Bluray player is killing the PS3.

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

I dont know about you, but I love Blu-ray. :)

PS1 - CD. PS2 - DVD. PS3 - Blu-ray

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Espada12

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.

I dont know about you, but I love Blu-ray. :)

PS1 - CD. PS2 - DVD. PS3 - Blu-ray

MightyMuna

me too, but it seems kinda early, for the consoles. stand alone would have been fine up untill the PS4.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Eyezonmii

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.

This is ALOT of speculation, what makes you think the BR player made the PS3 release when it did? Also getting out quicker doesn't mean more support (hi dreamcast), MS arranged to get more support(they still do), what I do agree with is that w/o the BR player it wouldn't have cost 600 US at launch but it still would have been more than the 360.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Espada12

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.

This is ALOT of speculation, what makes you think the BR player made the PS3 release when it did? Also getting out quicker doesn't mean more support (hi dreamcast), MS arranged to get more support(they still do), what I do agree with is that w/o the BR player it wouldn't have cost 600 US at launch but it still would have been more than the 360.

don't even bother comparing with the dreamcast, sega was in finacial ruins.

I recall reading about Bluray diodes not being ready. so thed delay happened.

Sony would have a lot of support from the get go, considering the situation with the PS2.

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Espada12

This is one of those things that everyone thinks that isn't true at all.

MS paid for one or two huge games, but most of the games that are exclusive they didn't pay for.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

GundamGuy0

This is one of those things that everyone thinks that isn't true at all.

MS paid for one or two huge games, but most of the games that are exclusive they didn't pay for.

Well then even if they didn't pay for them the reasoning for them being exclusive, remains unknown to me, fact of the matter is.. blu-ray drive isn't the reason they would go x360 exclusive.

ahh...another kiddish topic.Dont these kids have anything else to do these days ? PS3 is a great machine if you dont own it,theres no need to get jealouse and create stupid topics about it.

lesner87

Oh my .. someone just read the title alone :)

[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games

First off what makes you think this? Most of MS games aren't exclusive because PS3 programming is hard they are exclusive because MS paid for them. Also, blu-ray player is what kept the PS3 alive.

Eyezonmii

if the PS3 debuted before the competition, more devs would have jumped aboard and began making titles, due to the fact that it was the only next gen console, look what the 360 did, same thing. Thanks to MS getting it out quicker, more support was gained, common sense.

as for dominating the race, the PS3 is doing great now, dispite the difficulties, what does that tell you? imagine having more titles and a cheaper price?

Bluray is keeping the PS3 alive now, due to the fact it came out later and it was an attractive offer, considering the price now. just thinking that if it wasn't in the PS3, the price would have been better and the PS3 could have been out earlier.

This is ALOT of speculation, what makes you think the BR player made the PS3 release when it did? Also getting out quicker doesn't mean more support (hi dreamcast), MS arranged to get more support(they still do), what I do agree with is that w/o the BR player it wouldn't have cost 600 US at launch but it still would have been more than the 360.

don't even bother comparing with the dreamcast, sega was in finacial ruins.

I recall reading about Bluray diodes not being ready. so thed delay happened.

Sony would have a lot of support from the get go, considering the situation with the PS2.

i like the blu-ray because it seperates it form being the same as the 360.

[QUOTE="lesner87"]

ahh...another kiddish topic.Dont these kids have anything else to do these days ? PS3 is a great machine if you dont own it,theres no need to get jealouse and create stupid topics about it.

Espada12

Oh my .. someone just read the title alone :)

Has the topic anything "Special" to say ? HELL NO ! Get off my back.

[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="lesner87"]

ahh...another kiddish topic.Dont these kids have anything else to do these days ? PS3 is a great machine if you dont own it,theres no need to get jealouse and create stupid topics about it.

lesner87

Oh my .. someone just read the title alone :)

Has the topic anything "Special" to say ? HELL NO ! Get off my back.

Read and find out before making yourself look silly.

[QUOTE="lesner87"][QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="lesner87"]

ahh...another kiddish topic.Dont these kids have anything else to do these days ? PS3 is a great machine if you dont own it,theres no need to get jealouse and create stupid topics about it.

Espada12

Oh my .. someone just read the title alone :)

Has the topic anything "Special" to say ? HELL NO ! Get off my back.

Read and find out before making yourself look silly.

Look do a little bit research.PS3 has MORE stable sales than Xbox 360.

Blu Ray will make more money for Sony then games, they know what they're doing. PS3 owners may have been guinea pigs for Blu Ray, but that makes PS4 a potential colossus without the need for a new format.

LMAO :lol: I disagree.

I bought a PS3 because of Blu-Ray anyway :D

You know what, i'm glad Sony delayed the PS3 because of blu-ray. Like it or not, including a blu-ray drive in PS3 was a good move by Sony. You may not notice now, but in the long run blu-ray will pay-off. It will be good for Sony, game developers and gamers. Everybody wins.lusitanogamer

Exactly....the kids over here will never notice/understand these games and ground realities.

Look do a little bit research.PS3 has MORE stable sales than Xbox 360.

lesner87

Holy crap just read what he said! It isn't about the PS3 selling badly

Look, if Bluray hadn't had came out with the PS3 than HD-DVD would be the standard and dominant format. I mean standard because the transition from DVD to HD-DVD would be a lot easier than the transition currently from DVD to Bluray which isn't excatly selling like hot cakes.

Also you got to remember that the first year the PS3 was out Sony was more concerned about winning the format war and not to concerned about selling games, which is why everyone agrees is the reason the first year of the PS3 really wasn't that great. Sony was very big headed and believed everyone that had a PS2 would automaticly buy a PS3.

Bluray is great but the average consumer has not picked up on it yet. To take advantage of a bluray player a consumer has to have a HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system and of course lots of extra disposable income.

Look, if Bluray hadn't had came out with the PS3 than HD-DVD would be the standard and dominant format. I mean standard because the transition from DVD to HD-DVD would be a lot easier than the transition currently from DVD to Bluray which isn't excatly selling like hot cakes.

Also you got to remember that the first year the PS3 was out Sony was more concerned about winning the format war and not to concerned about selling games, which is why everyone agrees is the reason the first year of the PS3 really wasn't that great. Sony was very big headed and believed everyone that had a PS2 would automaticly buy a PS3.

Bluray is great but the average consumer has not picked up on it yet. To take advantage of a bluray player a consumer has to have a HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system and of course lots of extra disposable income.

player_leo

plus now they won so there main focus is games so from now on we get the best of both worlds. movies and great exclusives from sony masively first party dev's. so know this is the time to buy a ps 3. we get the best from both world's.

And if the 360 had a bluray player and sold at the same price difference I would have bought a 360. So whats your point besides down grading the ps3 to be like the 360?

I dont know about you, but I love Blu-ray. :)

PS1 - CD. PS2 - DVD. PS3 - Blu-ray

MightyMuna

Me too!

[QUOTE="player_leo"]

Look, if Bluray hadn't had came out with the PS3 than HD-DVD would be the standard and dominant format. I mean standard because the transition from DVD to HD-DVD would be a lot easier than the transition currently from DVD to Bluray which isn't excatly selling like hot cakes.

Also you got to remember that the first year the PS3 was out Sony was more concerned about winning the format war and not to concerned about selling games, which is why everyone agrees is the reason the first year of the PS3 really wasn't that great. Sony was very big headed and believed everyone that had a PS2 would automaticly buy a PS3.

Bluray is great but the average consumer has not picked up on it yet. To take advantage of a bluray player a consumer has to have a HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system and of course lots of extra disposable income.

GARRYTH

plus now they won so there main focus is games so from now on we get the best of both worlds. movies and great exclusives from sony masively first party dev's. so know this is the time to buy a ps 3. we get the best from both world's.

:lol:You have NO idea what your talking about, do you?

[QUOTE="player_leo"]

Look, if Bluray hadn't had came out with the PS3 than HD-DVD would be the standard and dominant format. I mean standard because the transition from DVD to HD-DVD would be a lot easier than the transition currently from DVD to Bluray which isn't excatly selling like hot cakes.

Also you got to remember that the first year the PS3 was out Sony was more concerned about winning the format war and not to concerned about selling games, which is why everyone agrees is the reason the first year of the PS3 really wasn't that great. Sony was very big headed and believed everyone that had a PS2 would automaticly buy a PS3.

Bluray is great but the average consumer has not picked up on it yet. To take advantage of a bluray player a consumer has to have a HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system and of course lots of extra disposable income.

GARRYTH

plus now they won so there main focus is games so from now on we get the best of both worlds. movies and great exclusives from sony masively first party dev's. so know this is the time to buy a ps 3. we get the best from both world's.

Blu-ray won because Sony is a movie studio and the knew how to make deals with other movie companies. Toshiba is not not a movie company. Sony had the advantage there. Plus the porn industry sign up for Bluray too. Thats why Sony lost the VHS / Beta-max war.

As for pirating a Blu-ray, it isn't that hard once it gets cracked. Ask any hermit.The problem is that one blank 50gb Recordable Bluray cost $48 bucks. The rewrittables cost $60. You know for $22 you can get a pack of 50 of the 4gb DVDs. Who would make a bootleg of a Bluray movie at that price?

And to add, now is great time to buy 360. Low cost and bigger library FTW ! If you want bluray movies there are less expensive BR players on the market right now.

You are wrong.

When the ps3 first released it had TWO games, I got it at launch and it really was pitiful, the games were good, but it was two...

Loads of the ps3's sales were due to it being a blu ray player. At the time it was cheaper than any other blu ray player, it was a decent one, and it acted as a complete media centre for your tv, all at £425, bargain.

It kept the ps3 gping until sony could get out enough games to be able to call t a games console.

And it may look like blu ray is causing problems for sony now with the price drops, but like everything else, itll come down in price, sony will make a cheaper slim ps3, and then they will be releasing GOW3, Killzone 2, MAG, Heavy rain ect and they will start to shine.

Blu ray has saved the ps3, and it will drive it forwards to make the best games.

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

Eyezonmii

The PS3 wasn't due out until 2007, because of the 360 Sony bring it out early......look it up.

So now you knocking Sony for putting high tech stuff into the PS3, whats wrong with that, it might not be "needed", but people still want it.

[QUOTE="MightyMuna"]

I dont know about you, but I love Blu-ray. :)

PS1 - CD. PS2 - DVD. PS3 - Blu-ray

Eyezonmii

me too, but it seems kinda early, for the consoles. stand alone would have been fine up untill the PS4.

Blu-Ray would be old my then

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="player_leo"]

Look, if Bluray hadn't had came out with the PS3 than HD-DVD would be the standard and dominant format. I mean standard because the transition from DVD to HD-DVD would be a lot easier than the transition currently from DVD to Bluray which isn't excatly selling like hot cakes.

Also you got to remember that the first year the PS3 was out Sony was more concerned about winning the format war and not to concerned about selling games, which is why everyone agrees is the reason the first year of the PS3 really wasn't that great. Sony was very big headed and believed everyone that had a PS2 would automaticly buy a PS3.

Bluray is great but the average consumer has not picked up on it yet. To take advantage of a bluray player a consumer has to have a HDTV, a 7.1 home theater system and of course lots of extra disposable income.

player_leo

plus now they won so there main focus is games so from now on we get the best of both worlds. movies and great exclusives from sony masively first party dev's. so know this is the time to buy a ps 3. we get the best from both world's.

Blu-ray won because Sony is a movie studio and the knew how to make deals with other movie companies. Toshiba is not not a movie company. Sony had the advantage there. Plus the porn industry sign up for Bluray too. Thats why Sony lost the VHS / Beta-max war.

As for pirating a Blu-ray, it isn't that hard once it gets cracked. Ask any hermit.The problem is that one blank 50gb Recordable Bluray cost $48 bucks. The rewrittables cost $60. You know for $22 you can get a pack of 50 of the 4gb DVDs. Who would make a bootleg of a Bluray movie at that price?

And to add, now is great time to buy 360. Low cost and bigger library FTW ! If you want bluray movies there are less expensive BR players on the market right now.

Sony is NOT a movie studio, they OWN studios. Sony and Toshiba are in the same business. Sony will make more money off Blu-Ray then games. You really think Sony needs Playstation?

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

You are wrong. Bluray has sold many, many ps3's, and is the reason i have it as opposed to a 360

anyone agree?

Eyezonmii

Sony has their hand in a lot of things. They own lot of movie studios there for they are in the movie studio business as well. Does Sony really need to make a video game console? No, they don't. They made one to get back at Nintendo for not going through with the disc drive for the SNES. Did Sony need the PS3 to sell bluRay technology? YES.

Back to the topic, Bluray helped sell PS3s back when at was the least expensive Bluray player. But now that you can get a bluray player for around $200 and an Xbox or Wii for $250 , it's looking like a better deal than a PS3 for $400 of $500.

Sony has their hand in a lot of things. They own lot of movie studios there for they are in the movie studio business as well. Does Sony really need to make a video game console? No, they don't. They made one to get back at Nintendo for not going through with the disc drive for the SNES. Did Sony need the PS3 to sell bluRay technology? YES.

Back to the topic, Bluray helped sell PS3s back when at was the least expensive Bluray player. But now that you can get a bluray player for around $200 and an Xbox or Wii for $250 , it's looking like a better deal than a PS3 for $400 of $500.

player_leo

Good points. It looks like PS3 needs a price drop soon.

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

HoldThePhone

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

[QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

BudsMcGreen

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

Most of the people buy the PS3 because of Blu ray.

What if you looked at it from a business perspective? Sony included Blu-Ray into the PS3 to promote Blu-Ray players and help make Blu-Ray the standard HD format. Since this happened, Sony may have sacrificed the PS3 but gained Blu-Ray as a victory that in the end will be much more profitable.

Yeah this sucks for gamers, but for Sony it is amazing.

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

BudsMcGreen

can you imagine the PS3 even existing in today's market if it didn't have a blu-ray player?

[QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"][QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

lesner87

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

Most of the people buy the PS3 because of Blu ray.

So it is foremost a $400 blu-ray player? Funny, most people buy Xbox360 for games.

[QUOTE="lesner87"][QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"][QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

BudsMcGreen

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

Most of the people buy the PS3 because of Blu ray.

So it is foremost a $400 blu-ray player? Funny, most people buy Xbox360 for games.

I don't see why that's an issue. If you want a blu-ray player and a game system it's a great deal.

If movies are more important to someone than games, who are you to judge?

[QUOTE="lesner87"][QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"][QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

BudsMcGreen

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

Most of the people buy the PS3 because of Blu ray.

So it is foremost a $400 blu-ray player? Funny, most people buy Xbox360 for games.

You get a game console and a blu-ray player all in one, whats wrong with that?

Blu ray is truly a trojan horse, it maybe a trojan horse for good or a trojan horse for bad, down the line. But if it wasn't for blu ray, I don't think I would've gotten a PS3. I would've gotten a PS3 next year or even in early 2010.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

CubanBlunt

The PS3 wasn't due out until 2007, because of the 360 Sony bring it out early......look it up.

So now you knocking Sony for putting high tech stuff into the PS3, whats wrong with that, it might not be "needed", but people still want it.

personally, i like Sony's move of putting blu-ray in the PS3.. it adds value to my purchase because not only do i get HD gaming but i also get HD movie playback aswell via Blu-ray purchases/rentals (along with the option of HD downloads via the PS Store if that's something you're interested in).. it also allows for greater developer freedom in game development thanks to the larger disc space..

now that the price of the PS3 has dropped to a reasonable level, the value of the package is undeniable....

[QUOTE="CubanBlunt"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

Steppy_76

The PS3 wasn't due out until 2007, because of the 360 Sony bring it out early......look it up.

So now you knocking Sony for putting high tech stuff into the PS3, whats wrong with that, it might not be "needed", but people still want it.

Here you go!

http://ps3.qj.net/PlayStation-3-Launch-delayed-until-2007-/pg/49/aid/517

The guys over at GameShout are reporting that the PlayStation 3 will be delayed until Spring 2007. The evidence in their article, to me, doesn?t seem all that convincing, but to quote,

?At first, we here at GameSHOUT thought that this was pure speculation, or rumours. But, about 2 weeks ago, the BBC news was covering the Digital Life Expo at the Javits Convention Center in New York City. They stated that the PlayStation 3 launch date is 2007.

The actual quote is, ?By launching its new Xbox 360 22 months ahead of the PlayStation 3, it's hoping it'll be able to win over the minds and money of gamers?, said BBC.?

Read the full article [here].
Thanks blackfuse for sending this in.

[QUOTE="CubanBlunt"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

i was thinking, if it wasn't for the bluray player, Sony could have relased the PS3 before the compition at a cheaper price, they should have more so for the fact that PS2 was older than the original xbox, cube. But due to the bluray components not being ready, delays were made and what not. If anything the PS3 should have been out first, but Sony decided to get it bloated with a lot of high tech stuff. (perhaps MS, introducing the harddrive and extra's with the xbox 1, sony wanted to one up them and forgot whats important)

by now, Sony would have dominated the console race, had more games.

why i say that is, with the hardware the PS3 has, it just seemed kinda late, and pointless..for the simple fact that the 360's hardware is just as good if not better due to its simplier design (GPU strengths) Many developers have said that what ever game the other system comes out with, no matter how technical, the other console could still do it, both hardware are about equal, and in which this case, makes the 360 the prefered choice for your gaming needs.

Bluray also hasn't benifited games enough to care. IMO, bluray would have made much more sense on the PS4. by then it would have been more standard and cheaper, etc.

Sony's a great company, but maybe they should focus on the more important things, rather than care about the competition so much and trying to outdo them. (even though, they keep bragging they don't, they do)

anyone agree?

Steppy_76

The PS3 wasn't due out until 2007, because of the 360 Sony bring it out early......look it up.

So now you knocking Sony for putting high tech stuff into the PS3, whats wrong with that, it might not be "needed", but people still want it.

Actually the PS3 DID launch in 2007.

(In some territories that is)

[QUOTE="lesner87"][QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"][QUOTE="HoldThePhone"]

Any reasonable person would say blu-ray saved the PS3.

this thread is pathetic.

BudsMcGreen

Considering how much $ Sony loses on each console I can see the argument. And seeing how PS3 is in last place this gen, how did Blu-ray 'save' the PS3?

Most of the people buy the PS3 because of Blu ray.

So it is foremost a $400 blu-ray player? Funny, most people buy Xbox360 for games.

Not exactly.Thats another awesome addition to a very cool next gen gaming console.So people can have fun with massive sized games and at the same time enjoy their BLU RAY quality movie on 7.1 dolby digital sorround sound :).