Playstation 3: Big Deal. [Archive] - Retrogaming Roundtable

Aswald

12-09-2006, 01:50 PM

Well, the Playstation 3 arrived. I heard all of the techno-hype and drivel. I heard all of the techies on television, with their computer-generated promo ads, the usual.

So what's the big deal?

As I originally heard, this thing was supposed to be backward-compatible. It isn't. In fact, it seems as though it doesn't do several things it was supposed to do. Was it rushed out, as was the ill-fated ADAM computer in 1983?

In spite of all the talk about "cool blue-ray TECHNOLOGY" (these days a snow tire boasts TECHNOLOGY), what does this thing do that the Playstation 2 didn't do, really?

In 1982, the CV and 5200 were popular because the several previous years saw tremendous leaps in arcade games. Almost (it seemed) overnight we went from Pong and Breakout to Zaxxon and Joust.

The NES resurrected the murdered industry, even though it wasn't that far ahead of the CV, as several recent Opcode games, and Lord of the Dungeon illustrate.

The 16-bit era was not overwhelming, really, but the 32-bit era gave us games like Spyro and Mario 64, which were not really possible with previous generations.

Was this an example of what hype can do, or does it actually do something really significant that the previous systems of just a few years ago couldn't?

Is it also true that Sony must sell at least 14 games just to start turning a profit? Apparently, a mere "blue ray player" is more than 600 dollars.

Anyone?

meancode

12-09-2006, 06:07 PM

The PS3 can do a lot of things the PS2 cannot. The problem lies in the fact that all those "things" have nothing to do with gaming. Thus, most will not care.

As for the number of games sold per PS3, I haven't heard that, but I wouldn't doubt it. Sony is losing a lot of money (just like Microsoft) on every new machine sold.

Diatribal Deity

12-09-2006, 06:53 PM

Microsoft is actually making money on every system sold now.

"The 360 now only costs $323 to manufacture. The cost difference is important, because Microsoft is in a position to introduce price cuts that could drive Sony deeper into the red. In its most recent quarter, ended Sept. 30, Sony's earnings fell 94 percent to $14.4 million because of costs related to its laptop battery recall. It also reported a $369 million operating loss in its videogame business due to PS3 start-up costs. Sony has $4.7 billion in cash and $3 billion in short- and current long-term debt."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/73/11

jajaja

12-09-2006, 06:57 PM

As I originally heard, this thing was supposed to be backward-compatible. It isn't. In fact, it seems as though it doesn't do several things it was supposed to do. Was it rushed out, as was the ill-fated ADAM computer in 1983?

It isnt? Wierd, i've seen people play both PSX and PS2 games on it ;P 100% of the PSX and PS2 games doesnt work on it (yet), but its being worked on. I really dont see the big deal, personaly i've used like 10-20 PSX games on my PS2 since i bought it years ago, but thats just me.

If you want to talk about rushed console you should talk about the Wii. The firmware is already upto version 2.0, which is crazy since its been out only for some weeks. Many functions arent ready yet and theres many issues with it. Machines that stops taking discs, automatic updates that killed the machine, wriststrap that breaks easy. Also check www.wiierror.com for a quite long list of potential errors that can happen. Kinda reminds you of the FDS error list dosent it? hehe ;) Comparing the number of errors reported, Wii is the one who got the most (out of Wii/PS3/360).

In spite of all the talk about "cool blue-ray TECHNOLOGY" (these days a snow tire boasts TECHNOLOGY), what does this thing do that the Playstation 2 didn't do, really?

From a developer's view or a consumer's view? You can do alot more because of more powerful hardware. PS3 also have Bluetooth, WiFi, HDMi, Ethernet port, PS2 didnt. The 60gb version also have a flashcard reader for numerous of cards. Well.. just check out www.playstation.com and www.wikipedia.org and read yourself about PS2 and PS3. Then you can compare and see what PS3 can do and PS2 cannot.

Xizer

12-09-2006, 07:01 PM

This topic wasn't really necessary. I thought we all agreed that Sony is being retarded these days and the PS3 sucks. You're not really stating anything new.

MarkMan

12-09-2006, 07:22 PM

While I won't say the PS3 sucks. I don't think it does. It's an amazing machine and it just has shitty games right now.

I will agree that Sony is retarded.

Anthony1

12-09-2006, 07:35 PM

I think it's just too early in the game to make any real decision about whether the PS3 is going to live up to the hype or not. Sure, I can sit here and say that the PS3 has an absolutely atrocious launch lineup, and that it has alot of technical issues that are hurting it (like the fact that when I play Resistance:Fall of Man on my 4 year old Sony HDTV, I get 480p instead of 1080i cause the PS3 can't do a simple thing like internally upscale a 720p image to 1080i, so instead it automatically downscales you to 480p), but again, I just think it's too early to make any rash judgements right now.

Sony did get a few things right with the PS3, the fact that everything is included in one sleek design is pretty nice. You don't have to have all kinds of add-ons and attachments. Of course, at the same time, that sucks for people that have no interest in Blu Ray or built in Wi-Fi or built in larger HDD's, etc, etc. I'm actually one of the few people that is really enjoying the whole Blu Ray and HD-DVD thing. I recently upgraded my old 480p Infocus X1 projector to the incredible Mitsubishi HD1000u 720p projector, and let me tell you, Blu Ray movies and HD-DVD movies in true High Def, at 125 inches diagonal is fucking mind blowing. No joke. I mean, it literally is jaw droppingly gorgeous. (by the way, you don't have to be rich to enjoy the Mits HD1000u, I got mine from a place called Spinitar for $850).

But if you have absolutely zero interest in Blu Ray movies, then yes, the PS3 is pretty much a dissaster right now. The game selection is absolutely pitiful. No question about that. Even the much talked about Resistance isn't all that damn great. It's a decent game, but nothing to write home about. I've been trying to rent various PS3 games just to try to give the games a chance, but most of them are pretty dissapointing. The multiplatform stuff runs better on my 360, period. I still feel that the PS3 has some amazing long term potential. For example, the game that Naughty Dog is working on, that game looks absolutely amazing, I can't wait to play that one. There will be enough games here and there like that, that will make the PS3 an absolute must own. It's just not a must own right now. Not even close.

meancode

12-09-2006, 07:37 PM

While I won't say the PS3 sucks. I don't think it does. It's an amazing machine and it just has shitty games right now.

I will agree that Sony is retarded.

The games leave a lot to be desired if you own a 360. But if you are upgrading from a PS2, there are a lot of solid (and cross-platform) games out for the PS3 right now.

Predatorxs

12-09-2006, 07:42 PM

Joker T

12-09-2006, 07:43 PM

The games leave a lot to be desired if you own a 360. But if you are upgrading from a PS2, there are a lot of solid (and cross-platform) games out for the PS3 right now.

That's what I've been thinking. If you were one of the people waiting for PS3 than you have some pretty good games to play right now.

On the other hand, people that have a 360 have almost no reason at all to buy a PS3.

PDorr3

12-10-2006, 03:43 AM

is there even a big name game coming out sometime before like march for ps3? once lair and heavenly sword come out I am sure the games on ps3 will probably get some more recognition.

jajaja

12-10-2006, 06:35 AM

Have anyone tried to play JAP games on a US PS3 yet, or vice versa? I know the console itself is regionfree, but what about the games?

TurboGenesis

12-10-2006, 12:47 PM

Have anyone tried to play JAP games on a US PS3 yet, or vice versa? I know the console itself is regionfree, but what about the games?

Haven't tried to play Japanese PS3 games yet(don't have any) but the understanding is that they should be able to run on any region system.

As for PS1 and PS2 though, I have tried and they are region locked. The box states that the US system will play all region PS3 games and will play PS1 and PS2 games with the NTSC U/C designation.

The language is worded like this: COMPATIBLE SOFTWARE
"Playstation 3 format software with either region number [1] or [ALL]*"

*Video output in High Definition requires cables and an HD-compatible display, both sold separately

jajaja

12-10-2006, 01:21 PM

Haven't tried to play Japanese PS3 games yet(don't have any) but the understanding is that they should be able to run on any region system.

As for PS1 and PS2 though, I have tried and they are region locked. The box states that the US system will play all region PS3 games and will play PS1 and PS2 games with the NTSC U/C designation.

The language is worded like this: COMPATIBLE SOFTWARE
"Playstation 3 format software with either region number [1] or [ALL]*"

*Video output in High Definition requires cables and an HD-compatible display, both sold separately

Ah ok. So its possible that Japan uses like [2] and Europe [3] ?

Lothars

12-10-2006, 01:36 PM

This topic wasn't really necessary. I thought we all agreed that Sony is being retarded these days and the PS3 sucks. You're not really stating anything new.

Just like your not necessary and really just an annoying troll, I do agree Sony is acting fairly retarded, but the PS3 isn't that bad, but Xizer if you can do us all a favor and just stop.

I agree with what's been posted though that Sony does need some great games to come out to really do it all, but I have faith that they will, it will be interesting to see.

meancode

12-10-2006, 01:42 PM

is there even a big name game coming out sometime before like march for ps3? once lair and heavenly sword come out I am sure the games on ps3 will probably get some more recognition.

MotorStorm comes to mind, but I think that is in March too.

Aswald

12-21-2006, 04:08 PM

It seemed from talk last year that the PS3 was meant to save SONY, i dont think Sony (video game divison) will sink, but i wouldn't be surprised either. And i wouldn't be bothered either, i'm not a hater but some of there tricks in the past will come back to bite them on the ass!

But the more competition in the games industry, the better it is for the consumer, so they might need to drop the price, and pull out a few if not ALOT of major titles, to get them out of the sh!t

Continue!

Your statement is true ONLY if you are simply talking about game quality- obviously, the console with the better and more desirable games will likely win out.

Unfortunately, such an assumption does tend to ignore economic reality. What a competitor will often do is artificially lower prices on its product, losing money, just to drive down (and out!) the other product. The other company loses out, because it cannot endure as long. Microsoft appears to be doing this; but it can do so with reasonable safety because it is so big. Thus, more and more third-party companies will go with the biggest and most powerful company, even if, overall, its product is not the best. This was why the anti-trust laws were originally enacted so many years ago: to make sure that true competition could exist.

If Sony has, as several people here have stated, gotten off to a "crummy start," that could already be fatal for it.

I guess the purpose of this thread was to ask if there really was a need for the Playstation 3- had they reached the end of the "learning curve" for the previous console already?

diskoboy

12-21-2006, 04:27 PM

ubersaurus

12-21-2006, 04:40 PM

I don't know if I'd compare the PS3 with the ADAM.

In 1983, people actually wanted the ADAM. They just rushed it to market.

I'd compare it to the Atari 5200. A gigantic, over-priced, piece of crap that didn't do much more than it's previous incarnation.

Not to mention the contollers that had the life sucked out of them.

Like the 5200 and 2600, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony sticks to heavy support of the PS2 just because it has the larger installed base.

Lozza

12-21-2006, 05:01 PM

Playstation what?

mlambert890

12-22-2006, 01:05 AM

Playstation what?

This thread is in the twilight zone. Are you all Nintendo employees or something? I think Sony has made some missteps, but some of the exaggerated crap in this thread is, well, crap.

Ill never understand how people can get so emotionally invested that they CHEERLEAD for a company to fail. Literally sit there hoping and praying.

I've been playing Resistance every day since I got the PS3 and the game is awesome. The system is actually very nice and very slick and Im glad I picked one up. It's certainly expensive, but "no improvement over PS2", or "modern day ADAM or 5200"??? Yeah ok... Keep dreaming.

I think too many people these days are treating EVERYTHING like politics. Pick a side, deeply ingrain your bias, put on your best blinders, and then argue it to death on a forum.

And btw, I havent had any backwards compat issues with the PS2 and PS1 games that I still continue to play.

The Wii is fun, but I find its getting very little playtime for me next to Gears and Resistance. Its a Game Cube with a motion controller. This is all a personal choice thing. Admitedly 360 vs PS3 is going to be a serious horse race and I dont think most folks would benefit from owning BOTH of those systems, but the PS3 by no means "sucks".

evil_genius

12-22-2006, 01:11 AM

This topic wasn't really necessary. I thought we all agreed that Sony is being retarded these days and the PS3 sucks. You're not really stating anything new.

Oh shut the fuck up.

PDorr3

12-22-2006, 01:20 AM

anyone thinking of importing motorstorm should know that the online feature is totaly MIA in it, the US version will support online, thats why I am waitinf for the uS version, but I am really tempted to import it.

Lozza

12-22-2006, 01:40 AM

This thread is in the twilight zone. Are you all Nintendo employees or something? I think Sony has made some missteps, but some of the exaggerated crap in this thread is, well, crap.

Ill never understand how people can get so emotionally invested that they CHEERLEAD for a company to fail. Literally sit there hoping and praying.

I've been playing Resistance every day since I got the PS3 and the game is awesome. The system is actually very nice and very slick and Im glad I picked one up. It's certainly expensive, but "no improvement over PS2", or "modern day ADAM or 5200"??? Yeah ok... Keep dreaming.

I think too many people these days are treating EVERYTHING like politics. Pick a side, deeply ingrain your bias, put on your best blinders, and then argue it to death on a forum.

And btw, I havent had any backwards compat issues with the PS2 and PS1 games that I still continue to play.

The Wii is fun, but I find its getting very little playtime for me next to Gears and Resistance. Its a Game Cube with a motion controller. This is all a personal choice thing. Admitedly 360 vs PS3 is going to be a serious horse race and I dont think most folks would benefit from owning BOTH of those systems, but the PS3 by no means "sucks".

Nah, not really mate. The price alone makes me laugh, the Wii is $250 and the PS3 is $600. Conversation over right there... but no, wait... the Wii has a revolutionary control system, PS3 has.... Blu-Ray AKA UMD 2.0

How does it feel to know that the determining factor in Blu-Ray technology for the next... year is how much PORN is released for it? LOL

NE146

12-22-2006, 01:44 AM

jajaja

12-22-2006, 04:02 AM

Ill never understand how people can get so emotionally invested that they CHEERLEAD for a company to fail. Literally sit there hoping and praying.

Good point, i also thought about this. Ok, some people dont like (insert console company here), but why wish it dead? Just dont buy the damn console instead. Maybe people prefer only 1 console on the marked and monopoly :P

slip81

12-22-2006, 08:23 AM

Like most new consoles the PS3 doesn't really do anything "different" than the PS2 except better graphics and audio. But really, it's kind of always been like that.

Super Mario World didn't play that much differently from SMB, and SM64 didn't really play a whole lot differently from SMW.

To me they only two systems right now doing something different is the DS and Wii with the new way of controlling. I'm not saying it makes them better, it's still to early to tell, but it does make them different.

It seems Nintendo is at least trying to think outside the box right now, while MS and Sony are just giving us a box that does basically the same thing as the last box, just better looking.

This could all of course change, there is still plenty of room for developers to make new and innovative stuff with the standard controller (Katamari) I just don't think anyone has done it with this generation yet.

heybtbm

12-22-2006, 09:00 AM

SM64 didn't really play a whole lot differently from SMW.

huh?

Your retro-gaming licence has just been revoked.

sickdrummer420

12-22-2006, 11:24 AM

This topic wasn't really necessary. I thought we all agreed that Sony is being retarded these days and the PS3 sucks. You're not really stating anything new.

I like this guy:)

mailman187666

12-22-2006, 12:17 PM

I own a PS3 and have Dark Kingdom for it. Dark Kingdom aint anything new and i don't have a good enough TV to see the best graphics it can pump out, but I do know that if PS3 ends up anything like PS2, then it will be my favorite system. PS2 had lots of RPGs and innovative games that nobody else was able to offer (Megaten series, valkyrie profile, shadow hearts, FF). You can't really tell yet what the system is going to become. I will admit $600 is hard to justify right now, but once devil may cry, final fantasy, gran turismo and all those games start comming out, you know more people will hop on the bandwagon. I jump on sooner than I expected and I know that by waiting, I will be able to justify my purchase.

slip81

12-22-2006, 09:18 PM

huh?

Your retro-gaming license has just been revoked.

what? in terms of gameplay mechanics it's not that different. you use a fairly standard controller to move your way through levels avoiding obstacles and stomping on enemies, collecting coins etc.

Yes Mario has some new moves and challenge is added by the different camera angles, but to me, I think something like say, Kirby Canvas Curse, or Yoshi Touch and Go, where you have to use a stylus to draw a path through the level is a little more innovative than running and jumping your way through a level.

Besides, I didn't say they were the same, just not vastly different IMO.

dbiersdorf

12-24-2006, 01:51 PM

And btw, I havent had any backwards compat issues with the PS2 and PS1 games that I still continue to play.

While *YOU* might not be experiencing the problems, it obviously is happening considering Sony has had to address it and is definitely a set back for the system, especially considering once your done with the two or three good launch games you'll have nothing to play until Motorstorm arrives, and if it can't even play the games from past systems, then why bother with the system now? PS2 initially thrived on backwards compatibility, shouldn't Sony try and do the same with the PS3?

@ slip81 - How can you possibly say Super Mario 64 was the same thing as Super Mario World? Hello analog control!

Flack

12-24-2006, 11:54 PM

http://members.cox.net/robohara/getalong.jpg

cyberfluxor

12-25-2006, 10:58 AM

My favorite local independant game store got a PS3 (20GB) traded in and was selling it for $450 with all the connections and controller. He's a really cool guy and the thing sold instantly. One of my friends saw it just as it came in and sold, would have bought it too but he's broke with his Wii and 360 stuff he's been accumulating.

GrayFox

12-25-2006, 12:44 PM

LIKE, THE PS3 TOTALLY IS NOT AWESOME, IT CANNOT EVEN DO 500.43 MEH GEEH ZEE'S. SONY ARE LIEING LIARS. BLU-RAY? MORE LIKE BLU-BALLS! *cue red head kid from 'A Christmas Story's' laugh* HA HA HA HA HA.

The PS3 is having a rough launch, sorta like the Xbox 360. Everyone needs to realize that launches almost always suck.

Hey there Wii!

We'll get through this period of shit slingin' and fantastic X-Bot/Ninten-tard fury in no time.

GarrettCRW

12-25-2006, 01:34 PM

http://members.cox.net/robohara/getalong.jpg

Dreamcast controller: The DualShock is going to kill those kids! Do something!! WHY ISN'T ANYONE LISTENING TO ME!?!

;)

Despite the fanboyish responses *cough*Xizer*cough*, Aswald does bring up a good point in asking if Sony rushed the PS3 to the market. After all, Sony has been falling over themselves lately, what with the laptops and the issues with getting BluRay players to market (and a general fall in the quality of their consumer electronics division to boot). Coupled with the somewhat irrational desire to not be the last console to launch and the PSP/UMD failure, and you have a company that's in serious need of good news.

While I also agree with Aswald that US antitrust laws suck, I don't agree that it aplies here. Sony's situation is mismanagement, pure and simple, coupled with arrogance. In a way, they've taken the worst of Sega and Nintendo's previous problems to create.....what was it?

.....a catastrofuck.

Oh yeah....that.

Sure, I hate on Sony with all the fervence of a Nintendo and Sega fan, but I do own the PSOne and PS2, and I'd pay up for a reasonably priced system with good games from most any company, truth be told. But this lack of respect for the consumer on Sony's part has got to stop. Granted, the PS3 doesn't (yet) have a fatal flaw like their other launch-windows systems, but it says something that I expect something to happen in large numbers, but haven't with the Wii or (previously) the 360. And with neither Nintendo or Microsoft do I expect an attitude if a flaw presents itself. At least when Nintendo was being jerks to their developers, they didn't tear into consumers on a regular basis-and that with a total hard ass like Yamauchi at the helm.

jajaja

12-25-2006, 02:02 PM

Despite the fanboyish responses *cough*Xizer*cough*, Aswald does bring up a good point in asking if Sony rushed the PS3 to the market.

What console of this generation wasnt rushed? Xbox 360 had much problems, was it rushed? Wii is the Nintendo console with most problem ever (atleast i never seen a console with so many errors), was it rushed?

tom

12-25-2006, 02:14 PM

Nintendo fanboys are jealous again? Go and watch some 'Nintendo nerd' on youtube!!!

What I wanna know if Sony will do a hat trick by having THREE Worlds best selling consoles?

Looking good so far:

PSX: 102 million
PS2: 112 million (and still selling)

Richter Belmount

12-25-2006, 02:30 PM

!@#$ U ZONY u k1ll3d dr3Amcast mofos1!

Seriously through on topic I think alot of people on here simply have their expectations set to high. I remember playing playstation 2 for the 1st time and I thought it was the best freaking thing ever then I realized its simply the same stuff from last gen.And Its always has been that way for years. Gameplay that is the same as last the generations of games , but recieving nothing but a graphical upgrade. I cant speak on nintendo though (since they have really changed their direction dramatically from the others in the industry with their great systems this gen)

Anyways continuing my rambling we should just buy all 3 systems even ps3 , ive been a known hater on the system for a very long time , I just wouldnt like to see sony go down under in the games department you know why? If you take sony out of the picture it means less competition , which means companies wont work as hard because they arent competing with anyone, competition means of course they are going to do everything they can to get you to buy their system over the other , so they work for the customer and the dollar. With no competition they simply work for the dollar alone , which often leads to poor quality.

tom

12-25-2006, 04:47 PM

>>>>>Richter Belmount said: Seriously through on topic I think alot of people on here simply have their expectations set to high. I remember playing playstation 2 for the 1st time and I thought it was the best freaking thing ever then I realized its simply the same stuff from last gen<<<<<

How do you think poor Nintendo owners feel, having to re-play the same Mario and Zelda games over and over again with every new console Nintendo released? Poor souls!!!

Lothars

12-25-2006, 04:56 PM

I like this guy:)

wow that's surprising, I cannot stand Xizer, he seems like he's such a troll

Lothars

12-25-2006, 05:00 PM

I agree that's the last thing i would want, Less Competition, especially with Sony which has had the far and beyond best systems of the last two generations, will it happen this generation?

I doubt it, but we will see.

it should be interesting to see none the less.

MarioMania

12-26-2006, 12:20 AM

So my Japaneese Dead or Alive won't work in the PS3

Aswald

01-03-2007, 05:59 PM

But had they really reached the end of what they could do with a PS2?

Look- maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I always thought the idea was that you do not release a new console until the current ones are clearly outclassed by both arcade and home gaming demands.

From the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, both of those suddenly sprang so far ahead that it was practically impossible for the then-current systems to keep up with it all. Tunnels and Trolls for the CV was supposed to be light-years ahead of Adventure or the AD&D games for Intellivision. Could you imagine a decent version of Zaxxon or Pengo on the 2600 back then? No.

But what in the aracdes or in "home demand" had suddenly gone so far ahead of what was when the PS2 was released that Sony had to do this?

Granted, it can be relative- back in the mid-1970s, simply having true color videogaming, even if with only 4 basic colors, was a fantastic leap- while with today's arcade games it would have to be VERY big to be anything significant (a mile is BIG to a mile, but not much to 900 miles). But did we hit that point so we "needed" new consoles?

Is it just at a point where the means is the end? That every new "technology," even if not anything really better than the previous, just HAS to be released?

Flack

01-04-2007, 01:15 PM

This is a strange way to look at it, but the way I look at it, they've released the X360/PS3 not because the Xbox/PS2 are at their limits NOW, but because they will be in about 2 years. The stuff we're seeing on the next-gen consoles now are nice but not groundbreaking. As comfort-levels and programming skills adapt to the new hardware, we'll start to see graphics and AI that the last generation just couldn't deliver. But if you waited and released the next-gen consoles then, then it would take another couple of years for programmers to start delivering that kind of content.

After re-reading that I realize it sounds crazy.

PallarAndersVisa

01-04-2007, 01:52 PM

I'm not a big fan nor do I care about movies and cinema quality movies, blu-ray, HD-DVD, I could give a fuck about it all. I want to play games and have fun with them, which is why I probably won't be buying a PS3. It's just way too expensive, and even 3 years down the line, it will be a fucking $300-$400 console. I'm a firm antagonist of multi-function devices. I have a phone to make calls, I have a camera to take pictures, I have a video game system to play games, i have a movie player to watch movies, and a cd player to listen to cds. When you compile a bunch of junk into one system, you get a bunch of half assed things in one.

In a few years, the PS3's blu-ray player will be just the shitty, standard, boring, featureless blu-ray player that everyone spent $600 on, and there will be new blu-ray players, cheaper ones, with more features, better and smoother operation.

Besides, its SIX-HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!!!!

esquire

01-04-2007, 03:24 PM

In a few years, the PS3's blu-ray player will be just the shitty, standard, boring, featureless blu-ray player that everyone spent $600 on, and there will be new blu-ray players, cheaper ones, with more features, better and smoother operation.

You do realize that the average stand alone Blu-ray player runs $800 to $1000? $600 for a game console and a blu-ray player seems to me a bargain in the grand scheme of things. Granted you may not want a blu-ray player, but you know what, I don't want another standard dvd player. I am sick of multiple dvd games (I remember the 4 disc CD games from the PS1, argh!) and I don't need another generic dvd player. My house is riddled with them.

Besides, its SIX-HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!!!!

Actually, it's $500 for the standard unit which is quite comparable to the 360 premium. So for $100 more you get a Blu-ray player. I find it hard to believe that many of the people who bitch about the price of the PS3 are willing to spend $400 on a 360.

Gamereviewgod

01-04-2007, 03:31 PM

Actually, it's $500 for the standard unit which is quite comparable to the 360 premium. So for $100 more you get a Blu-ray player. I find it hard to believe that many of the people who bitch about the price of the PS3 are willing to spend $400 on a 360.

Of course, after you're forced to install a few games, the hard drive on that 20GB model PS3 is all but gone.

The added price of DVD playback is minimal now. Having it included on a game console doesn't cause the price to soar. Forcing Blu-Ray on people, many of whom might not have the TV that can use the thing, is ridiculous.

The $400 price on the 360 is easier to swallow, and users have a choice to upgrade where needed. If you buy a 20GB PS3, forget about upgrading. The lower model 360 has the options.

jajaja

01-04-2007, 03:52 PM

So many talk about forcing a format on people, but can someone please give me the name of a console where you can actually choose what format you want to use? If you buy a PSX you are forced to get a CD-player, if you buy a Xbox you are forced to buy a DVD player and so on.. So what console(s) can you choose the media?

Nature Boy

01-04-2007, 04:36 PM

Look- maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I always thought the idea was that you do not release a new console until the current ones are clearly outclassed by both arcade and home gaming demands.

I'm not even sure if old fashioned describes it accurately. In a universe where there was only one console, I'm pretty sure that one console would have a life span like that. As soon as competition is introduced, company A realizes that if they get the jump and release a better machine than company B, they'll take market share away from them. So obviously company B has to do the same or be left behind.

The life cycles can't get *too* short or the publishers will never be making money on anything. At least I *hope* that's the case - who knows.

As to differences between generations: we all knew it was going to come to a point where the graphical differences were no longer going to be major, and here it is. I'm dealing with it by not rushing out to buy anything - I'm waiting until spring to make my final decision. Although there are really only 2 machines I'm intersted in, the other one I'll pass on until it's dirt cheap ('cause of course I'll own all 3 by the start of the *next* cycle - I *am* a collector after all :) ).

esquire

01-05-2007, 12:31 AM

Of course, after you're forced to install a few games, the hard drive on that 20GB model PS3 is all but gone.

This is no different than with the 360. In fact, the 360 comes loaded with garbage on the premium's hard drive.

The added price of DVD playback is minimal now. Having it included on a game console doesn't cause the price to soar. Forcing Blu-Ray on people, many of whom might not have the TV that can use the thing, is ridiculous.

So you are getting a blu-ray player for $100 and you are complaining? Well, you don't have to use it. You don't have to buy any movies for it.

As pointed out by another poster, with every new console comes a technology "forced" upon the consumer - Nintendo 64 with their cartridges; Gamecube and the lack of online capability; Dreamcast and the GD-Rom; etc., etc. However, you have a choice. Don't buy them.

If there was no Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD battle and whatever format of the two prevailed, and Sony included that format as the default player, would you still be complaining? Regardless of whether you see the blu-ray as being forced upon consumers to help Sony prevail in the HD battle, it still doesn't change the point that developers will be able to cram more content onto a single disc, in HD as well, which results in a win-win situation for us gamers.

I have both the PS3 and the 360 with the HD-DVD add-on, and love them both. I only wish Microsoft would have used the HD-DVD as a default format so the games could be on HD-DVD as well. Right now, the HD-DVD is only good for playback and not gaming.

The $400 price on the 360 is easier to swallow, and users have a choice to upgrade where needed. If you buy a 20GB PS3, forget about upgrading. The lower model 360 has the options.

You lose money if you buy the Core 360 and subsequently upgrade. Why anyone would knowingly purchase the Core for that reason makes no sense. I was "forced" to buy a Core because none of the retailers around had enough Premiums in stock when I purchased the 360 at launch. I probably ended up spending close to another $100 over what the premium would have cost me and I still don't have everything the premium had at launch. ($100 HD; $40 Component; $20 DVD Remote; $50 Wireless controller)

Zap!

01-05-2007, 01:32 AM

I always said there are three steps necessary to cripple Sony. In my opinion, the only way to stop Sony (or reduce them to a second rate company) is to win all three steps. The three steps are:

1) The DS must outsell the PSP

2) Blu-Ray must fail to HD-DVD

3) The Wii must outsell the PS3

Step one has already been won, with the DS Lite now blowing away PSP in sales (more than 2 to 1 now). Step two and three are already being won (HD-DVD currently has an 11-1 lead), but it's still far too early. Sony is like the evil Empire in Star Wars, and Nintendo is like the heroic Rebel Alliance. They must be brought down or all hope for video games will be lost.

Nature Boy

01-05-2007, 08:51 AM

I always said there are three steps necessary to cripple Sony.

There's a huge flaw in your dream sequence. Within a large enough market, Nintendo could easily outsell Sony without Sony being crippled at all. 30% of a $7 Billion dollar industry is still $2.1 billion for the 'loser'

Plus it's long term sales that matter. Not that the PSP will likely catch the DS in sales, but it's only been out for a year. It's a long road ahead.

PallarAndersVisa

01-05-2007, 09:12 AM

[QUOTE=esquire;1111551]

So you are getting a blu-ray player for $100 and you are complaining? QUOTE]

Thats right. I don't want a blu-ray player, I want a video game console. That is why I won't be buying a PS3.

swlovinist

01-05-2007, 09:54 AM

The big three all have different products to offer and all three of them are making some mistakes. Being that Sony is has been the console leader for so long(Sorry Microsoft), they get alot of negative publicity...rightfully so. I will say what many others are thinking...Sony, if you made a game machine that was reasonably priced, I would buy it. $600 is out of control for many, including me. On top of the price, I dont have an HDTV, which means that the whole blue ray thing does me squat right now. I want a game system that plays games. I have 6 DVD players(or things that play DVDs). I have a computer(to go online). I dont give a crap about extra features other than playing my games online(that feature is cool) Games have gotten away from the general public and the reason why many play games. Many games have gotten too expensive to make, too complicated to play, and most of all...very unoriginal. I think that the public will speak and have spoken that they want these things to change. Are the Wii and DS systems perfect? Not at all, they have their issues. The difference is that you can have an inperfect system at an affordable price and get away with alot. This holiday, I was laughing at the 360 and its poor lineup. I thought is was not going to do well. I could not be more wrong. Supposedly, the 360 has done very well, being neck and neck with the Wii. Price is everything. People want a game system, not an everything system.

esquire

01-05-2007, 06:15 PM

On top of the price, I dont have an HDTV, which means that the whole blue ray thing does me squat right now.

I understand this, but in the long run it may cost you more money if you change your mind later. Look at what Microsoft is doing with the 360:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94970

Sometimes its better to pay more to get the extra features up front, than getting nickled and dimed later.

Ed Oscuro

01-05-2007, 06:20 PM

So you are getting a blu-ray player for $100 and you are complaining? Well, you don't have to use it. You don't have to buy any movies for it.
$100 sunk into something I won't use? Damn, sign me up!

You do have a point in a roundabout way with the N64 - the cartridges were always expensive (as opposed to discs, which were cheaper). However, bringing up stuff like GD-ROM and the '64 threatens to miss the point because those were absolutely integral to the system. It's hard to believe that many games will be using an entire Blu-Ray disc for quite a while into the system's (projected 10-year) lifespan.

dracula

01-05-2007, 06:52 PM

While I won't say the PS3 sucks. I don't think it does. It's an amazing machine and it just has shitty games right now.

I will agree that Sony is retarded.

this is my feeling, but i think that once the developers get some time to really work with the new hardware, we will see some fantastic games. I am trying to remember the ps2 launch titles, and the only "good" title i can think of is madded 01. So dont write the ps3 off too soon.

dracula

01-05-2007, 06:55 PM

It's hard to believe that many games will be using an entire Blu-Ray disc for quite a while into the system's (projected 10-year) lifespan.

10 year?! the ps1 came out in 1994 and the ps2 was out in 2001(?) and the ps3 is out in 2006/2k7. So 10 years may be pushing it unless they come up with some good add ons to add to the existing hardware.

jajaja

01-05-2007, 07:26 PM

10 year?! the ps1 came out in 1994 and the ps2 was out in 2001(?) and the ps3 is out in 2006/2k7. So 10 years may be pushing it unless they come up with some good add ons to add to the existing hardware.

The PSX did have 10 years lifespan. It came out in 1994 (1994 in Japan, 1995 in EU/US) as you said. The last PSX game came out in 2005. PS2 came out in 2000 and is now about 6 years old. Considering how many PS2 consoles thats been sold there will most likely come out PS2 games for another 3-4 years, altho it will be more and more limited for every year that goes. If PS3 gets the same success as PSX and PS2 you might see a lifespan of 10 years on that console too :)

dracula

01-08-2007, 05:53 PM

As I've said before.. I gave up "taking sides" during the bloody 5200 vs. Colecovision wars :D But yeah the PS3 doesn't interest me right now.. I mean, it's just too expensive!! The wife and I are working professionals so it's not a question of affordibility, it's the principle of the matter. I just really do balk at that price for a console. Call it consumer conditioning over the past 25 years.

The thing is, the ps3 price doesnt sound nearly as outrageous as the launch price of other consoles like the 3do or intellivision, and yeah those consoles failed miserably, but they dont have the support that the ps3 has.

And then there is the matter of the prices of the games. The old carts (atari, nes, snes, n64) stayed expensive forever because of how much it costs just to make the carts, much more expensive than discs. Atari and NES carts sold for $50 each, and that would be close to double in todays dollars. In terms of the games, todays games are a total bargain compared to 20 or 30 years ago, and i am just talking about msrp. The GH games makes these last few generations MUCH easier to play games at an affordable price.

That being said, the "big deal" about it is it's obviously 2006/2007 cutting edge.

tell that to the Wii. tho i guess it does some cutting edge things like the downloads and whatnot. My point is that it doesnt blow anyone away with its graphics

which is funny since it really wasn't all that long ago where it seemed most any gaming forum here or elsewhere (or IRC) was full of people cheerleading for the demise of Nintendo! Remember when that was prevalant? What happened to NintendoDiesScreaming for example? LOL

You know, i dont remember this at all tho i dont go to all that many videogame message boards except for cag, i assume you are talking about the n64? or the gamecube? those consoles didnt do all that well asside from the first party games. But nintendo's big moneymaker has always been the handhelds. And literally all of those have been a huge success.

Ed Oscuro

01-08-2007, 06:55 PM

The thing is, the ps3 price doesnt sound nearly as outrageous as the launch price of other consoles like the 3do or intellivision, and yeah those consoles failed miserably, but they dont have the support that the ps3 has.
A lot has been made of the effect of inflation on the price of video game items. To really bring it into focus, look at this:

The 3DO, released in 1993, initially at $699.95 - would cost $920.30-$946 in 2005, and $976 in 2006 - so probably over a grand today (assuming those were for January of each year).

The Premium Xbox 360 would have cost $376.50 in 1993. Quite expensive, even compared to the inflated release price of the original Xbox, but apparently people don't care that much and are buying. It's a good value for the money, or at least it was at release.

dracula

01-09-2007, 08:55 PM

A lot has been made of the effect of inflation on the price of video game items. To really bring it into focus, look at this:

The 3DO, released in 1993, initially at $699.95 - would cost $920.30-$946 in 2005, and $976 in 2006 - so probably over a grand today (assuming those were for January of each year).

forget the systems, look at the games. I am shocked that it took this long for the msrp of games to shoot up $10. the msrp was $50 for the atari and NES (probably more like $75 or $80 for the present value of today's dollar)and stayed that way until the ps2/xbox generation, which is totally bizarre imo.