i do apologise if this has already been discussed but i have noticed many people slaiting the playstation 3.

Now i agree with many things that have been said such as the stupidly high price of the thing especially here in the UK and the 60GB hard drive which will never be filled. But i still think that it is going to be the better console in terms of fun and playability. Sony have always somehow delivered that, both with the playstation and the playstation 2. Admittedly both of those existing consoles never really had stiff competition and sony managed to grab the majority of the market as they realised alot earlier then the xbox for example.

But i owned both an xbox and a playstation 2 and the playstation wins hands down in terms of fun and playability. I am loyal to Sony and i will most deffinatly be purchasing a PS3 on release.

Alas this is just my own opinion and i would be most grateful to hear yours.

I agree. I own a PS2, but my friend has an XBOX, and whenever I had a go it never seemed to measure up. It wasn' t bad by any means, but I was always happy to get back to PS2. I reckon it will be simlar with the next gen. Thats not to say the 360 isnt any good: although ive never played it myself ive seen it in shops and it was pretty impressive, but I prefer my PS2, although i know ill get hammered for saying that.

nah, you won' t get hammered for your opinions here, most of the regulars are pretty accepting of peoples game choices. anyone that does make stupid comments about peoples preferences are gone pretty quickly.

there' s ups and downs to Sony consoles. they are great machines with a wide variety of games, but for the love of mike, they' re so dishonest. I can say this with no shame as i used to be a fanboy, before people showed me the light that is.
Sony made it public that their console would be released spring o6, we' ve got a month untill summer really hits, and where are they? the Wii releases motion sensitivity in their controller, and Sony makes a quick executive decision to " design" (cough-steal-cough) the gameplay into their controller. not to mention the legal-battle with Immersion, the company that designed the rumble feature in their Dualshock controllers. Immersion fought back, and Sony got screwed for taking what wasn' t theirs.

They know how to make money (and they' re good at it), and they know how to implement good ideas into their consoles, it' s just that i really hate the way they do buisness. It takes all the old honor and ingenuity out of gaming when you can create a wildly successful console just by taking the competitions ideas.

I' ve gone with PS1 and PS2 in the past over the competition. I know a lot of people will get a PS3 just because the last two were good, but that' s not necessarily going to be true.

I think Sony have made some big errors this time round, that MS can exploit eg developer support, hardware decisions. After PS2' s E3 developers seemed to be really excited about PS2 over anything else, but this time I' ve heard developers say time and time again that Sony haven' t been giving them any breaks.

That may have lead to a lot of exclusives being lost too... GTA, Pro Evo, Kojima productions amongst others. MS are playing catch up in this area, but I seriously think PS3 won' t be as good as previous generations of PlayStations for this reason.

I' m waiting to see basically.

Coding for PS2 wasn' t easy in the beginning, it wasn' t very accessible for developers and ended up being more trial and eror than anybody would have liked. However, the more developers spent time for the system and the more tools they devloped the easier things got which it why you can see advanced in each generation of titles.

PS3 isn' t developer friendly either and does have some really big bottlenecks that developers will have to find way around. Sony has done nothing to aid them (like Microsoft have with XNA) and are simply expecting them to figure it out themselves. It' s going to be really hard work for smaller codehouses and those with limited budgets because of both rising developer costs and the time required to make the games.

Sony' s decision to force Blu-Ray was/is a bad one and since DVD9 will easily suffice for this generation, it' s also unfair on the consumer. I can see why they are doing it, but i fear it could be just another nail in their own coffin if the medium loses out to HD-DVD.

From a technical standpoint, 360 is the superior machine. Not by all that much, but XNA should further the gap. Sony has been more marketable though as has the larger mindshare so developers have been unwilling thus far to commit fully to Microsoft' s machine, -- something which has now started to change.

For PS3 to be a commercial success for Sony, they will need to drastically reduce their manufacturing costs and drop the price of the machine, AND Blu-Ray must win the DVD format war. Failure to achieve either within the first 18 months or so will result only in failure. Sony is not unbeatable and is offering nothing that other console don' t have, but they are still charging more because it' s PlayStation!

I am loyal to Sony and i will most deffinatly be purchasing a PS3 on release.

This is what i dont get...
I bought nes,then mega drive,i bought then Playstation 1.

You see the trend?
Going for what i liked most of what i saw,not because of the love of a company.

Xbox was a new console,coming into the market while not many dev dared to start dev for a new console with no real fanbase,however titles like Halo,halo2,ninja gaiden2,kotor,panzer dragon,shenmue2,forza,ghost recon and splinter cell made the console finally break through and sell more then Gamecube.

Now dev dares to choose whatever suits them best.

Ps3 will deliver better graphic and more ghames in years to come then what we seen so far etc,but what they showed so far,nothing has impressed me.
MGS4 has visually,but as Majik said it was real time cut-scnes nothing else.

Also its coming 2008,can you imagien if mass effect or gow would not come 2006 but 2008?
Basically cliffy and dev at bioware all said themself they would make a sequl in 1-2 years if they wanted.

basically 360 will have halo3,mass effect2,and prob gow2 when Mgs4 hits...
thats a bit tough competetion.

I agree with both the idea of having ps2, and then wanting ps3. - I mean series continuation. You wont be able to play more from the ICO team, MGS4, DMC, and a number of other ps2 exclusive titles on 360 (Or not yet, for some of them).

I also agree with Quez, though i had master system, mega drive, saturn, dreamcast... because brand, games, and i liked them. I had a point somewhere... Oh yeah.. I am strongly looking to 360 because i really am feeling negative towards sony at this point, the only thing keeping me waiting for ps3 is that the 360 still has no games that appeal to my taste.

As for power, people are wasting their time to argue with it. The hardware is all very similar this time, the difference wont be as extreme as ps2/xbox/gamecube and then it wasn' t even very big to me.

I think the ps3 needs to drop in price a bit at least until £399 for it to look not so bad - or give us a pre-loaded (good) game.

£399 would give the impression of being cheaper. Quite how they arrived at £425 is beyond me, and it' s made worse by the possibility of not having the core system here.

I would like to know why Sony didn' t show any of their own games. I figured The Getaway, GT and Killzone would definately have shown up at E3...

oh,im sure getaway and killzone2 is in some kind of playable form,but they wont dare to show that in years to come :S

Motorstorm was the thing sony bragged with last e3,and now it was playable,did thety let them play it?
Nope.
Instead they let those crazy dev who claimed they made some history game with giants crabz showing their game :)

ps!
If ps3 deliver games that appealk to me i migt buy a ps3 but the prie ijsut to retarded at this moment.
we will see.

Nintendo wii will be very cheap,so thats no problem getting however,i want to try out their games first,as reggie said with no trying you dont know what nintendo wii is all about,basically he means the look doesnt make nintendo wii worth buying for.

I honestly dont have a problem with the price Sony have announced with playstation 3. If i look back at the playstation 2 launch i never owned a DVD player at the time. When I got my PS2 I also got a dvd player thrown in. May not have been the greatest quality DVD playback but compared to having NO dvd player it was great. So with playstation 3 I get a games machine and a Blu-ray player. Bonus. That all depends on which next gen format wins obviously. The possibillity that I will have to buy another add-on HD-DVD drive for my 360 which could cost anything up to £100 or more added to the price of the console makes £380. As for the HD size I think the 20gb drive with my 360 is too small especially when you have Final Fantasy 11 that takes up 8 gig. Add that to the new demos that have come out since E3 and the map packs for call of duty 2 i have a staggering 2gb left. Which isnt alot. So if i' m paying extra for 60 gb drive so be it, you can never have too much hard drive space.

I have each of the consoles in the current generation and will have all three in the next generation because each console has exclusive content that appeals to me, which is the reason why I own all three of the current generation of consoles ( although i recently sold my xbox). I lean towards Sonys console because in the past Ive had most of my enjoyment from their systems. Games on PS1 like GT1 and 2, Parasite eve 1 and 2, Resident Evil, Silent Hill. Ps2 had GT3 and 4, Forbidden Siren, fatal frame (project zero) and god of war. I bought an xbox for panzer dragoon orta, KOTOR 1 and 2 and Rallisport challange. Gamecube was eternal darkness, Resident evil 4 and the metroid series. I love games and not the consoles or the companies that make them.
As for the on going arguement about the next generation a lot of the major games developers are already giving PS3 the major share of the reasearch and development funding ( according to an article in a recent edition of Edge magazine). We will just have to see but one thing for sure. its gonna be a very exciting year to be a games player.

Good for you,but for me paying up 800 dollar wont happend in any near future,even if sony would somehow convince me to buy a ps3.

DONT GET ME WRONG.
Ofc the ps3 will be good,but while 360 is in the wave when AAA titles coming,ps3 will have to wait 1 year more to come beofre that might happend.

Sony have a mountain of an uphill struggle ahead of them. Though a freind was saying gamestation took like 60,000 pre-orders on ps3. maybe he meant 6000? either way i didn' t see the figures myself but im skeptical as for how many have been taken. Majik any idea?

Dunno. Our shop hasn' t started taking pre-orders yet. I didn' t think we were taking them until October so as to avoid any complications like with 360.

60,000 seems like an incredibly high number though but i would be suprised if there WASN' T a lot of pre-orders taken seeing as payed pre-orders can' t be taken yet.

I would say that if stores have started taking pre-orders, it' s likely more " register your interest" than " £20 to pre-order for launch" but i could be wrong.

As soon as i can pre-order in our shop i will be doing, even if there won' t be more than 15 games at launch (360 had 13 on day one)

I take it he was referring to the gamestation.co.uk, i saw the pre-order up there, but now it' s been taken stopped to hear information about unit allocation.

I don' t think ps3 will be lighting up my hdmi hdtv this year.. I' d get the 20gb version if not for the lack of hdmi upgradability - Honestly the most stupid thing sony could do. They were supposed to be pushing blu-ray hdvideo right?!

It was on our website?!

That' d probably explain why i haven' t heard anything about us taking pre-orders bfore October, i never go to the website because it' s rubbish.

They were supposed to be pushing blu-ray hdvideo right?!

They WERE supposed to be putting TWO HDMI outputs into the thing and now the 60Gb version will only have one. What happened to dual screen 1080p?!

I' m not interested in Blu-Ray and if the games are 100% region free i' ll import a 20Gb unit at launch.

As for power, people are wasting their time to argue with it. The hardware is all very similar this time, the difference wont be as extreme as ps2/xbox/gamecube and then it wasn' t even very big to me.

Damn right.

Company loyalty is something that I will never understand - it' s the reason PS2 is succesful,because there were no great games (not to mention killer apps) for the first 6 months after lauch - all they did was " let' s give them some upgraded PSX ports of tekken and ridge racer.

I think this time PS3 is not that hard to program for since it has a separate GPU and above all - a well known GPU, cause it' s based on Nvidia' s PC line of cards.

maybe that' s why some playable games running on unfinished (PS3) devkits look much better than what 360 games (also on unfinished devkits) looked like 6 months from launch.

That price is silly though - it' s all about using us as Blu-ray vectors - I hate this shit but people will justify those actions by simply getting Sony' s product.

I owned all 3 consoles previous gen and plan to do the same this gen, out of all of
them I liked the x-box, even though the titles were scarce, when we did get the
titles, they were designed to last for ages; what with the x-box live service.
(I still think DC' s online service was better being able to actually surf the net and
all... )

Incidentally, games like Ninja Gaiden, Halo1, Halo2, KOTOR, these games lasted
for ages, Ninja Gaiden because I managed to clock up 174 hours of play on it
and that' s more than I have on Oblivion because the game is so addictive; I just
played it over and over again.

Whilst PS2 got bucket loads and bucket loads of titles, you would notice that only
the first incarnation was good because developers got lazy after that, I prefer
MGS2 to MGS3, FFX was far better than X-2 and FFXI is bad, I don' t know about
FFXII but it looks like a poor version of Phantasy Star Online. GTAIII (according
to fanboy sources) is better than San Andreas and Vice City hands down.
DMC trounces DMC2 and 3. The reason I prefered X-box is because when they
had something they didnt rehash it just to get the franchise out just because they
knew they had a cash cow of an idea. I give PS2 thumbs up for:

Ico

Shadow of The Collosus

These are two of the most underrated titles on the PS2 but by far the best, they
have that elegant story telling aspect and awe-inspiring art direction, and I hate
Gamespot for scoring it an 8. something.

Unfortunately the console still lost my respect because most of the titles that were
available were poor rehashed versions of titles before and with me that doesn' t
fly too well, in any case it only bodes well with my needs as a gamer when
the story is continuous.

you would notice that only
the first incarnation was good because developers got lazy after that

Well in fairness that is only down to developers, and gamers expectations, not really a fault with sony/playstation. However the point is true, though for those who like onimusha, oni 3 was much better than previous titles.
But didn' t a large number of people prefer halo 1 to 2? See it' s nothing to do with the system, but gamers expectations, and in a number of cases, developers.

you might have a point there Tiz but not totaly, as uumai said it' s about players expectations and when the first game of a serie set the bar too high it' s sometimes hard to make it even better.

do devil may cry 1 is indeed better than DMC2, but for the third part i don' t think so, i just wish the same badass Dante' s DMC1 would be in 3, but instead they gave us a teenage boy... stupid japanese

final fantasy X-2 is just a spinoff we didn' t expect anything , and ff 11 is an online game , final fantasy 12 is for a lot of people and reviewers better than ff10.

GTA series ... one thing i' m sure of vice city is beter than GTA3

in fact you said that developers get lazy because the first games are usualy better in playstation, that' s your point of view but that doesn' t make DSevil may cry 3 or final fantasy 12 or Zone of the enders 2 (which is better than the first) or metal gear solid 3 bad games... all those are still great games and that' s the most important thing .

in fact you said that developers get lazy because the first games are usualy better in playstation, that' s your point of view but that doesn' t make DSevil may cry 3 or final fantasy 12 or Zone of the enders 2 (which is better than the first) or metal gear solid 3 bad games... all those are still great games and that' s the most important thing .

The point I am making is that is the reason why, developers do play a large
part in making games rubbish (actually 100% duh!). Because they know that
Sony is a well established marketing brand, they can be as lazy as they want and
know that the public will lap it up. Their brand is so strong developers know they
don' t even have to try to evolve, innovate or play catch up with expectations.

One example as to why the Sony brand is so strong, once whilst I was down my
local Virgin Store, a customer wanted to buy a racing game for her boyfriend and
over NFS she chose... wait for it..... L.A Rush!!!

This made me mad as hell! Although I hate both games, I think it' s safe to say that
Need for Speed is a better choice. She bought it because the cover looked nicer,
even though the store rep was giving her the rock eyebrow and stressing that
Need for Speed is better. She replied that as long as he can drive it doesn' t matter.

????????

Developers know that they can release anything on Sony consoles and it sells.

Maybe I was a bit harsh in saying that all sequels are worse, that' s not the case
as Onimusha 2 is the best Onimusha (3 was a graphical showcase and 6 minutes
of glory for the opening scene, and Onimusha DoD was a bad bad game, again
with an excellent CGI scene)

All Final fantasies are just movies to me...