I've been trying to be console-neutral, regarding every one of the current-gen consoles and handhelds as having good qualities:

• Wii: Motion control, Virtual Console and WiiWare, good console for rail shooters and Light Gun Game ports.
• Xbox 360: Lots of good downloadable games, a lot of online players.
• DS: Touch screen.
• PSP: Basically a handheld PS2; great for games that demand more graphical or sound power than the DS.
• PS3: Region-free, and more motion control, I guess? It doesn't seem like it could be put to use as well as Wii's.

See, I'm trying to have respect for the PS3, but...I just can't.

After gimmicks, I tend to gauge the quality of a system by its selection of console-exclusive games. PS3 has maybe one non-obvious exclusive that I want (Soldner X, and I'm not counting the PC version because my laptop sucks). Other than that I don't see a point in getting a PS3.

"But Ray, Blu-Ray!" Unfortunately I don't have an HDTV, not only for financial reasons but because non-HD console + HDTV - upscaling = YAY LAG, also pixelation. Thus, Blu-Ray is useless to me.

Yes, PS3 is region-free. Sadly, there aren't a lot of good Japan-only PS3 games that are relevant to my interests either.

edited 3rd Nov '09 9:47:48 AM by TsundeRay

How much does the PS 3 cost now?

If you don't want a PS3, that's fine. Console Wars are bullshit.

The Slim PSE is now $300 plus tax I assume.

There's that, but my spending priorities tend to lie elsewhere.

I'd also like to note that I do have every one of the above system save for the PS3.

As I understand it— and don't quote me on this, because I may be misinformed— the root problem with the PS 3's lack of games is, ironically, because it's so powerful. Apparently, this makes it harder to program for or some such. This resulted in developers being cautious about releasing games for it at first, which resulted in the PS 3 having few games, which resulted in it not selling as well, which resulted in developers being cautious about releasing games on it, etc.

Wait, it's $300? It's £300 over here. That's not right.

All too often, dollars in the US for electronics translate as pounds in the UK. It's not right, but it's the way it's done.

Note that the UK price includes VAT (at whatever rate that's at these days) and the US prices do not include tax, though US sales tax is less (under 10% in California, for instance).

@Lizard Bite: the PS 3 is powerful but it's complex, and it doesn't work like other consoles or P Cs. Worse, I understand, is that Sony's developer tools and libraries don't provide much hand-holding for using its power effectively.

I'd rather see "$325" on a price tag than "$300 plus tax". At least I know at a glance how much money I'd need.

Wasn't this one of the reasons the Atari Jaguar failed?

I look at systems for their game selection, not for their own capabilities.

I have one thing to say about the PS 3 and Sony in general:

Their marketing team needs to be fired. Three years ago.

edited 3rd Nov '09 4:06:50 PM by Miijhal

I like Sony's marketing, jerk

Stating that you're overcharging for a portable console with less features than its predecessors and no new technology because 'it's new, we made it, so people will buy it' is a bad idea.

I'm not sure if it counts as marketing, but dang did Playstation 3 spawn the most Memetic Mutation of any console in recent memory, even more than the Wii which has a name inviting that kind of thing. I will never forget the 599 US Dollars, the Giant Enemy Crab based on Japanese history featuring the cutting edge gameplay of Attack Its Weak Point For Massive Damage, real-time weapon change, and RIIIIIIDGE RACER!

I like Sony's marketing team too. I like seeing them run the PS3/PSP into the ground.

edited 3rd Nov '09 4:34:07 PM by Beta Ray

@Noimporta

One of many, yes.

Beta Ray hates me...

Well one perk of owning a PS 3 is that you can still play PS 2 games which are still being made IIRC. That and avoiding the Red Ring Of Death.

• PS3: Region-Free, Free Online, Compatible with PC Components, Blu Ray.

The problem with the PS3 is that it shares 90% of its library with the Xbox 360 and PC, so unless you are a fan of Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, and God Of War you might not see the need of a PS3 AND an Xbox 360.

edited 3rd Nov '09 5:13:26 PM by GameGuruGG

Only if you got one when it first came out.

...You can still play PS 1 games on all the models though, so good news for you retro-but-not-that-retro types!

edited 3rd Nov '09 5:19:52 PM by LizardBite

^^Those aren't the only exclusives for the PS3, you know.

edited 3rd Nov '09 5:24:38 PM by Wicked223

wouldn't that be good news for the retro but not for the "not-quite-retro", since the PS 1 is more retro than the PS 2?

Unless you consider retro to be a cummulative quality.

Those are the only PS3 exclusive franchises that people bought a PS2 for. You know, that 150 million fanbase that made PS2 the best selling console ever? Yeah, that's split among the three console this time.

If I had a lot of money, I'd have a PS 3 right next to the Wii, although all it would have is probably MGS 4 and... that's it. Everything else I like is pretty much covered by the Wii.

Really though, ever since they first started, Sony wasn't all that great to work with as many developers speak... So I Heard.

But honestly, I could care less about hardware, programing, and grafixcks, that's just BS that the 5th, 6th, and 7th generation has been using as an excuse to create crappy games all this while. Besides, it seems that Nintendo has more innovation anyway, and Microsoft has the better online features...