LOL, PS3 @ 600 bucks

[RJ]

Sony's love of 1080p may be their undoing.  Powerful or not, 1080p is a MUCH harder resolution to pull than the 720p the Xbox 360 asks for, and graphics effects may have to be sacrificed to keep framerates up.

Not to mention that kind of high definition really isn't as noticeable from more than 5 feet away...  They were better off capping it at 720p.

[Darkmoon]

And seriously, 99 out of 100 people aren't even gonna get that much differeence out of 720p, because they don't have HD TVs.

[Cvstos]

That's true but the tide is turning.  LCD and Plasma prices have dropped a lot in the last few years, and you can pick up a 26" CRT HDTV for around $400-$450 if you shop around.  That's not that much of a premium over normal resolution CRTs for picture quality that's vastly improved.  And they aren't as big or as heavy as they once were, either.  I saw a 26" Samsung CRT with HDTV (720p) that was not near as deep or heavy as my 480i 20" WEGA.

My roommates and I are planning to get a tube CRT HDTV for the upcoming year so we can all bask in glorious 720p HD gaming.

[Nikki]

i must step in:

I would like to say i own many gaming consoels, but i don't. mostly because they are WAY too expesnsive, and, over a few months, you could pay more to buy games than you would pay for the console itself. as of current, i own a GameBoy SP and a PS2. i would dearly love for the PS3's date to be pushed back because, wether we like it or not, PS2 Games will soon fade into exticttion, and only PS3 games will be made. what i hate most, is that by the time the masses all begin to aquire these new systems, BRAND-NEW systems are in the works.
Now, i'm not all that computer-literate or a hardcore Gamer, but i do play video games a LOT!and i can't afford to buy a new game console because the games for my console are dying out.

I rather get either the Wii or the 360, or both since if you see it from another angle...if you bought a Wii and a 360, the purchase be around the same cost as a PS3...so what would you rather buy with $600... One console or Two consoles?

Agreed.

[Cvstos]

The cycle isn't as fast as you think.  Microsoft has currently the fastest with a cycle time of 4 years (Nov. 2001 - Nov. 2005).  Sony is the slowest.  The PS2 cycle will be from early 2000 to late 2006, a little more than 6 1/2 years.  Nintendo is more the moderate, at 5 years (Nov 2001 - Late 2006).  That's a very long lifespan for a computer!  We've pretty much hit the maximum for what the current systems can do, and online gaming is finally coming into it's own on consoles with this coming generation.  It's time for a refresh. 

In the PC realm, a refresh is pretty much needed every 2 years in order to stay on top of the games.  Graphics cards in particular advance quickly!  If you start with a ton of RAM, you can lag a bit on the CPU, RAM, and Mobo if you upgrade the Graphics board.  Audio boards also have a nice, long lifespan, and most integrated audio solutions are decent enough.  But without a good graphics card, you're sunk.  If you plan on playing games and the PC you want to buy has "Intel Integrated Graphics" anywhere, RUN AWAY!  Integrated graphics simply cannot handle games, and most will also be unable to run the new interface for Windows Vista!

[Jack McSlay]

In the end, I think all three will be successful.  This isn't the Dreamcast era, and the market is now big enough to support three consoles.  Which one will win?  Well, I don't know, but the gaming world is just going to get more awesome from here on out.

I don't have hopes that high that sony will keep PS3 on the market if it starts losing gamers.
PS3 is the most expensive console of the 3 to develop for, and unless they have something that compensates it developers will turn away from it. N64 had the problem and compensated it with far superior 3d and multiplayer capabilities. PS2 also had it and compensated it through larger userbase, due to be figthing with DC alone from its launch in early 2000 until GCN and XB's launch on 2001.

but with PS3 being the last one to launch and being overpriced, without any cool features that are not cheap rips of the competition (*cough* Live *cough* wiimote), PS3 seems to be in a similar situation to that of Saturn. It was cool at first and had good classics, but after 1997 it was quite dead already.

[Nikki]

The cycle isn't as fast as you think.  Microsoft has currently the fastest with a cycle time of 4 years (Nov. 2001 - Nov. 2005).  Sony is the slowest.  The PS2 cycle will be from early 2000 to late 2006, a little more than 6 1/2 years.  Nintendo is more the moderate, at 5 years (Nov 2001 - Late 2006).  That's a very long lifespan for a computer!  We've pretty much hit the maximum for what the current systems can do, and online gaming is finally coming into it's own on consoles with this coming generation.  It's time for a refresh. 

In the PC realm, a refresh is pretty much needed every 2 years in order to stay on top of the games.  Graphics cards in particular advance quickly!  If you start with a ton of RAM, you can lag a bit on the CPU, RAM, and Mobo if you upgrade the Graphics board.  Audio boards also have a nice, long lifespan, and most integrated audio solutions are decent enough.  But without a good graphics card, you're sunk.  If you plan on playing games and the PC you want to buy has "Intel Integrated Graphics" anywhere, RUN AWAY!  Integrated graphics simply cannot handle games, and most will also be unable to run the new interface for Windows Vista!

lol, you have a point...