Slashdot Mirror
SCEA President Hypes PS3 Shelf Life Over 360
kukyfrope writes "Sony Computer Entertainment America President Kaz Hirai recently talked to San Jose Mercury News about their upcoming console. His argument is that, by waiting to deliver Blu-Ray and performance hardware, even at a high price, the PS3 will be in greater standing than the Xbox 360 in the long run. Hirai also takes a cop-out on the amount of hype surrounding the PS3 hardware performance saying, 'It's all about the games. We all know that [...] This is a console that is here for the long haul and is not on a five-year cycle. Microsoft is coming out with an HD-DVD accessory for HD movies as an add-on only a year after they launched: that is exactly the kind of thing we don't want to do.'"
the ps3 will be a collectors item. "the console that tanked and nobody bought, and forced sony out of the home console buisness."
-schwal "Hanging is too good for punners, they should be drawn and quoted"
I doubt people would be saying "Xbox 360 sucks because its games are on DVD!"
It sucks fitting games onto a DVD for the PS2! The large streaming worlds we are making are taxing the DVD as it is. With the absolutely massive texture sizes needed for HD and the expectation of streaming worlds for all games, the XBox360 is going to look like a cripple once the PS3 gets rolling. Possibly the XBox360 will have multiple-dvd games and that is how it will cope. However the data-read rate of a DVD is going to absolutely murder it's load times with next gen texture sizes. Feel like "installing" Xbox360 games to harddrive before playing anyone? Hahahah. And either way, a blue-ray drive will cost $15 to manufacture in a few years.
As to which will have better games, guess we'll just have to wait and see which one attracts more devs in the long run.
All games will be made for all platforms going forward. It will easily cost ~20 million to make a game for the new platforms. You would have to be right up out your mind to not port to one of the platforms. Once the PS3 gets cheap, it will be vastly superior in terms of ambient simulation. Gamers will pay a little more for the nicer toy, that is well established, and given the same set of games, eye candy will win.
The only question is, how long until Sony brings the price down. The current high prices are just intended make the system look like a bargain when they drop it to $250, while cashing in on early adopters. They haven't even shipped retail boxes. It is way to early to announce winners.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
> I doubt people would be saying "Xbox 360 sucks because its games are on DVD!"
No, but if they have to cut back on content or split a game like Grand Theft Auto IV across multiple discs while the PS3 doesn't, people will notice. Considering that GTA:SA already filled an entire DVD on current-gen consoles, it stands to reason that the next-gen iteration will require additional space, and the 360 simply can't accommodate that without going to multiple discs or using other trickery.
> Did anyone in the history of gaming say "I'm getting Xbox because it's more powerful than PS2"?
Well, they certainly didn't say "I'm getting XBox because it has a wider selection of great games than PS2", or "I'm getting XBox because its controller is better than PS2". And most reviews cited the only difference between XBox and PS2 versions of the same game being frame rate and graphical definition -- so yeah, I'd guess that quite a few people got an XBox for graphical power alone.
Because Blu-Ray allows for much, much more storage space in games, meaning that in 5 years, when games are 20GB or so, you'll only need one Blu-Ray disc, which by that time will be a hell of a lot cheaper then using 2 or more DVDs.
Why not remove the Blu-Ray and drop the price $200, then, genius?
Because a next generation console built on the concept of powerful graphics has next generation storage abilities - like large capacity game discs or hard drives in every model.
Why would Sony give up such a huge advantage when the console costs only $100 more than a 360?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Uh yes, we should kill the company that had the best console the last two rounds.
Repeat after me: Sony sold over 100m units each of the PS1 and PS2. They didn't do that because of hype, they did that because those consoles weren't dedicated Halo/Madden players (XBox), and had more of a library than Zelda/Mario/Metroid.
If you look at the great gaming libraries (post NES), the PS1's and PS2's are maybe 2 and 3, with the ordering depending on your taste. The SNES's, of course, is first, followed by either the Genesis or NES depending on your preferences. The N64, GC, and XBox fight it out for the remaining slots. The N64 didn't really have games, the XBox had a few gems and a whole bunch of PC ports, and the crap/creamy ratio was really high on the GC.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...