Thoroughly dissapointed with the PS3

Anyone got a 360 *and* a PS3?

What are your oppinions?

I don't own both but I play both, and after owning a Ps£ for 3 months I am increasingly dissapointed with it.

Games that I have played on both platforms are slower on the Ps3- Assassins creed, which is acceptable, often hits 15fps, and when glitching goes lower (literally 2fps)- though I understand this is more likely the game and not the system... On the X360 it seemed to run smooth in comparison.

Splinter Cell: Double Agent. What the hell? this game frequently hit <10fps for me. Haven't played the X360 version but I would doubt it drops as low. When the DS played Chaos theory at under 10fps you can understand, but this is the PS3 people!

Oblivion: Low FPS again. Ai seems wierd too. Don't know how to describe but it just feels different.

FEAR: They cut out the ambient sounds like bins hitting the floor!? Seems small, but this was a huge addition to the atmosphere of Fear and the game felt empty without it. Add on top of this the FPS often dropped quite low, too.

I thought the Ps3 was supposed to compare to the Nvidia 8xxx range of cards? because it seems to me that games that ran alright on a 6600/6800 are struggling on the PS3.

Are they doing such a poor job porting? Why am I finding myself without PS3 games at the end of each week? thats because every game I buy i've been dissapointed with and sold back.

Thankfully, I now own WarHawk- this seems like fun.

Right now my Ps3 is 3 months old and feels like an old PC. a *really* old PC.

What have you guys noticed? :-)

I find both machines pretty unexciting as I've mentioned in the past. However, I would suspect, like what happened with the PS1 and PS2 is that as developers get to grips with the hardware the software will improve over time.

Simply compare the first PS1 games with the last PS1 games and the first PS2 games with the last PS2 games and you see they're leagues apart from each other.

Yes but in the past, sony had the benefit that there was no "alternative"

With PS1 there was N64 -> easy win
With PS2 there was GC -> easy win
XBox entered the battle too late

But with PS3 they face serious competitors for the first time and both competitors have larger market shares than Sony and raise it faster than sony does ... so the chance that the PS3 will reach the "last generation" point actually before PS4 replaces it, isn't very realistically ...
All smaller devs will retreat from porting to ProgrammersHell 3 and focus on a system not designed by a complete idiot (the base idea of the Cell is nice for a scientific machine. but for a game its pure bullshit. The pipeline of the PS2 was already a serious overkill but the PS3 one tops it by magnitudes. Sony is the only console manufacturer that is stupid enough to make each platform harder to program than the previous one instead of making the toolset and API simpler and more powerfull ...
to me it just looks like sony does not spend the R&D bucks on internal teams for writting APIs and Libraries for their consoles like MS and Nintendo so so each licensee has to build up his own "serious" library to handle that monster.

To me a backstep and at this rate, the PS4 will be programmed by paperstrips with holes "modernity wise"

Except with many games, they looked better on the GC. not hugely, but still better. (the POP series for instance.)

I would consider the GC the better machine here, though when used to its full potential, the ps2 did pull ahead slightly. towards the end it was awesome!

You're right there dreamora, I keep hearing how hard it is to program the Ps3.. :-)

You're wrong. For a game it's awesome. Unfortunately there are no good tools to program it yet. C++ simply isn't up to utilizing it effectively, IBMs compiler is far from ideal, and NOBODY wants to develop in assembly for it. The XBox 360 has many of the same problems, except Microsoft have better tools.

One word:

xBox360 Rocks!

You have to remember though that gamers don't care what a system will be doing in a years time, they want the best games now, so they'll go for which ever platform is performing best at the time, and right now it's the 360.

Going back to the Sega saturn, that had a major upgrade in the supporting programming libraries around a year after it's release, which meant much better looking graphics in games such as sega rally, virtua fighter 2, nights into dreams and burning rangers. The problem though was that the playstation had already taken hold of the market, so no one cared about the saturn anymore. If the saturn had these libraries right from the start, the story may have turned out rather differently. Maybe people will say the same about the PS3 and 360 in a few years time.

I've no idea how hard it is to program a PS3 or a XBox 360. But if we take what people are saying as 'fact' (ahem) well... I'm very surprised Sony didn't release a whole bunch of libraries to allow devs to use the architecture to full advantage. You'd think that'll be high on their list of things to do if they want to have more 'wow' stuff.

FD: That is exactly what I mean. MS and Nintendo DEVELOP tools for their consoles.
Sony does not. For PS2 and PSP they bought a well known japanese company that previously did the Nintendo tools for debugging etc But from what I've seen they did not get even near enough additional staff to even tackle the PS3 monster anywhere near usefull.
Cell is new technology that breaks with any existing technology (its no CPU and no stream processor but a broken, complex and hard to use hybrid that will need 5-10 years until it can be used near its capabilities which is what the PS3 actually needs as it uses a cut down one that makes it even harder to use ... by that time it really can be used it will even be outperformed by intel onboard GPU performance wise)

Yeah Sega Saturn was a sad situation but you are right, its very good comparable to the position Sony put itself in on purpose or just by massively missjudging the "monopol" they had. And the drop of PS2 support on the PS3 just will make the situation worse as I know many enough that bought it or considered it as they could play their old games as well so only 1 box for games from 2 consoles ... but now the PS3 will not even spread as those users - like I myself - wait until a real must have for the PS3 arrives ... one that clearly shows me why I should pay same or more for a PS3 as I would for an x360 elite, which is superior in nearly any aspect (HD, multimedia, not using a "sony only" disc format, not offering any usefull online plattform *even worse than Nintendos joke shop out of my view*)

Sony really worked hard the last year on making the PS3 as unattractive to me as possible and that although I thought this wouldn't be possible after I saw that ugly breadbox design.

I saw an interview with John Carmack in the pre-release days of the "360 vs. PS3" debate. He complained about how difficult PS3 development was.

I'm not buying either until one becomes the clear leader, which means that everyone else will have to pick one of them before I do.

I still suspect the PS3 will turn it around, even though I don't believe ANY of the Cell hype (as evidenced by my multiple posts on the subject), much like PS2 vs XBox 1, the system with more/better games will win out, and I think it'll still be the PS3 at the end of it.

Im enjoying the xbox 360! the games i have are all great fun. There is one ps3 game id like to play, that physics based multiplayer one. But i can see that getting boring!

Microsoft have the right idea. Open the system up, provide teh tools, provide the distrbutatin platform, and let that beast go!

Im happy that the playstation has the potential to flop. It has always been the thawn in a games side. Games having to restrict themselves to conform to the lowest common denmoninator (ps2/ps1) and thus looking like turd on other platforms (xbox/gc).

Xbox is the new king (of next-gen) and they are doing it the right way! Good on them. etc etc etc

X360 is the graphical king
But please don't conclude that gameplay wise it is as well.
Better graphics = more interesting for EA = trash flooded as you see on the PC as well :)

*We all wait for NWN 2008 *rofl*

SONY insist close their doors for development, this works in PS1 and PS2 age because there's no real competitors, but XBox360 is a rival in different taste: they had much more money to waste, so MS can open up the doos for indies, and this works actually.

Don't say PS3 is limited, actually most of us can't even develop on it.

well that seems pretty limited ;-)

Just got a 360 for development purposes - seems nice enough, games are pretty good, number and variety and cost don't seem to be a problem, speed is great and interface is fine.

All around a good purchase I reckon.

Don't own one - but I have a couple of friends who do and they reckon PS3 - very nice too - no complaints other than having to download an update overnight everytime you want a new game to go online - ah well - stuff looks great - resistace looks awesome, GT5 looking great and for Top Gear fans - they are including the Top Gear trac so you can pretend to be the Stig - thta's gotta be a selling point in some chaps books...

IPete2.

Have to say my mates with PS3s haven't had any problems, but maybe they're playing different games. My bro's X360 looks good. Much entertainment had from Bomberman. WOOT!

Resistance and GT5 look and play awesomely, I can agree with that!

Drake's Fortune looks good to me. I don't own a PS3 yet but I've caught glimpses of it's potential. Ratchet & Clank, Drake's Fortune, Heavenly Sword, and Lair all run circles around the 360 graphically. You can see that just by looking at the two kiosk in the stores running side by side. Other than a few titles though I agree that for the most part it's disappointing but it's not the hardware's fault, rather it's just bad communication between the developers of the hardware and software.

Ratchet & Clank looks good but not better than Halo 3 or Gears of War. Lair is technically mediocre and gameplay wise very bad. Heavenly Sword just doesn't look better than most other XBox 360 exclusive title. Drake's Fortune is the only game I'd say that pushes the whole graphical discussion into a new direction. But still: most multiplatform titles run worse on the PS3. And a console won't sell just because of the first party exclusives. The Game Cube and Nintendo 64 showed that.

I've not thought about using it for development, does anyone here have experience in xna game studio express development?

I have to add in that when I tried to play PS3 online - Dirt seems to only have one server, and you don't seem to be able to choose it - its automatic, Resistance online, huge maps, no players... Call of Duty 3 online XBOX 360 - loads of servers and many with lots of players in them, so community wise XBOX 360 has my vote so far. Maybe with the price cut that will change, but it is successful software that makes a games console successful and there's little on PS3 currently to make you especially focused on it.

XBOX 360 development:
@andy_mc - yeah check it out - its pretty cool - development on Windows for the paltry price of dev club fee (silver Xbox live subscription will do for development I'm told) - download the free Visual Studio Games Express and the XNA add in along with some tutorials and you are away.

Here's a linkee for you:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/xna/aa937787.aspx

Check out the gamefest 2007 and keynote videos, along with the Schizoid presentations to see what its all about.

There are some shortcomings with some XBOX conversion stuff, but most of that will be ironed out with this years December 2007 XNA refresh to V2.0, including multiplayer capability, multiple render targets, content pipeline improvements, sound improvements etc..

There's also loads of other tutorials all abou the net if you look for them.

[end of high jacked thread - sorry about that]

IPete2.

when I was working on a PS2 it didn't even come with a video codec for developers to use for FMV that synched the sound properly. We had to get a programmer solely to work on video codec and menus. The developer tools and libs were so bad that most developers were using an SDK that was two versions old, this was in 2002/2003, when PS2 had been out for a while already.

I imagine that PS3 isn't much different, only the hardware is even more specialized now. Also what happened regarding the graphics... Originaly the Cell was supposed to be capable of all the rendering and they didn't even partner with Nvidia till after the 360 was released. I guess they saw the 360 and relized the Cel wasn't up to doing graphics as well.

Ati seem to have had the better GPU's at the time that the two consoles were in development, and definately had the best DX support, whilst Nvidia was the only realy choice for proper GL support.

I havent really seen enough games to warrant buying an expensive game machine. Mass Effect is a game I'd love to play, but I just don't see a single game being worth the cost of a console when I can upgrade and do more with my PC. Perhaps in another year the systems will have gotten into their stride and decent games I'm interested in playing will be released for them.

I think MS have the edge because they specialise in software and know how to make good tools, and know whats required to develop software. Sony is a electronics and hardware company and tend to see tools and libs as an afterthought. they even had to hire another developer to get a new compiler for the PS3 only months before it was originaly due for launch. That was one of the reasons for so many delays and almost no games at launch.

Some interesting anecdotes there, Evak. Doesn't sound like they help the developers much. Maybe multi-multi cores like the cell are the only way forward for performance, but they won't make life any easier for coders.

I am thoroughly enjoying the PS3.

I am increasingly impressed with the PS3.

No. I haven't tried the first two, but Heavenly Sword is a joke. Lair is just wrong. It stutters (badly, like an epileptic with Parkinson's), it's IMPOSSIBLE to control, the missions are ridiculously stupid and random, and the entire game is just an exercise in frustration. If those games are the best the PS3 has to offer, it's gonna be the laughing stock. You have to wonder how Factor 5 managed to make a game so bad, when all they had to do was make Rouge Squadron with Dragons.

Me neither. But there's also GTA4 and two games might do it. Hell I only had like 5 games for the PS 1 (Fade To Black, Tekken, Twisted Metal, NBA Live and one more).

I would think that it's probably that they ported games from other platforms and did a bad job of it ie wanted a quick game port rather than custom-writing it to take full advantage of the system, because PS3 should be more powerful overall.

I would love to develop on an 8-cpu machine like that.

Eh? The GameCube and N64 were up against the PS2 and PS1 respectively. Both the PS1 and PS2 massively beat the Nintendo consoles on sales and first party exclusives. So by my reckoning both your premise and conclusion are backwards.

GOOD first party exclusives ._.

I'm with Dreamora... Sony have gone out of their way to unimpress me with their console. I won't be getting one until ALL of the following factors come true:

* Grand Theft Auto 4
* Gran Turismo 5
* Decent backwards compatibility (80 GB model is fine)
* Final Fantasy XIII (just a matter of time)
* Price under $AU500 (currently the 40 GB model is $700)
* MUST be a Euro machine (not imported) for backward compatibility reasons


It's very realistic actually. I'd be more worried about Sony's competition in the longrun... because there isn't going to be a PS4 any time soon... if ever...

Right, because that's a nice easy objective criterion, completely detached from personal opinion. Yes, surely that's why the N64 and GameCube really fell down, that they had the misfortune of being released during the decade when people were obsessed with intentionally buying bad games.

You're wrong. The Cell is hopeless for games, it's very difficult to divide game code into enough segments to pass to each SPE and get them to run coherently. The poor tools are simply worsening what is already proving to be a technical nightmare for developers.


It hasn't got 8 CPU's, they're SPE's AKA co-processors.

The 360 on the other hand has 3 full CPU's, there's a world of difference between a CPU and an SPE.

The SPEs, to make it "simple" are mini GPUs ... they understand a stupid stream processor like logic, they are incapable of running arbitary code and especially they are incapable of doing jumps ... they are great if you make your game with a core engine for the main unit and scripts that you run on the SPE one after one (in which you unroll loops). But with a free program flow, they are just useless.

How many devs do you know nowadays capable of writting ASM? because thats to what it actually breaks down at the moment if you want to use the SPEs usefully.


And to put the X360 in an even better possition: Its full 3 CPUs are dual thread capable, that means that the console is actually capable of running 6 threads parallely, not only 3 as one might assume and especially not only 1 as the PS3

Sure. If your game is procedural. It is fairly easy to pass off objects for processing in parallel - providing you use a language designed for parallelism and scalability, like Erlang. Unfortunately most developers insist on using C++ for everything, in which case parallelism is problematic.

Yeah. Apparently it's easy enough to break down game code to run on multiple CPU cores?

What? They are mini CPU's with all the expensive bits (branch prediction, out-of-order preprocessor, aso.) removed - the idea being that instead of using expensive electronics, you could use a comparatively inexpensive compiler.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Which is why they're good for supercomputers, because those don't run programs. Or?

Everyone is capable of writing ASM, most just don't bother because it's not very productive.

No. The IBM compiler will let you use them to offload threads in C++, if you so chose. Unfortunately C++ isn't particularly thread friendly.

They are good for super computer because SPEs are great for single operation stuff. Not for general purpose computing and they are not capable of that, they are no fully fledged CPUs (unless you see FPGA or ARM7 as fully fledged) even without the points you mention as beeing removed!
To me, they compare worlds better to stream processors than to any real CPU released the last X years due to the fact that they are not general purpose calculation units.

Problem of the SPE is the fact that they can not communicate with each other and it is often not simple to break down calculation heavy stuff in an independent task without having to handle that much of data, that this breaks again.

As mentioned above, if it is approached in a way like a large "scripted system" and a high degree of self contained functions (-> OO not possible or hard to follow). but debugging and bugfreeing this kind of code is hard to near impossible due to the alinearity of the code.

-> SPE is great for scientific as you can make them calculate math stuff on a fix set of data. But they are crap for parallel logics calculation with interdependencies.

-> definitely a win for the X360 which can make dedicated threads for it (IE yes it is far simpler to break down code for this purpose!) while PS3 needs to handle that stuff centrally and split out the maths. If you want med quality games you can let the compiler do that. But for med quality you have PC and PS2, you didn't pay masses of bugs and pay an ass off for games with that quality ...

Sure it can be done. But until the PS3 devs will capable to do this really to its extend, it will take longer than it needed to get the "quad path" programming approach of the PS2 under control and that already too nearly as long as the regular active lifetime of a console generation. And as the Sony CEO even mentioned PS4 and 5 in an interview, I really do not believe that the PS3 will be the "main" console for sony until 2011 / 2012

So far I've not seen enough games that are that heavy math based that they can use the SPEs usefully as you need heavy physics and the like to make real use of them ...

Blueray watching is at the moment the only usage of them that actually is anywhere near the point of really using them in a usefull way. This racing game with the physics potentially used parts of them at least on a usefull level.
But sadly to me such a game is kind of pointless. I want to see it used for content, not for reality cloning. Living worlds, believable worlds, not even harder to play games. The games need to be in ways that one can take the pad and play it without reading 20 pages in the manual ... cause in that case I won't get my GF to play it and then the console is out of interest for me as I prefer having fun together with here like with Mario Galaxy, Rayman Raving Rabbits and dozens of NDS games


Capable of writting ASM: I meant on efficient level that makes it more efficient than the IBM tools, that make use of the SPEs to their maximum! Who is interested in ASM that is slower than IBM?

And the IBM tools, at least I assume due to their target market, are not very much interested in realtime but scientific usage of CELL. Sony is the only one using it for realtime at the moment and it will take its time, perhaps to long for the PS3, until the tools are capable of doing both correctly.
If the used units in PS3 were out of order capable, it would as well suffer less problems ... but that would have cost more ...
using two main units with 4 SPEs each would have been a far better idea to get the console up to X360 level within its first 2-3 game generations.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the more time any developer can spend on developing the game, rather than mastering the technology, the better. As the Xbox 360 follows a much more conventional and established path and is able to deliver superior performance while doing so it doesn't come as a big surprise that Xbox 360 would be preferred to PS3 ATM.

Also by making the platform open to as many people as possible Microsoft is increasing the number of possible developers that will use it which gives it a better chance of more games (and therefore hopefully more good games) coming through for the platform.

Finally developing for Xbox 360 also makes a PC port (and thus more market space) easier has to be beneficial.

I'm still waiting on the sidelines to buy a console for these reasons:

I don't own a HDTV ATM (not enough HDTV content available and IMHO costs are still too high for low return).
The Blu-Ray/HD Debacle.
No real "Must Have" games out for either console and lots of good PC games out.

Darkheart

What is "single operation stuff"? Super computers make calculations that make the crude approximations games make look benign by comparison.

Videogames are not "general purpose" computing.

An ARM7 is a CPU, an FPGA is as the name suggests, an array of gates (typically NAND) that you can organize in some fashion. The two are not the same, nor are they directly comparable to an SPE.

Surely that's a software design issue rather than a hardware design one?

Exactly what kind of scientific calculations do you think that you need the power of a Cell Blade server to accomplish in a reasonable time, that you think are simpler than game logic?

No. It's not.

What? How the hell is the compiler going to effect the quality of a game?!?

Neither do i, but not based on any real or imagined flaws of the hardware. Based on the real lack of good games.

All games are math. Pure math. All a computer does is math. Hence the name. Computer - something that computes.

Well the poor quality of the available games is down to flawed game design, and "left-over" developers, and again not much a fault of the hardware.

I think you have an inaccurate opinion of the quality of IBMs compiler. Nobody writes more effective code than that.

There are lots of real-time scientific uses for the Cell, particularly in the field of medicine.

I'm curious - is there any opinion known to man that you wouldn't disagree with when expressed in an online post, Flameduck? There seem to be very few threads that you don't attempt to devolve into an argument.

Sorry for the digression, guys, please return to your technical chit chat.

What kind of scientific calculation: nearly any actually.
As most of them end with million x million matrix operations or can be represented through such or similar mathematical meanings.

Game logic can not be represented in that way nor can you split it down to that level. Substeps could potentially but would need redesign of stuff as it has been done in the past and especially different than it is done and researched currently as current research is more "parallel OO paradigms" not "asynchron pseudo parallel non OO paradigms" (parallel would mean that they can access the same data which they can not. Nor is it OO as an SPE can not execute methods of other objects as it can not interact with other SPEs that potentially might be using that. Modifying the code to make sure that it is in there etc makes the whole thing clearly a-parallel)

I agree that the Cell is great technology and will definitely influence the future, similar as Intels 80 core will.
But the technology definitely was not ripe enough to be used in a game console. It was by far not well known enough and especially not to game developers.

It breaks with many of todays OO paradigms nor is the common research targetting parallel algorithms on asymetric processing units (with that I mean a systems where the different processing units differ as much as the SPE and the main processor). This makes it seriously harder to do a complex software system like a game on it.

It already has been hard on the PS2 due to their media chip.
But now they even broke the only thing that has been "standardized" on all other platforms by replacing it with a chip that does not fit in any of the current Software Engineering Standards.
That is what makes it hard to use it at its max, as a compiler that will make "regular multicore meant code" Cell optimized won't happen that soon.
And I do not believe that the game devs have the funding to train themself to be capable.
EA, Sony and Ubisoft might be capable to afford 1 or 2 for the whole company that are experts for it. But all others are doomed and will be forced to wait until some middleware appears that is affordable. (don't want to know what a U3 PS3 licence costs but I would guess that it is far more than the programming staff for the whole timeframe of the development of the title)

Sure. There are plenty. But this is not a matter of disagreeing with someones opinion. It is a matter of factual inaccuracy.

I'm sure you're exaggerating. I don't even read most of the forums here. Maybe we're just naturally drawn to the same types of discussion?

Yes it can. Game logic CAN be represented as a data model. Just because you chose to think of it in terms of algorithms, doesn't mean the other is impossible. You can chose whether you want to use smart data and stupid algorithms, or stupid data and smart algorithms to represent the same functionality. If you have evidence to the contrary, step forward and claim your Turing award. (Alternatively give it to me, and I'll claim it for you).

Which is exactly my point. I think the PS2 has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that developers are willing to work with technically complicated, poorly supported technology - providing the market is there. Which is Sony biggest problem. The PS3 is not significantly more difficult to work with than the other consoles, but the potential benefit of overcoming this entry barrier is practically non-existent.

Well Sony did say there were only 3 or 4 developers they actually wanted to work with. In the future, maybe they should be a little more careful what they wish for, eh?

Possibly. But it's still money well spent the way I see it. In either case these days the cost of middleware / programmers is completely dwarfed by the cost of "content", so anyone who really wanted to could probably pull it of, once (if ?) Sony ever manage to ship enough units to make it worth the while.

Thats the main problem. Are the 20 million USD and more for a single HD PS3 game worth it, is there the real chance to get it back?
Not really ... if not 18 million of it were cross platform investment, the PS3 would be dead already, similar to N64 and Sega Saturn died down. Their only luck is that PC and X360 need the same content etc so they only need to get back the "Sony investment" and part of the other millions on the PS3 itself.
But I do not often buy straight ports, especially not on the by far most expensive platforms (PS3 games are the most expensive here in Switzerland, followed by X360 and then PC, Wii is cheaper than all of those in more and more cases yet still offering a more "I am part of it" feeling)

The illusionous behavior of sony (wrong hardware specs and performance benchmark results) for 4 generations now (I see the PSP as a further PS genration as it is PS2.1) destroyed more and more trust in this company.
The playgame quality (not visual) of their own first party games somewhere degrades at the same degree as EA ... and EA to me is the root of all problems in the game sector today as their influence of destruction and trash is just too high due to their pure size.

i got a 360 elite not that long back, bought quite a few games since... such as Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, COD4, etc etc I get no problems with low fps and everything is perfect unlike what I hear with the PS3 versions sadly,

im getting a 360elite some time after chrimbo
after ive paid some dentist to kick all my teeth out and glue in some lego bricks

I think the only ace in PS3's whatsit is bluray. Here in the US they have those mail dvd rental businesses like netflix and blockbusters, netflix includes both HDDVD and Bluray at no extra charge, plus video on demand over the internet. If I had a HDTV the PS3 would be worth it just for the video playback since I can rent the disks for as little as $1 each.

I stopped agreeing with what Dreamora has to say. I had prepared a (probably 3 page) response but stuff it. Short version is when it comes to the Cell, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.


Actually it's technically more like PS1.9 and given that it fits into the first (or second) generation (by denoted generation number), that's still the same generation and thus there are still only 3 generations. ;]

I bought a PS3 yesterday with Ratchet & Clank (and fl0w from the online store). The game really shows off what we can expect from the PS3. It's always fluid, everywhere there are beautiful environments, the organic enemies just look organic... It's fantastic, and I'm glad I went with the PS3 instead of the 360. Once I finish R&C I'll go and get either Assassins Creed or Folklore. Yes, there may be games (ports) that are 1 year out for the 360 and run like crap on the PS3. But the exclusives are superb and onlinegaming is free and it works. I just hope Lost Planet will be good on the PS3. I'm also looking forward to play Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4 (though I think the 3rd one, not "SUBSTANCE" version, sucks) and Final Fantasy 13. God of War 3 will be a Must Have, too. There are many games coming out for the PS3 in 2008.

I'll pick up a PS3 when the next Shin Megami Tensei RPG is released by Atlus, but I'll be buying it specifically for that game rather than because I've been impressed with either the console or the games that have been released for it so far. Still, I'm hoping that Atlus release it for the Xbox 360 so that I can avoid buying a PS3 until the cost has plunged.

I've just ordered a cheap 40GB PS3 from Hong Kong. Yes, I know that I'm going back on everything I said in my last post, but, hey, I'm lovably unpredictable.

Learning that Folklore was created by the original designer of the Shin Megami Tensei series changed my mind.

As long as you didn't plan to play PS2 games or hoped for downloading hd content, that sure isn't a bad decision if you wanted that game

I wouldn't recommend to play PS2 on the PS3 anyway. A friend of mine has the 60GB version (with software emulation) and most of his games including Soul Calibour 3 just don't run right...

I'm still looking to get a PS3 sometimes next year...still content with the Wii so far.

I think if one looks at the exclusives then 2008 will be pretty much PS3 year:

Little Big Planet
Haze (at least time exclusive)
Final Fantasy XIII
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
Motorstorm 2

Just look at the Killzone 2 previews and you see that the PS3 really has that higher peak performance SONY was speaking about. It may be difficult to reach but there will definately be many exclusive games that walk this extra mile.

Nope, I didn't. The only thing I want the console for is to play single player PS3 games. The rest is just fluff to me.

I'm still not convinced by the PS3 (and certainly not by the current lineup of games), but since I recently bought a Wii and flogged it for an outrageous sum on eBay, it's actually costing me nothing to buy the HK PS3. It's just crazy that I can sell a Wii for significantly more than the price of a HK PS3 - dont you just love the sweet combination of Christmas and hardware shortages?

thevideogamer, there's not one game on your list that I'm keen to buy. This is why I would never buy a PS3 if it wasn't for the reasons I gave in my last post. I might get Final Fantasy XIII when it is eventually released (despite the fact that I think the series has been stale and uninteresting since FFVII), but the rest of the games you listed are definate "no"s for me. Little Big Planet looks like lightweight, gimmicky nonsense, and the rest are tedious action and driving games.

Still, I'm sure that the PS3 will be the best console for me eventually, because it's bound to get the best and widest collection of Japanese RPGs.

I'm hoping to do the same with my 60gb PS3+all extras.

In the coming months the gamers looking to buy a PS3 are going to want the best, and I would imagine the 60gb will be in VERY short supply.

Time will tell, I guess!

Nice commercial...

-> http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/140831.html