Sony Announces Further Price Cuts For PS3 In Japan >

	2007/10/09 8:39:06: Posted by DM
	Sony has announced a further price cut for the PS3 in Japan, as well as the introduction of the 40gb model. As you know, the 40gb unit is stripped down, with less USB ports and it will actually sell for less than the current price of the 20gb model. The 20GB model will now retail for JPY 44,980, down from JPY 49,980, effective from October 17. The 40GB model will sell for JPY 39,980 when it's introduced to the market on November 11. No word on US changes yet, but it was leaked yesterday that the 60gb model would be discontinued as soon as stocks were depleted. Just an FYI, some of the new 40gb PS3 units will be white in color. >Link
	Labeled With  sony playstation 3 Comments [26]  | Rate this article: -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Avg. rating of 10.0

Sony needs all the help they can get in all parts of the world, because the Playstation 3 is selling very poorly.

The Playstation 3 has fallen far short of the objectives that Sony had for it in their Japanese business plan.

This is a very small price difference, yet not enough to make a difference; PS3 is still FAR more expensive than the Wii, which sells for only $215 in Japan.

Wii is the console that Japanese people are interested. The sales figures prove that.

wrong sony doesnt need help,

just one solution,

make two different console and make it affordable!

one cost 60gb model stays the same

the second they should keep the hard drive storage same so if its 20 GB, stick with 20gb otherwise ppl will get confuse !!!!!!!!!

with 20gb now they change 40gb keep a good cost for a good while....

heck i'm a little confused now. 20GB,40GB,60GB,80GB. Some had a clearance sale, others are discontinued. i want one eventually when socom comes out, but dang it is confusing.

core, preneium, elite arcade?!?!?!?!?!?!?

yep, both companies are confusing the heck out of the the parents and grandparents out there. It's funny...there's only ONE Wii!!

put it here m/

core = arcade

yeah i know

The only thing that can save the PS3 is to take out the blu-ray drive, but now all the games are blu-ray, so fuck you Sony.

whYte420: too late. They are stuck with Blu-Ray, for better or for worse. Kind of like a bad marriage... I can only imagine how much better the PS3 would have done without Blu-Ray or the Cell. The 2 things that drove the manufacturing costs up the most, makes programming games more difficult, and delayed the launch of the new console in comparison to the 360.

Sony f*cked up big time with Blu-Ray, they opened the door for the 360 and Wii to compete on an even playing field this time. Only time will tell whether Blu-Ray/Cell was worth the gamble or not.

I am curious if a cheaper price helps the PS3 in Japan or if Japan just likes the Wii better???

Without Bluray or cell, the PS3 wouldn't be a next-gen console. Sony's strategy is much more long term than either MS's or Nintendo's, who opted to take the cheap route in order to benefit from early sales. Sony's strategy was to invest in technology that will have a longer lifespan, sacrificing early sales for future long term sales. But Sony was in the best position to do so because they have the PS2 to sustain low-end sales until the PS3 can drop low enough in price to replace it. Of the three strategies, Nintendo's was the shortest-sighted. Guaranteed the Wii is dead in 3 years while the 360 and PS3 will still be going strong. The question is, what will Nintendo bring out to replace it?

madgunde: I wasnt aware that Nintendo had a next generation console available for purchase right now. My point about Blu-Ray and Cell were that Microsoft went a different rout with it's CPU and optical media drive and they are doing fine RROD excluded of course. If they hadn't had to wait for Cell and Blu-Ray to be ramp up for mass production as they claimed then they wouldnt have given the 360 a years head start, and thier console wouldnt have been so expensive. To date nothing on either the PS3 or 360 shows either console has a clear advantage in graphics over the other. I would love a good debate on this...

it would be nice if madgunde could lend us his future showing crystal ball, i would love to know who will win this generation, and what date the wii will be dead

@PimpDaddy

Graphics are not the only thing the Cell brings (or the Xenon for that matter). They also allow much more complex games with far more simulated variables which allow for more complex games. I didn't mean to imply that BluRay and Cell are required for next-gen consoles, and I was oversimplifying my argument. I think I was just trying to point out that the PS3 without Cell and BluRay isn't the PS3, and it's pointless to try to argue about whether the system or platform would be better without them. On the one hand, Sony could sell a lot more without them because of a lower price, but would all the people who bought a PS3 buy one if it was basically just an XBox 360, and would the game industry benefit from that?

I think the games industry has benefitted a lot from the three consoles being unique and targeted at different markets. Sony on the high-end, Nintendo on the low-end, and Microsoft in between. Why on earth would someone want Sony to just offer the same thing as Microsoft? If you want what Microsoft has, then buy it, but don't slag Sony for wanting to set the bar higher.

@arthur56k

Sorry if I failed to write the patently obvious. My comments are my opinions and my predictions are in no way intended to express some sort of supernatural ability to predict the future. As for my use of the word 'dead', in hindsight, it's too strong a word for what I intended. I didn't mean it wouldn't exist or Nintendo would be out of business, simply that it would no longer be the hot item it is now. It'll probably still sell OK, similar to the PS2 because it will be cheap as hell, but a lot more people will have HDTVs in 3 years, and I think the Wii's graphics will become a much bigger issue, especially once the price difference between the Wii/360/PS3 shrinks as is inevitable and people are over the novelty of the WiiMote and other gimmicky controllers that Nintendo brings out.

I suspect a good number of Wii owners bought them to tide them over until the real next-gen consoles come down to a more affordable price range in a couple of years. Same goes for all those people buying PS2s.

Response to madgunde:

Xbox 360 has set BY FAR the Highest Standards for software performance!



Xbox 360 versions of games offer either noticable or significant improvements over the Playstation 3 versions of the games.

2K Sports, EA Sports, Ubisoft, Activision, and others have shown that the difference in quality between the Xbox 360 is actually GROWING in a way that is favoring the Xbox 360!



Just look at the way three different development teams, from two different publishers (2K Sports, and EA Sports) created three different Football games: Madden NFL 2008, NCAA Football 2008, All-Pro Football 2K8

The Xbox 360 versions of those football games "run smoothly at 60 frames per second, even in the 1080p resolution mode." But the Playstation 3 versions of those games "struggle to run at 30 frames per second in 720p resolution mode."

Those are HUGE performance advantages in favor of the Xbox 360!!!



It isn't just "Football" that this occurs in. Look at this years new NBA Live 2008 game. The Xbox 360 version looks a LOT better than the Playstation 3 version.

And look at games like Splinter Cell: Double Agent, from Ubisoft. There is no doubt that the Xbox 360 version is superior to the Playstation 3 version. The framerate of the PS3 version is very poor throughout the game.

F.E.A.R. is a game that has the same problem, only worse! It runs smoothly at 30 frames per second on Xbox 360, but often drops below 20 frames per second on Playstation 3, which causes the game to go into slow-motion and look pathetic! The Xbox 360 version of F.E.A.R. is awesome, and has even received exclusive new maps/levels, because the developers said the PS3 couldn't handle stuff like that.



The addition of "Blu-ray" contributes in a very small way to the videogame aspect of the Playstation 3. It is a 100% proven FACT that less than 1% of games this generation require more than one dual-layer DVD of space on the disc! Xbox 360 has HUNDREDS of games, but only one of them requires more than one DVD. Even HUGE games like Oblivion and Mass Effect require only one DVD.



And the "Cell" CPU processor of the Playstation 3 is just more of Sony's "marketing" nonsense...similar to the "Emotion Engine" CPU in the Playstation 2 that was supposedly going to produce playable graphics that Sony said would be "as good as the Disney movie, Toy Story." Obviously, that never came close to happening.



CPU fact: What do you really, truly, think is a better CPU...processors such as Sony's "Cell" CPU and "Emotion Engine" CPU....OR the "PowerPC" CPU chip that is used in the Xbox 360.

The PowerPC has always been considered the best performing, most developer friendly chip available for videogame development.

Consider this: The PowerPC was around before the Emotion Engine...and the PowerPC is still around, while the Emotion Engine is pretty much dead.

Similarly, the PowerPC family of chips will still be around after the PS3...but the "Cell" chip is already trying to be sold...Sony is trying to sell the factories to Toshiba...but Toshiba ain't buyin' so far, cuz they've got brains!

madgunde: I can accept what your said. I'm still not sold on Cell making the PS3 more "capable" than the 360, but only time will tell... I can see the space benefits of Blu-Ray, but I still feel that the biggest reason Sony put it in the PS3 was to gain an advantage in the HD movie format war. I just think as a consumer that sucks that people are forced to buy into a format that isnt proven let alone needed for HD videogames if they want to play games on the newest "Playstation".

Just so you know I bought all 4 consoles last generation. They all offered basically the same thign when it came to graphics. The Xbox offered standard HDD, best graphics, and an online service to set itself apart from the competition. But we all saw that the less powerful PS2 easily won the war due to game selection and brand recognition.

I dont want the consoles to be the same, your right whats the point. But to me thats exactly what the 360 and PS3 are offering graphically. PS3 has HD movie playback, and options to run linux/browse the internet. 360 offers superior online. Both consoles are limited by the amount of RAM they have, and other bottlenecks. Neither console will reach thier maximum output as stated on paper. They are both 2 similar in performance and thats why they are constantly compared. I owned both for a period of time, and will again in the near future. I honestly couldnt go wrong either way. I just felt at the time that superior versions of multiplatform games and superior integrated online service was more important than PS3's non-gaming functions such as Blu-Ray movies. Thats my opinion...

@Krogan

There are examples of PS3 games that are better graphically and performance-wise than their 360 counterparts. DiRT and Oblivion are perfect examples. How many 360 games offer 40 player online matches like Resistance Fall of Man? That disparity will vanish over time, sooner than you think. The latest batch of sports games are looking almost identical, but I think Sony will start to show off the goods now that developers are getting experience on the platform. We're already starting to see it.

The Xbox 360 has the graphical prowess, but is hindered by limited storage and CPU performance, so it can have graphically rich games, but not graphically rich games that are as complex as what the PS3 is capable of. Halo 3 is a great example, it's a complex game, but lacks top notch graphics. Gears of War is beautiful graphically, but too short because of the limitations of DVD. For more complex games, developers on the 360 have to make concessions that PS3 developers don't have to.

I think KillZone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII will be games that will really start to drive the point home. These games will be huge, but fit nicely on a single BluRay disc. The same games on the 360 would require the developer to make hard choices: span multiple DVDs (most likely 3-4), or cut content out. Yet they will be graphically beautiful games, but extremely complex and long games at the same time.

As for what is better PowerPC or Cell, well you are aware that the Cell is based on the PowerPC architecture? The Cell is a newer generation processor technology than the Xenon used in the 360. Plenty of game developers go on about how the capabilities of the Cell seem near limitless (obviously not meant to be taken literally). I don't see developers saying such things about the Xenon. On the contrary, developers do complain about the constraints of the DVD format. DVD was already maxxed out last generation. Using it for the latest generation seems very short-sighted. Microsoft chose DVD not because it was the best technology for this generation, but because of cost and timing. They wanted to be the first out the door. Good for them, but some of us don't mind waiting a bit longer and paying a bit more to get the best technology option for this generation.

@PimpDaddy

I was an XBox owner last generation. I was going to buy a PS2, but changed my mind at the last minute because I looked at both options, and found the XBox was the better value for the money. I did the same thing this generation. I waited until all three options were available, then made my choice based on the merits of each, keeping in mind that I was making a long term investment, so I gave up short term gains like selection of games so I could benefit from longer term gains, like more complex games, easy upgradeability, open standards and free online play--this was a big one for me since some weeks I play a lot online, other times I could go for weeks without playing online. I also liked that Sony had a history of providing support for their older consoles long after the new one was out.

I also found the storage capacity of BluRay to be a strong selling point as it meant to me longer games with more content that wouldn't have to span multiple disks as some of my XBox 1 games had to. While I liked that the PS3 had backwards compatibility for PS2 games, in reality, I have never owned, and have no intention of buying any PS2 or PSOne games, so that's really a non-issue for me with respect to the 40GB PS3. I suspect there are plenty of people out there of the same frame of mind as me, but are waiting for a more affordable PS3. Plus, 100 million+ PS2 fans waiting to become PS3 owners when the time is right.

A recent study of 1200 Americans seems to support my belief that the PS3's sales are waiting to pick up. The PS3 was in the top 10 most wanted items this Christmas at number 9, just behind the Wii at number 8. The XBox 360 didn't make it into the top 10 (it was #12). Here's the link:

hxxp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/10/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-my-hdtv-and-an-apple/



Also important to note that an HD-DVD or BluRay player made it into the top 10 at number 10. Since the PS3 IS a BluRay player, that's a double bonus for them. Not sure what it says that more people want an HD movie player than an XBox 360 this Christmas...

Response to madgunde:

Dirt is the ONLY game on the Playstation 3 that has better performance than the Xbox 360 version!

The reason for that is because Dirt was designed with the Playstation 3 as the "lead-system" COMBINED with the fact that the Xbox 360 version was released first, which allowed the Playstation 3 version to be optimized in custom ways for the Playstation 3 hardware.



While the two versions were in simultaneous development, they ALWAYS used a "Lowest Common Denominator" multi-platform development standard. This meant that although the Xbox 360 had a lot more to offer than the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 version still had to live by the "Lowest Common Denominator" standards set by the PS3 version.

Once the Xbox 360 version was released, the "Lowest Common Denominator" "simultaneous development" rules were tossed out the window, and the developers were allowed to work on the game and optimize it for the PS3 as if it were exclusive to the PS3.



VERY IMPORTANT response to madgunde:

Oblivion is better on the Xbox 360, and ALL of the ratings PROVE that FACT!!!

When you see those old screen-shot comparisons of the original Xbox 360 version of Oblivion with the original software shader design, and compare it to the PS3 version, which featured a newer shader design, there is no doubt that the PS3 version looked (past tense) better.



However, that superior software shader design was something Xbox 360 owners downloaded...the Xbox 360 version received that EXACT same software shader graphic update!!!

At THIS POINT IN TIME, there is actually a NEW Xbox 360 version of Oblivion, which is called, "Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - Game of the Year Edition" that appears on store shelves that sells for $29.99, and it includes BOTH the Knights of the Nine expansion, AND the Shivering Isles expansion packs...ALL ON ONE DVD!!!



Oh, and the new Xbox 360 version of Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition also automatically has the Software Shader update, with no need to download it.



There is NO DOUBT that this version of Oblivion that was released on Xbox 360 and PC (but not Playstation 3) is BY FAR the BEST version of Oblivion.

Even before, the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion was STILL rated higher than the Playstation 3 version, because the Playstation 3 hardware does not have a bandwidth large enough to have the entire game active at the same time, and so many features are missing from the Playstation 3 version.



The 1up editor with over 200 hours of experience playing Oblivion makes it 100% clear which version is WORST when he said, "If you have a PC, and Xbox 360, and a Playstation 3, then the 'LEAST DESIRABLE' version is the one for the Playstation 3."



*

Sales FACTS

madgunde, there is a BIG difference between a "most wanted" item that is wanted during its release, just to sell on eBay to hollywood actors who don't want to wait in line, and an item that is wanted because people actually want it!



The FACT is that during the 2006 Holiday Shopping Season, the Xbox 360 sales were HIGHER than the COMBINED sales of both the Wii and the Playstation 3!!!

If the Playstation 3 was actually a "wanted" system, it would have done FAR better during the 2007 year. Playstation 3 sold very poorly during 2007...it was a VERY VERY VERY VERY distant third in terms of worldwide sales!

Also, anyone who knows how to count to 10 would say that the Playstation 3 will likely do better in 2008 than 2007...the main reason for that is because it would be VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do ANY WORSE than the terrible sales that the Playstation 3 experienced in 2007!!!



The reason the Playstation 3 has sold so poorly, and continues to sell so poorly, is because of a lack of games.

Also, I disagree with your thoughts on Killzone 2. That game is a sequel to Killzone 1...the game that was rated very poorly, and does NOT deserve a sequel...they made a song about it that says, "But Kill-zone one, sucked bee-fore, so what makes you think I want it more. So-nee you went wrong with your PS3, I'll keep playing my three-six-dee. I hopes this help you un-der-stand, how you killed your brand."



However, I do think that when Metal Gear Solid 4 launches for the Playsation 3 and Xbox 360 (and it WILL launch for Xbox 360), it will help the sales of both systems. The same can be said for Final Fantasy 13 when it is released in 2009 or 2010, since Square Enix said at the Tokyo Game Show that the game is only 13% complete. But, Metal Gear Solid 4 has lost a LOT of its hype now that the actual game has been shown...people say, "the cut-scene 'non-playable' graphics are great, but the 'in-game' 'playable' graphics are disappointing."

madgunde: First I cant take any 1200 person survey seriously. Sorry.

Second 120 million PS2 owners arent just going to go upgrade to a PS3. I have a hard time believing there are that many blind, mindless, loyal Sony Playstation owners out there. Remember once upon a time Nintendo was king. Brand loyalty only goes so far. I know I was one of the ifrst people to jump ship from the SNES to the PS1, and I never actually owned a N64. I just played on my roommates. To be honest the only videogame console I purchased on launch day was the Dreamcast. I loved my Dreamcast, but Sony's PS2 marketing and lack of 3rd party support killed it. In the process I learned to take my time and make educated decisions. Just like my older brother got burned by the Saturn.

Third you cant seriously bring up Oblivion and Dirt. They both had longer times in the development cycle on the PS3 vs the 360. You argue about longer games being possible with Blu-Ray but seem to forget that the most graphically impressive PS3 game so far in Heavenly Sword was just as short if not shorter than Gears of War. Remember games development this time around is taking much longer and costing alot more money than in the past. I dont think Blu-Ray will offer as many "gaming" benefits as you think it will. Plus I dont mind swapping discs. Convenience or not, that is just lazy.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I just dont believe the Cell is all that and a bag of chips like Sony wants us to believe. Plus developers already prefer the 360, so unless Sony magically passes the 360 anytime soon in sales, multiplatform games will still be made on the 360 first, and thus better.

The PSN vs Xbox Live is a toss up. Free vs paid. Live is worth the money, sorry,. I tried both PSN and Live. I can talk to other people on Live, while in a game, invite them to my game or vice versa. Fully fintional unified friends lists, fully functional voice chat, fully integrated match making. Its fully inegrated into anything and everything 360. I would pay for that every time. It's just superior in every way. I played Big Team Battle in Halo 3 last night with 16 players. I wouldnt want any more players in that game. Just like 32 player games of Warhawk were fun too. it all depends on the game. I wish Battlefield 2 on the 360 had more players. But then again having everything integrated into 1 all incompassing service is better than PSN's wide open free chaotic online gaming service. In this case I wish Sony would copy Xbox Live.

whoa whoa whoa whoa! hold on... urdnot, you are actually quoting an editor from 1up.com after what has happened? o.O

@Krogan

Oblivion GOTY edition is coming out on PS3 as well, and sorry, but the original PS3 version was better than the original 360 version, thus your statement about DiRT being the only game that is better is FALSE.

@PimpDaddy

Statistically speaking, a 1200 person survey is actually quite significant a sample size, yielding a margin of error of less than 3%.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

A 1200 person sample size is quite significant. If you're going to not trust it, then you're pretty much not going to trust the majority of studies, since they usually have smaller sample sizes.

As for Oblivion and DiRT, you can't use longer development times as an argument, because by common arguments, such development time would be needed simply to overcome the difficulty in developing for the platform. So which is it, is the PS3 so difficult to develop for, or does it give game developers free time to make the PS3 version better than the 360 version? It surely can't be both. I mean, it's not like the PS3 platform is somehow immune to the business pressures of getting a game out on the market as soon as possible. The fact is, some developers care to spend the time to make a game great, and others don't. Neither can really be used an proof that one platform is inherently more powerful than the other. That was my point to Krogan.

He was trying to use his examples to prove that the 360 is more powerful than the PS3. I was simply trying to invalidate his argument on the basis that a few game examples prove nothing, especially when those game developers are much more experienced on the 360 at this point in time.

I think you are correct about multi-platform titles being developed for the 360 first, then ported to PS3, but that may change in the future if there is truth to what I've read about it being much easier to port from PS3 to 360 than the other way around. Also, as developers get better and development tools become more refined, the differences between the two platforms will disappear. Finally, it's my opinion that Sony's sales will eventually overtake the 360's at some point in the future. Lastly, multi-platform titles are not the mainstay of any console. It's the exclusives that are, and they WILL be developed to take advantage of what the PS3 can do. We're already seeing a lot of great examples of this.

I think there is plenty of proof already that the PS3 can reproduce graphics as visually stunning as the 360 can. What we don't see is much proof that the 360 is capable of the complexity of some of the PS3's games (current and upcoming). Time will tell, but given the Cell is being touted as one hell of a CPU by not just Sony but IBM and Mercury, developers of high performance servers, it says a lot. Probably the most encouraging is the results from the Folding@Home project.

hxxp://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats

PS3 contributes 76% of total Tflops, while only making up 14% of the clients. The average Windows client outputs 0.95 Gflops. The average Intel Mac (Intel Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors newer than 2-1/2 years old) puts out 3 Gflops. The average PS3 is outputting 24.8 Gflops! This kind of processing power gives developers a lot of room to push their imaginations to the limits. Plus, the fact that the Cell is being used for more than just the PS3 means it will drop in cost faster than the Xenon, and has to be built to higher standards than the Xenon, since it's expected to perform under tougher conditions and heavier loads.

Probably why over a quarter of a million PS3s have been able to run the F@H client, a much more demanding application than any game will ever be, for extended periods of time, and there is absolutely no news of widespread hardware failures. PS3 owners can confidently leave their system on 24/7 under heavy load and trust that when they come home and want to play a game, it will just work. I doubt even Krogan would have the audacity to claim he feels that confident about his 360's reliability.

Edit: Sorry, the Intel Mac F@H clients would also include Intel Xeon server class processors as well. I forgot to mention that.

I think from a reliability and durability standpoint, there's no contest, the PS3 is the clearly superior hardware. I'm sure Krogan would somehow disagree though. lol

You do make a good point about XBox Live, and I will concede that it is currently a superior solution, but agree that the fact that it isn't free kind of balances that out. I will add though that the PSN will eventually attain near feature parity, if not parity, and surpass Live in some aspects once Home is released, matures and is fully utilized. So my question is what then? Only time will tell, but Sony has a good reputation for releasing a steady stream of updates that add functionality. In the meantime, the friends list is unified for most games. You can voice and video chat with multiple parties at once (I think at least 6 or 7).



It may not be Live, but it's functional and a good free stop-gap measure to satisfy PS3 owners until Home is released in a few months. I'd rather wait a few more months to get the features for free than pay for years to come. Also, my understanding is that because all 360 games run on MS's servers, performance can be an issue. I heard that the Live servers nearly crumbled under the load when Halo3 came out. That doesn't seem like a very scalable solution. I think PSN will be more scalable because Sony doesn't have to host every game for every publisher that ever comes out.

It also gives publishers more freedom to implement features they want without having to get Microsoft's permission. Unreal Tournament mods comes to mind.

at efficiency of 70% madgunde, that is how efficient cell is, and i didnt say that, IBM did.

anywayz, thanks for keeping the reply civil, we really dont have many of those in a lot of forums these days.

yes the 360 is unreliable, i play mine for 7-8 hrs non stop when i have the time, then do something else like chores or play soccer in the evenings before playing at night, and that is all i need, blue said this " a lot of poeple dont take good care of their consoles and that is why they get messed up" and i back him on that, why would any sane person put the 360 in an upright positiobn thereby closing the vents and expect it to be fine with all the heating problems it has

Response to madgunde:

Check the ratings...the original version of Oblivion on the Xbox 360 is rated higher than the original Playstation 3 version of Oblivion.

Check the reviews...the Xbox 360 version of Oblivion is better because it has more features.

The reviews made it 100% clear: "If you own a PC, an Xbox 360, and a Playstation 3, the LEAST DESIRABLE version is the Playstation 3 version; that's why the PS3 version received the lowest review scores."



Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition has ALREADY BEEN RELEASED for the Xbox 360 and PC!!! It STILL is NOT available for the Playstation 3.

Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition automatically uses the newest form of shader design on the Xbox 360; it is a feature included on the disc from the very beginning, and only costs $29.99.

*

Responses to madgunde:

(1) Playstation 3 has NO VIDEOGAME HARDWARE ADVANTAGE over the Xbox 360 or PC. Floating Point math calculations are the ONLY area where the Playstation 3 has a hardware advantage over the Xbox 360 and PC. However, as developers often remind people, Floating Point math calculations are virtually USELESS in the area of videogame development!

Consider this: You point out that the "average" Windows PC has 0.95Gflops. But then you point out that the PS3 has 24.8 Gflops!!! Wowzers, that means the PS3 must deliver 50 times greater performance than the PC...right??? WRONG!!!

Proof: Consider that Unreal Tournament 3 will run at only 30 frames per second, at only 720p resolution on the Playstation 3...but on the PC you will have Unreal Tournament 3 running at 60 frames per second at 1,200p resolution!!!

Now, before you say, "But that isn't an 'average PC' that delivers that kind of performance," keep in mind that even the highest end PC that costs $3,000 still does not deliver that kind of mathematical performance, because it is NOT NEEDED for videogames, or anything associated with what a conventional PC would be used for...

Yet, the PC definitely DOES deliver MUCH GREATER performance than the Playstation 3...and so does the Xbox 360. Games like Madden 2008, NCAA Football 2008, F.E.A.R., Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Tony Hawk Skating, NBA Live 2008, All-Pro Football 2K8, and SO MANY OTHERS prove the Xbox 360 offers much greater performance than the Playstation 3.



(2) madgunde, you apparently do not understand the law of the universe: "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." In the world of software programming it is referred to as a "bottleneck."

In other words, you could have an entire bottle of beer, but if you dump it upside down, it is NOT going to instantly spill--only the amount allowed by the bottleneck will pass through.

Sony's Playstation 3 has MANY bottlenecks! For example, it has SIX of the SPE sub-processors asking to RECEIVE instructions from the Cell CPU, but the Cell CPU has a bottleneck--it only has TWO Threads, which means it can only SEND two instructions at a time to those SPE subprocessors.

That’s like trying to juggle six balls with only two arms…that’s a major bottleneck that cannot be overcome. That’s why the majority of developers don’t like working with the Playstation 3.

Xbox 360 has six Threads that are responsible only for instructions related to CPU and GPU functions. That is the exact opposite situation; it’s like having six arms to juggle two balls. That is very easy, and that is why developers love to develop for the Xbox 360!

With that in mind, you can see why it is so much easier to port a game from the PS3 to the Xbox 360, rather than port an Xbox 360 game to the PS3. Obviously the standards are higher on the Xbox 360.



For example, the Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons per second, while the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. Obviously it is much easier to port a 275,000,000 polygon per second game to a system that can display 500,000,000 polygons per second than it is to port a 500,000,000 polygon per second game to hardware that can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second!!!



You claim that because of one individual specification, the PS3 developers can do whatever their imaginations allow them to. In reality, the Playstation 3 developers are 100% limited by the WEAKEST specification! The WEAKEST specification is what ultimately determines what developers can truly accomplish!

That FACT--numerous hardware bottlenecks--is WHY the Playstation 3 has achieved a consistent level of such poor software performance.



(3) Remember, the original design of the Playstation 3 called for TWO of the Cell CPU processors, but the high cost of the system forced Sony to do two things: (a) leave on of the Cell CPUs out of the design, in exchange for a four-year old outdated generic GPU from Nvidia. (b) use a weaker version of the Cell CPU than originally planned.

The Cell CPU processor used in the Playstation 3 will NOT drop in price faster than the Xbox 360 CPU. The reasons Sony originally gave why that could potentially happen were theoretically true, and could have potentially happened IF things would have turned out the way Sony originally planned…but that is NOT the way things turned out.

Sony ended up using a DIFFERENT low-end version of the Cell CPU that is 10% weaker than their original design. The version of the Cell in the PS3 isn’t the same one used by IBM; that is NOT even close to the one that IBM uses for their mainframe computers where thousands of the Cell CPU processors all run parallel together.

The only way Sony will experience such “economy of scale” benefits is if the Playstation 3 sales vastly improve. Sony is even trying to sell the Cell factory, because of the poor sales…and they can’t find a buyer! Not even Toshiba wants to buy it, and they helped develop the thing!



(4) Defective Playstation 3 systems have DEFINITELY been reported in many places across the world!!! For example, the most recent place that this sort of thing was reported in was Asia, particularly in Taiwan, for the SECOND time in that area!

In fact, the reason this Defective PS3 situation received so much attention on television is because the first time Sony was literally forced by the government to replace consumers overheated Playstation 3 systems...and it was SO PATHETIC that it was receiving national attention, and eventually resulted in thousands of systems being replaced, but at the time Sony said, "So far we have only replaced several systems." Give me a break, that was PATHETIC, and they deserved the bad publicity for it. Sony should have just did what Microsoft did and accept the responsibility.



I have personally had TWO Playstation 3 systems become defective, and I know two other people who have had systems overheat and become defective.

Here is a hyperlinks that proves what I say:

hxxp://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/04/ps3_heat_claim/

The FACT that the Taiwan government needed to become involved PROVES it was on a large scale with the number of Playstation 3 systems that were defective!



(5) I have an original Xbox 360 system that I purchased on launch day...it is still working 100% fine. I have many friends who are in the exact same situation. I fully agree with arthur56k that many of the "overheated" Xbox 360 systems likely resulted from the poor placement of the system in environments that were not ventilated properly...but, as we saw, the same thing happens with the Playstation 3.

Also, it's good to know that Microsoft completely shut down one of their three factories--the one that had the highest defect ratio.

Now, Microsoft uses a completely brand new and improved .65nm "Falcon" engineering production process at their two largest production factories. The first shipment of Falcon systems arrived in North America several weeks ago.



(6) Xbox Live is VASTLY superior to the online service offerered by Sony for the Playstation 3. I'm glad we agree on that, but it doesn't surprise me, because virtually everyone agrees on that.

(7) Sony has already said that "HOME" is delayed, and it won't surprise me if it is delayed even further.

REMEMBER, Sony made it 100% clear that they may decide to start charging online fees in the future. When HOME is released, it will likely start to cost people money...please remember that when you make predictions for the future.



(8) PS3 games do NOT allow you to talk online while you are playing in the overwhelming majority of PS3 games. For example, when you play John Madden NFL Football 2008 on the Xbox 360 you can talk online to the person you are playing with, WHILE YOU ARE PLAYING...but NOT on the Playstation 3...and that SUCKS, because talking online while playing competitive games like that is 99% of the FUN!



(9) madgunde...you claim you would rather wait "a few more months." Well, you have already been waiting 11 months!!! and the delay of HOME is longer than "a few" more months...it is at least half of a year away!!! THAT SUCKS!!!



(10) Halo 3, Bioshock, Crackdown, Madden NFL 2007...they all run fine on Xbox Live!!!

Halo 3 broke every record on Xbox Live! When MILLIONS of gamers are all online playing the same game at the same time, then that will cause ANY server from any service provider to experience problems!!! Bungie lived up to their promise, because Halo 3 plays AWESOME in all of the online modes!!!



(11) Epic has said that the previous problems they had arguing legal disputes with Microsoft have been solved...the Xbox 360 version of Unreal 3 will not have the forms of problems they spoke of in the past, because Microsoft has opened up Xbox Live to Epic; thus, setting a precedent that other companies are free to take advantage of similar Xbox Live freedom.



*** Bottom Line: Xbox 360 offers superior performance than the Playstation 3. It has been that way in the past...it is that way NOW...and the situation continues to grow in a way that favors the Xbox 360. The ratings and reviews prove that games like Heavenly Sword and Lair do NOT live up to the hype...but games like Bioshock and Halo 3 definitely DO live up to the hype...which is especially impressive, because those games on the Xbox 360 had even more hype to live up to!