The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
52 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

The Playstation 3 is a bad system to own.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,210 times Debate No: 1179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (31)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

I believe the PS3 is a bad system to own.
1) The cost. It costs more to make a PS3 than it sells for. So, they have to make all their money on games. But their games SUCK. Which I'll get to later. The estimated cost before the release of the PS3 was $900, estimating based on the components that go into it. But, Sony released it for $600. Sony loses from $241 to $307 for each console they SELL.
2) Graphics + the CPU. Yes, I will admit that the CPU is better than the Xbox 360 or the Wii. But, the fact is that is way too hard to make games on! Many games have been cancelled for the PS3, and Atari, as well as many small buisness programmers, recently announced they're not going to be making ANY games for the PS3. Also, the cost of development soars when they do this, making even less profit for the console.
This is a list of cancelled games:
Black Blade
Bratz Babyz
Dirty Harry
Eleveon
Endless Saga
Fear & Respect
Killing Day
Monster Hunter 3
NBA Live
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Saints Row
Scarface: The World Is Yours
The Sopranos: Road to Respect
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Thesis
WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007
Also, the quantity and quality of exclusive games doesn't compare do its competitors.
Xbox 360: 91
Halo 3, the fastest selling video game ever.
Gears of War, a great early 360 title that is now becoming a movie
Saints Row, a game cancelled for the PS3, is becoming the predecessor to GTA.
Bioshock, won G4 and Spike TV's game of the year.
Project Gotham Racing, #1 was voted best Racing game ever.
Wii: 76
What can I say: MARIO AND SONIC. The classics.
Super Paper Mario
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games
Mario Strikers Charged
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Mario Party 8
Also, good games such as: Wii Sports, a very addictive launch title.
Metriod Prime 3, 9.5 by IGN and Game Informer.
PS3: 44
umm... there aren't any good PS3 exclusives. Xbox 360 beats everyone of the PS3's best in every genre.

3) Blu Ray: Yeah yeah, blu-ray is good, but it's bound to fail. The fact is, it costs way too much versus a DVD, and it isn't even that far superior. The media doesn't want to change to what Sony wants. Look at the Betamax and how that failed. Oh wait, look at the PSP's UMD discs. They failed miserably.

4) Online play. One of the biggest advantages the Xbox 360 and the Wii is the ability to play online. Sure, PS3 has free online. But it sucks. You can't find your friends. The ability to play most games is not avalible for most games. Also, the Wii has free online play, and it is still far superior. You can eaisly find someone to play with, and start playing. The PSP is an emperical example of how online play failed for the playstation. The PS3 even has the same layout as the PSP.
beem0r

Con

While the PS3 might not be as worth the money as the XBOX 360, it is still a good system to own. Not good enough that I'm about to buy one, but good enough that I'd be quite satisfied in owning one.

First, you point out the money loss from selling PS3's. This has been the case for many systems, and I wouldn't doubt it if it was for the 360 or Wii as well. Also, the loss you listed should be much lower now, since the cost of production lowers quite a bit in the early stages of a system's life.

Next, you brought up the graphics and CPU. I don't know why, since it's the most powerful console around.

Then you said that many games were canceled for the PS3. While some people out there might have been looking forward to some of those games, there are no games there that look good to me that aren't also on the 360. Since I already have a 360, I would just play Saint's row on my 360 instead of buying another copy for the PS3. The fact that the PS3 doesn't have this game is therefore not a deal-breaker, since it's entirely possible to own both systems.

You also said that the PS3 exclusives are not as good as the 360 or Wii exclusives. While I don't like almost any of the Wii exclusives and would argue that the PS3's are better than the Wii's, I admit that the 360 has much better exclusives. Perhaps you could say that the PS3 is less worth owning than the 360, but it surely isn't 'bad' to own, especially when you consider the advantages, which I will get to later.

You then bring up Blu-Ray, claiming that current DVD's are good enough and we don't need a change. However, videophiles will have you know that there is a noticeable difference. Also, Blu-Ray is not the only post-DVD media format being pushed - HD DVD's are also a new alternative. Both are doing fairly well. And for those of us who truly cherish premium video in our movies, the PS3 is the only console to come with one of these drives, though a HD DVD player can be bought for the 360 separately.

Also, with this new media comes more storage. Remember the PSX days, when some games took up 4 CD's (Final Fantasy games come to mind)? We are now approaching a time when regular DVD's won't cut it anymore for these games. With the increasing amount of high quality content in games, it's only a matter of time before DVD's just won't cut it. The PS3 is the only system ready for this. No matter how you look at it, there's nothing 'bad' about having a Blu-ray player.

Next, you brought up the multiplayer capabilities. While they are not the best among the current gen of consoles, they are still good. Also, they are free, so by just 'owning' the system, you also have the multiplayer. The same can't be said for the 360, which is the only other system that gives the PS3 a run for its money. Either way, it has multiplayer, which can never really be considered a bad thing.

You also may have forgotten something: the PS3 can play PS2 games (and PS1 games). The original models of PS3 even used the PS2's emotion engine to play the games, so there's a guarantee that every game will work. This is of course in contrast with the poor level of compatibility with which the 360 plays XBOX games due to por software emulation. Several XBOX games that my stepbrother and I have sought to buy for our 360's were incompatible due to poor emulation.

But this ins't about comparing the PS3 to other systems. It's not about whether it's a wise financial decision. It's about whether or not owning one is good. Owning a PS2 is good, therefore owning a PS3 cannot be bad. Unless what makes it bad is the increased power consumption, which is hopefully not your stance.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

Thanks for taking my debate.

Answers-
1. "I wouldn't doubt it if it was for the 360 or Wii as well"
The Xbox does lose money, but not as much as the PS3. Plus they have great games. The wii, on the other hand, only costs $150 to make.
2. "Also, the loss you listed should be much lower now, since the cost of production lowers quite a bit"
Unless you prove to me the actual amount, and give me a source, I can't argue this. Also, the PS3 selling price was dropped to $400, so this is obviously not true.
3. "it's the most powerful console around."
Agreed, that isn't my argument.
4. "While some people out there might have been looking forward to some of those games, there are no games there that look good to me that aren't also on the 360."
That is EXACTLY my point.
5. "The fact that the PS3 doesn't have this game is therefore not a deal-breaker, since it's entirely possible to own both systems."
That is true, but I'm afraid that's not the question at hand. The question is, 'Is the PS3 a good system', and not 'Is the PS3 better than the 360'. Yes, I do compare a number of things to the Xbox and Wii, but without anything to compare it to, how would we know its a bad system? What you said was not comparing.
6. "I admit that the 360 has much better exclusives."
Thank you
7. "Perhaps you could say that the PS3 is less worth owning than the 360, but it surely isn't 'bad' to own"
Bad- "inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use" from Dictionary.com. Less 'worth owning' makes it bad. The PS3 does not live up to its price.
8. "You then bring up Blu-Ray, claiming that current DVD's are good enough and we don't need a change. "
That is not what I said at all. I said they are superior, but the media isn't going to swith to them.
9. "HD-DVD's are also a new alternative."
I don't see how thats a relavent point. We are talking about Blu-Ray.
Also, HD-DVD's are STILL DVDs, it's only an upgrade, but I don't see how thats relavent.
10. "Both are doing fairly well."
No. They aren't. Has the media stopped making DVDs? No. Has the media only made HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray? No.
The cost is simply way too much to even consider these a possibility.
11. "We are now approaching a time when regular DVD's won't cut it anymore for these games."
No we are not. First of all, I beileve graphics are overrated, and better graphics does not mean a better game. But, look at every good game for the Xbox. Did that use Blu-Ray? No. And I'm perfectly fine playing those games. Take Halo 3. Great graphics, great game. That is not a blu-ray. The only system doing this is the PS3, and I am proving that it is not good.
12. "Also, they are free, so by just 'owning' the system, you also have the multiplayer."
That doesn't mean its better. I, personally, would like to have a good online play and pay $50 a year for it. Also, the Wii is free, and that is superior.
13. "the PS3 can play PS2 games (and PS1 games)."
http://ps3.ign.com... read this article. Many people have trobule with the PS3's 'Backwards compatability'. You also say that Xbox has poor compatability. But, it has great backwards compatability.
http://www.xbox.com... This is a list of all the games backwards compatable. It is pretty extensive.
14. "But this ins't about comparing the PS3 to other systems."
I agree and disagree. It isn't about making a financial decision, but with nothing to compare it to, how would we know it was good? That is the same for everything in humanity. We need to compare to make an assumption.

Now my offense-
Games- The only thing the con has is that "You can buy both systems." But as I said, that is not the question. He conceds that the games aren't as good or as many, so I win this argument.

Blu-Ray- It simply can not be argued that the blu-ray is the future. Blu-ray costs way to much, and the media is not going to switch. I gave examples of the Betamax and the UMD, which both failed miserably. This argument was never responded to.

Online Play- I can't find my gaming friends. I can't play any games. This isn't fun. The online and multiplayer capabilities simply don't compare to the other competetors. Also, PS3 is only for certain people who like certain games, while the Wii is bringing in new audiences of gamers.

Price- The price is just way too high. Sony loses money for every PS3 they SELL. If anyone wants to see the future of sony, I recommend not buying a PS3, because it is causing Sony to crash. Bloomberg says Sony is losing $664 Million in the final quater.

You can say what you want, but the facts speak louder:
Nintendo DS: 471,000
Nintendo Wii: 360,000
Playstation 2: 194,000
Playstation Portatable: 183,000
Microsoft Xbox 360: 174,000
Nintendo Game Boy advance: 84,000
Sony PlayStation 3: 82,000
(Number of Units sold.)
beem0r

Con

Responses to your answers:

<<1>>
It matters 0 to a user how much money a company loses making a system. I am not making the system in this debate, so I could care less how much money it loses.

<<2>>
Costs were reduced by 125+, dunno how much prices were cut. Either way, it's irrelevant. See #1 for why.

<<3>>
It may not be your point, but it is mine. I'll talk about it later.

<<4>>
The PS3 does not need every game on it to be a good system. The games that are good that aren't on it can be played elsewhere anyway, so people with both systems lose nothing.

<<5>>
You make a mistake here. You say that you're not trying to compare it to 360 and Wii, but that you you have to do so to prove that it's a bad system to own. The fact is: no, you don't. All you have to is consider its features and its games, and decide from that if it would be a bad thing to have one or a good thing.
You only must compare if you're making a comparitive or superlative assertion: "The PS3 is worse than the 360 to own" or "The PS3 is the worst next-gen system to own" would have required comparisons, but "The PS3 is a bad system to own" does not. If I was asserting that a chicken sandwich would be good to eat, I don't have to compare it a bacon cheeseburger to make my point.

<<6>>
This is good for 360, not bad for PS3. PS3 also has exclusives (not necessarily AS good, but good), it has multi-system games, it can play Blu-rays, and it can play PS2 and PS1 games (not all of them, but most good ones).

<<7>>
First, less worth owning does not make it bad, it makes it worse. Worse than a bacon cheeseburger can be a chicken sandwich, both good. Just because the chicken sandwich doesn't stack up well against the bacon cheeseburger does not make it a bad sandwich.
You bring up price when price has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We're discussing the good or bad of _owning_ the system. If I already own a system, I don't have to pay for it. We're not discussing whether it's a good system to _buy_, just like we're not discussing whether it's a good system to _produce_ (see #1).

<<8>>
The media isn't going to switch to them? Most new movies DO come out in DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray. See #10 for more.

<<9>>
True, not directly relevant. however, HD-DVD's are not "still DVD's" as you say they are. They're just as compatible with DVD players as Blu-ray's: not at all. Having DVD in the name does not make them the same as DVD's. This whole point is irrelevant, I just had to correct you on that.

<<10>>
They are. When DVD's were still new, did they stop making videotapes? No.
When audio CD's were new, were cassette tapes immediately abandoned? No.
The fact is, Blu-ray and HD-DVD are new - not many people yet have the ability to play them, so it would be retarded for companies to stop making DVD's. Also, as you said, the cost is still pretty high on them. However, both players and discs are becoming cheaper to produce as time goes on. $100 of the PS3's price cut was on the Blu-ray player diodes. Prices will soon reach a point when people will actually make a switch.

<<11>>
First person shooters are generally not the largest games. Role playing games, with huge worlds, lots of FMV's, many 3d models, etc. have generally been the first to not fit on given media. Consider N64's zelda - it could have been so much better if it didn't have to fit on a cartridge. Textures, good models, FMV's, etc. were sacrificed for space. Many PS1 games required multiple CD's to not make such sacrifices, Final Fantasy 7-9 come to mind. There have even been games requiring multiple DVD's! While not common, I've actually played one: "Star Ocean: Till the End of Time." So perhaps the games you play won't need bigger data storage than a DVD, but more and more games will start needing more and more storage, and might be forced to go PS3 exclusive or make sacrifices in 360 versions to deal with the issue.
Also, the fact that PS3 is the only one doing it is in no way a bad thing. If anything, it's a boon for the PS3, since there are advantages and no disadvantages.

<<12>>
I didn't say it's better, but it's not bad. And consider that by paying $50 more per year, you're going to end up paying more for your 360 than one would pay for a PS3. And while the Wii might have better multiplayer, it has much worse graphics, a horrible default controller for most games, and an even smaller memory storage than DVD. If you're going to compare, compare things that are comparable. It's like me saying that I can get a NES at a garage sale for 5 dollars, so therefore other systems aren't worth it.

<<13>>
I didn't know about the issues in PS3 backwards-compatibility. however, you're claim that 360's is 'great' would also mean that the PS3's is great. They're both about as backwards compatible as one another. Also, there are very few XBOX exclusives that are worth playing - most that were are now available on computer as well. Both the 360 and PS3 have made sure to work out the kinks in the big hits like Halo or Final Fantasy X, so the majority of 'good' games work for both systems.
I had only expressed my woes about 360's backwards compatibility because a few games my stepbrother wanted to buy wouldn't work on his 360. However, these were not extremely popular games. I suppose I was wrong on two things - the PS3's backwards compatibility was not as great as I thought, and I was too quick to say the 360's was so bad.

<<14>>
You ask how we would know it was good with nothing to compare it to: I will copy from above.
All you have to is consider its features and its games, and decide from that if it would be a bad thing to have one or a good thing.
You do not have to compare it to anything. The 360 might be a GREAT thing to own, showing that the PS3 is worse does not make it bad.

Now for responding to your offense:

Games:
The games are not worse overall, and in all likelihood FFXIII will be PS3 exclusive. The games are about the same, and I never outright said that they were worse. Sure, 360 might have a few _awesome_ games (Saint's Row, probably Halo 3, etc), but other than that, they're about equal when it comes to games. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter which has better games, since we're not talking about the 360. The PS3's games are good.

Blu-ray:
Betamax did not fail because it was something different - it was introduced at pretty much the same time as VHS. It just happened to not do as well as JVC's VHS tapes. While this could very well happen to Blu-ray, with HD-DVD overpowering it in the market, but it's unfair to assume this early in the game. One or the other IS the next step up. They're already being used, and it's only a matter of time before one begins to dominate the market, eclipsing both DVD's and the competitor.
Also, UMD's didn't fail. They were meant solely as PSP format discs, something they accomplish quite well.

Online:
Which games are missing multiplayer that should have it? Why are you unable to find friends, when it's nearly as easy to do so as on the 360?
First minute or so should illustrate my point: http://youtube.com...

Price:
I shouldn't even have to argue about the price, since one does not pay for a system that is owned, but I will anyway to avoid people thinking I'm just playing word games to win. The fact is, for many people, the PS3 is a GREAT buy. Perhaps not for you, though you specifically stated that good graphics really aren't your thing. For those who need the best graphics available for both games and movies, PS3 is an obvious buy. For someone apathetic about graphics, it may be unwise to pay 400 USD. However, a person apathetic about graphics isn't usually the market of next-gen systems.

The PS3 has good games, including non-exclusive games, great graphics, the ability to play Blu-rays, the ability to play most PS2 games and PS1 games, and all for what's now 400 or so USD.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

First of all, I wanted this to be about the console war, but I didn't clearly state that, so I won't compare them unless it is needed. (i.e. I didn't know if 44 exclusives was a lot, but I compared to the 360).

1. I think it matters a lot. If the company makes the games they so love and they crash, the user probably isn't going to be happy. Also, if say the blu-ray crashes, and they have all these blu-ray games, they won't be worth anything. Also, that wasn't my only argument. It is also just too expensive for someone like myself to buy at $400.

2. You again did not give me a source, so we don't know where this claim is coming from. And that point helps my Sony loss argument. The PS3 price dropped 200, while, as you said, production costs went down by 125. By my measure, that is $75 more than what they were already losing.

3. No argument

4. "The PS3 does not need every game on it to be a good system. The games that are good that aren't on it can be played elsewhere anyway, so people with both systems lose nothing."
So this argument relies upon the fact that the PS3 is good because you can still buy another system? What? The fact is that PS3 has very little exclusive games, and none of them are even considered some of the best games around.

5. I'll pretty much conceed this point, because I don't want to get in a philosophical debate. (My point was humans can not make assumptions about things unless they know something that is better or worse.)

6. "not necessarily AS good, but good"
Pretty much like my other points, but the ps3 exclusives just aren't good. And there aren't that many. It would simply not be a lot of fun to own a PS3.

7. Again, I won't compare.

8. The media is not going to switch. They're WAY to expensive, which you never responded to, all you said was "They already come out on blu-ray"

9. Irrelevent point, throw it out (conceeded).

10. "both players and discs are becoming cheaper to produce as time goes on. $100 of the PS3's price cut was on the Blu-ray player diodes. Prices will soon reach a point when people will actually make a switch."
First, we are not discussing whether or not it will be a good system in 5 years, we are talking now. And right now, they are too high. DVDs have gone down in price, but they weren't nearly as expensive as blu rays are now. When we can get DVDs and HD-DVDs for cheaper why do we need to switch? Also, how do we know that in 5 years the media will discover something new, like with the Betamax? It cannot be shown in this debate that they will go down in price.

11. "First person shooters are generally not the largest games."
I don't see how this is relavent. I was simply proving that you don't need blu-ray for a good game, as you claim.
"might be forced to go PS3 exclusive or make sacrifices in 360 versions to deal with the issue."
We cannot know this until it happens. For the time being, PS3 has little exclusive games and do not plan on making a substaintial amount later.

12. "It's like me saying that I can get a NES at a garage sale for 5 dollars, so therefore other systems aren't worth it."
That is what I'm saying about the PS3. The fact that its free does not make it better. I was comparing the wii, which you can eaisly find a game to play online, with the PS3. O wait, the compare thing. O well. But that argument holds.

13. "I was wrong on two things - the PS3's backwards compatibility was not as great as I thought, and I was too quick to say the 360's was so bad."
Add this as offense to my position. The PS3's so called 'backwards compatability' is not even good at all.

14. Comparative.

Games- PS3, as I have proved, have little exclusive games. Also, the best PS3 exclusives aren't even that great. Take your best games.
Hevenly Sword- IGN and Gametrailers give it 7/10, along with Realm of Gaming, Gamerdad at 7, Maxim at 6, and gamestyle at 5.
Resistance: Fall of Man: Possibly the best rated game, with an average of 8.5. I'll admit that's a good score, but a console best? I think a best should be at least 9. Jolt and Game Almighty give this a 7.5, Euro Gamer and Gameplatformer give it a 7, and Mansized gives it a 6.
Killzone- An average rating of 7/10. The list is too long to list all the sites that hated this game, but here are some: IGN 7.5, GamePro 7, GameSpy 6, Gamecrtics.com 4.5/10. Also, I don't know how credible, but ITSC gives it 3/10. (I guess they don't have to be THAT credible, where talking about how much someone likes a videogame)
Warhawk: Also one of the highest at 8.4. As I said, a console best should above above average. Game Informer 8, PSM 6.5.
Motorstorm: 8.4 average. One of the only, if not only, exclusive launch title, which I beileve is only for the graphics. I've played this game, and if you have to, you'll know how sticky the controls are. So that's Pluto2493 review, haha. G4 and GameDaily give it 6, Gametrailers and Gamespot give it 7.9.

Also, I'd like to bring up that most of the PS3 games are RPGs and Shooters. While those may be ok for some people, I personally do not like them. The PS3 does not fit the needs of a sports gamer, such as myself, nor does it satisfy family gamers, with puzzle, music, or party games.
Please don't bring future games into this. While some may be hyped, neither of us know how good they really are.

Blu-Ray: "Betamax did not fail because it was something different - it was introduced at pretty much the same time as VHS. It just happened to not do as well as JVC's VHS tapes. While this could very well happen to Blu-ray, with HD-DVD overpowering it in the market, but it's unfair to assume this early in the game. One or the other IS the next step up. They're already being used, and it's only a matter of time before one begins to dominate the market, eclipsing both DVD's and the competitor."
First, I doesn't matter why it failed, it failed. Blu-Ray could fail for many reasons. It is also unfair to assume that Blu-Ray will be the future, as you stated.
"Also, UMD's didn't fail. They were meant solely as PSP format discs, something they accomplish quite well."
What is your argument here? They didn't fail, and the didn't accomplish well? Did they or didn't they? But yes, Sony's UMD discs did fail despite them saying that they 'are the future of video games'.
HD-DVDs Will win anyway. They are superior.
http://www.highdefdigest.com...

The fact still remains. Blu-ray prices, right now, are way to expensive. You can accomplish the same things blu ray does with DVDs, and are yet more pricey.

Online: From Yahoo! answers:
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The only good online game for the PS3 that I can think of that's not a first person shooter is Warhawk. Warhawk is an online only game though, there is no campaign.
As you said, first person shooters aren't even the biggest genre. I rest my case.
O wait, no I don't. As I have been reasearching, I found that a lot of games have been troubling to play online like Smackdown vs. Raw. I don't have every game, but I'm sure there a lot of issues like this.

Price: As I have said, it matters a lot to people. I sure want to see more consoles from Microsoft and Nintendo, and I'm sure its the same for PS3 owners. Also I said that the $600/400 price is way too much for me when I could get a Wii and a game for $250. Millions of people agree with me, just look at the units sold from my second speech.

Haha, I found this, it says a lot of the stuff I said. http://youtube.com...
and
http://youtube.com...

man, I should've said Rumble.
beem0r

Con

1.
Sony isn't dying anytime soon. Also, if Blu-ray fails, they will still have their PS3 on which to play them. Whether or not Blu-ray succeeds as the next DVD, it will succeed no matter what as the PS3 game storage media, since there's no competition in that market. PS3 games don't care at all whether or not the Blu-ray succeeds, and if someone buys Blu-ray movies, they can still play them on their PS3, so that doesn't matter either.
Also, AFAIK, Sony doesn't make many games, they're more about hardware.

2.
Source is Wikipedia, or rather whatever the Wikipedia source was for that. Also, they were 499 and 599 to start with, correct? According to Wikipedia at least. 399 is the cheaper one, so it's a 100 dollar drop. Not that production costs matter, since I don't have to pay to produce it, only to buy. And once again, SNE is not going out of business anytime soon.

3.
The PS3 has the best console graphics available. This is surely at least tips the scales toward it being a good system, at least for those of us who care about graphics.

4.
Why does it matter if the games are exclusives? _You're_ the one relying on people owning both systems. Out of ALL games that are onthe PS3, there are MANY great games. It doesn't matter if they're exclusive or not, since that presupposes that we have another console. Perhaps I shouldn't have said what I did about people who have both systems. however, even for these people the PS3 is worth it for the PS2 and PS1 support, the PS3 exclusives, and Blu-ray video player.

5.
If you're not arguing it, we're on the same ground. There only has to be more advantage than disadvantage in having a PS3 for it to be good. It doesn't have to be best or better than X or Y.

6.
You don't own a PS3, so how would you know how good its exclusives are? Have you played them all? I agree that the normal great PS exclusive series don't have any games for it yet, but the ones out now are good. It would be plenty of fun to own a PS3, especially for those who would also use Blu-ray to get a better video experience.

7.
8.
I admitted that they were still expensive, but that they will eventually get cheap enough that there will be a switch. Also, many people are already switching. It will likely be some time before DVD is phased out, just like it took a long time for VHS.

9.
10.
Perhaps the price of Blu-ray players is still too high. Perhaps the purchase of a PS3 solely for its use as a Blu-ray player would be a bad decision. But the great thing about the PS3 is that it makes Blu-ray WORTH getting into now. True, HD-DVD players are less expensive than Blu-ray drives, but a PS3 costs less than a 360 and an HD-DVD drive, plus you get multiplayer for free, better graphics, and it's only one piece of hardware taking up entertainment system real estate.
Blu-ray also has more companies supporting it.
http://www.engadget.com...
Read through at least the part with the tables.
While Blu-ray might cost more, it has higher capacity and much higher possible capacity (200GB vs. 60 for the HD DVD).
Overall, it's probably still too early to call one the victor though.
Also, they have been steadily going down in price. As I said, $100 of the PS3 cost cut was the ability to make Blu-ray diodes cheaper. Any new format is expensive when it first comes out.

11.
Yes, you can have a good game on 360. I wasn't saying that you couldn't. But unlike the 360, the PS3 will likely not be bounded by disc size for its entire life. The PS3 is able to have huge games on it. Therefore, as the owner of a PS3, you know developers won't be sacrificing content in the games just to fit it.

12.
If someone was giving away PS3's for free, it wouldn't make the 360 a bad system. I was trying to show that it doesn't need to be a better deal than X to be a good deal. For many people, the PS3 is a good deal, for some others it's even the best deal out there (videophiles).

13.
I did not say the PS3's backwards-compatibility was bad, nor is it. Its backwards compatibility is at least as good as the 360's. It's not perfect, but they've worked out all the kinks in MOST games. Almost all of the good games, anyway. The ability to play PS2 games and PS1 games is therefore stilla boost to the worth of a PS3.

Games:
http://ps3.gamezone.com...
Look! Things with high ratings! It doesn't matter whether they're exclusive or not, since we're not assuming that a person owns an alternate system.

Also, you say that you don't like the genres of game PS3 tends to have. However, we're not debating whether YOU should buy it, but whether it's good IN GENERAL. RPG's and Shooters are two of my favorite genres, and there are plenty of people who like both.

Blu-ray:
Neither format will succeed DVD's if no one supports it. The PS3 is one of the biggest reasons Blu-ray currently has more supporters than HD-DVD's.
Also, I said that UMD's _DID_ accomplish their goal. They were not meant as DVD replacements, just as PSP storage. They were the future, and are the present, of handheld gaming, the only market they've been pushed in.

And too bad that article crowning HD-DVD is so old. Over a year old. I realize that the article I posted earlier was also old, but it was the only one with both technical specs and comparitive tables I could find. For a more recent article:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...

Plain and simple, Blu-ray is winning. It has more players out there, it makes more sales, it is winning.
Also, regular DVD content is not in HD.

Online:
I said shooters were not biggest content-wise, they're definitely the most-played though. They tend to be the best-selling games for all consoles.
Also, yahoo answers is not generally a great source to use. Any online non-exclusives are still online for PS3, and almost all games that should be online are. All I asked for was a game that should be online but wasn't. You gave none, only some yahoo answers quote and that "a lot of games are troubling to play online." You said this with no source, so I have no means of rebuttal, besides an equal and opposite assertion: "Games are just as easy to play online on PS3 as on 360."

Price:
Yes, it costs more than the 360. It can also do many things the 360 can't, such as play Blu-ray and PS2/PS1 games. The ability to play PS2 and PS1 games is far better than the ability to play XBOX games - many of the great XBOX games have been released on PC with more features. To name a few, Halo, Halo 2, and Fable. The ability to play PS2 games is worth quite a bit: people are _still_ buying PS2's at the retail price of $129! Many people out there would be more than willing to buy a next-generation DVD player for $100, and with the PS3, this is free. Next-generation consoles are worth far more than they are sold for, and the PS3 is no exception. In fact, you note the huge discount yourself. The price is far less than it should be, and a PS3 is well-worth what it costs the consumer. Also, the network system of PS3 is rivaled only by the XBOX, and it comes free with the system!

To sum it all up, the PS3 is a great piece of technology. All in one, it has the ability to play high-definition movies, high-definition games, and old classics that many of us have not yet grown tired of. It also comes with the ability to play games with others across the globe. Also, it virtually comes with a guarantee that storage space will never be an issue for your games. Not to mention that its graphics are rivaled only by expensive computer systems priced in the thousands. The PS3 is far from a bad system - it is a _great_ piece of technology being offered to us at a _great_ price.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Good debate Beem0r, and thanks for defending me in the other one. I meant for this debate to be about how the PS3 is better/worse than the 360+Wii, but I guess that wasn't really clear, hence my observation in the last round.
Posted by ScrewSociety62 9 years ago
ScrewSociety62
Warhawk, Ghost Recon, Oblivion, Resistance and Heavenly Sword. I don't play it much as my Xbox, and I am aware that some of those titles are ports, but it's still by no means a bad system.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
hey could you give me your top five PS3 games? Quick please? Thanks.
Posted by ScrewSociety62 9 years ago
ScrewSociety62
I have all three consoles.
Xbox 360, then PS3, then Wii, in order of how much I prefer them.
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kirke32 7 years ago
Kirke32
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by masler24 8 years ago
masler24
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 8 years ago
LedLegend
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Giant29 8 years ago
Giant29
Pluto2493beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30