Sony Confirms US $399

[iago]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.

Heh, I read your first post, and everything you said sounded weak and biased, so I decided it wasn't worth arguing or even saying anything. I guess they feel the same way.

[Warrior]

It's best to just ignore warrior's posts whenever anything remotely related to microsoft is mentioned, it makes the forums a better place for everyone.

Pretty sure this stems from your (failed) argument against me? Too lazy to look up exactly what you failed at, but it was probably significant =).

I don't remember arguing with you, but mkay. It is quite possible.

Then what are you trying to prove with your comment?

How about reading the arguments for content before making assumptions. Helps a bit.

Heh, I read your first post, and everything you said sounded weak and biased, so I decided it wasn't worth arguing or even saying anything. I guess they feel the same way.

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

[dark_drake]

Exactly what has changed? Besides feature cuts?

Oh, about a year and a few hundred dollars off. 

I did read an article earlier on why Sony dropped the PS2 BC, and in short, it's because they want people to buy PS3 games. I disagree with what they're doing; I thought it was to save on development costs, but it's not.

What else are they buying it for? The sub 50 selection of games? Maybe they like the light hits the black finish.

They are buying it both for the games and as a Blu-Ray Player. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that there are games worth playing on the PS3.

It's hard to know what you're getting at if you don't explicitly cite what you mean. Let's see it.

There are a hell of a lot more cross platform games than 15.

GTA IV will haved timed XBox 360 exclusive content, Devil May Cry lost it's intial PS3 exclusivity, and so did Assasins Creed. Why waste more money on a console, when I can get a 360 (with better performance due to developer interest, the XNA Framework, Xbox Live, et all)? What is the driving force behind PS3 sales? What makes me want to go out and buy one?

id Software does not solely develop in-house games, it also co-develops or guides other projects using it's id Tech 4 Engine (Quake, Doom, etc.) and it's next id Tech 5 Engine. It's primarily coded on guess what? The Xbox 360.

John Carmack himself has stated t he 360 is superior to the PS3 in terms of development. John Carmack, a 3D Programming pioneer. Author of famous algorithms which revolutionized gaming. That guy.

I'm not about to judge the performance for Assassin's and DMC4 will be on the PS3 and 360; I don't have a crystal ball to look into. I am curious about it, though, because these two games will be the very few that started being developed for the PS3 first, and then went to the 360. I'm almost positive that the main reason for the ports is, again, development costs.

Again, some games are better on the 360, and some are better on the PS3. It all depends on the developer. Neither system has clear superiority in performance at this point.

Finally, I'm not too concerned about id Software's games and engine. That's one company and one game engine. Seriously, Square Enix's white engine looks kickass, and guess what, it's built for the PS3.

The difference is, the 360 has a library of games to fall back on. If the PS3 loses backwards compatability, what the hell are people going to do?
Like I said, there is only so many times you can beat Resistance.

There are other games to play on the PS3. It's library may not be as extensive as the 360's at this point, but it's growing. People who get/own PS3's are going to find other PS3 games to play in the time being.

All this and it's still as expensive as a high-end 360 SKU. There is a difference between the launch titles, and how fast new games appear. What worthwhile has come out of the PS3 camp since launch?

Lair? Flop.
Heavenly Sword? Perhaps.
Metal Gear Solid? MIA.

What worthwhile games were out after a year the 360 came out? New games are almost always slow coming out to systems less than a year old. The only system to have more than a few worthwhile games less than a year after launch has been the Wii and maybe the PS2.

So you don't think Sony's most fledging success, the reason that there is a sliver of relevance in the playstation brand is not backed by Sony? Hell, SCEA is even credited for the in-house development guides.

It's similiar to Microsoft aiding the Games it finds neat and then advertising. The difference is, games not made or funded by Microsoft still appear and are still successful.

All right, I am completely confused at the first statement here. Are we still talking about Square Enix? If we are, you need to look up the word subsidiary.  Square Enix isn't owned or controlled by Sony, not even by a long shot.

How many games (made by companies not controlled by Microsoft at the time) has Microsoft done that for? The only one that really comes to mind is Gears of War.

They're not just cutting costs. They're cutting costs and they're cutting features.
I fail to see how $399 is in the "price range" of a Wii. That's about $160 more than the Wii.

They're cutting features they don't feel are necessary. And with the price drop, the PS3 a hell of a lot closer to the Wii than it was before. $160 is really not that much money at Christmas time for most people.

What does the Wii have? The most insane backwards compatability ever brought to a gaming console.
What does the Xbox 360 have? Software emulation backwards compatability, while shaky at times it's better than nothing.
What does the PS3 have? Jack shit.

Backwards compatibility isn't everything. When was the last time backwards compatibility won a console war? It never has and never will.

It's the facts, you can try to twist them as much as you want but at the end of the day they remain the same.
There is no justified reason to get a PS3.

There is no justified reason to you. But guess what? (I know this might be a shock to you, but I feel you need to be told) You're not the entire consumer market; to some, it's worth it. There are decent games on and coming to the PS3 you're not going to see anywhere else. Furthermore, if someone is into high definition and whatnot, they will have a Blu-Ray player with HDMI output.

[Warrior]

I did read an article earlier on why Sony dropped the PS2 BC, and in short, it's because they want people to buy PS3 games. I disagree with what they're doing; I thought it was to save on development costs, but it's not.

Development costs saved are very very negligible, I remember reading something along the lines of $30 but I can't seem to find the source.

They are buying it both for the games and as a Blu-Ray Player. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that there are games worth playing on the PS3.

What games? The only two I've enjoyed are Motorstorm (Hey it's on the 360), and Resistance.
Almost nothing makes me, or anyone else I know want to buy a PS3. I mean, when it was announced it sounded promising. Then I realized that while I'd have a potentially good console, it lacks content.

There is no denying it lacks content. Let's go out on a limb and say all the PS3 games released thus far are good, that's still a very abysmal number and a vast majority of the Games can be found on the 360. Where is the advantage? What is justifying the higher price?

There are a hell of a lot more cross platform games than 15.

Like? If you can find me at least 16 you win.

I'm not about to judge the performance for Assassin's and DMC4 will be on the PS3 and 360; I don't have a crystal ball to look into. I am curious about it, though, because these two games will be the very few that started being developed for the PS3 first, and then went to the 360. I'm almost positive that the main reason for the ports is, again, development costs.

That's true. You're missing the significant bit though. Which console is getting titles ported to. In this case it's the PS3, it's being given the cold shoulder by developers in terms of native development.

If the PS3 was any thing like it promised, people would be porting games to the 360. Not vice versa.

Again, some games are better on the 360, and some are better on the PS3. It all depends on the developer. Neither system has clear superiority in performance at this point.

This I'll assume is hypothetical because thus far no cross-platform game released has proven to even outperform the 360 on the PS3.
I'll go along with it though, but again the significant bit is ARE developers actually taking the time to develop natively on the PS3? The answer is no.

Finally, I'm not too concerned about id Software's games and engine. That's one company and one game engine. Seriously, Square Enix's white engine looks kickass, and guess what, it's built for the PS3.

id's engine is a good thing for the PS3. Carmack is a perfectionist so he will hammer that thing until it runs at 60 FPS on the PS3. It's not a distance many will go, and that's the point I'm making. The PS3 is not attractive enough to muster enough interest.

Additionally, most Game Programmers take Carmack's word as law. He is the absolute authority on the subject. Best believe he is one of, if not the most influential Game programmer in the industry.

What worthwhile games were out after a year the 360 came out? New games are almost always slow coming out to systems less than a year old. The only system to have more than a few worthwhile games less than a year after launch has been the Wii and maybe the PS2.

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 3
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GRAW 1
GRAW 2
Def. Orange Box

Probably more, can't think of any off the top of my head as I don't own a 360. Those are a few I've played.

All right, I am completely confused at the first statement here. Are we still talking about Square Enix? If we are, you need to look up the word subsidiary.  Square Enix isn't owned or controlled by Sony, not even by a long shot.

Perhaps by no official means, but there is no denying that it may as well be the way they take it from Sony. It's not even debatable the sheer amount of work Sony pours into keeping that franchise profitable.

How many games (made by companies not controlled by Microsoft at the time) has Microsoft done that for? The only one that really comes to mind is Gears of War.

Gears of War is owned by Microsoft. It was actually developed in-house. Then again unless I'm reading incorrectly this is the wrong point to make, a better one would be "How many games not controlled by Microsoft have been successful"

The answer is many.

They're cutting features they don't feel are necessary. And with the price drop, the PS3 a hell of a lot closer to the Wii than it was before. $160 is really not that much money at Christmas time for most people.

$160 is definitely quite a bit of many, else you wouldn't be jumping up and down ranting on about how the PS3 did this to "Save costs". What's another $100? $200?

Backwards compatibility isn't everything. When was the last time backwards compatibility won a console war? It never has and never will.

When's the last time it came into play? Never, unless you count the PS2 supporting PS1 games.

There is no justified reason to you. But guess what? (I know this might be a shock to you, but I feel you need to be told) You're not the entire consumer market; to some, it's worth it. There are decent games on and coming to the PS3 you're not going to see anywhere else. Furthermore, if someone is into high definition and whatnot, they will have a Blu-Ray player with HDMI output.

It seems to me, that the Market agrees with what I think. Considering the PS3 is in last place. Then again, I suppose it's fun to hide/twist facts.

[dark_drake]

What games? The only two I've enjoyed are Motorstorm (Hey it's on the 360), and Resistance.
Almost nothing makes me, or anyone else I know want to buy a PS3. I mean, when it was announced it sounded promising. Then I realized that while I'd have a potentially good console, it lacks content.

There is no denying it lacks content. Let's go out on a limb and say all the PS3 games released thus far are good, that's still a very abysmal number and a vast majority of the Games can be found on the 360. Where is the advantage? What is justifying the higher price?

Ugh.... there are still games to play on it; pretending that there aren't doesn't make them go away. If a person did not have a 360 or Wii, the PS3 is still a viable choice.

Like? If you can find me at least 16 you win.

DirT, Madden 07, Madden 08, Sega Rally Revo, Armored Core 4, F.E.A.R., Oblivion, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Darkness, GRAW 2, Transformers, Skate, Tony Hawk's Proving Ground, Enchanted Arms, Fight Night Round 3, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.

I win. There are a lot of multiplatform games, but neither of us have denied that.

That's true. You're missing the significant bit though. Which console is getting titles ported to. In this case it's the PS3, it's being given the cold shoulder by developers in terms of native development.

If the PS3 was any thing like it promised, people would be porting games to the 360. Not vice versa.

As long as they're getting the 3rd party support, and the games are running at comparable performance, I really don't think it matters too much who is developing natively. Without third party support, the gamecube and xbox wouldn't have survived the previous generation. An example worth bringing up: The Sega Dreamcast. Serious lack of 3rd party support destroyed the Sega I knew and loved faster than I could have ever imagined.

This I'll assume is hypothetical because thus far no cross-platform game released has proven to even outperform the 360 on the PS3.
I'll go along with it though, but again the significant bit is ARE developers actually taking the time to develop natively on the PS3? The answer is no.

IIRC, Oblivion and Armored Core 4 both were considered to be graphically superior on the PS3.

id's engine is a good thing for the PS3. Carmack is a perfectionist so he will hammer that thing until it runs at 60 FPS on the PS3. It's not a distance many will go, and that's the point I'm making. The PS3 is not attractive enough to muster enough interest.

Additionally, most Game Programmers take Carmack's word as law. He is the absolute authority on the subject. Best believe he is one of, if not the most influential Game programmer in the industry.

javascript:void(0);
Roll Eyes
If it's going to be running well on both, it seems like a non-factor. 

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 3
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
GRAW 1
GRAW 2
Def. Orange Box

Probably more, can't think of any off the top of my head as I don't own a 360. Those are a few I've played.

I said 1 year after release, so that eliminates half of those games. The point of that limitation was so you could see that the 360 got off to pretty poor start as well.  The point I'm trying to make: there weren't that many great games for the 360 after 1 year.

Perhaps by no official means, but there is no denying that it may as well be the way they take it from Sony. It's not even debatable the sheer amount of work Sony pours into keeping that franchise profitable.

I'm through arguing about Square Enix with you. You seem to be seriously misinformed.

Gears of War is owned by Microsoft. It was actually developed in-house. Then again unless I'm reading incorrectly this is the wrong point to make, a better one would be "How many games not controlled by Microsoft have been successful"

The answer is many.

A person could also argue that many games not developed by Sony or it's subsidiaries have been successful, but I'm not going to because it would be wasted keystrokes at this point.

Gears of War was developed in-house by Epic; Microsoft had nothing to do with the development.

$160 is definitely quite a bit of money, else you wouldn't be jumping up and down ranting on about how the PS3 did this to "Save costs". What's another $100? $200?

I'd like to know where I started ranting about how the PS3 did this to save costs? Did you actually read my comment? I mentioned I read an article saying how Sony removed BC, but it wasn't about saving costs. Sony cut the cost significantly in order remain competitive in the market. The Wii is going to be sold out this Christmas, but parents are still going to be looking to get their children a console; that leaves the PS3  and 360. The prices are comparable.

When's the last time it came into play? Never, unless you count the PS2 supporting PS1 games.

That didn't even come close to winning the console war last generation for Sony. The fact is that Sony had all the third party support they could get, awesome developing firms under them, and the hardware to back it all up.

It seems to me, that the Market agrees with what I think. Considering the PS3 is in last place. Then again, I suppose it's fun to hide/twist facts.

It's been one year; this generation is far from over.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

[Sidoh]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

No it wouldn't!

And if that doesn't do it, I have two words for you.

Common... common!

[Warrior]

Ugh.... there are still games to play on it; pretending that there aren't doesn't make them go away. If a person did not have a 360 or Wii, the PS3 is still a viable choice.

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

As long as they're getting the 3rd party support, and the games are running at comparable performance, I really don't think it matters too much who is developing natively. Without third party support, the gamecube and xbox wouldn't have survived the previous generation. An example worth bringing up: The Sega Dreamcast. Serious lack of 3rd party support destroyed the Sega I knew and loved faster than I could have ever imagined.

There is a comparable difference between Ports and natively developed titles. I thought this had been established and agreed upon? A difference of 30 FPS is far from negligable.

IIRC, Oblivion and Armored Core 4 both were considered to be graphically superior on the PS3.

Never heard of Armored Core 4, but I don't think Oblivion did anything special. Perhaps it cleaned up it's shiteous LOD system. It's a very real possibility, but in terms of any concrete graphical superiority I doubt it.

I think the only way something will reap the benefits of the Core in any sort of serious manner is to be custom designed for the PS3s architecture. The architecture of the Cell processor is radically different than programming for three processors on the 360.

If it's going to be running well on both, it seems like a non-factor. 

Sure, if you only consider id's offering. To the others who look to Carmack for advise, his downtalking of the PS3 is not helping adoption. It's a very real fact, as his very own statements have been regurgitated by other Game companies.

I said 1 year after release, so that eliminates half of those games. The point of that limitation was so you could see that the 360 got off to pretty poor start as well.  The point I'm trying to make: there weren't that many great games for the 360 after 1 year.

I misread what you said, I thought you meant 1year+.

In that case I'm not really sure about a specific launch window for titles, as I don't own a 360.

A person could also argue that many games not developed by Sony or it's subsidiaries have been successful, but I'm not going to because it would be wasted keystrokes at this point.

But there are not any. What's the last award winning non-sony PS3 game? Resistance?

Gears of War was developed in-house by Epic; Microsoft had nothing to do with the development.

Hm, not really sure. I'm certain Microsoft took a big part in it's development. They sure as hell spent advertising money, and I remember multiple interviews CliffyB did where he showed his team working with Microsoft and even meeting deadlines set by Bill Gates.

I'd like to know where I started ranting about how the PS3 did this to save costs? Did you actually read my comment? I mentioned I read an article saying how Sony removed BC, but it wasn't about saving costs. Sony cut the cost significantly in order remain competitive in the market. The Wii is going to be sold out this Christmas, but parents are still going to be looking to get their children a console; that leaves the PS3  and 360. The prices are comparable.

You used it in your defense every time I questioned the removal of Backwards Compatability. The competetive edge is a small one if you're losing features in the mean time. Keep the features, they obviously don't have a huge financial impact on console development.

Besides, they need to quit focusing on cutting Console costsand focus on selling titles. TITLES sell the Console, and therefore Sony recoups money lost. Microsoft loses money per 360, Wii is the only console to remain profitable at manufacturing.

This strategy will only discourage people from buying the PS3, will stagnate what little marketshare they have, and will ultimately screw them over.

It seems not even the recent bargain-basement offerings of the PS3 could make it move units. It says something about the content on the system.

Why is the PS3 not selling?

That didn't even come close to winning the console war last generation for Sony. The fact is that Sony had all the third party support they could get, awesome developing firms under them, and the hardware to back it all up.

Never stated it did. Not by a long shot.

In this generation, and for the PS3 in it's current situation: The removal of backwards compatability is the straw that broke the camels back.

It's been one year; this generation is far from over.

That's far from the truth: If you don't catch acceptance early on, there is no way you're going to uproot the juggernauts already in place.
The PS3 is very close, if not already damning it's position in the market.

[Warrior]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

[Warrior]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

Take it somewhere else, when I start hijacking your threads then perhaps you'll have a justified reason.
Until then, either read the content, put up, or shut up.

[iago]

So state what exactly was "weak" as everything I stated was fact. Of course, you're welcome to try to disprove it.
Anything else is hot air unfortunately.

Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Good try, though!

Then your point was? I mean, not that it doesn't flatter me you waste your time contributing nothing to a discussion.

I was just backing up what a couple others said. Sidoh and somebody else, I forget now.

<edit> Hitmen! Of course!

Take it somewhere else, when I start hijacking your threads then perhaps you'll have a justified reason.
Until then, either read the content, put up, or shut up.

Haha, you don't have to get so defensive!

[dark_drake]

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

Two words: Halo 3

There is a comparable difference between Ports and natively developed titles. I thought this had been established and agreed upon? A difference of 30 FPS is far from negligable.

I haven't played a single port with that difference, but I don't play sports games. Furthermore, EA's sports games are the only games I've heard with this massive difference in performance. Almost all other games have had roughly equal performance.

I think the only way something will reap the benefits of the Core in any sort of serious manner is to be custom designed for the PS3s architecture. The architecture of the Cell processor is radically different than programming for three processors on the 360.

No kidding?

Sure, if you only consider id's offering. To the others who look to Carmack for advise, his downtalking of the PS3 is not helping adoption. It's a very real fact, as his very own statements have been regurgitated by other Game companies.

That's great. He's not God.

But there are not any. What's the last award winning non-sony PS3 game? Resistance?

By successful, I thought you meant sold a reasonable amount, but if you want to go off of award-winning games, but yes, Resistance would probably be the only one. On the other hand, Gears of War and Orange Box (which will be on PS3 soon), are about the only two that come to mind with Microsoft.

Hm, not really sure. I'm certain Microsoft took a big part in it's development. They sure as hell spent advertising money, and I remember multiple interviews CliffyB did where he showed his team working with Microsoft and even meeting deadlines set by Bill Gates.

Trust me, Epic did the development of Gears of War.

You used it in your defense every time I questioned the removal of Backwards Compatability. The competetive edge is a small one if you're losing features in the mean time. Keep the features, they obviously don't have a huge financial impact on console development.

Quotations or it didn't happen. Seriously.

Besides, they need to quit focusing on cutting Console costsand focus on selling titles. TITLES sell the Console, and therefore Sony recoups money lost. Microsoft loses money per 360, Wii is the only console to remain profitable at manufacturing.

This is the point of the cost cutting, according to Sony. By lowering the price and removing BC, they are, first, making their console more appealing to the people who don't have $600 to spend on a console, and second, making it so people have to buy PS3 games.

This strategy will only discourage people from buying the PS3, will stagnate what little marketshare they have, and will ultimately screw them over.

It seems not even the recent bargain-basement offerings of the PS3 could make it move units. It says something about the content on the system.

Again, I'm not able to see your logic here. How do lower prices discourage people from buying things? I'm sick of hearing you say this; lower prices encourage people to buy things. Seriously, I've asked it time and time again, and you just keep saying lack of software and features. If someone is just getting into this generation, there are games for them to play. Furthermore, the cheaper PS3 isn't even out yet.

Never stated it did. Not by a long shot.

In this generation, and for the PS3 in it's current situation: The removal of backwards compatability is the straw that broke the camels back.

You keep making BC to be the most important thing the PS3 could do. It's not. Just like the Wii's and 360's BC aren't their biggest features.

That's far from the truth: If you don't catch acceptance early on, there is no way you're going to uproot the juggernauts already in place.
The PS3 is very close, if not already damning it's position in the market.

The only system proven to be a juggernaut thus far has been the Wii.

[Warrior]

No, the person would choose between a Wii, 360 , or a PS3. What you say would be true if the PS3 did not just get outsold 5 to 1 this month. I think they barely scratched 100k units.

Two words: Halo 3

And before the release of Halo 3? The PS3 wasn't magically outselling the 360 or the Wii. Not by a long shot.

I haven't played a single port with that difference, but I don't play sports games. Furthermore, EA's sports games are the only games I've heard with this massive difference in performance. Almost all other games have had roughly equal performance.

You have not played many ports then, the ports I've played both PS3 -> 360 and 360 -> PS3 have all or almost all been horrible. There is a clear difference in Frames/sec.

No kidding?

So then you agree that ports are crap, and that most of the PS3 games thus far are ports. Therefore, most PS3 games are crap?
Why would anyone buy this console?

That's great. He's not God.

Ok? You're attemping to downplay his significance? Why don't you do some research into what he's done then come back.

By successful, I thought you meant sold a reasonable amount, but if you want to go off of award-winning games, but yes, Resistance would probably be the only one. On the other hand, Gears of War and Orange Box (which will be on PS3 soon), are about the only two that come to mind with Microsoft.

Then I suggest you think a bit harder, there are plenty more. Additionally, Orange Box will be a PORT to the PS3. Gabe Newell (Valve CEO) hates the PS3. He's very vocal about his dislike for the machine.

Trust me, Epic did the development of Gears of War.

"Gears of War is a tactical third-person shooter video game developed by Epic Games (the creators of the Unreal series) using Unreal Engine 3.0 technology and published by Microsoft Game Studios." (Wikipedia)

You're right, this also solves why Microsoft dumped money into advertising and Production. Additionally, GoW for the PC will be a Games for Windows certified Game. Seems like Microsoft's involvement in this (Like all early-adopters of GFW) is obvious.

This is the point of the cost cutting, according to Sony. By lowering the price and removing BC, they are, first, making their console more appealing to the people who don't have $600 to spend on a console, and second, making it so people have to buy PS3 games.

That goes against cost cutting. You don't cost cut at the expense of features. That's making the console less attractive, therefore moving less games and recouping less of a loss. If you think the PS3 is still (even with BC removed) making a profit off console--or even breaking even you're dellusional.

Again, I'm not able to see your logic here. How do lower prices discourage people from buying things? I'm sick of hearing you say this; lower prices encourage people to buy things. Seriously, I've asked it time and time again, and you just keep saying lack of software and features. If someone is just getting into this generation, there are games for them to play. Furthermore, the cheaper PS3 isn't even out yet.

No, if someone isn't in this generation yet they have these options:

Wii
360
PS3

Wii with small library, TONS of backwards compatible games, browsing, rudimentary online, casual appeal, etc.
360 with a bigger game library, more native games, better online support, etc.
PS3 with smaller library, more ports, very-very nice firmware updates, decent multimedia capabilities

Those are the options people have. Unless they live on a remote island where only PS3s are offered.

You keep making BC to be the most important thing the PS3 could do. It's not. Just like the Wii's and 360's BC aren't their biggest features.

What part of "Straw that broke the camels back" didn't you understand?

I'm sure the:

Lack of games
Quality of games
Horrible Blu-Ray read speeds, aka load times
Lack of substantial online

are what ruined the PS3. The PS3 was too little, too late.

The Wii's backward compatability IS a godsend. It SUPPLEMENTS their library of games, since it's pretty small right now.
Because of this, there is no shortage of games, no shortage of fun as is the case with the PS3.

The Wii is the perfect console.

The only system proven to be a juggernaut thus far has been the Wii.

The Wii *just* outsold the 360 in total sales. Best believe they are very close together in total sales, and as of this month the 360 outsold the Wii by 20k units (~1/5 of the total PS3 sales)

The 360 is very well a juggernaut in the game. How many sold PS3s total? Something like 3 million? 4 Million?

[dark_drake]

And before the release of Halo 3? The PS3 wasn't magically outselling the 360 or the Wii. Not by a long shot.

I never said it did. But the reason for the 360 selling 5:1 is due to Halo 3. Before that, it was maybe 2:1 in the American market, if that. But I'm not disputing the facts, the PS3 isn't selling as much, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having.

You have not played many ports then, the ports I've played both PS3 -> 360 and 360 -> PS3 have all or almost all been horrible. There is a clear difference in Frames/sec.

Which ones? The only ones  with noticeable differences to me have been sports games, and I only play those with friends, and that's rare.

So then you agree that ports are crap, and that most of the PS3 games thus far are ports. Therefore, most PS3 games are crap?
Why would anyone buy this console?

I didn't say any of that. Ports are just fine.

Ok? You're attemping to downplay his significance? Why don't you do some research into what he's done then come back.

No, I'm trying to say that his decision isn't the only one that matters in such a massive industry.

Then I suggest you think a bit harder, there are plenty more. Additionally, Orange Box will be a PORT to the PS3. Gabe Newell (Valve CEO) hates the PS3. He's very vocal about his dislike for the machine.

Name the games.

That goes against cost cutting. You don't cost cut at the expense of features. That's making the console less attractive, therefore moving less games and recouping less of a loss. If you think the PS3 is still (even with BC removed) making a profit off console--or even breaking even you're dellusional.

They were never breaking even. I never said that. The only delusional person around here is you with all the words you're putting in my mouth.

It's a move that Sony felt would encourage PS3 console and game sales.

No, if someone isn't in this generation yet they have these options:

Wii
360
PS3

Wii with small library, TONS of backwards compatible games, browsing, rudimentary online, casual appeal, etc.
360 with a bigger game library, more native games, better online support, etc.
PS3 with smaller library, more ports, very-very nice firmware updates, decent multimedia capabilities

Those are the options people have. Unless they live on a remote island where only PS3s are offered.

I didn't say they didn't have options. Again, you're misrepresenting my argument. I said that the PS3 was a viable option, and nothing you have said has proven that to be otherwise.

What part of "Straw that broke the camels back" didn't you understand?

I'm sure the:

Lack of games
Quality of games
Horrible Blu-Ray read speeds, aka load times
Lack of substantial online

are what ruined the PS3. The PS3 was too little, too late.

The Wii's backward compatability IS a godsend. It SUPPLEMENTS their library of games, since it's pretty small right now.
Because of this, there is no shortage of games, no shortage of fun as is the case with the PS3.

The Wii is the perfect console.

Again, there are fewer games, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. There are plenty of games that have been reviewed quite well. Blu-ray speeds are just fine. Again, it depends on the game for the load times. Finally, the lack of substantial online: Just because it's not xbox Live doesn't mean it's not substantial. Xbox Live is the best in the industry at the moment, Sony is second, and the Wii is a distant 3rd.

The Wii *just* outsold the 360 in total sales. Best believe they are very close together in total sales, and as of this month the 360 outsold the Wii by 20k units (~1/5 of the total PS3 sales)

The 360 is very well a juggernaut in the game. How many sold PS3s total? Something like 3 million? 4 Million?

The Wii has been out for 1/2 the time. The only reason it hasn't sold more is due to production issues. And I believe your statistics are for the US, not the world.

The PS3 has sold a little over 5 million I'm thinking.

In summary, you think the Wii is king, the 360 is in the middle, and the PS3 is utter garbage. I disagree , and I am saying that it's too early to say.