Quote from: Seanchai;422657I thought of something else. The PS3's batteries are built into the controllers. To charge them, you have to plug them into the PS3, which has to be on. I don't know if you have charge them while you're using them.

The Xbox's controllers use normal AA batteries that you replace or recharge as needed.

Seanchai

The ps3 should come with a recharge cable (which iirc is usb) and can be charged while playing. IT's a better deal than the 360 as the charge kits (essential) are sold separately.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;422784The ps3 should come with a recharge cable (which iirc is usb) and can be charged while playing. IT's a better deal than the 360 as the charge kits (essential) are sold separately.

Not really.  The PS3 still costs about $100 more than a 360 in each comparable hard drive category.

Quote from: Seanchai;422724What's your experience with the life of the PS3 batteries? I don't play mine often enough to require them to be charged more than one or twice. Do they eventually start to lose their ability to hold a charge? I know you can open them up and put in replacements.

Seanchai

I picked up a PS3 in '08; I haven't had any noticable degradation of the battery life yet.

When are expecting the next Xbox, next PS and next Wii?

It seems to me that we are due for "the next big thing" from all three of those console producers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;422862When are expecting the next Xbox, next PS and next Wii?

It seems to me that we are due for "the next big thing" from all three of those console producers.

Sony promised "10 years", and Microsoft vowed to match the PS3's lifespan.

Quote from: Peregrin;424038Sony promised "10 years", and Microsoft vowed to match the PS3's lifespan.

Is that realistic?   10 years in tech time is a century.

It's realistic as it's a bit unreasonable to expect people to upgrade a games console every five years.

It's not unrealistic to expect people to upgrade consoles every 5 years - it's unfortunate but not unrealistic.

The issue right now is that if Sony or Xbox made a new console for next year it's just not going to be that much better then the current generations.  But even if they could put out the xbox 720 and double the current power of the 360 and keep it in a competitive price point (that's also important) then that creates a bigger issue.

Currently game devs spend a lot of money to put out games that take advantage of the current gen stuff.  If they were expected to pump out games that took advantages of double the processing power, graphics etcc.... that will put a significant increase in their costs.  Which they'll only be able to absorb in volume (which doesn't work on a new console) so it'd have to go into increasing the cost of games.  Which are already hitting a level that the market is less willing to pay.

Still with all the technology jumps we are only talking a graphical improvement.  Doubling the speed of the consoles won't impact the quality of the games at all.  There's just very little incentive or need to make better consoles right now.  It's more a case of protecting developers then it is about being nice to consumers.

Not upgrading consoles helps to increase their market foothold which will help to increase sales in games and other pay per use services and that's where the real money currently is.

Quote from: Spinachcat;424699Is that realistic?   10 years in tech time is a century.

[just noticed my post overlapped with what some of kryyst said -- sorry]

The focus in game design has (thankfully!) shifted back to "better gameplay, less emphasis on graphics" because it saves developers money and it makes better games for us.  I partially thank the Wii for this, since while I'm not particularly fond of the platform (I like the DS more in terms of library), it's re-oriented developers in the right direction, basically, most people (gamer or not) care more about how fun a game is than how spiffy the graphics are.  Casual gamers are good for something.  

This is of course too little, too late for PC gaming, since the whole graphics wars nearly killed off my platform of choice and made it an expensive niche.

I mean, they're still getting made by the studios that can afford them, but the sales gains from having Crysis or idTech5 levels of graphics doesn't guarantee you'll get CoD sales numbers, and when the best-selling games of the last few years include WoW, Starcraft, and a few shooters/RPGs with graphics far below the caliber expected from id or Crytek, there's a lot less incentive to put your resources toward developing the "next big thing" right away that will necessitate a new platform.  It's just too expensive for everyone, the platform developers and the software developers.

In an industry where you can sell 6-8 million copies of a game in the first year or two, but then still are being outsold by people making flash-games on lower budgets with a lot less financial risk, it's time to re-evaluate how you conduct your business.

So I went ahead and sprang for the PS3 for me and the boy this year...so far, so good...but their internet browser does decidedly suck. In fact, online altogether has been unimpressive, but it was also my smallest selling point.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;428565So I went ahead and sprang for the PS3 for me and the boy this year...so far, so good...but their internet browser does decidedly suck. In fact, online altogether has been unimpressive, but it was also my smallest selling point.

It's better than the 360 browser (as there isn't one), plus you can usb a keyboard if need be. I really never understood the criticism of the ps3 browser. It's perfectly fine IMO. You can click on a game in the HD and go straight to its webpage for example.

The PSN gets a lot of stick because some people foolishly believe that for such a service to work properly it needs to charge it's users, like XBL. The only reason there are problems playing online is because MS have the develoeprs of such games (egActivision) in their pockets.

For PS3, I recommend that you get Heavy Rain. I've been playing it for hours. Amazing game. You are a number of characters, all involved in finding a serial killer. It looks almost like you're watching a movie while you play. And different choices affect later outcomes. I really, really hope this style of game becomes more popular. It's the most fun I've had on a console.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;428688It's better than the 360 browser (as there isn't one), plus you can usb a keyboard if need be. I really never understood the criticism of the ps3 browser. It's perfectly fine IMO. You can click on a game in the HD and go straight to its webpage for example.

The PSN gets a lot of stick because some people foolishly believe that for such a service to work properly it needs to charge it's users, like XBL. The only reason there are problems playing online is because MS have the develoeprs of such games (egActivision) in their pockets.

Considering the thing freezes my PS3 up when I'm trying to post something on Facebook through it, I rather think it sucks...I also did not care for the Playstation Home thing...but that's cool...the Playstation Store works fine, and that's really all I need to be happy with their online thing.

Quote from: Peregrin;424038Sony promised "10 years", and Microsoft vowed to match the PS3's lifespan.

So there will be no new console release form Microsoft anytime soon?