The Playstation 3 is a bad system to own.

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.