# PS3 - worth it?



## Vintage Paw (Dec 22, 2009)

I got an xbox 360 this summer and love it. Plenty of great games coming out over the next few months to keep me happy, although being of an obsessive personality I play them to death in a week as soon as I get them 

Recently though I've been considering the unthinkable: buying a PS3 to go along with it. I don't need one. But I want to play Uncharted 2. And I want to play Heavy Rain (for my sins). I'm not into online gaming, so it's not a question of whether the Playstation Home and online malarky will suit me, and no, I don't have any friends with a PS3, but that doesn't matter.

I don't suppose answers here will shape my decision one way or the other, but I sort of want to be both talked down from buying one and encouraged to buy one 

Anyone here got both? Play both regularly? Do you think it's worth having both?

(I'm not interested answers of 'ditch the xbox and only have a PS3', because I like my xbox thnx.)


----------



## marty21 (Dec 22, 2009)

I was thinking of buying a PS3 when the price hit £250, now I'm thinking of buying one when the price hits £200, I will eventually buy one


----------



## scifisam (Dec 22, 2009)

Do you have an HD-ready TV? Then it might be worth it for the Blu Ray player on top of the games.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 22, 2009)

The price is another thing. They are pricey. And I'd essentially be buying one for just 2 games. 2 games. That's a bit excessive. 

However, it would be nice to have something in place for when RROD happens.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 22, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Do you have an HD-ready TV? Then it might be worth it for the Blu Ray player on top of the games.



I do indeed. But I rarely watch films if they're not already on the tellybox. Can you burn blurays? I'm so behind the times.


----------



## METH LAB (Dec 23, 2009)

I think the ps3 is worth it as a first choice coz it looks nice and does lots and its not microsoft and tbh i cant find any differance in quality between xbox360games and ps3.

If you allready have a 360 though... thats your gaming needs sorted, are you so well off that you can afford a ps3 for the sake of two games?  lol


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 23, 2009)

I've got a PS3 and it's great, but if I had a 360 I wouldn't bother getting a PS3 unless I really, really wanted blu-ray.
Similarly I can't justify the purchase of a 360 for a few exclusive titles.


----------



## yield (Dec 23, 2009)

As you already have an Xbox360 it's probably not worth buying a PS3. Here's a list of the exclusives.

If you do I'd recommend Uncharted 2, Valkyria Chronicles, inFamous, Metal Gear Solid 4 and LittleBigPlanet. Maybe Folklore and Heavenly Sword. 

And there's some good stuff that's download only Super Stardust HD and Flower.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 23, 2009)

yield said:


> As you already have an Xbox360 it's probably not worth buying a PS3. Here's a list of the exclusives.
> 
> If you do I'd recommend Uncharted 2, Valkyria Chronicles, inFamous, Metal Gear Solid 4 and LittleBigPlanet. Maybe Folklore and Heavenly Sword.
> 
> And there's some good stuff that's download only Super Stardust HD, Trine, Flower and Braid.



The last few you mention are on xbl.


----------



## yield (Dec 23, 2009)

ChrisFilter said:


> The last few you mention are on xbl.



You're right Trine and Braid aren't exclusives. My mistake.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 23, 2009)

Heavenly Sword's a bit dull, I thought. Unless you _really_ want a hack and slasher.

The Uncharteds are ace, but I'm not sure I'd pay £250 just to play those.


----------



## CJohn (Dec 24, 2009)

Clearly the xbox is better if you want to play games online with your mates. But the PS3 is a great piece of kit. I went for it as I couldn't afford both and wanted something to play games _and_ watch blue-ray on. So it was easy decision. Got a slim when it was released and I've been well impressed by it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 24, 2009)

Well, you see, I can afford it, and as I don't spend money on any other frivolous things (like holidays, a car, meals out, nights in the pub, etc.) things like this are what I choose to spend my money on. However, that being said, I am aware it is frivolous, and that I don't need it (I didn't need the xbox though). 

I haven't made my mind up yet. I might wait until I get rrod. It'd probably be the final push.


----------



## bemused (Dec 24, 2009)

I think if you have a HD TV and like flims the Blu Ray is handy. The PS3 only games like uncharted 2 are cracking. I guess the only issue would be if you end up buying two versions of the same games.

I think the PS3 is a cracking piece of kit and play mine all the time.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 24, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, you see, I can afford it, and as I don't spend money on any other frivolous things (like holidays, a car, meals out, nights in the pub, etc.) things like this are what I choose to spend my money on. However, that being said, I am aware it is frivolous, and that I don't need it (I didn't need the xbox though).
> 
> I haven't made my mind up yet. I might wait until I get rrod. It'd probably be the final push.



Do it, then. That's basically the justification I used to buy mine.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 24, 2009)

stupid dogbot said:


> Do it, then. That's basically the justification I used to buy mine.



Maybe someone will be doing a little deal after xmas ... maybe.


----------



## Jambooboo (Dec 24, 2009)

I've got all three current gen consoles - 360 on release, Wii soon after release, and more recently a PS3 Slim - and the PS3 feels like more of a 'quality' console. I'm not just referring to the 360's hardware problems, even though I have had two 360s RROD on me, but the PS3 just looks more premium - a BMW compared to the 360s Volkswagen. That said, I think the 360 has a better catalogue of games - looking at the big exclusives coming out next year things seem fairly evenly matched.

If you've got a decent tv to match I'd indulge in a PS3; Blu-Rays can be picked up for £5-£10, while - by buying not new-release games - I've never paid more than £12 for a game (Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Motorstorm 2, Little Big Planet etc).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 12, 2010)

As I mentioned on the xbox vs ps3 thread, I'm closer to deciding to go for it. I've just got a lovefilm sub so it would be great to have the blu-ray player. Really the only obstacle is the grumpy other half who doesn't want me to spend the money.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 12, 2010)

Got all 3 consoles too (2 Xboxes at that) 

There is Xbox is better or PS3 is better... imo


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 14, 2010)

Well, I just bought one. 250GB HDD Slim w/Uncharted 2 and HDMI cable for £269. Also pre-ordered Heavy Rain. And changed my lovefilm list to blu-ray


----------



## extra dry (Feb 17, 2010)

what do you think of it then...looking in to it my self but it is pricey


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 17, 2010)

extra dry said:


> what do you think of it then...looking in to it my self but it is pricey



I bought a 60GB Xbox 360 the other day, second hand. Came with media remote, two wireless controllers, wireless module, bluetooth headset and a play and charge controller charger thing. £90!

PS3 would have been at least another ton for even a basic package.

Blu-ray isn't worth £100 to me, especially as a) I never buy media b) I can now stream HD content from my PCs hdd through the Xbox.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2010)

Yeah, but it doesn't look as good as a BD, not by a long shot.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't look as good as a BD, not by a long shot.



A) who the fuck buys digital media these days, rich idiots and people who don't know how to work round it.

B) the difference between a high quality x264 file and Blu Ray is going to be very very hard to spot for most people even on a 40" screen.

C) what difference there is certainly isn't worth the price of the disc nor the hassle of having to deal with physical copies, loading them up etc.

Physical discs are dying on their arse.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 17, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't look as good as a BD, not by a long shot.



No, but then I don't really care. I'm a fan of 'GED' - good enough definition. I've got it running through a 24" 1080p telly in the bedroom and standard def 700MB xvid AVIs look great. Not blu-ray great, but definitely good enough great. Difference is that the PS2 would have been at least £200, plus the cost of the media remote, and then I'd have to pay £15 per blu-ray disc. As it stands, Xbox was £90, movies and TV are 'free'.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 17, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Physical discs are dying on their arse.



Complete, utter crap.



revol68 said:


> A) who the fuck buys digital media these days, rich idiots and people who don't know how to work round it.



Hmmm, willing to bet I'm more techy than you... and I buy 'em.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 17, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> No, but then I don't really care. I'm a fan of 'GED' - good enough definition. I've got it running through a 24" 1080p telly in the bedroom and standard def 700MB xvid AVIs look great. Not blu-ray great, but definitely good enough great. Difference is that the PS2 would have been at least £200, plus the cost of the media remote, and then I'd have to pay £15 per blu-ray disc. As it stands, Xbox was £90, movies and TV are 'free'.



Have a biscuit, I can do *all* this, and BluRays too, and believe me the difference is HUGE.

And what media remote?


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2010)

revol68 said:


> A) who the fuck buys digital media these days, rich idiots and people who don't know how to work round it.
> 
> B) the difference between a high quality x264 file and Blu Ray is going to be very very hard to spot for most people even on a 40" screen.
> 
> ...



Aside from the pixellation, loss of solid blacks, digital trailing and ghosting, noticeable loss of resolution when there's a lot of camera movement, muddy browns and darker tones, washed out colour...

The difference is hugely noticeable once you've actually watched a BD on a decent TV. I dled a 9gb copy of Dark Knight, just to see if things had improved and watched it, then watched it off BD...difference clear and noticeable.

I've pretty much stopped bothering with HD rips for this reason - they're simply not worth it, and I actually like having physical media. Plus BDs are getting to be as cheap as chips these days - Play do regular sales, HMV have a range starting from £7...nothing in it.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 17, 2010)

It's like the difference between TV upscaled from SD, and TV _actually broadcast_ in Native HD...


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 17, 2010)

Yup.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Complete, utter crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, willing to bet I'm more techy than you... and I buy 'em.



Congratulations you are a rich idiot then. 

Physical copies are on the way out, they only continue to appeal vis a vis the fetishisation of physical ownership.

I'd go nearly as far as to say physical copies of digital media are counter revolutionary.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 17, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Have a biscuit, I can do *all* this, and BluRays too, and believe me the difference is HUGE.
> 
> And what media remote?



I'm not suggesting for a second that you can't do this with a PS3, I know you can. Also, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with wanting to watch stuff at blu-ray levels of quality, just that it's not a concern for me.

If I was really into films, then I'd have a much better TV (in the lounge it's a 37" but only 720p) and I probably would have invested in a PS3. As it is, the 360 offers me a better solution than the PS3 for much less cash.

The PS3 is great, just not for me.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Aside from the pixellation, loss of solid blacks, digital trailing and ghosting, noticeable loss of resolution when there's a lot of camera movement, muddy browns and darker tones, washed out colour...
> 
> The difference is hugely noticeable once you've actually watched a BD on a decent TV. I dled a 9gb copy of Dark Knight, just to see if things had improved and watched it, then watched it off BD...difference clear and noticeable.
> 
> I've pretty much stopped bothering with HD rips for this reason - they're simply not worth it, and I actually like having physical media. Plus BDs are getting to be as cheap as chips these days - Play do regular sales, HMV have a range starting from £7...nothing in it.



I really don't think the difference is that big, certainly not for most peoples sub 40 " set ups and as for pixelisation and trailing, you must be watching stuff with shit bit rates, a good x264 video should have next to none of those issues.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 17, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations you are a rich idiot then.
> 
> Physical copies are on the way out, they only continue to appeal vis a vis the fetishisation of physical ownership.
> 
> I'd go nearly as far as to say physical copies of digital media are counter revolutionary.



Yeah, that'll be because you don't _actually_ know what you're talking about... not that this usually stops you proclaiming yourself the world's leading expert, of course...

Don't come crying to me when your cheapo hard drive inevitably dies and you lose all your precious data.

*snigger*


----------



## stupid dogbot (Feb 17, 2010)

Tell you what revol, why don't you use your incredible expertise to cost up a foolproof digital media solution for say, a 4,500 CD music collection...

Failsafe, mind?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 17, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Tell you what revol, why don't you use your incredible expertise to cost up a foolproof digital media solution for say, a 4,500 CD music collection...
> 
> Failsafe, mind?



Failsafe? 

I give you the powers of THEFT and HOUSEFIRE. Optical media's natural enemies.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 17, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Yeah, that'll be because you don't _actually_ know what you're talking about... not that this usually stops you proclaiming yourself the world's leading expert, of course...
> 
> Don't come crying to me when your cheapo hard drive inevitably dies and you lose all your precious data.
> 
> *snigger*



hard drives and the internet are a safer place for my shit than my bed room, I gave up on cd's and dvds precisely because they were always getting scratched lost etc

Then again I'm a scatter brained fuckwit that loses everything.

But yeah as Chris Filter says fires, robberies, and acts of god make physical copies just as if not more vulnerable.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2010)

Hi, my name is VP and I'm a rich idiot.

I am very much happy with my new PS3. It's nice and lovely and lovely. Uncharted 2 was spectacular. I also still play my 360. Cuz, you know, both are fun


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> I am very much happy with my new PS3. It's nice and lovely and lovely. Uncharted 2 was spectacular. I also still play my 360. Cuz, you know, both are fun



You come on here, being all reasonable and shit. You make me sick


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 22, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> Failsafe?
> 
> I give you the powers of THEFT and HOUSEFIRE. Optical media's natural enemies.



Back up all your data on an equal capacity drive and store it elsewhere. It isn't rocket science.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Back up all your data on an equal capacity drive and store it elsewhere. It isn't rocket science.



I don't recall suggesting it was.

As an aside, I'm not sure dogbot can be arsed backing up 4500 CDs.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 22, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> As an aside, I'm not sure dogbot can be arsed backing up 4500 CDs.



Which is why downloading and storing on a hd is the superior medium.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Which is why downloading and storing on a hd is the superior medium.



Well in that case we're agree.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 22, 2010)

You have such low standards though Filter. I'd far rather have a decent physical copy than some poor quality download with 'good enough for Filter' quality

Backing up terabytes of hd backup is already painful enough. Having decent physical media to hand still remains much more pleasant imo. And generally sounds and looks considerably better in more than a few setups.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> You have such low standards though Filter. I'd far rather have a decent physical copy than some poor quality download with 'good enough for Filter' quality
> 
> Backing up terabytes of hd backup is already painful enough. Having decent physical media to hand still remains much more pleasant imo. And generally sounds and looks considerably better in more than a few setups.



I think you hit the nail on the head with 'good enough for Filter quality'. I want quick, easy, flexible and portable access to music and video. I want good quality, but I'm no audiophile. If looks nice on my 1080p screen, and sounds good over the Denon stero, then it's good enough for me.

I wouldn't call that particularly low standards. I can't stand tinny audio, and I won't watch a poor quality rip.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 22, 2010)

One man's ok is another man's unbearable though.

I can't sound tinny music either, but you don't need to be an audiophile to dislike inferior rips and lower quality compression. They're all too widespread sadly, and once you get used to good screens and high quality it's hard to go back


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> One man's ok is another man's unbearable though.
> 
> I can't sound tinny music either, but you don't need to be an audiophile to dislike inferior rips and lower quality compression. They're all too widespread sadly, and once you get used to good screens and high quality it's hard to go back



Well, as I've said, I won't watch any rip. I'll only watch good ones.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 22, 2010)

What tv are you watching them on?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> What tv are you watching them on?



In the lounge it's a 37" 720p LCD. 

In the bedroom it's a 24" 1080p LCD with sound running through a Denon stereo.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 22, 2010)

With the greatest of respect, those could be the lowest quality Matsui boxes. Specs alone aren't really particularly helpful


----------



## ChrisFilter (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> With the greatest of respect, those could be the lowest quality Matsui boxes. Specs alone aren't really particularly helpful



The lounge one is a no-name brand that looks awful for SD stuff but fine for HD and upscaled content.

The bedroom one is branded and high-specced.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 22, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Hi, my name is VP and I'm a rich idiot.
> 
> I am very much happy with my new PS3. It's nice and lovely and lovely. Uncharted 2 was spectacular. I also still play my 360. Cuz, you know, both are fun



nah owning a PS3 doesn't make you a rich idiot, i'd love a PS3, buying £16 Blu Ray discs sorta does. Maybe fair enough to buy the odd really really good film that on Blu Ray but lets be honest they aren't very common, atleast not ones that significantly benefit from higher fidelity image.

Basically I think Blu Ray is cutting edge technology in yesterdays physical form and I don't think it will ever become as wide as DVD because the technology for digital distribution (be they pirate or legal) is quickly catching up in terms of image quality (for most peoples sub 40" set ups it has to all intents matched it) and is miles ahead in terms of form.


----------



## fen_boy (Feb 22, 2010)

I looked into this the other day and to do it legally you're paying nearly the same to download HD versions of the latest releases via itunes/apple tv, ps3 or xbox as you are to buy blu-ray (£14.99 vs £15.99) and the product is inferior.
And for SD versions it was even worse £11.99 to download a new release, fuck that.
If everything available for download was 1080p then in most places in the UK it'll take an age to download.

I don't think digital downloading of movies is quite ready yet.

e2a, not legally anyway.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> One man's ok is another man's unbearable though.
> 
> I can't sound tinny music either, but you don't need to be an audiophile to dislike inferior rips and lower quality compression. They're all too widespread sadly, and once you get used to good screens and high quality it's hard to go back



That might have been true a few years ago but now it's really easy to get very good quality MKV rips with excellent bitrates.

Here's a screen shot of an MKV I downloaded of District 9.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 22, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> I looked into this the other day and to do it legally you're paying nearly the same to download HD versions of the latest releases via itunes/apple tv, ps3 or xbox as you are to buy blu-ray (£14.99 vs £15.99) and the product is inferior.
> And for SD versions it was even worse £11.99 to download a new release, fuck that.
> If everything available for download was 1080p then in most places in the UK it'll take an age to download.
> 
> ...



ha, fuck legally.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2010)

revol68 said:


> nah owning a PS3 doesn't make you a rich idiot, i'd love a PS3, buying £16 Blu Ray discs sorta does. Maybe fair enough to buy the odd really really good film that on Blu Ray but lets be honest they aren't very common, atleast not ones that significantly benefit from higher fidelity image.
> 
> Basically I think Blu Ray is cutting edge technology in yesterdays physical form and I don't think it will ever become as wide as DVD because the technology for digital distribution (be they pirate or legal) is quickly catching up in terms of image quality (for most peoples sub 40" set ups it has to all intents matched it) and is miles ahead in terms of form.



I have a lovefilm sub. Does that make me a rich idiot? Because I do so want to be a rich idiot, revol.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 22, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> I have a lovefilm sub. Does that make me a rich idiot? Because I do so want to be a rich idiot, revol.



If you're renting Blu Rays rather than buying them, no I doubt you are a rich idiot.

Saying that I've never seen the appeal of Love Film and the like, by the time the post man delivers them you could have had an excellent MKV file downloaded.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 22, 2010)

revol68 said:


> If you're renting Blu Rays rather than buying them, no I doubt you are a rich idiot.
> 
> Saying that I've never seen the appeal of Love Film and the like, by the time the post man delivers them you could have had an excellent MKV file downloaded.



 I'm lazy, I like everything in my life delivered to me, in small, neat consumable packages. I dislike having to make an effort. At anything. I got my manservant to type this message while I dictated from my bed. I dictated telepathically since speaking is such a drain.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 22, 2010)

tarannau said:


> One man's ok is another man's unbearable though.
> 
> *I can't sound tinny music either, but you don't need to be an audiophile to dislike inferior rips and lower quality compression. *They're all too widespread sadly, and once you get used to good screens and high quality it's hard to go back



I guess you've never jumped from mp3 to flac then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 22, 2010)

The thing is, if you're buying legit downloadable music it's not going to be shit quality same as buying a cd isn't. If you download it from a torrent site and it's shit you delete it and download it from elsewhere with no money lost. I've never suffered from bad flac rips though.


----------

