- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
60GB HDD for the PS3 suddenly doesn't sound all that big now
- Thread starter Queasy
- Start date
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Dang... well I guess that's why they expect an 80/20 ratio of 60GB vs 20GB. 
Until now I didn't see a whole lot of value in the $600 PS3.
Will it be possible to add an external USB drive? For $100 you could get a ~250 GB drive + external enclosure. That might be a good idea if you have a lot of games and don't like waiting for them to load.
Until now I didn't see a whole lot of value in the $600 PS3.
Will it be possible to add an external USB drive? For $100 you could get a ~250 GB drive + external enclosure. That might be a good idea if you have a lot of games and don't like waiting for them to load.
I like to bash on Sony as much as the next guy but I will say this.
The PS3 is a steal at $600.
Thats not even 20% of what a home computer cost 20 years ago and it can do oh so much more. It's just popular right now to bash Sony and the President. It's the cool thing now apparently.
The PS3 is a steal at $600.
Thats not even 20% of what a home computer cost 20 years ago and it can do oh so much more. It's just popular right now to bash Sony and the President. It's the cool thing now apparently.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Of course it's a good price for what you get, because Sony is losing money on it. But comparing it to a 20 year old computer?
The reasons people bash Sony for pricing it so high are:
1. Even if it has amazing graphics, many people don't want to spend $600 on a video game console. To them it's not worth the extra money to get the better graphics.
2. Many people don't want the Blu-Ray drive, and Sony is forcing you to buy it with the system unlike Microsoft.
Think about it. They could put $3000 worth of hardware in it and sell it for $1500, and hardly anybody would buy it. People just don't want to spend that much, even if it's a "great deal."
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Doesn't really matter how big the game is, you can only load into memory as much data as you have memory, and the PS3 has the same amount of memory as the Xbox 360. You only need to load models, textures, game data, etc into memory. Most of that 20 GB will be high-res cutscenes which will play straight from the disc.
23 years ago I paid over $50 for Donkey Kong on the Intellivision.
games today are still $50, when they went up to $59.99 I could totally understand why. If $50 back then was acceptable, then $60 now should be par for the course.
Same thing goes for the PS3, the Intellivision back then was more if you figure in today's dollars. So $600 now is a good deal for what your getting.
games today are still $50, when they went up to $59.99 I could totally understand why. If $50 back then was acceptable, then $60 now should be par for the course.
Same thing goes for the PS3, the Intellivision back then was more if you figure in today's dollars. So $600 now is a good deal for what your getting.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
The PS2 was only $299 when it launched and was also vastly more powerful than a computer from decades ago.
I (along with millions of other consumers), already have a personal computer. I don't want a Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) player, not only because I don't want a first-gen player, but also because I don't want to pick a format until a clear advantage develops. And I don't want to spend $25-$30 per title when DVDs are so inexpensive and still look great upconverted on my HDTV.
People are bashing Sony because 1) low launch numbers 2) Europe launch delay 3) ridiculous cost.
Umm but it's not 20 years ago anymore. You could buy 3 low-end PCs on sale for $600, or even buy a fairly decent dual-core AMD system and a good gamer video card (I saw some hot deal about an Athlon 3800+ system for like $330, throw in one of those 512MB 7900GTO's and voila, gaming rig).
And the PC would be able to do more than the PS3 these days. Of course the PS3 can do so much more than a computer could 20 years ago, but it's not 20 years ago!!!
That $600 PC I just mentioned can do WAAAAY more than the PS3 could even dream of, lol. Like, author a film in Adobe Premiere, rip a CD into mp3, rip a DVD, run Mathematica, render a short 3D film, play Counter-Strike, etc.
At the same time they really shouldn't be $50 in 1980's dollars, because back in the day video games were a super niche market. Not that many people bought them, so most games were developed and then sold only to the few people who bought the consoles to start with. Thus each copy HAD to be that much money or they couldn't afford to develop anything.
If you're selling 6 million copies though, the scales of economy mean that you pretty much have to come down in price.
I never bought an NES game that cost more than $14.99, although this was probably because I was a little kid and had no money, and my mother wouldn't let me buy any expensive games. In fact, most of my games were obtained when some store was closing out their video game department, so I ended up with like, Blaster Master and like 2 other games I can't even remember they were so bad. Oh and the $14.99 game I bought was Werewolf, lol.
Point is, as video games get more and more popular they should come down in price, kinda like DVDs have. I think maybe $39.99 or $29.99 is a more reasonable price point for new games.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter