|
by Jerry Whorebach 02/19/2007, 5:13pm PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
The author complains that the PS3 costs $200 more than the already ridiculously expensive Xbox 360 and there simply aren't enough games for it yet. This is because the author hasn't thought this through (like I have).
I own an XBox 360 and, by Microsoft's estimates, I should be able to play roughly one-third of all titles released for the original XBox before it was prematurely discontinued in late 2005. Not necessarily play them at full speed or without graphic, sound and, in the case of Half-Life 2, physics glitches, but play them well enough to get a pass from Redmond QA. This means that if I want to play Fable properly (or Advent Rising at all), I have to go out and buy an original XBox. Not a problem now, of course, while there are still plenty kicking around even though production has ceased, but what about in a few years? Not to mention that if I do get one, I'll have to find somewhere to put the massive bloody thing (probably in my closet, with all my other obsolete machines).
Compare this with the PS3, which plays 90% of all SCEA-licensed software released since 1994 perfectly for an extra $200. Even if you don't feel like playing the original Wipeout right now, at least you know that as long as you have the disk and a Sony system, you'll always be able to. True, there's a distinct lack of quality PS3 software available right now, but there are still plenty of PS2 games being released (God of War II next month, for example). Hell, the PS2's output last year (God Hand, Okami, Bully, DMC3 SE, OutRun 2006, etc.) managed to stack up pretty favorably against the 360's.
You'd still be stupid to pay $600 for a first-generation PS3, but that's no reason to spend $400 on an (arguably) inferior product. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|