quite often well exceeded...I STILL have issues.

Nothing makes me more angry than buying a new video card to run a new game only to find out that even with the new card and all the rest of your specs way higher than the reccomended requirements...you still have to turn settings down.

PC gaming is annoying and inconvenient to me. When i want to play a game, I want to just play it. I don't want to spend hours figuring out which settings I need to turn off to get it to run properly.

And I like playing with friends in the same room, all of us gathered around the screen.

And I don't want to have to lug my PC into the living room every time I want to play a game on my big TV. Cause moniters suck.

Some people prefer PC games, that's fine. There are perks. But how anyone can't see why some of us would take a console game over it any day...come on.

Console gaming has just as many advantages as PC gaming. They're just different advantages.

Anyway, back to my original point. What I was simply trying to say is that just because a game is on the PC doesn't invalidate it's console version. People who say stuff like "the 360 has no good games! You can't count Oblivion cause it's on the PC too" annoy the hell out of me.

[Alex]

Holy crap on a pike shaft. According to the CNet Podcast, some PS3 games could be 70 to maybe even 100 dollars. Screw that. Royally.
Im not defending the pricing or anything, but...
Anyone remeber what Phantasy Star 4 for genesis cost?

[Urusai Wrangler]

I like how the average consumers television changes whenever we're talking about different game systems. Talk PC and it's always huge, take next gen, and it's always small and incapable of showing a difference between PS3 and a N64.

"A great many people" doesn't necessarily include myself; I own neither a 48" TV nor a 21" monitor (my TV is 27", my monitor 17"). Be that as it may, the only time I'll buy a PC title is if it's not available for console, and World of Warcraft is the only PC game I've bought in the last two years.

[BlairH]

Cause moniters suck.

You know I've never understood this, we have 2 HDTVs in my house and a very expensive home cinema projector, but nothing quite beats my widescreen monitor for clarity, resolution and general image quality.

[Leslie Lee III]

Nothing makes me more angry than buying a new video card to run a new game only to find out that even with the new card and all the rest of your specs way higher than the reccomended requirements...you still have to turn settings down.

If you're specs were that good you wouldn't have to turn everything down. I have a budget-mid-range gaming PC and I can run the top games at stupid high settings. It sounds like you have a PC that really isn't "way" over the specs and, yes, you're going to have to turn things down.


Anyway, back to my original point. What I was simply trying to say is that just because a game is on the PC doesn't invalidate it's console version. People who say stuff like "the 360 has no good games! You can't count Oblivion cause it's on the PC too" annoy the hell out of me.

Well there are exactly 2 games on either X-Box that aren't on PC or PS2 that I want to play. It seems pointless when I can get KOTOR, Oblivion, etc. running better on my PC.

Sidenote: For people living with a family, hogging the living room TV with gaming isn't always a smart option.

[Xero Kaiser]

If you're specs were that good you wouldn't have to turn everything down. I have a budget-mid-range gaming PC and I can run the top games at stupid high settings.

What the hell do you consider mid-range? Because no budget PC I've ever heard of is running EQ2, F.E.A.R or Oblivion on high settings

[macul]

For a great many people, sitting on the couch with a 48" TV > hunching over in an office chair with a 21" monitor.

And yes, for the great majority of people, a console will be technologically superior to their PC.

There's also something to be said for not having to fight with drivers.

[cactusmaac]

What the hell do you consider mid-range? Because no budget PC I've ever heard of is running EQ2, F.E.A.R or Oblivion on high settings

Yeah. Don't you need graphics cards which cost about the same as a console to get the most of those?

[Tadhg]

Yeah. Don't you need graphics cards which cost about the same as a console to get the most of those?

I think that's somewhat hyperbolic. I play Oblivion at 1680x1050 resolution with high settings with an ATI 256MB X1600 mobility. The 512MB X1600PRO is only slightly more than a 100 bucks.

[cactusmaac]

You can get a Gamecube for $100.

[Tadhg]

You can get a Gamecube for $100.

And you can get an N64 for 5.00 at a garage sale.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

"You know I've never understood this, we have 2 HDTVs in my house and a very expensive home cinema projector, but nothing quite beats my widescreen monitor for clarity, resolution and general image quality."

Well, if you're happy with a small montier that's fine...me, size is important.

Especially when you're trying to play a game with three friends in the same room.

And again, no matter what my specs are, no matter how much I exceed the reccomended requirements, nearly every single PC game I've ever owned has always had SOME flaw when I try to run it. Nothing EVER goes EXACTLY the way it's supposed to go. But when I buy a new 360 game I just pop it in the system and boom, it works just as well as it will on anyone else's console. If there's problems, it's the game's design itself. I don't have to worry about tweaking and optimizing and all that frustrating, endless crap.

[Leslie Lee III]

What the hell do you consider mid-range? Because no budget PC I've ever heard of is running EQ2, F.E.A.R or Oblivion on high settings

Not budget PC. Budget to midrange gaming PC. My card is $88, my processor $73.


And again, no matter what my specs are, no matter how much I exceed the reccomended requirements, nearly every single PC game I've ever owned has always had SOME flaw when I try to run it. Nothing EVER goes EXACTLY the way it's supposed to go.

Sounds like user error mate. It could still be a positive for consoles that that isn't an issue, but it's also not often an issue for people who take care of their computers.

[cactusmaac]

And you can get an N64 for 5.00 at a garage sale.

They're going for about $25-$40 on Ebay.

[Tadhg]

They're going for about $25-$40 on Ebay.

My point was that you were framing the discussion unfairly.

[cactusmaac]

I don't think I was. You have to update your specs about every twelve to eighteen months for about the equivalent cost of a used console, in order to keep playing the newest games on the highest settings.

A typical console enables you to play anything and has a life of about four years before you need to invest in a next gen machine.

[Xero Kaiser]

Not budget PC. Budget to midrange gaming PC. My card is $88, my processor $73.

No midrange gaming PC is running F.E.A.R., Oblivion or EQ2 or Spellforce 2 or any other high end game with the settings maxed out either.

Again, what's your definition of "midrange"? Because I have a 512mb X1600 pro, 3Ghz Pentium 4 processor and 1GB (soon to be 2) of RAM which, considering it's far and above what most games recommend, should at the very least be "midrange" and even I can barely run newer games at "stupid high settings". Games like F.E.A.R run like absolute garbage at anything higher than 800x600, Warhammer slows down when the fighting really gets going and Spellforce 2 flat-out lied to me on the box, because I'm well into the recommended specs range and I have to turn everything way the hell down to get it run at a decent speed.

[Leslie Lee III]

No midrange gaming PC is running F.E.A.R., Oblivion or EQ2 or Spellforce 2 or any other high end game with the settings maxed out either.

Again, what's your definition of "midrange"? Because I have a 512mb X1600 pro, 3Ghz Pentium 4 processor and 1GB (soon to be 2) of RAM which, considering it's far and above what most games recommend, should at the very least be "midrange" and even I can barely run newer games at "stupid high settings". Games like F.E.A.R run like absolute garbage at anything higher than 800x600, Warhammer slows down when the fighting really gets going and Spellforce 2 flat-out lied to me on the box, because I'm well into the recommended specs range and I have to turn everything way the hell down to get it run at a decent speed.

Dude, I don't know what to tell you because I have no troubles. Fresh install windows?

I've got 2 gigs of ram, x800 card, and AMD 3200+ and had no troubles with Fear at high settings.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Dude, why is it so hard for you to admit people have those kinds of problems? You just say this "user error" BS...well guess what, PC games are PICKY. Yeah, you're not having problems, that's nice. But a LOT of people do.

Which is why a lot of people find PC gaming a pain in the ass.

[Leslie Lee III]

Dude, why is it so hard for you to admit people have those kinds of problems?

I don't doubt people have these problems, I just doubt their the fault of the games themselves. I already said the lack of room for user error may be a plus for consoles, but it can still be lots of user error.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

It's not the fault of the games, and it's not "user error"...it's a fault of the fundamental ways PC gaming works. Every single PC is different. If two people both have computers that exceed all the specs for say, Oblivion...one of them might be able to run it perfectly while the other will have problems. Even when there should be absolutely no reason, it happens...and it happens often.

There's just way too many variables with PC gaming. You could specifically design your PC around one single game and still end up having problems. Your friend could design the exact same PC with all the exact same parts and get a perfect result.

I've seen people with brand new, expensive, high-tech setups run into graphical snubs and framerate issues with games like Warcraft III. At the same time, I've seen people with fairly underpowered PCs run games like WoW beautifully.

With PC gaming, it's not as simple as just looking at the box, upgrading your computer to match what it says, and the game running fine. At least it's never been for me and any of my friends.

[Leslie Lee III]

It's not the fault of the games, and it's not "user error"...it's a fault of the fundamental ways PC gaming works. Every single PC is different. If two people both have computers that exceed all the specs for say, Oblivion...one of them might be able to run it perfectly while the other will have problems. Even when there should be absolutely no reason, it happens...and it happens often.

There's just way too many variables with PC gaming. You could specifically design your PC around one single game and still end up having problems. Your friend could design the exact same PC with all the exact same parts and get a perfect result.

I've seen people with brand new, expensive, high-tech setups run into graphical snubs and framerate issues with games like Warcraft III. At the same time, I've seen people with fairly underpowered PCs run games like WoW beautifully.

With PC gaming, it's not as simple as just looking at the box, upgrading your computer to match what it says, and the game running fine. At least it's never been for me and any of my friends.

If you keep your computer well maintained you're not going to magically get problems that people with the same setups don't get. That being said, I'd call about 1 out of 20 computers used by the average person well maintained. Again, that could be a plus for console, but if people kept their stuff straight they wouldn't have the enourmous amounts of problems you describe. Yeah you can take two of the same computers, give one to a clown who clogs it up with spyware, virii, and useless garbage and another person who keeps it straight and they'll get different results with games. Otherwise it's going to be the same 99.99% of the time, just like with consoles.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

onsidering I had my computer completely wiped and started over with a blank slate a while ago, and still ran into plenty of issues, I call BS on that.

Of course, you'll probably just tell me that my specs aren't good even though I think they are, well you'd be wrong. I'm not retarded, I know what my PC should be able to run.

I don't get why PC gamers have such a hard time admitting that yes, PC gaming IS more complicated and frustrating than console gaming. It's okay for consoles to take the win in some categories. There are about a bajillion reasons why a game may or may not work the right way.

Some people either don't have problems or don't feel it's a big enough negative. Which is fine. But some of us don't like to deal with it. Between upgrading and installing and drivers and requirements and just stuff not working right...it's just an annoying hassle to me. It completely sucks the fun out of it.

Which is why I've gladly sacrificed user-created content and got the 360 version of Oblivion.

I'll be getting a laptop...a good laptop...in a few months. So I figure I'll give PC gaming one last chance. But it'll never replace consoles for me.

[Urusai Wrangler]

Don't get a loptop for gaming; the video drivers are NOT supported by the video card manufacturers, and you have to rely on the laptop manufacturer to update the video drivers...which they NEVER DO.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Damn, that's too bad. I'm getting a laptop for X-Mas. My regular PC has plenty of RAM, a good vid card, and all that jazz...but the processor is starting to fall behind...and can only be upgraded a slight bit. If I wanted to run any near-future games well I need a whole new processor. Which I can't afford right now.

I reaffirm my stance that PC gaming is a pain in the ass. :p

[Tadhg]

I don't think I was. You have to update your specs about every twelve to eighteen months for about the equivalent cost of a used console, in order to keep playing the newest games on the highest settings.

A typical console enables you to play anything and has a life of about four years before you need to invest in a next gen machine.

I bolded the part that's framing the discussion unfairly. You're comparing a console which is static to a PC which is dynamic in terms of graphics quality. You don't have to update your specs every 18 months, you just don't play the games at highest quality. Playing Oblivion(Which is actually a bad example since the coding is shit) on lower settings on your older PC is equivalent visually to playing on an older console. It's unfair because you're holding computers and consoles to different standards. The PC is more expensive because to play the newest at the best quality, constantly costs money but the PC you buy(Which is still more expensive than a console) today is going to have the same power its entire life, just like the console you buy.

But the cost of a video card needed to play a game like Oblivion at a better resolution with higher quality settings than the 360 version is roughly 1/3-1/4 the cost of a 360.

[cactusmaac]

Well, we were discussing what kind of PC you need to play top games at stupid high settings.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3745389&postcount=52

[Tadhg]

Well, we were discussing what kind of PC you need to play top games at stupid high settings.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3745389&postcount=52

I understand that. You can play the same game as the 360 at higher resolution with better quality with a videocard that costs a fraction of the 360. That's why I said your statement was hyperbolic about videocards costing as much as a console to play these games at stupid high settings, your bringing the gamecube into the discussion is what was unfair.

[sirgod]

Well, some people are going to like Console gaming and others like PC. To me It's all good. It's not like there's a law saying I have to choose one or the other. Sure IT's a costly hobby, so just go with what's easier for you.

Hell I'm ashamed to say, I bought a Gamecube myself. ;) But in my defence, It was so I could play that Godzilla game.

Personaly, I prefere PC's not just for games, but for handling my buisness, etc. For the cost and what It can do, above and beyond consoles, It's worth the extra time keeping it up to spec. but that's not to say, that Console gaming can't be fun. On the contrary, it is alot of fun.

Stephen

[cactusmaac]

I understand that. You can play the same game as the 360 at higher resolution with better quality with a videocard that costs a fraction of the 360. That's why I said your statement was hyperbolic about videocards costing as much as a console to play these games at stupid high settings, your bringing the gamecube into the discussion is what was unfair.

Yeah, I was being pedantic there.

[Xero Kaiser]

I've got 2 gigs of ram, x800 card, and AMD 3200+ and had no troubles with Fear at high settings.

How is something that's above the recommended specs for nearly every game out there "midrange"?

[Leslie Lee III]

How is something that's above the recommended specs for nearly every game out there "midrange"?

It's midrange for a gaming PC. There are plenty of superior choices on the market. Calling it midrange probably isn't accurate anymore, it's probably at the bottom end of legit GAMING computers.

[sirgod]

Dude, I don't know what to tell you because I have no troubles. Fresh install windows?

I've got 2 gigs of ram, x800 card, and AMD 3200+ and had no troubles with Fear at high settings.


Shoot, I have the same with only 1.5 gigs ram, and I don't have any problems with Oblivion, Doom 3, etc.

That being said, I'm thinking about switching over to a PCIe board sometime next year.

Stephen

[Tadhg]

How is something that's above the recommended specs for nearly every game out there "midrange"?

Well an x800 and a 3200+ together cost less than 200.00, so they're definitely not high-end parts.

[Xero Kaiser]

Are we defining "high-end" merely by how much the parts cost or by their actual performance? If you're meeting or exceeding the recommended specs for pretty much everything out at the moment, your PC is not midrange, regardless of the cost. Yes, there are technically superior parts out there, but eventually you hit the point where you have more power than you're actually using. Having linked 1GB video cards and dual core processors might be better on paper but don't actually mean a damn thing in practice because no game out now can actually push that hardware. Diminishing returns and all that

A "legit" gaming computer isn't simply the combination of the most expensive parts out there. "Bottom end" my ass, if you're running the latest games with the options maxed out, you're running a high-end rig or something leaning towards it.

[Tadhg]

Are we defining "high-end" merely by how much the parts cost or by their actual performance? If you're meeting or exceeding the recommended specs for pretty much everything out at the moment, your PC is not midrange, regardless of the cost. Yes, there are technically "superior" parts out there, but eventually you hit the point where you have more power than you're actually using. A 1GB video card and dual core processors might be better on paper but don't actually mean a damn thing in practice because no game out now is actually taking advantage of that hardware. Diminishing returns and all that

A "legit" gaming computer isn't simply the combination of the most expensive parts out there. "Bottom end" my ass, if you're running the latest games with the options maxed out, you're running a high-end rig or something leaning towards it.

I'd say part cost has more to do with it than performance. I really can't ever see calling a store-bought machine that costs well under a grand a "High-end" machine.

[Xero Kaiser]

I'd say part cost has more to do with it than performance. I really can't ever see calling a store-bought machine that costs well under a grand a "High-end" machine.

Would you call a custom-built machine that cost under a grand "high-end" if it could run nearly everything out there with, assuming the coding isn't crap, no problems?

Store bought PCs usually come with ass parts, no matter what they cost.

[Tadhg]

Would you call a custom-built machine that cost under a grand "high-end" if it could run nearly everything out there with, assuming the coding isn't crap, no problems?

No. A high-end computer has the best of the best, which is going to cost you a lot more than a thousand dollars. You're welcome to think of these computers and parts as high-end but you'll be working under a different definition than most people.


Store bought PCs usually come with ass parts, no matter what they cost.

And yet you can buy a Dell that will play Fear and Oblivion and all with a 19" LCD for well under a thousand dollars, cheaper if you leave out the videocard and buy one yourself.

[Xero Kaiser]

No. A high-end computer has the best of the best, which is going to cost you a lot more than a thousand dollars. You're welcome to think of these computers and parts as high-end but you'll be working under a different definition than most people.

You don't need the best of the best to get high-end performance. What the hell do you need a $600/700 GeForce 7950 GXT2 for when a $100 dollar x800 does the exact same thing? Even PC magazines telling you how to build a high-end machine still come up with a much cheaper solution than just buying the most expensive thing you can find. We're talking about gaming computers here, how well they run games is the only thing that determines their range, not how expensive they are. That's the only definition I've ever heard until just now. Yes, better parts cost more, but eventually you get to the point where you're just needlessly wasting money and not getting any increase in performance.

You don't need the "best of the best", you need something that'll run your games. Which, even if you like to max everything out, usually isn't the most expensive thing out there.


And yet you can buy a Dell that will play Fear and Oblivion and all with a 19" LCD for well under a thousand dollars, cheaper if you leave out the videocard and buy one yourself.

Eh, by "store bought" I thought you meant like...walking into some random store and grabbing one. Not getting a XPS from Dell. But Oblivion and F.E.A.R are some of the most demanding games out at the moment, any computer that can run those games on high settings are certainly not low-mid range.

Spending anywhere near $1000 upgrading your computer is madness.

[Leslie Lee III]

If you're meeting or exceeding the recommended specs for pretty much everything out at the moment, your PC is not midrange, regardless of the cost.

Any PC that could be labled a gaming PC should exceed the requirements of everything out there. Those computers that can't shouldn't be called gaming PCs. I can't believe you're trying to call my computer with 2 year old hardware "high end." It's not. It's just good and I got a lot of bang for my buck, but it's not nearly high end. It hasn't been passed by the software yet, but no legit gaming PC should. If you've got something that can't even run the top games, you've got a mom computer. Hell, my mom's computer could get some top gams to run at low settings.


Spending anywhere near $1000 upgrading your computer is madness.

But that's what High end is.

[Black Atom]

Spending anywhere near $1000 upgrading your computer is madness.

But that's what High end is.

Which answers the question of why someone would choose consoles over PCs for gaming, which is what sparked this whole thing, eh?

[Tadhg]

We're talking about gaming computers here, how well they run games is the only thing that determines their range, not how expensive they are. That's the only definition I've ever heard until just now.

Then you haven't read many buying/building guides.


Even PC magazines telling you how to build a high-end machine still come up with a much cheaper solution than just buying the most expensive thing you can find.

Right, and they almost never call the cheaper solution a high-end system. ArsTechnica, Anandtech, Tom's, Maximum PC, etc. have "Budget", "Mid-range", "High-end", and "Ultimate" builds, they use different names but they all follow roughly the same idea and they're all predicated on budget.

[Leslie Lee III]

Which answers the question of why someone would choose consoles over PCs for gaming

No it doesn't, because you don't need a high end PC to run top games, which was the point of all the posts immediately following the one you quoted.

[sirgod]

Well to play devils advocate, I will give props to Consoles on one issue. Backwards compatability.

It's getting harder and harder to keep say an old DOS machine going to play Nostalgic games like the ultima series, Clancy's SSN, etc. Even with good tools like DosBox, IT can be a headache if your not familiar with it.

That said, I still like PC gaming abit more, But for a day with friends, console gaming is alot more convenient.

Stephen

[Leslie Lee III]

But then there is the beauty of emulation. SNES, NES, N64, Genesis, Sega Master System, Playstation, MAME, Neo Geo have all been pretty much perfected.

[sirgod]

That's very true Leslie. I still to this day Love Shadowrun for the Genesis, and I admit to going through Valkerie Profile on the PS1 emu.

Stephen

[Wild Card]

Loyalty didn't have much do with the original xboxs' failure. Like I said, size definately played a factor, but more importantly the system lacked the all important RPGs, 2D fighters and simulation/strategy games, which pretty much make or break consoles over there.
I was in TRU today and I look at the X-Box demo models there and it's footprint wasn't that much bigger than the PS2's was. The X-box is smaller then my DVD player and the X-Box is smaller then my VCR. And the Japanese didn't buy DVD's in large numbers until the PS2 become a hit there. While Americans was going crazy over DVD almost in the begining of the product's life the Japanese was still embracing their Laser Disces and had no interest in replaceing them with DVD's until the PS2 come along. Believe me LD players have a monster footprint. So I don't think size has that much to do with it. Also in America there quite a few people prejudging the X-Box before it come out and refuse to buy one becuse they that Microsoft is the evil empire and Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ.
As for not having the games that they wanted that is a very good point becuse any system is only as good as it's software.

[Alex]

Also in America there quite a few people prejudging the X-Box before it come out and refuse to buy one becuse they that Microsoft is the evil empire and Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ.

Not enough to make a difference.
the bill gates is evil folk are really vocal, but it hasn't changed how many people have windows on their pcs.
Unless Linux because the standard and no one told me.

[sirgod]

Unless Linux because the standard and no one told me.

Sorry, got excited and had a geekgasm.

Stephen

[Xero Kaiser]

Any PC that could be labled a gaming PC should exceed the requirements of everything out there. Those computers that can't shouldn't be called gaming PCs. I can't believe you're trying to call my computer with 2 year old hardware "high end." It's not. It's just good and I got a lot of bang for my buck, but it's not nearly high end. It hasn't been passed by the software yet, but no legit gaming PC should.

I don't think I specifically called your computer high-end. Maybe I did, I'm too lazy to check. But the idea that your computer is "near the bottom" or whatever you said is ridiculous. About the only upgrade you could possibly benefit from at this point is a slightly better video card. What more do you need to be considered high end? The technology out right now far exceeds even the most demanding games requirements. If a computer costs 3 times as much but doesn't actually improve the performance of any games, why is that more "high end"?


But that's what High end is.

So "high end" is an arbitrary number?


Then you haven't read many buying/building guides.

I sure have. And none of them just tell you, "buy whatever costs the most" and print a link to Alienware


Right, and they almost never call the cheaper solution a high-end system.

I already said that better parts cost more. But that doesn't mean that high-end is just the most expensive thing out there. The X1900XT is considered the best high-end card out there, even though there are more expensive, more powerful cards out there. The best solution for each range is combination of price and performance.

I don't get it. Would my computer be more high-end if I spent an extra $1000 (for the same parts) buying it from Alienware or Falcon rather than upgrading it myself? I've never heard anyone suggest this in my life

[Leslie Lee III]

The technology out right now far exceeds even the most demanding games requirements.

Simply Meeting gaming requirements = LOW END
Exceeding them to the point where software hasn't caught up with it yet AKA future proof = HIGH END

The fact that the software hasn't caught up to the hardware does not change the fact that there is still a big range of gaming hardware to buy and my computers is on the middle to low end of that scale. Just because it's good doesn't mean it's not low end. Just because the superior tech wouldn't necessarily bring drastic change doesn't mean that it's not still low end.


If a computer costs 3 times as much but doesn't actually improve the performance of any games, why is that more "high end"?

First of all, it would definitely improve performance and the more time that passes the bigger the gap will be. Second of all, it's more "high end" because it contains superior technology, regardless of whether software can take full advantage of that superior tech yet. This is really not a complex issue. A Lexis is still a high end car even if a Kia can get you back and forth to work.


I don't get it. Would my computer be more high-end if I spent an extra $1000 (for the same parts) buying it from Alienware or Falcon rather than upgrading it myself? I've never heard anyone suggest this in my life

You stil haven't because no one here is saying that. People are assuming that you're actually talking about building your own computer and have a knowledge of that. I'm certainly not talking about anything store bought. That's a completely seperate issue from the issue here.

You said, "Spending anywhere near $1000 upgrading your computer is madness." Right. Having a real high-end gaming PC IS madness. That's why I don't have one, but that's what it would have cost to get one.

[sirgod]

Also, IF I may, Any PC is only going to be as fast as it's slowest parts.

stephen

[BlairH]

Also, IF I may, Any PC is only going to be as fast as it's slowest parts.

stephen

That's not strictly true. A slow processor will bottleneck a fast graphics card somewhat, but adding a faster graphics card will always be of some benefit.

[Tadhg]

So "high end" is an arbitrary number?

For the most part. Everyone uses different numbers, but they all go by their own arbitrary number.



I sure have. And none of them just tell you, "buy whatever costs the most" and print a link to Alienware

And I never said that. They show you how to get the most bang for that buck. But they base it on buck, not bang. For example, Anandtech's most recent Mid-range system can play any of the games we're talking about but it's marked mid-range not high-end because it's not an expensive system.

[Tadhg]

Also, IF I may, Any PC is only going to be as fast as it's slowest parts.

stephen

If you want to get pedantic, that's not true at all, since the slowest part of the computer is invariably the Hard drive.

[sirgod]

If you want to get pedantic, that's not true at all, since the slowest part of the computer is invariably the Hard drive.

Yeah Blair had a point on Graphic Proccessing speed also. With the Hard drive, I think most people are still using the 7200 rpm models instead of the 10,000rpms.

Then again, that's just IDE and not Sata or SCSI.

Stephen

[Lester C.]

Most Gamestop stores are only going to recieve eight PS3s on launch day. I guess Sony is going to repeat the same mistakes as the Xbox 360 and pay the same price that system did as sales never went up when the supply finally caught up to the demand which had witered by the time stores began getting 360s in stock.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6159525.html

[Jmacq1]

Most Gamestop stores are only going to recieve eight PS3s on launch day. I guess Sony is going to repeat the same mistakes as the Xbox 360 and pay the same price that system did as sales never went up when the supply finally caught up to the demand which had witered by the time stores began getting 360s in stock.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6159525.html

I don't know about the sales going up, but they didn't really go -down- either. At least in my area, the 360 "deluxe systems" are still very difficult to find. "Core Systems" are plentiful, though. Having conferred with a friend that works at Best Buy, the 360 is still a steady seller, and (again, at least at one Best Buy in my local area) already appears to be picking up some steam rolling into the Holiday season.

As he put it: "A lot of people were waiting for the "first release" bugs to get ironed out or the game library to expand a bit before buying".

How it fares after Wii and PS3 emerge remains to be seen, of course.

[Gargus]

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/309.html

I might swing by today and see how big the line is. I wish I could affford one but I just started school and Im to broke to afford one. Maybe when I get my taxes back and college tution from school next year I can.

[Thorlief]

price cut for the 40gb in Europe...


but would Sony be the same without a grand marketing move? No backwards compatibility

http://www.scee.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=4434&NewsAreaID=2

[Mr. Ifix'em]

$410 is a very good deal for a PS3. There are still many PS2 out there if you want BC. Besides, what good is BC for? The Xbox 360 have BC and for what games? Oh, Halo 1 WOW! What about the wii? Oh, cartriges...good one.

[Thorlief]

you know, it would be good for all the people who own a PS2 so they can sell it and buy a PS3 game, make more space in their room and basically not being bothered by having two consoles instead of one

not a big deal, I agree..but just why?

[Lester C.]

Until they restore full backward compatibility I'm not buying a Playstation 3.

[Young Avenger]

Until they restore full backward compatibility I'm not buying a Playstation 3.

Only 40Gig machines don't have backward compatibility. The 60 and 80gig machines should have it.

[Thorlief]

yes, but they dont get a price cut, at least in the US