91Èȱ¬

I suppose the shocking state of the UK economy Vs the rest of the world, and in particular the currency is the main reason the UK is not benefiting from this almost global price reduction.

Funny Gordon Brown keeps saying the rest of world was at fault for these economic problems, but we're being hardest hit, and seeming trivial pieces of old tech like the PS2 not coming down in price is evidence of this.

When I bought an orignal xbox - a few months later the 360 came out. Microsoft stopped all game development for the original. This really annoyed me.

Glad to see that sony dont just drop their products and leave their customers without support because they want to push their newer stuff. The fact that sony look after their customers and online gaming is free on the ps3 ensure I do not buy a 360.
Besides forget the ps3 not selling , neither is the 360 compared to the wii.

Darren, do you know anything about this rumoured "secret PS3 exclusive"?

Um 99 Euros is 92 pounds. Blame Gordon Brown. Did younot realise that the pound is now close to the Euro, and Labour have sunk the UK economy? Stop playing WoW and have a look at what is happening out there.

Sony's mistake was binging out the PS3 as the PS3.

They should have instead marketed it as a different console line, one which allowed for a much more powerful experience (as it does) but at a higher price (which it is).

That woud have then allowed them to continue two lines of consoles, one following the PS2 model of lower cost/power and the other a more luxury model.

For some gamers the better graphics of the PS3 are great but for most of us (and from the success of the Wii that now looks to include many 'first-time' gamers) a lesser console with a good game library is a perfect fit.

The two-tiered approach work fantastically well with PCs, it can work just as well with consoles, giving more choice for the game and more revenue for Sony.

The PS3 will never be as popular as the PS2 due to development costs.
Titles such as the Thunderforce or Cave shmups will never see the light of day on the PS3.
It's more cost effective to create these games for the 360. Its funny that Dodonpachi Black was released on the 360 rather than the PS3 when Dodonpachi was huge on the PS2. Again this was down to costs and maybe how hard it is to program for the PS3.
It's a shame for Sony but they have lost this time around. The only way I can see them having a chance is to bring back backwards compatability and reducing the price.
I wont hold my breath

Without wanting to get into an a-typical fanboy war...

@6 you're mistaken. Perhaps a year ago your statement may have been correct, but over the past 12 months Sony released multiple renditions of the developer tools for the PS3 to the point where is now pretty much no difference in cost to make a game for the PS3 as aposed to the XBox.

In fact, game developers are now finding it is far more cost effective to make games for the PS3 and then port to the 360 (as aposed to vice versa) as it is a simpler process than the reversal and ensures they gain the revenues of both consoles.

The reason why games continue to be solely released on the 360 are either because they are licensed by Microsoft or Microsoft has paid a substantial sum of money to ensure the game only gets launched on their console - which is why games only released on the 360 aren't on the Wii either (making a Wii game is considerably more cost effective than a 360 game).

In regards to the topic.. Mr Brown needs to get his head out of constantly playing with interest rates, which after 6 months of consistant decrees has only worsened the situation, and instead start forcing price reductions on consumer items. He keeps saying he wants us to go out and spend more, but in taking away our interest rates on our savings accounts he is just insuring people will spend less. Thats what we get for having a labour government I guess - as the Tories have said abundant times, every labour government in the history of Britain has left office with the country's debt higher than it was when they gained power.

Mr Brown needs to get his head out of constantly playing with interest rates, which after 6 months of consistant decrees has only worsened the situation, and instead start forcing price reductions on consumer items

----

1. Its the BoE that decide interest rates, not Brown.

2. How can he legally force price reductions?

3. Even if he could, those companies still need to survive and price reductions will just eat further into their profit/loss sheet.


This recession was never about politics, it was anout average Joe expecting a bg house and two holiday a year and being offerred the money to do it by loan companies.

In responce to 7.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

MS certainly have not given Cave a substancial amount of money to make sure their games are only licensed on the 360.

Dodonpachi was a PS2 game and the remake has appeared on the 360.
Death Smiles is coming to 360. These are all games everyone expected to arrive on PS2.
Cave them selves have said it's due to development costs.

Have you even heard of Cave?

Aren't Cave the Japanese arcade game manufacturers who got 5pb to do the delayed, buggy port of Dodonpachi Black for the 360? From what I'd last heard, they've stopped shipments of the game. Maybe 360 development wasn't as easy as they thought.

This is an interesting article as I intend to get a PS3 at some point in the future. There are three reasons I'm waiting for this:

1) As with previous Sony consoles (PS1 and PS2) they will bring out a smaller version. Personally I find the current PS3 way to bulky.

2) It would primarily be used as Blu-Ray player and the costs of Blu-Ray disks needs to drop lower still. (A couple of recent releases have included a DVD version with the Blu-Ray release which must be the way forward).

3) It is still too expensive!

I thought the PS2 I have would get a lot of use still but since purchasing a Wii this is all that gets played in our household. The PS2 graphics just aren't as great on a large TV screen which is why I can understand the PS2 being used by kids (on smaller TVs). I'm pretty sure the recent Disney Singstar was only released on PS2!

There are two things that will be interesting to see develop..

1) The success of Blu-Ray. Although there is no hi-def competition any more are people willing to change from DVD? People I know have stopped buying DVDs (even though they are so cheap) and just use services like LoveFilm, and I don't think a lot of people are concerened if a film is hi-def or not.

2) The availability of Blu-Ray. My main reason for buying a PS3 would be for Blu-Ray but what if players were incorporated into other consoles... a Wii with Blu-Ray? an Xbox360 with Blu-Ray? If Blu-Ray is successful these will surely happen so would make the PS3 less attractive for me(although Sony would probably make a lot of money from licensing the technology!)

These would change my reasons for buying a PS3 and could lead me to buy something different. At the moment though I will continue to wait for a slimline, cheaper PS3 to come onto the market one day...

I think the biggest mistake Sony made with the PS3 was removing the backwards compatibility with PS2 games.

For example, i was considering replacing my PS2 with a PS3, then discovered that my PS2 games wont be playable on the PS3.

So to play the full range of games, i would have to have both consoles side-by-side. No chance!

My kids still play PS1 games on their PS2. If the PS3 were backwardly compatible, we may have bought one by now, to double as a blue-ray player for the future and to play PS1, PS2 and PS3 games. As it is, it just means yet another console with its own set of games, so no thanks.

So far, the PS2 has proved more reliable than the XBox360, which keeps crashing despite cleaning the drive and disks. I doubt we will buy any more games for it.

The PS3 is simply a flawed concept, but Sony didnt really have a way to know this.

Its games generally lack the simple fun of the Wii and the PS2. It offers very little over the cheaper 360 especially since hardly anyone seems interested in Blu-ray. It also fails to get the geek, because the PC is still well in control of that market, in fact its growing in strength and still very much king of online gaming. The PC is also the most powerful gaming device and has been for some time. (Sonys claims for the PS3s number crunching power are very inflated).
The PS3 has no chance of viably lasting 10 years. Its going to look like an expensive, ugly calculator in 5.

The PS3 is backward compatible. The simple truth is that many PS1/PS2 games can be played on the PS3. There have been some problems with really old games, but some of these problems have been fixed by sony.

Having played the Wii, PS1, PS2, PS3, XBOX and XBOX360 I have no doubt that the best console is the PS3. I would have paid double for it, it is that good.

Lol at 15. Sony have removed BC from the PS3. Only the 60gb ones are BC.

So what's the problem. If people are desperate to have backward compatability (which I think is pointless anyway, since new games are so much better) then they would have bought a 60GB in the first place. Plus, why buy a PS3 to only play old games on it, doesn't that kind of defeat the object?

Also, there are a number of PS1 classics on the playstation store.

If you want to play PS1/PS2 games then buy a PS1/PS2, otherwise enjoy the games that the PS3 has to offer and enjoy a new type of gaming experience.

edknight44.. What type of 'new gaming experience' is that? The same one the PC offered a few years ago, just more expensive and less open.

The PS3 is just an overpriced 360 with an optical drive no one wants, it offers nothing new. The success of the Wii proves that the PS3 is misjudged. Those who still want the sony exclusive games can just get a PS2 and save themselves a few hundred pounds.

The PS3 is marketed as an A/V product, and 'styled' as such (if you can called it styled). Sony wants people to use them in a home cinema set-up. Removing PS2 compatibility means that to play the games you need to have an old fashioned looking PS2 in the set-up as well, it will look totally out of place. Its no wonder the HTPC is gaining so much ground these days.

To clarify some points here:

1. Backward compatability for the PS3 is only concerning PS2 titles. All PS1 titles are compatible with the PS3 - litteraly all of them. Likewise they are also compatible with the PSP; you can play ALL PS1 games on your PSP via remote play. Some might have glitches and some crash occasionaly, as you would expect from any emulation.

2. Backward compatability was actually "removed" before the euro 60gb version. The American consoles had a compatability chip installed into the machine, as where euro 60gb models used software emulation to achieve the same results. The software support was not continued in the newer models, but because it is simply software and not hardware, there is a good chance it will get added via a firmware update in the future.

@7 sorry my friend but you will find I am correct. You are confusing the extra cost of developing a game for an additional platform as aposed to the cost between developing a game for the 360 or developing a game for the PS3.

If you make a game, and then port it between different consoles, you are obviously paying extra development costs for each console you port it over too. But if you develope a game for the PS3, as it stands right now with the latest dev tools for the PS3, there isn't much of a difference in cost anymore.

Additionaly, because the game gets released on the PS2 and/or Wii does not signify that MS have not paid money to ensure it does not get released on the PS3.

There are now only really three reasons why the 360 will have a game released that the PS3 does not gain:

1. MS pays for rights
2. The company can only afford to port to the game to a select number of consoles and therefore chose the primary console that will likely gain the most sales (360 has sold more consoles therefore should theoreticaly generate more sales)
3. Its made by a company who exclusively make games for the Microsoft

Now if you were discussing the cost of developing a PSP game as aposed to a nintendo DS game then you'd have a case for an argument - but then comparing those two consoles is like saying its cheaper to make a Wii game over a PS3 or 360 as there is an obviously high level of power difference between them.

Point here is that the talk about how its harder, and more expensive, to a develop a PS3 game as aposed to a 360 game are no longer the case which companies like EA have already said, which is why 9/10 games that are released on either console are then released on the other.

Rovex33: Please explain how it is more expensive? A top of the range PC (that is required to play high end games) would most likely set you back around £1000. The PS3 offers some of the most useful PC features anyway (web browsing, music playing, picture viewing/storage), so why shell out all that money?

I know you will say that the 360 is far cheaper than the PS3 but they are not the same.

For me, if people do not want to play the high end games, then what is the problem? Buy a PS2 and stop complaining! The PS3 has a relatively specific market and for those of us that think it is worth it, we are happy to pay more.

Rovex33:

"hardly anyone seems interested in Blu-ray"

"The PS3 is just an overpriced 360 with an optical drive no one wants"

So nobody is interested in hi-def movies? Then explain the money sunk into the technology by the movie studios.

Explain the growing populatiry of HD TV sets and decoders. Do you really think that if people are getting used to high quality pictures from their everyday TV viewing, they're going to settle for inferior images from standard DVDs?

Even if you don't want to pay for a Blu-ray film (the prices of which are not always as high as some are making out), the upscaling offered by the PS3 for standard DVDs, on top of the gaming (say what you like you're wrong) and FREE network play and reliability (how can 360 owners be bothered having to repeatedly send their console away for months at a time for repair) means it wins hands down, although it's not fair that everyone outside the UK can get cheaper higher spec models.

As for backwards compatibility, I have the 60Gb model and I have never had the urge to put one of my PS2 games in - there's no going back.

I bought a PS3 a month after launch as a joint birthday present. I am lucky to be able to have backward compatability because I am always going back and playing classic PS2 (and even PS1) titles. With regards to post No 17, at the time the PS3 was ridiculously expensive, which did put a lot of people off buying one. They wanted to wait for it to come down in price, which is completely understandable. But at that time, the public did not know that Sony would release a smaller 40Gb version with no back compatibility. So by the time people were willing to spend so much money on one, the 60Gb were taken off the shelves and replaced by the cheaper made, no BC, 40Gb ones.

The main reason I bought one at a high price was because I believe strongly in brand loyalty. The previous playstations have been revolutionary and gave me lots of good times in the past. Upon playing both consloes, I knew that the PS3 was the better console.

One of my friends switched from Playstation to an Xbox 360, and although they do provide similar experiences, they have many hidden problems. first, is that the Xbox 360 suffers from what is known as "the red ring of death". Unexpectedly, and quite annoyingly, Xbox 360's sometimes just pack in and not work, And all it does is turn the green ring surrounding the power button red. This is all down to cheap, poor quality production. Upon discussion with an IT technician I know, he said that it was the solder that was used to link the wiring together that overheats and melts, therefore deconnecting the wires. This happened to most of my friends who have Xboxes, and it has been a complete nuiscance.

Also, Xbox 360's have many hidden charges, most of which is the additional hardware you have to buy. For example, wireless and rechargable pads, wireless internet connection and hi def DVD players all have to be bought seperately to the console. All of the above examples stated come as standard with PS3. If we were to calculate all of these costs, in terms of matching the PS3, we would see that the PS3 is actually more value for money for what you get.

(As stated many times before) Xbox 360 do have an extremely unfair advantage when it comes to cost. As it is backed by the richest man in the world, Microsoft can offer over the top payments to developers who create PS3 exclusives. Im not saying that they are judas' or anything, but in such a harsh ecomomy, Game developers will jump at the chance of making more money, which is understandable. There is only a couple of PS3 exclusive games that I can think of that provide any sort of competitive edge in terms of how good they are (LittleBigPlanet and Metal Gear Solid 4 to be specific). The rest of the PS exclusives in the past Which have distinguished Playstation have gone to Xbox. For example the Resident Evil series and Final Fantasy XIII which is due next year (and which personally I am very disappointed about).

Upon looking back now, at first I thought that the PS3 was too expensive when I got it. However, with all things said, the PS3 is a better console. It is typical business problem; if you buy value, you get value. If you buy premium, you get quality. One final word, Microsofts business strategy works, however it is not exactly ethical. But business is business. i would be extremely disappointed if Playstation go bust from this though, as we would lose one of the most iconic set of consoles ever made.

I think the poor performance of the PS3 comes from the arrogance of Sony, the unexpected success of the wii and the economic conditions we are currently in. Let me explain myself:

Pre Xbox 360 the PS2 ruled the roost, they had the market to themselves, hardcore gamers and casuals owned PS2's and purchased games. Although the PS2 wasn’t the easiest console to work with it had the huge user base so developers just sucked it up and got on with it.

So Sony assumed that the PS3 would pick up where the PS2 left off capturing the hardcore and casuals. They even said at a press conference that you would get 2 jobs to pay for it, they weren't worried about the high price. But what happened was all those casual gamers who owned dance dance revolution or karaoke revolution on their PS2 bought a Wii. The Wii has shipped 50 million units, I would guess at least half of those are people Sony had wanted to migrate from PS2 to PS3. So Sony lost the casuals to the Wii and then they started to lose a chunk (not all) of their hardcore gamers to the 360. The 360 offered a superior online service, all the big 3rd party titles, great exclusives and a cheaper price.

Then the global economy collapsed making their high price even less attractive. So they have been hit on 3 fronts and are suffering big time. And to make things worse they have only sold 3 million PS3's in Japan, the country that was previously a Playstation strong hold is now dominated by Nintendo.
Final Fantasy 13 will see them receive a huge boost in sales but not enough to catch the 360 world wide. I think the PS3 is destined to be in 3rd place which casts a shadow over whether Sony will even release a PS4.

The PS3 v 360 fanboy war will rage on. As an owner of both I can say they both have their redeeming features.

Accessories:
360 comes in a very basic form. To be all singing all dancing you need to purchase the following: rechargable battery for wireless controller and recharger, wireless adapter for internet, specific microsoft harddrive if Arcade version bought max 120Gb, HD DVD player now essentially defunct, Xbox Live membership.

PS3 has rechargable controller, built in wireless, hard drive, Blu Ray and Playstation Network as standard. Harddrive is easily upgraded if you buy any 2.5" SATA notebook hard drive, I myself have 320Gb installed.

Games:
The 360 leads the way currently in this respect, certainly in terms of quantity due to the somewhat earlier release date. 2nd hand games seem to be cheaper too.

PS3, due to delays, lost a lot of it's exclusive titles and doesn't have the games catalogue of the 360. Now however there are more exclusive quality releases which are set to increase. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Resistance 2 and God of War 3. Microsoft does not have many exclusive titles lined up.

Reliability:
360's notorious 3 red lights of death seems to be more of an eventuality than a possibility.

PS3 has a lesser fail rate, but the earlier models could still overheat and then refuse to switch on, requiring a refurbished one to be sent to you.

Online:
360 has Xbox Live, which you have to pay for but is vastly superior in implementation than the PSN, albiet PSN is free.
PS3 has built in web browser and with the use of a media server on your PC can stream films, pictures etc over your wireless network. Very easy to set up.

Optical drive:
Both upscale standard definition DVDs with similar results.
PS3 has Blu Ray built in.
360 can now install games to hard drive, saving wear to the DVD drive.

Noise:
360 when playing a game disc can be quite intrusive.
PS3 whirrs quietly away, occasional disc seek noise.

Price:
Basic 360 initially cheaper, but by the time you add the accessories is as much if not more than the PS3.

To sum up, I have no overall preference as both machines are fantastic, could do with less fail rates, however if I am likely to play over the internet I would go with the 360 version over the PS3.

Incidentally my realease day PS2, September 2000 still works as well as the day I bought it.

@11

You won't be seeing a Blu-Ray drive in a Microsoft gaming console. There is a fierce console "war" in this current generation of machines and MS have been doing everything in their power to downplay and dismiss Blu-Ray simply because Sony (their main competition in the console gaming world - Wii is a different demographic than the PS3 or 360 audience) were a major factor in the development of Blu-Ray whilst Microsoft backed the now defunct HD-DVD format.

Once HD-DVD was put out of business by Blu-Ray, MS stopped production of the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 and changed their tune from "we believe HD-DVD is the optical format for the future" to saying 2Digital Distribution is the way of the future and is what people want".

In response to comment 22: You're spot in with the backwards compatibility, no one would of predicted Sony ripping it out for future consoles to save money. A bad move that has cost them in the long run.
The hidden problems of the 360 are an issue but you do get a 3 year extended guarantee for the red ring issue. Also the 360 is far to loud as well. But with all the hardware problems its still selling, shows you how important the Operating System is in current tech. Gone are the days of hardware being the differentiation between rival tech, its all about software now.

I disagree on hidden charges. All consoles require you to buy accessories. The PS3 pads are more expensive than the 360's, no HDMI or component cable in the box and no head set (HUGE problem). The 360 cleverly packaged a headset with every 360 so in game chat is in every game. The PS3 hasn’t even got cross game invites and chat 3.5 years after the 360 had it! Yes the lack of a wireless network card in the 360 is a rip off but all the other accessories are priced as all past accessories (too high!) on previous consoles, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony.

I also disagree with the unfair advantage with cost. Sony arrogantly thought the PS3 would sell at a higher price point and went for a expensive option of a new cell chip. The 360 went for more standard off the shelf PC components and were able to sell far cheaper.
Sony blackmailed developers in the past with the PS2, "develop for us with low royalties or else" and Microsoft lured developers away with a better SDK and better royalties, its no wonder developers love working on the 360.
As far as competitive edge the PS3 does have a advantage technically, just look at Metal Gear Solid 4, game looks amazing. But that was a huge budget title that had a fan base that was guaranteed to sell. Its made money for Konami but not the kind of money they had hoped for with such a large budget title. Its no where near making the money Gears of War 2 has.

Final point, you say: " However, with all things said, the PS3 is a better console " Define better? There have been plenty of consoles in the past with more power but have fallen at the way side. What makes the PS3 a better console? The superior cell technology? More reliable hardware? Because that’s all it has. The 360 has a better graphics card, superior online services, in game chat, cross game invites, more XBLA/PSN style games, more3rd party games, more exclusive games and more of your friends are playing online with the 360 than the PS3.

Don’t get me wrong, I own a PS3, I loved drakes fortune, Super Stardust HD and cant wait to play Metal Gear which is sitting in my pile of games to play but to say the PS3 is a better console reeks of fan boyism. Enjoy your PS3 as I do, just don’t think it’s the best console…………because its not!

The PS3 is the most expensive gaming device. A PC can be built for the same cost that plays games well enough, you dont need the top of the line gear to play games well, its a myth. It can also of course do more besides.
PC games are also cheaper, saving you more and more as time goes on. It also gives you options a console never can.

Sure Hi-Def is nice, but the figures speak for themselves, BR just isnt making much impact. I have a BR/HD-DVD drive in my PC and a 42inch TV just 8 feet away from me, but i still very rarely buy HD optical media they just arent worth it, if anything i buy more HD-DVDs because they can be had for almost nothing. Sky HD is good enough as is DVD usually (the PC upscales extremely well). Only on very rare occasions is BR really worth it.

Rovex33:"A PC can be built for the same cost that plays games well enough"

Well enough, but not as well a console. I'm of a generation that had basic consoles before PCs came along and PCs have never and will never provide the same experience as the current generation of consoles. They may do "well enough" but they'll never be as good, and certianly not without spending on better than basic components, pushing the cost beyond that of a console.

Rovex33:"Sure Hi-Def is nice, but the figures speak for themselves, BR just isnt making much impact."

What figures? If BR isn't making an impact, explain the growing number of titles available, the number of old titles being re-mastered, the expanding shelf-space being given over to BR on the high street, the number of manufacturers now producing players, and again the investment made by studios so that films are made in hi-def.

Rovex33:"if anything i buy more HD-DVDs because they can be had for almost nothing."

That would because the format is dead, nobody is producing it anymore, and nobody is producing anything to play it on anymore.

Rovex33:"Sky HD is good enough as is DVD usually (the PC upscales extremely well). "

The majority of people are not sitting using their PC as a media server, and if your 42" tv is only 8' away, you're too close to get the best visual experience.

I bet you were one of those who said you'd never listen to anything but vinyl or watch anything other than betamax.

Strange report... but yes PS2 is still doing very well considering, but the PS3 sold phenomenally well and these comments coming from the media and public about it no selling well is very confusing.

The PS3 has sold over 20M, I think the last figures put it about 5M behind the 360 yet the 360 is cheaper and had a full year headstart... so how is the PS3 struggling?

I thought the 360 was the slowest selling of all the 3 new consoles?! Or has maths suddenly been changed by Labour because of the credit crunch?

@27

PCs costing the same as PS3 playing well enough?

Find me a £250 PC that can play the HDTV you will use them together or it is a waste of money for the TV you bought, but to have a PC that will play nicely on the said HDTV you will need to SPEND SPEND SPEND.

That is why consoles are a league ahead of PCs for gaming. A £2000 PC will not make Crysis look better the Killzone 2, let alone a £250 PC. Silly statement to make that was.

RE: Post 29. Let me get this straight, you think the PS3 is doing very well? Currently PS3 has 21.3 million units sold, 360 27.93 and Wii 50 million. Its third in a three horse race! It's gone from market leader with complete dominance to losing the casual gamers to the Wii and a large percentage of the hardcore to the 360. It's also the most expensive console on the market and is making the least money per console of the 3. Not doing very well!

Also how is the 360 the slowest selling of the three consoles? Last year the 360 outsold the PS3 in the USA and for the first three months of 2009 it has outsold the PS3. The numbers don’t lie, and please don’t try to spin them to make you feel better about your purchase. If you only own a PS3 be happy that you have a lot of great games out already and plenty more coming soon. Just accept that you're destined to be in third place and enjoy your console.

My so called 10 year console, PS3 60Gb, has just broken down after 18 months of use. Is it part of Son't plan to charge me £90 every 18 months to fix what seems to be a very common problem (google, ebay and youtube bring thousands of "disc read error" reports) which the lovely Sony rep called "a drop in the Ocean". Well the £425 i paid for it and the several hundred other pounds i spent on games, blu-ray and accessories isn't a drop in the Ocean to me.

My 20+ year old NES is stilll working perfectly. This may be the last piece of Sony kit i ever buy.

Phew... As always, some heated disscusions going!

But my opinion is simply that if there is no BC - I'm not buying a PS3. I would like one - But the cost is far to much in terms of what it has to offer in terms of games (nothing else - I don't care about Blu Ray, Web Browser etc etc) I'm interested in the GAMES. And, frankly it offers me very little.

Full BC and a bit of a price cut and I'm there! *hopes* But not otherwise.

Just have to add... In regards to the price-wars, Wireless controllers are standard with 360s now, you don't have to fork out for them!
Am i right in thinking, that to match the PS3 the 360 (premium at 179.99) would need a wireless adapter (59.99/69.99) and a Live membership? (39.99) would still make it cheaper...?

May be wrong, thats just going off the top of my head.

But anyway... A PS3 price cut would be great!

@33, Wireless controlers may be standard with the 360 now but you need batteries (Or a 15 pound play and charge kit) where as the ps3 pads come with a charge cable (Also can be used as a data transffer cable for the psp)

When you add the (offensively overpriced)wireless adaptor etc to the cost of a 360 ther is really no difference in price although with the 360 you at least have the option of building over time.

I am lucky enough to have a launch ps2, sega saturn, premium 360 and a launch 60 gig ps3 and choosing between them would be like choosing my favourite child, couldn't do it at all because i love them all..

@34

See, I'm gutted I didn't snap up a 60gb PS3 now! Am keeping my eye out for one of those second hand!

Re; 26, When I compared the PS3 to the Xbox 360, I compared solely on gaming aspects. I think that the availability of internet browsing on both consoles is really just a perk. The amount of my friends who actually use it in terms of chatting and browsing is few, because everyone just uses their PC's. More often than not, the only reason the consoles are connected online is because your household already has it for a computer (I personally have never heard of anyone getting broadband for the sole purpose of online gaming, with exception to PC games of course). However, I do agree with you in terms of a better online experience on the 360 than PS3, I cannot argue that. This just goes back to what i said about the price of quality. The PSN is free so we cannot expect a perfect online expereince.

In regards to BC, I dont think that PS3 will abandon BC completely, as we have read in the article that PS2 sales are still strong, so having BC will give the consumer incentive to get a PS3. However, Sony will want to squeeze as much money out of the PS2's as possible. But soon, it will eventually tire, and when the sales start declining, Thats when They will bring a new model out with BC so all those people with PS2 titles can play them. Perhaps that could encourage more of the casual gamers to get one in the future. But to be honest, I think that the Wii has absolutely dominated the casual market and I cannot see anyone turnng back.

People still raging on about the PS3 v 360 war?

They are both great machines, both have their problems and both have their good points.

Xbox clearly wins though, as gaming now is centralised through online gaming, and the 360's Live system is the most efficient and streamlined service available (on home consoles at least).

Yeah, you have to pay for it, but £40 a year for a service that will give you hours upon hours of entertainment is a small price to pay. Hell, even if you didnt want to pay you could just keep signing up every month to qualify for a free months "Gold" subscription.

I like the PS3, but the 360 gets my time, purely because of Xbox Live

This "BC argument" is utter rubbish. You won't pay £289 for a PS3 with its top-rated Blu-ray drive to pay current-gen disk games, and PSN download titles, and HD movies, but you will pay £289 for a PS3 with its top-rated Blu-ray drive to pay current-gen disk games, and PSN download titles, and HD movies, *and* PS2 games? I don't believe a single one of you.

Got lots of PS2 games? No doubt you'll already have a PS2 then. I don't know, keep it perhaps.......? Just a thought.

I reckon 75% of the BC complaints are peddled by people who have no intention of ever buying a PS3 and probably own another brand of gaming console. I have a BC PS3, as do three friends. None of us have ever used the function. Too busy playing PS3 games on our PS3s, amazingly.

Incidentally Darren, you still haven't answered the question we are want to know the answer to. Has *that* game been announced yet? Is it Trico? :o)

Yes I do own ALOT of PS2 & 1 titles. However, some months ago my PS2 died. I WANT to replace this with a PS3. That's the problem. Plus, even if I did still own one... Your telling me that having both a PS2 and a PS3 hooked up is ideal? The 2 in 1 thing would be great.
And as explained; I'm not interested in Blu Ray/ HD movies etc etc. I want it for the gaming side, and nothing else.
Really, there is no denying that when thats what you want, it is a little bit of a let down... Especially for that amount of money.

I totally agree with 38. Why buy a new console to play old games? Just doesn't make sense. Like RevolutionBlues has said, just keep your PS2 and stop moaning or play new games.

first off

@24 upgrading your PS3 to a bigger HD drive will invalidate your warranty and the 360 has media centre to connect it to a PC for video, music and picture streaming

@30 HD gaming has always been available on the PC as you have the option of increasing the game resolution, and it was not until TV manufacturers mentioned it when everyone jumped on the bandwagon

yes i may sound like a PC fanboy but face it the PC is and will always be the best gaming platform there is because where do you think all the new developments in hardware came from? yes it was the PC with its ground breaking sound and graphics, even the operating system on the consoles are based on current PC and MAC operating systems with different user interfaces

Fanboyism runs ruin on here too.
I have all the consoles, and the PS3 does not get as much time as the 360, but far more than the Wii. Why?

Because the 360 came out, and all my friends got one. I got one too because my friends had it. Therefore to play together we all use that one console. Simple.

The PS3 is a fantastic machine on paper, but the lack of backwards compatibility (that the 360 got absolutely berated for, yet supports much more with the most popular games) and the high cost compared to what you can get on the 360 at the checkout, hurts it. Yes, I'm aware the 360 costs more if you add on online fees year on year, but the experience of the 360 online is far slicker and easier to use.

Drop the price to £229.99 and they will start to take up some of the 360's preference... Especially as the machine gets older and therefore cheaper to build.