PS3 a mistake

[Sixdust]

Think about Intel and AMD... both trying to exceed eachother.

If one develops better technology so does the other.

New (and different) technologies are applied because one might work better (in some ways) than the other.

Though your comparison is good between the two companies, there is a sort of flaw. With a processor, you buy it and use it, until you want to buy a new one. One processor may outperform another but you have a choice to choose what you want. The cpu can function for many years and you can use it for many years without many problems, thus making the investment worth it, its an almost win win situation, however, if you choose Blu-ray for example, and it loses, guess what your initial investment is limited to whatever media is still available. Thus production stops and you are stuck with a player that can only play a few movies, while the competition has all the movies being made for it, and then you are forced to reinvest in the other standard if you want to enjoy HD movies. Money down the drain, unlike when buying a processor.

[3niX]

Well...

 

Though your comparison is good between the two companies, there is a sort of flaw. With a processor, you buy it and use it, until you want to buy a new one. One processor may outperform another but you have a choice to choose what you want. The cpu can function for many years and you can use it for many years without many problems, thus making the investment worth it, its an almost win win situation, however, if you choose Blu-ray for example, and it loses, guess what your initial investment is limited to whatever media is still available. Thus production stops and you are stuck with a player that can only play a few movies, while the competition has all the movies being made for it, and then you are forced to reinvest in the other standard if you want to enjoy HD movies. Money down the drain, unlike when buying a processor.

True it is.

In wars like this there is definitely going to be one side that "loses".

But since I was only trying to bring out that competition in development and inventing is quite ordinary it doesnt matter much.

 

And to be honest its the same on both sides (IMO at least). So the only thing to do right now is wait and see which one comes out as the winner. I probably wont buy a new optical device for my PC during the next 2 years anyway...so yeah.. wait and see.

[All this Crap]

Think about Intel and AMD... both trying to exceed eachother.

If one develops better technology so does the other.

New (and different) technologies are applied because one might work better (in some ways) than the other.

Though your comparison is good between the two companies, there is a sort of flaw. With a processor, you buy it and use it, until you want to buy a new one. One processor may outperform another but you have a choice to choose what you want. The cpu can function for many years and you can use it for many years without many problems, thus making the investment worth it, its an almost win win situation, however, if you choose Blu-ray for example, and it loses, guess what your initial investment is limited to whatever media is still available. Thus production stops and you are stuck with a player that can only play a few movies, while the competition has all the movies being made for it, and then you are forced to reinvest in the other standard if you want to enjoy HD movies. Money down the drain, unlike when buying a processor.

HD DVD has the same chances of losing (if not more) as Blu-ray does. I think blu-ray has more support so it is likely to do better.

 

Toshiba could have agreed on one format just like Sony could but most people don't realize that Sony is not the only company backing Blu-ray. They are biggest supporter of the format....but they are not the only one. If you want to criticize Sony, that's fine, but why single them out?

[De_Spank]

Think about Intel and AMD... both trying to exceed eachother.

If one develops better technology so does the other.

New (and different) technologies are applied because one might work better (in some ways) than the other.

Though your comparison is good between the two companies, there is a sort of flaw. With a processor, you buy it and use it, until you want to buy a new one. One processor may outperform another but you have a choice to choose what you want. The cpu can function for many years and you can use it for many years without many problems, thus making the investment worth it, its an almost win win situation, however, if you choose Blu-ray for example, and it loses, guess what your initial investment is limited to whatever media is still available. Thus production stops and you are stuck with a player that can only play a few movies, while the competition has all the movies being made for it, and then you are forced to reinvest in the other standard if you want to enjoy HD movies. Money down the drain, unlike when buying a processor.

HD DVD has the same chances of losing (if not more) as Blu-ray does. I think blu-ray has more support so it is likely to do better.

 

Toshiba could have agreed on one format just like Sony could but most people don't realize that Sony is not the only company backing Blu-ray. They are biggest supporter of the format....but they are not the only one. If you want to criticize Sony, that's fine, but why single them out?

Are you insane HD DVD is infinately better than blu-ray. You also failed to mention anyone else what so ever.

[All this Crap]

Think about Intel and AMD... both trying to exceed eachother.

If one develops better technology so does the other.

New (and different) technologies are applied because one might work better (in some ways) than the other.

Though your comparison is good between the two companies, there is a sort of flaw. With a processor, you buy it and use it, until you want to buy a new one. One processor may outperform another but you have a choice to choose what you want. The cpu can function for many years and you can use it for many years without many problems, thus making the investment worth it, its an almost win win situation, however, if you choose Blu-ray for example, and it loses, guess what your initial investment is limited to whatever media is still available. Thus production stops and you are stuck with a player that can only play a few movies, while the competition has all the movies being made for it, and then you are forced to reinvest in the other standard if you want to enjoy HD movies. Money down the drain, unlike when buying a processor.

HD DVD has the same chances of losing (if not more) as Blu-ray does. I think blu-ray has more support so it is likely to do better.

 

Toshiba could have agreed on one format just like Sony could but most people don't realize that Sony is not the only company backing Blu-ray. They are biggest supporter of the format....but they are not the only one. If you want to criticize Sony, that's fine, but why single them out?

Are you insane HD DVD is infinately better than blu-ray. You also failed to mention anyone else what so ever.

Both formats are capable of producing the same quality picture. Blu-ray just has the space advantage.

[Exkabewbikadid]

 

Sony was for DVD just like they are for Blu-ray right now (they were a big supporter of it which is why they included it in the PS2 and PEOPLE did complain about that just like they are now about blu-ray being included with the PS3) The PS2 helped DVD. You can search google for that too.

 

 

Sony wasn't originally for DVD as I've already discussed. As for people being pissed that the ps2 offered DVD? I never heard that, ever. By the time the ps2 launched, DVD was already becoming accepted. Hell, I got a Sony DVD player back in April 1999 and a lot of video stores were offering DVD rentals at that time.

 

 

Sony going against HD DVD is the same as Toshiba going against Blu-ray.

You wish.

 

 

I also find it funny that the link you provided that says Blu-ray is doomed because of porn is The Inquirer....you just lost the credibility you had. They have posted many ridiculous articles before that have turned out to be false.

Hate the INQ all you want, but in this instance I'm not pointing to rumors regarding specs of an upcomming processor, so it makes f*ck all difference. I said search for Sony + anti-porn and you'll find the same sh*t all over the place. I pointed to that particular article because I found their write up to be a bit more in-depth.

 

 

But since I was only trying to bring out that competition in development and inventing is quite ordinary it doesnt matter much.

But like what was already pointed out, comparing processors to formats is apples to oranges. Obviously the world has benefited from the competition between Intel and AMD. No one benefits from competition between formats... or better yet, no one benefits from competition between formats past a certain point, that point being when competing formats both hit store shelves. It's good that cmpanies can come up with different ideas, but when one idea can't be settled on, we end up with the current mess. Since Sony heads Blu-ray and Toshiba heads HD DVD, who would I blame for not settling on a final format? I can't overlook Sony's track record, so yeah, I'd be inclined to blame them.

 

 

 

[All this Crap]

 

Sony was for DVD just like they are for Blu-ray right now (they were a big supporter of it which is why they included it in the PS2 and PEOPLE did complain about that just like they are now about blu-ray being included with the PS3) The PS2 helped DVD. You can search google for that too.

 

 

Sony wasn't originally for DVD as I've already discussed. As for people being pissed that the ps2 offered DVD? I never heard that, ever. By the time the ps2 launched, DVD was already becoming accepted. Hell, I got a Sony DVD player back in April 1999 and a lot of video stores were offering DVD rentals at that time.

 

 

Sony going against HD DVD is the same as Toshiba going against Blu-ray.

You wish.

 

 

I also find it funny that the link you provided that says Blu-ray is doomed because of porn is The Inquirer....you just lost the credibility you had. They have posted many ridiculous articles before that have turned out to be false.

Hate the INQ all you want, but in this instance I'm not pointing to rumors regarding specs of an upcomming processor, so it makes f*ck all difference. I said search for Sony + anti-porn and you'll find the same sh*t all over the place. I pointed to that particular article because I found their write up to be a bit more in-depth.

 

 

But since I was only trying to bring out that competition in development and inventing is quite ordinary it doesnt matter much.

But like what was already pointed out, comparing processors to formats is apples to oranges. Obviously the world has benefited from the competition between Intel and AMD. No one benefits from competition between formats... or better yet, no one benefits from competition between formats past a certain point, that point being when competing formats both hit store shelves. It's good that cmpanies can come up with different ideas, but when one idea can't be settled on, we end up with the current mess. Since Sony heads Blu-ray and Toshiba heads HD DVD, who would I blame for not settling on a final format? I can't overlook Sony's track record, so yeah, I'd be inclined to blame them.

 

I never heard that, ever. By the time the ps2 launched, DVD was already becoming accepted. Hell, I got a Sony DVD player back in April 1999 and a lot of video stores were offering DVD rentals at that time.

 

 

Ofcourse you did not hear that. You are only concerned with America. PS2 helped bring DVD into the homes of many peoples in other regions.....and it DID help people in the U.S, probably not as much as it did with other regions but most people at the time did not have a DVD player. You can look up the history of PS2 and you will it has been credited as helping the DVD format. Japan use to use LaserDiscs until the PS2 was released.

 

People complained about the price, everything....just like they are now with the PS3. Developers said PS2 was hard to program for just like you hear them say now.

[zeta1]

Well, I remember the PS2 being a great buy because you end up saving $100 rather than buying a DVD player seperately(At least that's how I pitched it to my mother, so she could buy me a PS2). The last generation, the ps2 was the best thing ever to come to consoles. Now, [sigh] the ps3 wasn't a mistake but it most likely will be a big setback on Sony's part. As for me, I went with 360. APB won't be available for PS3 and that is what sold me on Microsoft.

[SIP YEK NOD]

http://money.cnn.com/1999/03/01/life/playstation/

 

there are some interesting parallels here, and the ps2 aint dead.

 

 

The PlayStation 2 will be powered by a microprocessor faster than those found in the most advanced PCs and will be capable of providing motion-picture quality images

sound familiar?

 

 

Scheduled to go on sale in Japan by March 2000, the console will use DVDs to store data. This will result in a storage capacity nearly eight times that of the CD-ROMs currently used by PlayStation machines.

blue-ray anybody?

 

 

Nihon said the PlayStation 2's price will be kept below 100,000 yen, which still works out to as high as a hefty $839 in the United States. (Analysts expect the cost to be substantially lower.) Any high price tag, however, might scare off gamers, who can purchase a PlayStation or a Nintendo 64 system for under $150.

 

well.......this don't look good

 

 

PlayStation 2, though, is claiming to be able to handle 50 times more 3-D image data than the Dreamcast, allowing it to create characters similar in appearance to those in the Walt Disney film "Toy Story."

lmfao, ps3 is 2x as powerful as the 360, right?

 

 

Nihon reports the PlayStation 2's processor chip, which Sony co-developed with Toshiba Corp., has data-processing capabilities which are several times faster than Intel's recently introduced Pentium III. With the chip, Sony may enter arenas other than computer gaming, such as business utilities and e-mail.

yet the xbox 360s celeron based processor spanked it? and other areas such as buisness utilties and e-mail? "ps3 is a computer"

 

 

some interesting parallels which show once sony, always sony, but one glaring difference. the cost. the ps2 aint dead, the ps3 aint gonna die. but the price thing and the money backing the 360 isn't going to do it any good.

[Exkabewbikadid]

Ofcourse you did not hear that. You are only concerned with America. PS2 helped bring DVD into the homes of many peoples in other regions.....and it DID help people in the U.S, probably not as much as it did with other regions but most people at the time did not have a DVD player. You can look up the history of PS2 and you will it has been credited as helping the DVD format. Japan use to use LaserDiscs until the PS2 was released.

 

People complained about the price, everything....just like they are now with the PS3. Developers said PS2 was hard to program for just like you hear them say now.

I never argued that the ps2 didn't help DVD, quite the opposite. Somewhere in this sh*t storm I commented that back in 2000, people were able to get an affordable DVD player via a ps2. But just as eaqualy, I'd say DVD helped the ps2. Many people also wanted to gain access to the next new format and the ps2 was a cheap way to go about it.

 

"People complained about the price, everything....just like they are now with the PS3."

 

Again, it's not the same playing field this time around. When the ps2 launched it had a significant jump on the xbox and it also had the momentum of the ps1 behind it. Now the 360 has a one year jump and is now firmly rooted in the market. If anything the ps3 has taken the role of the xbox 1 this time around. The problem is that, not only is the price of the ps3 substantially greater than what the ps2 cost, the ps3 is a year behind.

 

"Developers said PS2 was hard to program for just like you hear them say now."

 

Yeah, and this time not only is the ps3 also very difficult to program for, it's competition, the 360, is extremely easy to program for. Devs had a hard time with the emotion engine, but there was incentive to deal with it when 1) there was momentum from the ps1 that would likely make the ps2 succesful and 2) there was no competition. When the xbox did arrive, it was too new with zero market share behind it which didn't make it much of a threat.

 

You can deny it up and down, but that's the reality of the current situation. The chips are stacked against the ps3 and Sony's assholishness isn't helping turn things around. I think the only way the ps3 will ever see the same success of its predecessor is if

 

1) Sony gives devs a good incentive to develop a lot of exclusives.

2) A lot of great games come about from whatever incentive comes about to develop for the ps3.

3) Blu-ray wins the war.

4) A significant price drop occurs within the first year.

 

And even then, I don't think the heat from the 360 is going to let up.

[Cran.]

Sir, you hit the nail on the head.

[Sixdust]

Sir, you hit the nail on the head.

Ditto.

[All this Crap]

 

Ofcourse you did not hear that. You are only concerned with America. PS2 helped bring DVD into the homes of many peoples in other regions.....and it DID help people in the U.S, probably not as much as it did with other regions but most people at the time did not have a DVD player. You can look up the history of PS2 and you will it has been credited as helping the DVD format. Japan use to use LaserDiscs  until the PS2 was released.

 

People complained about the price, everything....just like they are now with the PS3. Developers said PS2 was hard to program for just like you hear them say now.

I never argued that the ps2 didn't help DVD, quite the opposite. Somewhere in this sh*t storm I commented that back in 2000, people were able to get an affordable DVD player via a ps2. But just as eaqualy, I'd say DVD helped the ps2. Many people also wanted to gain access to the next new format and the ps2 was a cheap way to go about it.

 

"People complained about the price, everything....just like they are now with the PS3."

 

Again, it's not the same playing field this time around. When the ps2 launched it had a significant jump on the xbox and it also had the momentum of the ps1 behind it. Now the 360 has a one year jump and is now firmly rooted in the market. If anything the ps3 has taken the role of the xbox 1 this time around. The problem is that, not only is the price of the ps3 substantially greater than what the ps2 cost, the ps3 is a year behind.

 

"Developers said PS2 was hard to program for just like you hear them say now."

 

Yeah, and this time not only is the ps3 also very difficult to program for, it's competition, the 360, is extremely easy to program for. Devs had a hard time with the emotion engine, but there was incentive to deal with it when 1) there was momentum from the ps1 that would likely make the ps2 succesful and 2) there was no competition. When the xbox did arrive, it was too new with zero market share behind it which didn't make it much of a threat.

 

You can deny it up and down, but that's the reality of the current situation. The chips are stacked against the ps3 and Sony's assholishness isn't helping turn things around. I think the only way the ps3 will ever see the same success of its predecessor is if

 

1) Sony gives devs a good incentive to develop a lot of exclusives.

2) A lot of great games come about from whatever incentive comes about to develop for the ps3.

3) Blu-ray wins the war.

4) A significant price drop occurs within the first year.

 

And even then, I don't think the heat from the 360 is going to let up.

PS3 has the momentum of the PS2 and PS1 behind it. Before the PS2, there was Dreamcast. The Dreamcast had the best launch at the time of release. By the time the PS2 was released the Dreamcast had Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Soul Calibur, Power Stone, Shenmue etc. It had many good games to compete with the PS2. It was also easier to develop for when compared with the Sony's Playstation 2. Not to mention that Sega even dropped the price of the Dreamcast to $149.99 compared to PS2's $299.99 price point. Third party developers minus EA were developing for the Dreamcast. It had the support, it had the games, it had the price advantage, yet it couldn't compete with the PS2 when games like GTA3, Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid were released on the PS2. Ofcourse, Sega had other problems and Microsoft is not Sega. They have a lot more money to make sure the 360 does not go the way of the Dreamcast. Microsoft has done a pretty good job of making the 360 a good choice for consumers. Microsoft made mistakes at launch just like Sony has made some recently. The only difference is people expect better from Sony because they have been the leader of the video game industry the past two generations and I can see why they get criticized the most. I totally understand that. I would have liked for the PS3 to have Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and Motorstorm to be available at launch. It would have been great. Sony could have made sure the B/C of the PS3 to the PS2 and PS1 didn't suffer from jaggies, but there is a reason they have designed the PS3 so those issues can be fixed through firmware updates. I am not for that but I am not going to be sour about it. I can wait for Sony to fix that because they have provided me with exceptional experience with gaming the past two generations. Most of you love to say that I am a Sony employee to disregard what I am saying basically trying to brush it off. Make me seem biased and everything. You guys also love to throw some insults around as well and I have ignored that and have addressed your points. I may not have changed your mind but I did address them. What I don't understand really is why do you expect everything regarding the PS3 to be available right now? PS3 owners have some games available right now that they can buy to get started with the gaming experience. There are also more games coming out. Why tell people not to buy a PS3 right now if they are interested? Games won't stop coming if they buy it right now. I bought my PS3 in December and I was fully aware of the fact that there are only some games that interest me at the moment. I picked those up and I have been playing PS2 games on it. I have three PS3 games, just finished Resistance last night. I will be playing it online from here on. One thing I forgot to say is that the PS3 is easier to develop for compared to the PS2.

 

Why can't you give the PS3 time just like you guys have done with the 360?

[sainraja]

I'll be using this name as of now. I use to post under All this Crap.

 

Let me add a few more points to my previous post (the one above.) Sony can pull through just like Microsoft has done in a year. You guys are quick to make judgment about the PS3 but I am pretty sure you guys would have been arguing in my position regarding the 360 this time last year so give Sony time. No company is perfect.

 

And to people singing doom and gloom for Sony should know that the PS3 has sold better compared to how the 360 did at its launch so the PS3 launch wasn't that bad.

Edited January 26, 2007 by sainraja

[Brutuz]

I'll be using this name as of now. I use to post under All this Crap.

 

Let me add a few more points to my previous post (the one above.) Sony can pull through just like Microsoft has done in a year. You guys are quick to make judgment about the PS3 but I am pretty sure you guys would have been arguing in my position regarding the 360 this time last year so give Sony time. No company is perfect.

Yeah, you both have that right, Sony needs more time to get good games out, etc, not many people acted all "OMG teh 360 is gonna d1e!11!!1oneone!!1!!" when the 360 first came out, did they?

[Exkabewbikadid]

PS3 has the momentum of the PS2 and PS1 behind it. Before the PS2, there was Dreamcast. The Dreamcast had the best launch at the time of release. By the time the PS2 was released the Dreamcast had Resident Evil: Code Veronica, Soul Calibur, Power Stone, Shenmue etc. It had many good games to compete with the PS2. It was also easier to develop for when compared with the Sony's Playstation 2. Not to mention that Sega even dropped the price of the Dreamcast to $149.99 compared to PS2's $299.99 price point. Third party developers minus EA were developing for the Dreamcast. It had the support, it had the games, it had the price advantage, yet it couldn't compete with the PS2 when games like GTA3, Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid were released on the PS2. Ofcourse, Sega had other problems and Microsoft is not Sega. They have a lot more money to make sure the 360 does not go the way of the Dreamcast. Microsoft has done a pretty good job of making the 360 a good choice for consumers. Microsoft made mistakes at launch just like Sony has made some recently. The only difference is people expect better from Sony because they have been the leader of the video game industry the past two generations and I can see why they get criticized the most. I totally understand that. I would have liked for the PS3 to have Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and Motorstorm to be available at launch. It would have been great. Sony could have made sure the B/C of the PS3 to the PS2 and PS1 didn't suffer from jaggies, but there is a reason they have designed the PS3 so those issues can be fixed through firmware updates. I am not for that but I am not going to be sour about it. I can wait for Sony to fix that because they have provided me with exceptional experience with gaming the past two generations. Most of you love to say that I am a Sony employee to disregard what I am saying basically trying to brush it off. Make me seem biased and everything. You guys also love to throw some insults around as well and I have ignored that and have addressed your points. I may not have changed your mind but I did address them. What I don't understand really is why do you expect everything regarding the PS3 to be available right now? PS3 owners have some games available right now that they can buy to get started with the gaming experience. There are also more games coming out. Why tell people not to buy a PS3 right now if they are interested? Games won't stop coming if they buy it right now. I bought my PS3 in December and I was fully aware of the fact that there are only some games that interest me at the moment. I picked those up and I have been playing PS2 games on it. I have three PS3 games, just finished Resistance last night. I will be playing it online from here on. One thing I forgot to say is that the PS3 is easier to develop for compared to the PS2.

 

Why can't you give the PS3 time just like you guys have done with the 360?

What, did you break your enter key?

 

Anyways,

 

"PS3 has the momentum of the PS2 and PS1 behind it."

 

It also has the DRE epidemic from the ps2 behind it. I had two ps2's myself, both of which fell victim to DRE. The clerk at a local game shop told me he had a pile of 25 ps2's all made useless by DRE. In contrast he had 3 unfixable xboxes. I'm not saying the ps3 will suffer a similar fate, but people are going to remember that the ps2 was poorly manufactured.

 

"The Dreamcast had the best launch at the time of release."

 

So? It didn't have the ps1's momentum, or Sony's "Toy Story" hype for that matter. Just three months after he ps2's launch, Sega decided to pull the plug. Here we are going on three months after the ps3's launch and the 360 just keeps getting stronger while the ps3 sits on shelves. Sony has lost momentum going into this round compared to the last round.

 

"The only difference is people expect better from Sony because they have been the leader of the video game industry the past two generations and I can see why they get criticized the most."

 

Holy crap, Batman, I agree.

 

"What I don't understand really is why do you expect everything regarding the PS3 to be available right now? "

 

I don't expect that, but it's the nature of economics. Any consumer in the know will understand that the 360 and PS3 are fairly equally matched in overall power. As of right now, the PS3 is the more expensive option with the lagging content. Those consumers will then weigh in the PS3's Blu-ray format at which point they will ask 1) will Blu-ray be the winner and 2) do I give a sh*t about HD movies anyhow? Given that Blu-ray isn't the main selling point, they'll probably settle on the less expensive option with more content. No one thinks "I'll spend more for now, and sit around with my thumbs up my ass untill more content shows up".

 

"Why can't you give the PS3 time just like you guys have done with the 360?"

 

Because with the 360, it went up against nothing. The xbox went out on a high note and the 360 fed off that momentum just as the ps2 fed off the ps1. I'll give the PS3 time, but I won't consider buying one untill that time has come.

[Exkabewbikadid]

This just in: Another developer has taken a sh*t on Sony.

 

 

UT2K7 Title Sheds Weight, Becomes UT3, Heads to 360

 

Publisher Midway announced today during a press event that Epic Games' anticipated Unreal Tournament 2K7 has been renamed to the simpler Unreal Tournament 3. It was also announced that the game, which has never had a solid release date but was previously expected on the early side of this year, is now set to ship some time in the second half of 2007. As for the reasoning behind the renaming, take your pick from one or more of the following: Epic wanted to sync it up with its now ubiquitous Unreal Engine 3.0, the game is coming too late to reasonably take the 2007 model year, the model year naming system is a bit suspect to begin with, UT2004 was just an update to UT2003 and not a full-scale entry, or UT2004 was the "real" version of UT2003. Take your pick.

 

Unreal Tournament 3 was one of the first games shown on PlayStation 3, and until now the game had only been announced for that system as well as for PC. Today, however, Midway confirmed persistent rumors that the game is in the works for Xbox 360 as well, the platform on which the company recently released Gears of War. Unusually for the series, this new incarnation of UT will feature a beefed up single-player component featuring online cooperative play, for all platforms.

 

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/45482

 

Another exclusive now going to the 360. Ain't it a shame.

 

 

[sainraja]

 

So? It didn't have the ps1's momentum, or Sony's "Toy Story" hype for that matter. Just three months after he ps2's launch, Sega decided to pull the plug. Here we are going on three months after the ps3's launch and the 360 just keeps getting stronger while the ps3 sits on shelves. Sony has lost momentum going into this round compared to the last round.

 

I wasn't suggesting the 360 is going the way of the Dreamcast. It won't because Microsoft is behind it. They managed to lose $4 billion just to establish the Xbox brand. Microsoft has money to support the 360 unlike Sega which is why I said 360 is good competition to the PS3.

 

 

I don't expect that, but it's the nature of economics. Any consumer in the know will understand that the 360 and PS3 are fairly equally matched in overall power. As of right now, the PS3 is the more expensive option with the lagging content. Those consumers will then weigh in the PS3's Blu-ray format at which point they will ask 1) will Blu-ray be the winner and 2) do I give a sh*t about HD movies anyhow? Given that Blu-ray isn't the main selling point, they'll probably settle on the less expensive option with more content. No one thinks "I'll spend more for now, and sit around with my thumbs up my ass untill more content shows up".

 

Like I have already said, the 360 is good competition. Microsoft has the live advantage right now but Microsoft has completely abandoned the Xbox when they clearly said they wouldn't, which could make consumers question the life expectancy of the Xbox 360. Sony has shown support for PS1, even after the PS2 launched, just like they are right now with the PS2. The PS2 is still going strong so considering the PS2's fan base which is a 100 million. Not all of them browse the internet posting on forums. Most of them are casuals. If they have a big PS2 collection, they are more likely to pick up a PS3.

 

 

It also has the DRE epidemic from the ps2 behind it. I had two ps2's myself, both of which fell victim to DRE. The clerk at a local game shop told me he had a pile of 25 ps2's all made useless by DRE. In contrast he had 3 unfixable xboxes. I'm not saying the ps3 will suffer a similar fate, but people are going to remember that the ps2 was poorly manufactured.

 

When the Xbox launched, it had it's fair share of problems. Do you remember the Thomson drive the original Xbox came with? It was DRE heaven. PS2 launch suffered from that problem. I did trade in my PS2, but it wasn't because I was having DRE problems. I replaced it with the slimPS2 because I liked the size of it, but mine still worked. I bought it in 2002. 360 has that epidemic right now. PS3 has only had a few problems right now. People concerned about that will look it up on the internet, just type in 360 defects and you will get plenty of articles on google. So smart consumers are going to research and they will find this out about the 360....which is why I am saying that the PS2 DRE is not going to have that great of an impact on consumers when they decide. A year from now will be a good time to judge the PS3. The PS2 did outsell all next-gen consoles this holiday season minus the DS but I am not considering its sales because it's an handheld which does not compete with home consoles.

 

 

Because with the 360, it went up against nothing. The xbox went out on a high note and the 360 fed off that momentum just as the ps2 fed off the ps1. I'll give the PS3 time, but I won't consider buying one untill that time has come.

 

PS3 has done well considering the competition. It sold more at launch compared with how the 360 did at launch but that's not enough. I understand that too. PS3's time will come. I don't think anyone can easily guess the outcome of this generation. Anything can happen. Microsoft has shaped up to be pretty good competition.....basically pushes Sony to do better. I think Sony will pull through.....but we can't tell until later.

 

Basically, you're saying that PS3 is going to struggle against the 360 because of the head start and having a larger libray because of that which is true, but I think the 360 is shaping up to be a hardcore gamer's console which could be a good or bad thing for Microsoft. I am just being optimistic and I believe that the Playstation 3 will be a success but this generation the three consoles will share marketshare equally. PS3 might not have PS2's success but I don't think it's going anywhere.

 

 

This just in: Another developer has taken a sh*t on Sony.

 

You will find many developers going multi-platform this generation just because of the budget and profit they are looking at but I never saw that title as a Sony exclusive....I don't think it was announced as an exclusive. It was just announced for the PS3 and PC. It's still coming to the PS3.

Edited January 26, 2007 by sainraja

[TheDude5000]

 

PS3 has done well considering the competition. It sold more at launch compared with how the 360 did at launch but that's not enough. I understand that too. PS3's time will come. I don't think anyone can easily guess the outcome of this generation. Anything can happen. Microsoft has shaped up to be pretty good competition.....basically pushes Sony to do better. I think Sony will pull through.....but we can't tell until later.

 

360 completely sold out, MS couldn't supply the demand. If they had the consoles, it is very possible the launch would have outsold PS3's launch.

 

 

 

 

Wow, Unreal Tournament 2k7 was one of the most argued over games at Gamespots' System Wars. 360 keeps getting more and more once "exclusive" games.

 

 

Resident Evil 5

GTA 4

Assasins Creed

And now, Unreal Tournament 3.

 

Who knows, we might be seeing MGS 4 on 360 sooner than you'd think.

 

 

Casuals are having less and less reasons to choose PS3 over 360. Everyone is..

 

Let me also add that Wii came out pretty damn strong. I think this year will be the 360 vs. Wii, with PS3 gaining momentum and trying to get on it's legs. In 2008, things are really going to get heated up.

Edited January 26, 2007 by TheDude5000

[sainraja]

 

PS3 has done well considering the competition. It sold more at launch compared with how the 360 did at launch but that's not enough. I understand that too. PS3's time will come. I don't think anyone can easily guess the outcome of this generation. Anything can happen. Microsoft has shaped up to be pretty good competition.....basically pushes Sony to do better. I think Sony will pull through.....but we can't tell until later.

 

360 completely sold out, MS couldn't supply the demand. If they had the consoles, it is very possible the launch would have outsold PS3's launch.

 

 

 

 

Wow, Unreal Tournament 2k7 was one of the most argued over games at Gamespots' System Wars. 360 keeps getting more and more once "exclusive" games.

 

 

Resident Evil 5

GTA 4

Assasins Creed

And now, Unreal Tournament 3.

 

Who knows, we might be seeing MGS 4 on 360 sooner than you'd think.

 

 

Casuals are having less and less reasons to choose PS3 over 360. Everyone is..

The titles you listed were never really PS3 exclusives to begin with. Resident Evil 5 was announced for both consoles from the beginning. It is exclusive to the PS3 in Japan though.

 

GTA4 - GTA games have come to the Xbox after the PS2. Microsoft just paid more to get it the same day. It was a timed exclusive....

 

Assassins Creed - From the articles I have read and it has been posted at GameSpot (by the editors, not forum posters in system wars) that Ubisoft wanted to make it PS exclusive and were waiting on Sony....but at the time Kutaragi was busy with the launch so Ubisoft announced for both systems. If you don't know the original code name for the game was Project Assassin. It was listed for the 360 and PS3 at first. It was never really a exclusive.

 

Unreal Tournament - Well, I never really saw that as an exclusive. I never got the impression it was. I do post at the GameSpot forums. Same name as here now but I guess most people assumed it was but anyhow....the PS3 did not lose the title. It is still being released on it.

 

 

Let me also add that Wii came out pretty damn strong. I think this year will be the 360 vs. Wii, with PS3 gaining momentum and trying to get on it's legs. In 2008, things are really going to get heated up.

 

That's possible.

Edited January 26, 2007 by sainraja

[TheDude5000]

PS3 has done well considering the competition. It sold more at launch compared with how the 360 did at launch but that's not enough. I understand that too. PS3's time will come. I don't think anyone can easily guess the outcome of this generation. Anything can happen. Microsoft has shaped up to be pretty good competition.....basically pushes Sony to do better. I think Sony will pull through.....but we can't tell until later.

 

360 completely sold out, MS couldn't supply the demand. If they had the consoles, it is very possible the launch would have outsold PS3's launch.

 

 

 

 

Wow, Unreal Tournament 2k7 was one of the most argued over games at Gamespots' System Wars. 360 keeps getting more and more once "exclusive" games.

 

 

Resident Evil 5

GTA 4

Assasins Creed

And now, Unreal Tournament 3.

 

Who knows, we might be seeing MGS 4 on 360 sooner than you'd think.

 

 

Casuals are having less and less reasons to choose PS3 over 360. Everyone is..

The titles you listed were never really PS3 exclusives to begin with. Resident Evil 5 was announced for both consoles from the beginning. It is exclusive to the PS3 in Japan though.

 

GTA4 - GTA games have come to the Xbox after the PS2. Microsoft just paid more to get it the same day. It was a timed exclusive....

 

Assassins Creed - From the articles I have read and it has been posted at GameSpot (by the editors, not forum posters in system wars) that Ubisoft wanted to make it PS exclusive and were waiting on Sony....but at the time Kutaragi was busy with the launch so Ubisoft announced for both systems. If you don't know the original code name for the game was Project Assassin. It was listed for the 360 and PS3 at first. It was never really a exclusive.

 

Unreal Tournament - Well, I never really saw that as an exclusive. I never got the impression it was. I do post at the GameSpot forums. Same name as here now.

Well Sony no longer has the stranglehold on the RE franchise. Gamecube got only two original titles, and one of them lost it's exclusivity. XBox had none.

 

Assasins Creed is a very hyped game, and it was supposed to be PS3 exclusive. It's not anymore.

 

Unreal Tournament 3 also has plenty of hype behind it, and you'd always see Sony fanboys bragging about it not appearing on 360. Looks like they can't brag about that now.

 

GTA SA was the best selling game of 2004. I think it's safe to say Sony losing temporary exclusivity of the franchise is a huge blow to the PS3. Look at how long the gap was between the Fall '04 release of SA on PS2 and the Summer '05 release of XB/PC. Sony won't have that luxury anymore. When a casual enters a Target, or Walmart to buy GTA IV, do you think he's gonna wanna spend $600 or $400 to play it, when there's virtually no difference between the two(and the game might even look better on 360, and don't forget the XB Live content)? Do you think they would spend $600 to play the newest Resident Evil, when it's going to be on a console that is $200 cheaper? More and more games are going multi-plat, that were once only going to be released on PS3. People are noticing that buying a console $200 more expensive to play virtually the same game, is not the way to go. And how do you think all that extra BD space will matter? Only reason games like Resistance take up all that space is because the devs get sloppy and do no compressing at all. That's why a game like Oblivion can fit on a single DVD, yet the PS3 port will be the exact same release. It makes no difference at all, I don't care if a game has 10 hours of hi-res, hi-definition footage or audio that takes up all that space, it's not gonna make the gameplay any better at all.

 

Bottom line: A mediocre launch line-up, fleeting exclusives, format with an unsure future, and an insane price are going to drive away casuals. Meanwhile, the 360 is getting more and more popular, it has plenty of NEW, FRESH exclusive properties, unlike the 13th Finaly Fantasy game! It's already got a huge installed base, XB Live is growing at an incredible rate(features and members), it's got the affordable price, it's got the bigger and growing library. Wii is also incredibly cheap, it has a huge casual factor, Nintendo's sure hits(Zelda, Maro), and the DS is a sign that innovation DOES lead to sales. That's why the DS Lite is the best selling system in Japan now. That's why the DS has been selling like hotcakes since 2005. Keep an eye on Nintendo, I think they may have made their comeback, and don't underestimate Microsoft either. They aren't spewing out countless arrogant remarks, they are just trying to give their users the best console experience they can have. With tons of exciting new, exclusive games, awesome new XB Live features, etc.

 

I honestly want a PS3, I want the thing to do well, but I see more and more games coming outthat I can buy for a console I already own...

[Cran.]

GTA4 - GTA games have come to the Xbox after the PS2. Microsoft just paid more to get it the same day. It was a timed exclusive....

Rockstar had an exclusive deal with Sony for the GTA series last gen; meaning that GTA couldn't appear on any other platform for a certain amount of time. Now that deal is over, it just allows for Rockstar to have a multi-platform release. It has nothing to do with what Microsoft could have payed for.

[Brutuz]

(and the game might even look better on 360, and don't forget the XB Live content)?

The XB live content was confirmed to be on the PS3 as well, didn't you hear that?

 

Peter Moore announcing that it was only on Xbox was the usual Microcrotch Bloating it up.

 

But if Sony had gotten in too, They probably would of done the same.

 

 

ALso, please stop the Quote trains, This will start to pyramid soon......

[Exkabewbikadid]

Like I have already said, the 360 is good competition. Microsoft has the live advantage right now but Microsoft has completely abandoned the Xbox when they clearly said they wouldn't, which could make consumers question the life expectancy of the Xbox 360. Sony has shown support for PS1, even after the PS2 launched, just like they are right now with the PS2. The PS2 is still going strong so considering the PS2's fan base which is a 100 million. Not all of them browse the internet posting on forums. Most of them are casuals. If they have a big PS2 collection, they are more likely to pick up a PS3.

I don't think I would refer to it as "good" competiiton, but it is definately competition.

 

As far as Microsoft no longer supporting the xbox, this was a mistake on Microsoft's part from the beginning. They should have made the 360 fully backwards compatible. No one wants to keep something the size of the xbox around just to support whatever large library they may have had for it, provided some of their library didn't make the list.

 

Although, Microsoft seems to be of the 4-year rule for a console's life expectancy, and so far that doesn't seem to bother most people.

 

 

When the Xbox launched, it had it's fair share of problems. Do you remember the Thomson drive the original Xbox came with?  It was DRE heaven. PS2 launch suffered from that problem.

Yeah, the early xboxes were sh*t as well, no doubt about that. The difference is that there are 111 million PS2 units and 24 million xbox units sold. The greater the success, the greater the problem stands out. Even the newer slim PS2s seem to be just as bad, or at least mine crapped out after 2.5 years just like the first one.

 

 

Basically, you're saying that PS3 is going to struggle against the 360 because of the head start and having a larger libray because of that which is true, but I think the 360 is shaping up to be a hardcore gamer's console which could be a good or bad thing for Microsoft.

Erm, why would the 360 be anymore "hardcore" oriented than the PS3? As far as I'm concerned, the only real hardcore gamers are PC gamers.

 

 

You will find many developers going multi-platform this generation just because of the budget and profit they are looking at but I never saw that title as a Sony exclusive....I don't think it was announced as an exclusive. It was just announced for the PS3 and PC. It's still coming to the PS3.

If you never saw UT3 as a Sony exclusive, then you must be blind. It may not have been announced as an exclusive in the sense that it is primarily a PC game, but the fact that the 360 was never mentioned untill now made the PS3 stand out a little bit more. UT3 going to the 360 is not "good" competitiion for the PS3.

 

And that's just the problem. More and more titles are going cross-platform. In order for a console to really stand out, it needs to offer something that can't be found on another system. This is one reason why the Wii is doing so well. Some will accuse it of being gimmicky, but the reality is it is unique because it offers its own expreience that can't be found on another system. This is exactly what both the 360 and PS3 should be doing as well and not just offering the same game with a slightly different controller. Unfortunately for Sony, they're late to the party.

[sainraja]

 

And that's just the problem. More and more titles are going cross-platform. In order for a console to really stand out, it needs to offer something that can't be found on another system. This is one reason why the Wii is doing so well. Some will accuse it of being gimmicky, but the reality is it is unique because it offers its own expreience that can't be found on another system. This is exactly what both the 360 and PS3 should be doing as well and not just offering the same game with a slightly different controller. Unfortunately for Sony, they're late to the party.

 

I think in the end what is going to matter the most are first party titles. We know Nintendo is big on that one. They have Mario, Zelda, Metroid. Sony has God of War, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Jak and Daxter and now Resistance. They are all first party titles. Microsoft has Halo, Perfect Dark etc

 

I personally don't mind multi-platform games because I will buy the game on the platform of my choice but losing third party is not really a good thing. That's not what I am trying to say.....I just think that we will start to see more multi-platform games from third-parties compared to last generation. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will have to focus more on their first party titles this generation to get people to buy their console for a particular game I think.

 

I never saw Unreal as an exclusive because it was going to be on the P.C and considering how easy it is to port P.C games to the 360 I was sure it was going to happen. I don't think it was announced as an exclusive, just like Assassins Creed. They both were announced for one system but I have never read any article that said they were exclusively being made for the PS3. Ubisoft, however, wanted to make Assassins Creed an exclusive to the PS3 but Sony's response was a little late. You also have to note that originally the game Assassins Creed went by the name Project Assassin. It was listed as an Xbox 360 title.

Edited January 27, 2007 by sainraja

[_-playero-_]

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only real hardcore gamers are PC gamers.

 

Not true, seeing as there are worldwide competitions where both console and PC players play. I agree tho, PC gaming is by far more versatile and open.

[Cran.]

It's not entirely true for every PC gamer, but hardcore games are PC gamers. Gaming on consoles seems a whole lot more social kind of thing, compared to PC (Apart from multiplayer, of course).

[Brutuz]

As far as I'm concerned, the only real hardcore gamers are PC gamers.

 

Not true, seeing as there are worldwide competitions where both console and PC players play. I agree tho, PC gaming is by far more versatile and open.

A Higher Majorrity of PC gamers are Hardcore Gamers, most epole use PC for the occasional Game and MSN or something, and have a console to play games mostly on.

 

Hardcore PC gamers almost never play Consoles.

[VideoPoker]

 

do you think he's gonna wanna spend $600 or $400 to play it.

 

You can also buy a $499 version of the PS3.

 

 

Do you think they would spend $600 to play the newest Resident Evil, when it's going to be on a console that is $200 cheaper?

 

There's a 20GB model for only $499.

 

 

People are noticing that buying a console $200 more expensive to play virtually the same game, is not the way to go. And how do you think all that extra BD space will matter?

 

Did you hear? There's a $499 version too. Also, unlike the 360 Core model, this version isn't a total hack job

 

 

That's why a game like Oblivion can fit on a single DVD, yet the PS3 port will be the exact same release. It makes no difference at all, I don't care if a game has 10 hours of hi-res, hi-definition footage or audio that takes up all that space, it's not gonna make the gameplay any better at all.

 

Nah, the PS3 release is actually getting the downloadable extras for the 360, including Knights of the Nine, they'll just be on the disc now. Oh and the draw distance is said to be better too.

[RoAcHcliP]

As far as I'm concerned, the only real hardcore gamers are PC gamers.

 

Not true, seeing as there are worldwide competitions where both console and PC players play. I agree tho, PC gaming is by far more versatile and open.

A Higher Majorrity of PC gamers are Hardcore Gamers, most epole use PC for the occasional Game and MSN or something, and have a console to play games mostly on.

 

Hardcore PC gamers almost never play Consoles.

Thats true for me. I use my pc for online multiplayer and big titles, mods etc. I have a wii, pretty much as a party console. I think the wii should be used by 2+ ppl, on my own its a bit dull.