Monday, December 18th 2006

PS3 might not hit Europe until September


In an interview with CVG, Phil Harrison - Sony’s head of Worldwide Studios – has admitted that he wouldn’t guarantee a March launch for the Playstation 3 in Europe. Although Sony quickly issued a statement to say that it would be ready on time, this has still lead to speculation about the console’s release date. A launch by April is still likely, however CVG claim that a source has told them the PS3 won’t be available in Europe until September 2007 due to component shortages. People needn’t worry yet because this is only a rumour, but Phil Harrison’s comment would suggest that Sony themselves aren’t sure when it will be ready.Source: CVG
Add your own comment

48 Comments on PS3 might not hit Europe until September

#1
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Sony always has component shortages when consoles are first released, this isn't really anything new for them. I am sure they would have loved to wait to released the console until they had enough units to satisfy demand, but they had to get the system out to compete with the last gen Xbox360 and the Gamecube v1.5 before they lost too much ground to them.
Posted on Reply
#2
technicks
by: newtekie1
Sony always has component shortages when consoles are first released, this isn't really anything new for them. I am sure they would have loved to wait to released the console until they had enough units to satisfy demand, but they had to get the system out to compete with the last gen Xbox360 and the Gamecube v1.5 before they lost too much ground to them.
Nothing else broke when your psu died?
I have the same psu. Hope it will live longer then 10 months.:D
Posted on Reply
#3
newbielives
And there are no games worth playing on PS3 besides resistance which is a AA game not AAA game.

PS2 emulation looking like crap

Multiplatform games looking better and running at a better framerate on xbox360.


by: newtekie1
Sony always has component shortages when consoles are first released, this isn't really anything new for them. I am sure they would have loved to wait to released the console until they had enough units to satisfy demand, but they had to get the system out to compete with the last gen Xbox360 and the Gamecube v1.5 before they lost too much ground to them.
Posted on Reply
#4
jocksteeluk
sony should just cancel a European launch all together because they obviously dont appriciate their European customer base and by september the x360 premium should be around the £180 mark so way to go sony trying to create an even greater artificial demand for a product available elsewhere in the world.
Posted on Reply
#5
Track
September??????
Posted on Reply
#6
tigger
I'm the only one
oh well,i wont be buy the sony pos3 anyway.
Posted on Reply
#7
bruins004
If this is true, I wonder how Sony will wind up pricing the POS3 (sorry meant PS3) in Europe.
Posted on Reply
#8
HaZe303
Who cares!! They can cancel the d@mn thing, see if i care. As already said, xbox360 is much better bang for the buck!! You can get it for half of pos3 price, yet still get better performance, better IQ, better AI, etc. So SONY, keep youre pos console, nobody cares!! Or atleast nobody who matter!! :)
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
I am not going to get in a argument over this, but I will say since you end up paying MORE for the Xbox360 and get less functionality, I don't see how anyone can say it is the better bang for the buck.

As for the games, I am sure they will improve greatly in the next year. Look at how crappy the original Xbox360 games looked and played. Take almost all the sports games released for it and the original Xbox at the same time. The ones on the 360 looked almost exactly the same, yet had large amounts of content removed. Tiger Wood's Golf had entire golf courses cut from the Xbox360 version. The developers have had over a year to work with the 360 to improve the games, once they have that kind of time with the PS3 the game will look just as good if not better.

Give them all a year on the market before you start to go on about how the games look and play.

That is all I am going to say.

by: technicks
Nothing else broke when your psu died?
I have the same psu. Hope it will live longer then 10 months.:D
Other than it blowing a breaker/fuse in my house, no it didn't take anything else with it when it died. I wasn't even really mad about the power supply going bad, it happens even to the best of companies. I was extemely pissed at how hard it was to RMA and how long it took them to get me a new one.
Posted on Reply
#10
HaZe303
Who in their right mind uses a console for more than gaming??? Not me, and not anyone i know!! So to say you get more functionality with pos3, is total bull. Sure you get blueray hd movie playback, but if i want hd movie playback i can get HD-dVD player for 360, and still be cheaper than pos3. But i wont, because i only play games with consoles. So does most of us hardcore gamers. I mostly watch movies with dvd or pc. And if we speak of functionality, 360 has xbox live, has achievements etc etc. So in my eyes, the 360 is more complete, and you get to choose more what you want. MS does atleast not make you buy a hd-dvd player just to play games. Sony does. Only that makes me feel ill of ps3.
Posted on Reply
#11
Jimmy 2004
Well the 360 does lack built in wireless - even the Wii has that, and you have to pay about $100 for the wireless adaptor don't you?
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: HaZe303
=]So to say you get more functionality with pos3, is total bull. Sure you get blueray hd movie playback, but if i want hd movie playback i can get HD-dVD player for 360, and still be cheaper than pos3.
I know I said I wasn't going to argue, but I just can't stand people that hard headed.

Xbox Premium Bundle=$399
HD-DVD Player=$199
Total=$600

PS3 60GB=$600

Plus you get a bigger hard drive, which "hardcore gamers" will make use of, wireless which again "hardcore gamers" appreciated since many don't like to have network cables strung accross their house, and an HDMI port which give noticeably better picture quality, which is also something "hardcore gameres" like. So yes, it does have extra functionality that even "hardcore gamers" appreciate and use, and the majority of the consumers love the fact that it plays blu-ray discs, "harcore gamers" only make up a very small percentage of PS3 buyers.

by: HaZe303
=]But i wont, because i only play games with consoles. So does most of us hardcore gamers. I mostly watch movies with dvd or pc. And if we speak of functionality, 360 has xbox live, has achievements etc etc. So in my eyes, the 360 is more complete, and you get to choose more what you want. MS does atleast not make you buy a hd-dvd player just to play games. Sony does. Only that makes me feel ill of ps3.
The PS3 has the blu-ray player in it because game developers want more space on the game discs, the fact that it plays the movies is purely an added bonus. They are very limitted by the DVD standard of the Xbox360, and have voiced their concerns about this several times already. The hi-res textures that the next gen consoles require to look good simply aren't fitting on DVDs. The fact that Microsoft did not include a reader capable of reading larger format discs for games is a huge hadicap in my eyes, and will start to bite them in the but pretty quickly.
Posted on Reply
#14
Exceededgoku
by: newtekie1

The PS3 has the blu-ray player in it because game developers want more space on the game discs, the fact that it plays the movies is purely an added bonus. They are very limitted by the DVD standard of the Xbox360, and have voiced their concerns about this several times already. The hi-res textures that the next gen consoles require to look good simply aren't fitting on DVDs. The fact that Microsoft did not include a reader capable of reading larger format discs for games is a huge hadicap in my eyes, and will start to bite them in the but pretty quickly.
You are very right on this one, but its a shame that the PS3 hardware cannot effectively use high rez textures since its limited VRAM and other graphics bottlenecks
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Exceededgoku
You are very right on this one, but its a shame that the PS3 hardware cannot effectively use high rez textures since its limited VRAM and other graphics bottlenecks
The PS3 is better of in the hi-res texture area than the 360 is. Overall the potential for the PS3 to look better than the 360 is there, the game developers just have to have some time to learn the system. It is the break in period that every console goes through.
Posted on Reply
#16
overcast
by: newtekie1
The PS3 is better of in the hi-res texture area than the 360 is. Overall the potential for the PS3 to look better than the 360 is there, the game developers just have to have some time to learn the system. It is the break in period that every console goes through.
Exactly, look at the PS2 and what they are pulling off with it. The new Final Fantasy, God of War 2? Incredible graphics for that hardware.
Posted on Reply
#17
overcast
One another note, the second revision of the XBOX360 is due early next year which supposedly is to include HDMI. The larger hard drive, I believe makes absolutely no difference. The wireless would be nice though , and should have been an included feature. Though I've wired all the rooms in my house, so this isn't a big issue with me. I've also read somewhere that current XBOX360 games are barely consuming half of the dual layer DVD's they are printed on. I can't see Bluray or HDDVD capacity required anywhere in this generation of consoles. If PC's games can do just fine with one DVD worth of content, consoles certainly can. Current gen consoles should have absolutely no problem dealing with decompressing large textures with the amount of power available to them.

Finally, the Playstation 3 has a Bluray player in it, because Sony is pushing their proprietary format as hard as they possibly can. It has nothing to do with developers requesting more capacity. The inclusion of that player is very obviously being reflected on the consumer price.
Posted on Reply
#18
Jimmy 2004
by: overcast
One another note, the second revision of the XBOX360 is due early next year which supposedly is to include HDMI. The larger hard drive, I believe make absolutely no difference. The wireless would be nice though , and should have been an included feature. Though I've wired all the rooms in my house, so this a big issue with me. I've also read somewhere that current XBOX360 games are barely consuming half of the dual layer DVD's they are printed on. I can't see Bluray or HDDVD capacity required anywhere in this generation of consoles. If PC's games can do just fine with one DVD worth of content, consoles certainly can. Current gen consoles should have absolutely no problem dealing with decompressing large textures with the amount of power available to them.

Finally, the Playstation 3 has a Bluray player in it, because Sony is pushing their proprietary format as hard as they possibly can. It has nothing to do with developers requesting more capacity. The inclusion of that player is very obviously being reflected on the consumer price.
We are starting to see the first PC games moving onto two DVDs already, but I agree that consoles don't need more space for their games, because they only have limited memory (the hard drives aren't that impressive) so they would need spend a lot of time loading from disks.
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
But that is where we are starting to see the hard drives become impressive. You load 2-5GB of the game files on the faster hard drive, and load times remain the same, even though you are loading a lot more data. This is where the larger hard drive becomes almost necessary.
Posted on Reply
#20
overcast
I'm totally confident that if the need for increased harddrive size ever increases, MS will provide either an upgrade path, or the ability to just swap new laptop drives in there. Right now, I think it's a non issue.
There was already an article on a supposed 100GB addon to become available from MS.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061019-8035.html

But honestly, what is the drive being used for, beyond demos and downloadable crap?
Posted on Reply
#21
lemonadesoda
THIS IS FANSTASTIC NEWS (for nintendo!) :)

P.S.

The last Sony Executive to leave the building... please turn out the lights!
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: overcast
But honestly, what is the drive being used for, beyond demos and downloadable crap?
On the Xbox, that is all it is used for, well that and downloading the software patches to run Xbox games, and I agree, a larger hard drive is useless on an Xbox360.

However, on a PS3 it is used to install game files to. Which greatly decreases load times, something I think every gamer hates. With some games installing 5GB of game files to the hard drive, and just like with PC games they are always on the hard drive, 20GB will run out pretty quickly.
Posted on Reply
#23
Benpi
You guys can argue all you want over 360 and PS3, but as an owner of all 3 consoles, I'll take XboxLive over PS3's online service any day - and you have to pay $50 for XBL. The community MS has built with XBL won't be beat by Nintendo, Sony, and probably not even by the PC. It's so easy to add someone you're playing with to your friends list, and you can easily invite them to any game, send video messages, voice messsages etc. Before this fall, I'd only been playing CoD2 since the relase (I own it for PC also) but the XBL makes it so easy and fun to play with your friends, and strangers from all over the world.

As far as bang for the buck is concerned, with the xbox360, you get more Fun for the buck, then the PS3 has to offer... I'll pay a little bit more to have a lot more fun.
Posted on Reply
#24
newbielives
Too bad PS3 load times in games out today are worst or equal to xbox360 and when it does not cache its horrendous.

By the way games like Oblivion on xbox360 do take advantage of the HardDrive for cache when it detects that you have a Hard Drive.
Posted on Reply
#25
Jimmy 2004
by: Benpi
You guys can argue all you want over 360 and PS3, but as an owner of all 3 consoles, I'll take XboxLive over PS3's online service any day - and you have to pay $50 for XBL. The community MS has built with XBL won't be beat by Nintendo, Sony, and probably not even by the PC. It's so easy to add someone you're playing with to your friends list, and you can easily invite them to any game, send video messages, voice messsages etc. Before this fall, I'd only been playing CoD2 since the relase (I own it for PC also) but the XBL makes it so easy and fun to play with your friends, and strangers from all over the world.

As far as bang for the buck is concerned, with the xbox360, you get more Fun for the buck, then the PS3 has to offer... I'll pay a little bit more to have a lot more fun.
Online PC gaming is certainly far superior to Xbox Live. The only advantage Xbox Live has is one buddy list for every game, but tools like Xfire essentially do that for you. And online PC gaming is free.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment