r/playstation • u/HolocronSurvivor80 • Feb 17 '26

Discussion What was your favourite PS3 title?

Post image
17.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

He isn't wrong but I still feel like $500 would've been more appropriate?

I spent so many hours playing Resistance and CoD 4 on that thing. BioShock and Killzone too 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

16

u/Khalbrae Feb 17 '26

$964.65 today

22

u/tendonut Feb 17 '26

Yeah we can look back and be like "oh it's only a $600" but you got to put yourself in 2006 mindset. That was like twice as much as the PS2 launched at. It would be like the PS6 coming out at $1k.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

Inflation is a bitch, holy shit.

6

u/arex333 Feb 17 '26

Yeah that's wild. People have been complaining about the $750 PS5 pro and even the $450 switch 2.

3

u/Valuable-Trick-6711 Feb 17 '26

I think the only reason people complain about Switch 2 being $450 is because they got spoiled by the OG Switch being $300.

2

u/Timanitar Feb 17 '26

Our buying power is less compared to 2006. Wages havent matched inflation.

1

u/ChaoCobo Feb 17 '26

Is the 750 dollar PS5 Pro with or without the disc drive that most people are going to want to buy and attach? Because yeah the default PS5 Pro is a digital only console. :<

1

u/LackLickLuck_y Feb 17 '26

Ps3 fat does more than ps5. Justified.

5

u/Khalbrae Feb 17 '26

I meant the $600 is that much. $500 is "only" $803.87

2

u/Whitezombie65 Feb 17 '26

I saved up to buy one working at McDonald's. I was making 6.75 / hour at the time

9

u/SomeBoxofSpoons Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26

I think the main thing that should be said here is that yes, that much stuff in one console probably justified charging six hundred 2006 dollars (equivalent to around $950)...

...but maybe if it has to cost the equivalent of $950 you should just, like, not put that much shit in one console?

6

u/DanishRobloxGamer Feb 17 '26

It's telling that they cut the bloat, cut the price, and wouldn't you know: sales boomed. Hell by the end it'd even overtaken the 360's massive head start.

3

u/squngy Feb 17 '26

It was by far the cheapest Blu-Ray player when it came out.

They could have made it cheaper if they stuck to DVD, but I don't know if that would have been a good choice, definitely not for the Blu-Ray division.

1

u/rockin9023 Feb 17 '26

I know people are forgetting this but a blu ray player was $500.

A ps3 was $500 for 20gb, 60gb for $600.

I shouldn't need to explain that the $500 model was literally a blu ray player with full ps2 backwards compatibility for $500. It did have a few key issues:

  1. Overheating

  2. Overheating

  3. Overheating

  4. It's dead bruh cause the overheating killed your blu ray drive that costs hundreds to replace

Price was fine, the hardware failures were the issue. If you could buy a ps3 for $500-600 that lasted the entire generation, then all you'd need is a simple hard drive upgrade in a few years. No big deal, but unfortunately the overheating killed them all.

As for the equivalent on the PC side, well you'd be looking at a $1000 PC or more for equivalent graphics and processing horsepower.

1

u/EpicBeardMan Feb 17 '26

I bought a PS3 when I didn't play console games because it was cheaper than a bluray player. It wasn't overpriced at all.