Playstation 3 = Win - Page 3

Rbstr · 2006-05-13, 04:59 PM

Heh...

The "cheap" ps3 is less worth it than the Full price one:

Lower-end model also lacks HDMI, memory card slot and, erm, chrome lettering
Words: Oliver Hurley

Saturday 13 May 2006
Sony has today cleared up the confusion over the differences in specification between the two models of PlayStation 3 - and the cheaper version won't support wireless controllers.

As announced by the company on Monday, two versions of PS3 will be available at launch - one with a 60GB hard drive, and a less pricy model that features a 20GB hard drive. However, what the company didn't mention at the time is that the 20GB machine also lacks a number of key features that are included as standard in the more expensive model.

The 20GB console won't include an HDMI output, which means that it won't be able to deliver high definition pictures. But perhaps more disappointing is that wireless bluetooth controllers won't be supported; instead, gamers will have to make do with retro-style wired-up versions of the increasingly controversial PS3 pad.

In addition, the lower-end model also lacks WiFi and the slot for Memory Stick Duo cards included in the full-spec PS3.

A Sony representative on the show floor at E3 also emphasized that gamers won't be able to upgrade the memory of the 20GB version; if that's the PS3 incarnation you opt for, you're permanently stuck with a 20GB memory limit.

Amazingly, Sony big boss man Phil Harrison, in a BBC interview earlier this week, insisted, "What we should be clear about is that the functionality is identical in both machines. There is no difference in what the machine does."

Unfortunately, the actual facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Without it's hi-def features the PS3's better graphics are worth shit.

Biohazzard56 · 2006-05-13, 05:16 PM

Im not paying $600 to see Snake make himself a new head orfice.

Peacemaker · 2006-05-14, 11:06 AM

Ill prolly end up sprining for the more expensive one anyways. Truthfully though I find that pretty fucking lame by sony. Why dont they just make it modular? Bring it to a best buy or some crazy shit and have them toss some mods in it to do other things. A modular Consol would probably revolutionize the gaming world.

Imagine, The consol is out for a year and they release a new optional processor upgrade that opens it up for a whole new set of games. Buy an upgrade and play the new games seems alot better than buy a new system entirly.

Kikinchikin · 2006-05-14, 01:37 PM

Not for them. They'll get more money if they release a new system because, as I've stated before, gamers are naive and will buy it.

Rbstr · 2006-05-14, 01:45 PM

You realize that would destroy the two main advantages of a console over a computer?

Games always work, and because of optomization, nearly always play w/in accptable frame rates.
You, with few exeptions, don't need to put more money into a console in order to keep it up to date, and capable of playing all the games for it.

IMO it'd make me want to buy a console even less, knowing that I'll have to buy new inards for it, like you do with a comp.

Kikinchikin · 2006-05-14, 03:36 PM

To be fair, you don't necessarily HAVE to buy new upgrades for the comp very often. Yes, gradually your system will be phased out and you'll go from being optimally prepared to barely hitting the minimums to not being able to play the game at all, but with the current rate of progression, that would take 4-5 years most likely. Granted, I don't want to be playing minimum specs either, but I've had my computer for 3 and a half years and it can still play the newest games decently well, albeit not as good as I would prefer.

I don't know how I feel about it personally. I'm probably just apathetic to the console market in general.

Giovanni · 2006-05-14, 06:37 PM

Ermm... Kin... my 3 year old computer cannot run Oblivion... or Battlefield 2...

Lonehunter · 2006-05-14, 07:22 PM

Honestly I've been a Sony fan since my gaming birth, but lately, the PS will not win, and it's b/c of one word...

Halo

Giovanni · 2006-05-14, 07:27 PM

If halo 3 get's released so soon... you can expect the fucking thing to be shitty (see Halo 2 as evidence... it took three years and they managed to rush the end making the game a total POS.)

In my opinion Halo is pretty fucking over-rated.

Biohazzard56 · 2006-05-14, 08:36 PM

Halo 2 was not rushed, its been commented on several times.

Giovanni · 2006-05-14, 09:12 PM

Bugs... lot's of clipping... shitty plot and end... yeah... of course it wasn't rushed! That's like SOE saying that Planetside is perfect and balanced... get my drift?

Rbstr · 2006-05-14, 09:48 PM

The story was supposed to end all WTF cliffhanger-y, as it's not really an ending at all.

HL2 would go down as the worst game in history if mid-trilogy/multi-part endings were based upon an actual story ending.

Speaking of which, HL2 Episode 1 is out in less than a month, who's stoked?

OneManArmy · 2006-05-14, 10:29 PM

not 25 bucks stoked. they can kiss my fucking ass. hl2 was fun once. I'm not paying just to play it again.

oh and where are the tons of bugs and clipping in halo2? I've never seen em.

Mag-Mower · 2006-05-14, 11:08 PM

I agree with Gio, Halo is overrated. Its not good, its not terrible, its been done before, and I find it horrendously un-orrignal.

Giovanni · 2006-05-15, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by OneManArmy

not 25 bucks stoked. they can kiss my fucking ass. hl2 was fun once. I'm not paying just to play it again.

oh and where are the tons of bugs and clipping in halo2? I've never seen em.

Guess I'm just unlucky... either that or I should be a game tester!

Seriously thought alot of my friends have encountered bugs and clipping issues... the story has a whole also lacks, not just the ending.