Sony Pins Hopes on E-Distro

Ars Technica reports on Sony's plans for their online service. As previously discussed, they'll be offering online play for free. They hope to make money via an e-distribution system. From the article: "Yet it is unclear what Sony intends to sell. While the 60GB hard drive in the premium console is spacious, it would not be large enough to hold a collection of HD video, although the company could sell storage add-ons in the future. We believe that Sony will initially sell other content, including music and standard definition video, as well as gaming content such as that available today in the Xbox Live Marketplace."

Comments

Storage

[DorkusMasterus]

Just a comment on the storage add ons. It does appear from comments made by SCEA execs, that the hard drive will be upgradeable (ugh) like a computer.

So, storage space (shouldn't) be a problem. Unless they do what they'll likely do, which is make a specific drive that will only work in the PS3, and that will only be available from -surprise!- SCEA.

Re:Storage

[Anonymous Coward]

So, storage space (shouldn't) be a problem. Unless they do what they'll likely do, which is make a specific drive that will only work in the PS3, and that will only be available from -surprise!- SCEA.

Which you know will be the case.

Am I supposed to say "rootkit" numerous times in rapid succession now, inserting exlamation points randomly and unnecessarily?

Re:Storage

[apoc06]

they have already gone on record stating that the ps3 accepts standard usb drives. as for additional internal storage? who knows...

for the $600 ps3, i expect that sucker to be able to connect to the home network and play any and every file imaginable from any filesystem i have connected. ha...

2 jugs to fill the bath

[spyrochaete]

A 60GB drive seems incongruous with Sony's insistance of a BD-ROM drive. Considering a BD-ROM disc can hold 25GB, that's as few as just 2 games the drive can hold. Since the console is already so expensive, couldn't they have splurged another $10-$20 per unit to double that HDD capacity?

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't making any sense.

The harddrive in the PS3 is there to be used for Linux and your downloaded media. There will be a small area for caching if a developer decides to use it for that.

Harddrive != fast loading. Despite what Microsoft marketing convinced so many Xbox fans to believe. With the tremendous amount of space at BluRay disc holds developers aren't having to do heavy compression and are able to just stream directly off the drive. There is no need to unload game data to the PS3's harddrive for the vast majority of games.

$499 for a 1080p BluRay player that also plays almost every major console developers games? Expensive, I don't think so...

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Dr. Eggman]

I'm going to state the most probable reason and say the games will not take up nearly 25GB, Sony knows this and has decided instead to tout the POTENTIAL size of the games over the actual while saving money by including a hard drive that is suited to the minimum space really needed. In addition, they could do this while believing the games may reach 25GB, thus forcing poeple to buy expensive hard drive upgrades, further increasing profits.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[spyrochaete]

The harddrive in the PS3 is there to be used for Linux and your downloaded media. There will be a small area for caching if a developer decides to use it for that.

I was thinking more along the lines of something like Steam where people could buy games online. You know, E-Distro. Like they mention in TFA. Then again, Kutaragi's claim of "content" isn't very well defined.

Harddrive != fast loading. Despite what Microsoft marketing convinced so many Xbox fans to believe. With the tremendous amount of space at BluRay disc holds developers aren't having to do heavy compression and are able to just stream directly off the drive. There is no need to unload game data to the PS3's harddrive for the vast majority of games.

See if you sing the same song while you sit at loading screens on your PS3 games. I don't know what the BDROM throughput is but I guarantee it's nowhere near the speed of a hard disk. Plus, streaming uncompressed data works fine while playing movies\cutscenes, but when you start pulling nonsequential data off the disc like textures and speech you have to deal with latency caused by the laser moving across the disc radius. HDD was no big deal in Xbox because they didn't take advantage of its potential. Try burning an old installed PC game and play it off the disc on a 16x DVDROM drive and tell me with a straight face that it's just as fast as even a 5400RPM laptop HDD.

My point is that a 60GB HDD is hardly next-gen. They're calling this thing a computer replacement but you can hardly even find HDDs under 120GB on second-hand Emachines anymore. If they really wanted to boost speed they could have put in 1GB of low latency RAM and pre-streamed textures, or something. Of course I'm only speculating that the PS3's load times will be no shorter than PS2's, but I've seen no reason to believe otherwise. It's just another disc format limited by laser latency and spin-up time, and installing the game on HDD seems the obvious fix if my assumption is correct.

$499 for a 1080p BluRay player that also plays almost every major console developers games? Expensive, I don't think so...

Every journalist at E3 disagrees with you.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Anonymous Coward]

You silly person.

Game developers have already come out and stated right out that their first generation PS3 games are filling greater than 20gigs.

So much for your stupid Sony conspiracy theories...

Come on guy, just because Microsoft was stupid enough to include a last gen disc format in their console doesn't mean the world needs to hear fanboys trying to spin the rest of the gaming world is wrong and Microsoft is right bullshit.

Microsoft fucked up. Get over it.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Control Group]

You're kidding, right?

You're trying to claim that you can pull data off an optical disc faster than you can off a hard drive? That's the single most ignorant and asinine thing I've read today. And I've been reading slashdot.

$499 for a 1080p BluRay player that also plays almost every major console developers games?
Sony must be radiating some kind of Steve Jobs-like Reality Distortion Field, since they've apparently convinced you that you don't want a video game console, you want a Blu-Ray player. Those of us in the market for a video game console, however, will continue to not be impressed with playing Blu-Ray movies that don't even exist. Much less with playing them only at the whim of studios who can flip a bit and break them at any time.

Me, I'll just stick with my 360 and buy a Wii when it comes out. Guess I'll have to forego watching Blu-Ray movies. This will no doubt cause me no end of pain when, someday, there are some, and I won't be able to watch The Fast and the Furious: Moscow Retread in 1080p.

I'll be rueing the day, I'm sure.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Control Group]

Wow, that was a really well-reasoned argument. I've completely changed my mind. I should have realized that in the mystical and inscrutable world of console development, hard drives are orders of magnitude slower in throughput than they are in PCs, while optical drives are orders of magnitude faster than they are in PCs.

I am a dummy. I'd better collect a few thousand dollars to pay for the privilege of coding for a console, so I can stop being a dummy.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[zeroduck]

With the PS3 I can email,webbrowse,instant message,google maps,etc thanks to the Net as a platform breaking the dependence on the desktop pc as the standard platform for people. None of that stuff needs any more than a marginal amount of RAM. The PS3 will be able to run Linux and all those types of application just fine with its current memory amount.

I think I missed something... when did Sony say you'd have access to a Linux desktop? You can run Linux on a lot of things, for a lot of uses. . . just because it runs linux doesn't mean you'll have access to a desktop on it

I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Dr. Eggman]

Hehe, I can safely say that's the first time I've been accused of being a Microsoft fanboy... I'm much more of a PC gamer than consoles and have never owned Xbox or 360.

I tried to verify your developer's comment however, but I was unable to find any news, interviews, ect. stating that their first games are going over 20gb. All I found was http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp a hands on the PS3 which had the comment "Our stuff runs off a Hard Disc at the moment and won't exceed DVD capabilities..." But since its from feburary, I'll let it go under the "too old" pile. Are you sure your not confused with http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/06/catching_ up_wit.html Kaz Hirai's interview talking about "If you look at the lack of Blu-ray on Microsoft, what do you do if the game requires 40 to 50 gigabytes? Put it on three disks? Let's look under the hood and see total value we are delivering to consumers. At five to 10 years, you see the lasting power of the PS2. If you go out there now, there is a lot of PS2 software out there. From a consumer's view, who got the better value? If you look at which console is giving the publishers more time to amortize their development costs, the answer is pretty obvious." It seems unlikely that you would confuse potential developments with developer's statements, especially since the number is wrong. I really wish you would tell us where your information comes from.

As a final note, I prefer not to refer to it as a "conspiracy," but rather as "marketing" and I suspect all companies are in on it... *shifts eyes side to side*

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone from Epic specifically stated they were already looking at 20+ gigs for their PS3 stuff.

And there have been many other developers who didn't use any specific size but who have all stated categorically that existing DVD drives are nowhere near enough storage for their upcoming titles.

Let's be honest, the only reason anyone is having this 'DVD is more than enough' talk is because Microsoft rushed the 360 out the door before a next gen storage format was ready to go for the system.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[blighter]

Don't take it personally, GameEngineer is a well known Sony astroturfer, hardly anything he says ever makes any sense.

I'm sort of surprised to see him posting under that login again, I thought he'd been modded so far into oblivion that he wasn't bothering anymore.

I'm pretty sure that all of the Sony astoturfing coming from Anonymous Cowards recently is the same guy or at least organization.

Re:2 jugs to fill the bath

[Anonymous Coward]

With the tremendous amount of space at BluRay disc holds developers aren't having to do heavy compression and are able to just stream directly off the drive.

WTF? BD has a data rate of 8MB/s for a 2x drive as found in PS3. The console has 256MB of main RAM and 256MB of VRAM. Filling that will take over a minute unless you compress the fucking data. And yet here you are claiming that "developers" (unspecified) "aren't having to do heavy compression". They don't even have drives yet so they don't know what they're going to have to do in practice. But those developers who can use a pocket calculator have realized that they WILL have to do compression.

Meanwhile my HDD can sustain a data rate of many times this, and I can load 512MB of data in much less than a minute.

I won't even bother to explain seek times since the basics are so over your head.

Every sane clued-up person knows that using HDD to cache data from disc is a good idea. So, nice troll, but I don't see anyone buying a PS3 because of it.

Sounds Ok?

[neonprimetime]

In short, it appears as though Sony plans to offer for free what Microsoft is currently charging for, and that could be a big plus ... it could convince many gamers that the PS3's expense is more reasonable

Get Charged up front or have an optional fee later on? Hmmm ... PS3 better be incredible ... otherwise this will be another victory for MSFT.

Re:Sounds Ok?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>otherwise this will be another victory for MSFT.

you misspelled Nintendo. Microsoft isn't even winning* NOW, how the hell will things get better when they actually have some next-gen competition?

*in Japan the Gamecube is beating the 360 in weekly sales and Europe doesn't give a crap about the 360 either.

Re:Sounds Ok?

[neonprimetime]

It was encrypted ... here's the key ...
A - oops
B - my
C - serious
D - apologies
E - now
F - TOO
G - go
H - home
I - to
J - your
K - crippled
L - video
M - GAMECUBE
N - game
O - system
P - and
Q - leave
R - me
S - SUCKS
T - !!!!
U - the
V - f!ck
W - alone
X - pretty
Y - please
Z - :-P

Re:Sounds Ok?

[iainl]

Particularly when they seem to have ignored the fact that you can buy titles from the XBox Live Arcade with merely the free Silver subscription.

It currently appears that all three "next gen" consoles (i.e. PS3, Wii, 360) will allow you to download old games in an iTMS stylee. The success that Microsoft have had with Geometry Wars kind of made it inevitable, I suppose.

Re:Sounds Ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The success that Microsoft have had with Geometry Wars kind of made it inevitable, I suppose.

OMFG!!!

Did you just call Microsoft and Geometry Wars 'a success'?

You are talking about the game people play on their 360s because there is nothing else worth playing on the console?

Yeah, dude, Microsoft is really doing great with the 360...

Re:Sounds Ok?

[iainl]

Quoth a particularly dumb AC:

"Did you just call Microsoft and Geometry Wars 'a success'?"

Why yes, I did. Microsoft got a larger number of people to pay money for downloaded content than expected. The fact that Geometry Wars _Fucking_Rocks_ helped, but yes - Microsoft have demonstrated there is a market for premium content with consoles, just as Apple demonstrated one was present for music. Yen signs clearly appeared in the eyes of Sony and Nintendo execs, and now they're doing the same thing. I really didn't expect it to be a contentious suggestion.

Re:Sounds Ok?

[tepples]

But what will the requirements be for a startup development studio to make and sell games for the PlayStation 3's HUB or the Wii's Virtual Console?

Re:Sounds Ok?

[gstoddart]

Get Charged up front or have an optional fee later on? Hmmm ... PS3 better be incredible ... otherwise this will be another victory for MSFT.

Or maybe Nintendo.

I've owned a PS, and now a PS2. I don't want on-line gaming, and I won't be spending anywhere near the kind of money Sony wants for a console. I won't buy an X-box either.

Personally speaking, my next gaming platform will be Nintendo. Both MS and Sony can go pound sand. I've been deciding I want silly, fun games to play instead of overly-complicated, impossible for me to control, eye-candy. I'll take less graphics and better game play thank you. Nintendo seems to be doing that.

Games anyone?

[scrabbleguy]

Yet it is unclear what Sony intends to sell.

How about games? It seems pretty likely to me that they're going to be offering downloadable gaming. If a selection of PS1 games will be available for download on the PSP I'm sure they'll allow the same offering for the PS3.

Re:Games anyone?

[drinkypoo]

Let's not forget music and movies... although there's no way they're going to send you any HD over the wire, which kind of defeats the purpose of having this all-HD system. Sony would like to sell their music, and send it only to a heavily DRM'd platform; enter the PS3. The only question is, do they support PlaysForSure, or just the sony ATRAC crap?

Re:Games anyone?

[apoc06]

"although there's no way they're going to send you any HD over the wire"

what do you mean? surely sony would love the chance to broadcast their HD trailers via internet straight into consumers homes. as for buying full length movies... maybe not, but who is to say that other providers wont be able to tap into the captive ps3 market? the ps3 has an integrated web browser builtin, so in theory anyone that can set up a website can transmit streaming HD signals to any ps3.

Re:Games anyone?

[drinkypoo]

They might do trailers, but the bitrate for full HD is pretty abusive even using MPEG4.

Re:Games anyone?

[apoc06]

yeah, i think sony is banking on the gigabit ethernet port in the ps3, and providers such as verizon and the universities to provide the extra bandwidth. overall i dont see it being that huge a problem unless they plan to sell full HD movies.

i just dont want to have to wait hours to finish the download of the latest system update or the newest game demo or trailer. what i would like to hear is someone like sony jumping behind the bittorrent protocol or something similar for mass transmission of these huge files. it would save everyone a great deal on bandwidth and speed up file downloads. if they can just work it out for those that are under bandwidth caps, it would be almost ideal for HD.

imagine the irony of an MPAA company using bittorrent to promote its upcoming products and movies...

Re:Games anyone?

[Control Group]

Now that would be a hell of a good use for an online service that's somewhat centralized, all downloads could be swarming.

I'd love to see that happen.

Innovation

[caffeinatedOnline]

Is it just me, or did $ony (oh, cmon, if we can do it for Microsoft, why not for Sony, especially given the huge price tag of the PS3, and the evil of the rootkits?) throw innovation out the door this time around? Sure, they threw in the Blu-Ray, but copying the Wii-mote functionality, and now following up on the Live service? It seems to me that they are just following on the innovation of the other 2 consoles, maybe hoping that people will think 'Well, the Wii has this controller, and the Xbox has a great online service... but look! The P$3 (okay, I might be pushing the $ sign now) has both!!" In my mind, it might have both, but a substandard rendition of both...

Re:Innovation

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>In my mind, it might have both, but a substandard rendition of both...

the controller is definitely substandard - it just has nowhere near the modes of freedom of the wiimote, plus the wiimote has the nunchuck component which is also motion sensitive.

and it's hard to imagine Sony will do better than xbox live without charging anything for it. when was the last time you heard about Sony actually making life enjoyable for its customers? remember the official announcements from Sony about how important they think in-game advertising will be?

Re:Innovation

[WinPimp2K]

Yes, you pushed it too far with P$3. The resident atroturfer will take that as evidence that the PS3 will really only cost three dollars after the MSFT "tax" is removed :)

Of course others of us might take it as an indication that the PS3 is as phony as a three dollar bill - and that might be going too far as well.

Re:Innovation

[drinkypoo]

Another thing to think about is that gamepads with tilt suck, or at least the one I had did; the microsoft sidewinder 3d pro usb grand poobah. IIRC it had a gamepad, about four buttons, a throttle, and two tilt axes. The simple fact is that it was horribly cumbersome and nothing about the playstation controller's design will change that. Trying to use controls and tilt at the same time was frustrating to say the least. The Wiimote gives me more hope, because you only need one hand to hold it, and additional controls are not hard-fixed to the tilt portion, they're on a cable tether.

Re:Innovation

[LordVader717]

SON¥

You get what you pay for

[the computer guy nex]

Sony is using the "Developers control Internet Gaming" solution used in PS2.

Problems?

-Every developer has a ton more work to do. There isn't an Xbox Live framework to work from.
-Each developer could decide to charge for basic gaming privelidges. Someone needs to pay for the Servers and the bandwidth.
-Games will have unique online systems, destroying continuity across the platform.

A couple bucks per month is worth these advantages. Why buy a hot-rod $600 PS3 and pay nothing for a junky online system?.

Lost In Translation

[Doomedsnowball]

What was left out of the original translation from japanese is that Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said that they would be offering everything from cellphone ringtones to a XBox 360 game emulator for the PS3, which he stated, 'Just involves turning a bunch of features off'.

spacious?

[wileyAU]

While the 60GB hard drive in the premium console is spacious

I'm sorry, but 60 gigs hasn't been 'spacious' in several years. Now its the size of my iPod.

Re:spacious?

[freshman_a]

"Spacious" is a relative term. In terms of a desktop PC, no it's not that big. But seeing as how the Xbox360 has a 20GB HD and the Wii has no HD (although it has a USB storage drive port), I'd say a 60GB HD is spacious for a game console.

Re:spacious?

[metarox]

yeah but they keep saying it's not a console it's a Computer!!! =]

Re:spacious?

[captaincucumber]

It's spacious relative to bandwidth. Suppose you were to download content to you PS3 at 30KB/s. (Obviously the limiting factor here would be the server sending you the data not your bandwidth, but 30KB/s seems pretty generous to me, based on my experiences d/ling torrents). It would take 3 weeks and 2 days of continuous downloading to fill the hard drive.

Thusly, 60GB is spacious.

Music?

[flooey]

including music and standard definition video

Selling music seems like it would be a giant flop. Nobody I know of listens to music on their (CD-playing) consoles right now, I can't imagine anyone would want to purchase music to play on their PS3. Especially since it wouldn't be transferrable to an iPod, and knowing Sony, it may not even work on music players from people like Creative.

Re:Music?

[gEvil (beta)]

No, but I bet it will work quite well with the PSP.

Re:Music?

[iainl]

I'm guessing that it will PlayForSure. They've been banging on about the PS3 replacing your PC recently; if absolutely nothing else I expect any downloaded music to sync with a PSP or mp3 Walkman device from Sony.

Re:Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right! As an Anonymous Coward, I'm a Nobody, and *I* listen to CDs on my PS2 (occasionally).

Re:What The Hell Is Microsoft Going To Do

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will almost certainly do a 100 dollar price drop on their system soon. The latest sales figures don't really leave any room for them do leave the console at its current price. 50 dollars really isn't going to make any significant difference to people who are passing on picking up a 360 right now. Management up in Redmond is most likely going to give the 360 team a stern warning that they will ok the enormous extra red ink a price cut will generate but they are ready to pull the plug on the system if sales don't dramatically improve in the near term. The interviews I've seen paint a picture of Microsoft execs being crystal clear that they will never let another four billion dollar loss happen in the Home Entertainment division.

As to the charging for online, the only possible way I can think of that the 360 can avoid having to drop the yearly charge to play online is if they manage to come up with something amazing for that 50 dollars a year that Sony or Nintendo simply can not match with their consoles. What that would be I have no idea. Right now there are a lot of 360 owners questioning what exactly they are getting for their 50 dollars a year. Someone up there in Redmond is going to have to come up with an answer quickly.

If the dramatic drop in sales last month hadn't happened I don't think any of this would be a problem for the 360.

Re:What The Hell Is Microsoft Going To Do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm so MSFT charges 50 bucks a year for their online service. BUt you only buy that service if you want to play online games.

Sony has an online service they charge over 250 bucks a year for. That adds over a thousand bucks to the cost of a PS2. (SOE online pass for EQOA for those of you wondering just where I pulled the numbers from)

As to what MSFT will do, well I'd imagine they will look at the matter in their ususal businesslike way, turn some marketroids loose, and find ways to make sure they can either offer good value for the money, or if need be, drop the annual charge. Frankly I expect that MSFT will keep the charge and make sure that their services are superior to Sony's offering.

But the other thing they might do.. since you ask so nicely.. is to release some MMORPGs on their service. They could just buy the rights to AC or AC2 and port them to the 360. (a lot of the "exploit/macro/botting" problems can go away when you move to a console after all)

In other words, there are a lot of things MSFT might do and even though we are all supposed to rabidly hate MSFT, some of us still would not mind seeing Sony take it good and hard for all the ways they screwed over their customers in their neverending effort to achieve total media lock.

That's not what Microsoft said

[SuperKendall]

After the PS3 price was announced Microsoft said in a public statement they saw no need to lower the cost of the 360 this year.

They may change their minds later but currently that's what the plan is.

Re:That's not what Microsoft said

[MrJynxx]

Even if MS drops the price of the 360 I highly doubt they would come out and say it just yet. If they do that it may affect the current demand for the 360.

If they do drop the price, they'll tell you a week before the PS3 launch.

MrJynxx

RTFA

[SuperKendall]

The article itself talks about Sony providing matching services, which is just what XBox live offers. That means there will also be a framework to make use of these services...

It also says that service is free, so where do you get the idea that game makers can or will charge for online play?

As for unique online systems, again SOny is providing a centralized online hub for free. So it pretty much blows that theory out of the water.

Basically think XBox Live Gold, only I don't actually have to pay to play games with other people online. I think it's pretty funny you're raising the boogeyman of people MAYBE having to pay for online PS3 games when you already have to for just about every 360 title.

Re:RTFA

[Control Group]

Basically think XBox Live Gold, only I don't actually have to pay to play games with other people online. I think it's pretty funny you're raising the boogeyman of people MAYBE having to pay for online PS3 games when you already have to for just about every 360 title.

And I find it amazing how certain you are about the details of a service that no one outside Sony has even seen a glimmer of. Maybe you're right, of course - maybe Sony is unswayed by the proven fact that people will pay $50/yr for a quality online service. Perhaps they're willing to forego that revenue stream, while still providing a service of equivalent or better quality. Perhaps Sony really will provide something for nothing (insofar as you can call $500 or $600 "nothing," of course), knowing full well that they could be selling that something for money, just like the article says.

Just like all those articles saying that the PS3 would come out in spring - they all turned out to be right, too.

Oh, wait.

The Final Nail In The 360's Coffin

[Anonymous Coward]

The second to last nail was the death of the image constraint token. It made clear why there was a 499 PS3 version with no HDMI connector since you can play 1080p movies and games over component now that the ICT isn't going to see the light of day this next console generation.

The last nail in the 360 coffin was the official confirmation of free online play and matchmaking and global player IDs. So now anyone wasting 50 bucks a year for something that is going to be given away for free with the PS3 looks like a sucker. There are some bitter 360 owners out there right now.

I wouldn't want to be in those nasty meetings going on up in Redmond right now trying to find someway to spin the fact that their weaker and troubled console that costs 400 bucks actually costs 200 more when you add in the price you have to pay just to be allowed to play online.

Stick a fork in the turd of a machine. Microsoft really should focus on Vista games. They are out of their league in the console market when they can't even outsell a six year old console in what is supposed to be their 'strongest' region.

It is going to be fun watching the handwaving as diehard 360 fans start trying to explain this extra magic that Microsoft' online gaming is supposed have that justifies 200 dollars extra tacked on to the console over its lifetime.

$499 PS3 with free online play

vs

$600+ 360 that you end up paying over the four year you own the console

Spin, fanboys, spin!

Re:The Final Nail In The 360's Coffin

[PhotoBoy]

their weaker and troubled console

WTF are you smoking? All the specs for the PS3 point to a system that will barely (if at all) outperform the X360. The RSX isn't as powerful as the Xenon and it doesn't have onboard DRAM to do 4xAA for free. Coupled with the news that yields of the Cell are crap and that it will have to be underclocked to 2.8GHz to get decent numbers of chips off the production line I don't think Microsoft have anything to worry about except making sure they get a decent flow of exclusive third party titles.

Re:The Final Nail In The 360's Coffin

[JFMulder]

o do 4xAA for free
Explain me the part where processing four 4 times the number of pixels, thus applying 4 times more often each shader, make 4xAA for free?

Re:The Final Nail In The 360's Coffin

[apoc06]

you mean coupled with /rumors/ about the ps3 cell yields, and underclocking...

first of all, how are you comparing the rsx to the xenon? the xenon is the xbox360s CPU, the RSX is the ps3's GPU. the x360 GPU is c1 or xenos. officially the name is c1.

"...Internally we called the GPU, interchangeably, C1 and Xenos. C1 was a code name defined before we had the contract, Xenos was the project name after the contract was won - but C1 stuck in everyone's minds. Once we started calling it C1, it was hard to change."
--Bob Feldstein

secondly who modded this misinformation up?

What you get

[SuperKendall]

So in a PS3 I get a whole Blu-Ray drive as part of that $100 extra cost. Only now it's not $100 more because I also get the equivilent of XBox Gold for free, which is $50 a year - thus the PS3 now only costs $50 more than a 360 (if you only plan to play online games for a year), and includes a Blu-Ray drive which allows games to hold far more data. Consider everything else is the same:

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have 20GB hard drives.

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have component out for HD video (though here the PS3 gets a nod since it supports 1080p)

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have just as many ports (basically USB and memory ports, the more expensive PS3 also has media ports)

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both support the same networking options (ethernet in)

Seems to me like Sony has priced the console pretty well against the 360.

Re:What you get

[Control Group]

So in a PS3 I get a whole Blu-Ray drive as part of that $100 extra cost
Which is dandy if you want to play Blu-Ray movies. I don't. I want to play video games. If they were selling stand-along Blu-Ray players for $100, I wouldn't buy one. Why should I be forced to buy one when all I want is to play video games?

Only now it's not $100 more because I also get the equivilent of XBox Gold for free
That's an awful lot of faith you place in Sony Online to provide you a quality experience. But it's justified, because they've done so well with...um. Well, something, I'm sure. It's completely likely that they'll do just as well in their first iteration of the product as MS does with it's second iteration. In Sony Online we trust, and what not.

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have 20GB hard drives.

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have component out for HD video (though here the PS3 gets a nod since it supports 1080p)

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have just as many ports (basically USB and memory ports, the more expensive PS3 also has media ports)

360 premuum and $500 PS3 both support the same networking options (ethernet in)

For one thing, it's spelled premium, even if you use it four times. Secondly, I find it pretty interesting that you list all the features that the two consoles have in common, and use that to lead into an argument how it makes sense that one of them costs $100 more than the other (and actually, it will almost certainly be a more than $100 discrepancy come launch. MS may say they don't plan on lowering prices, but since when does anyone advertise that if you don't buy something now, you'll save money?)

So I'm paying $100 extra for a Blu-Ray player I wouldn't pay $100 for by itself, and for the privilege of going through SOE for my online fix? Oh, and for the privilege of waiting an extra year to play next-gen games? Oh, and for the privilege of being SOL when they turn the content flag on, and I can't even use the Blu-Ray player I had to buy anymore?

You're right, it's a steal.

I just don't think you fully understand who's the thief, here.

Re:What you get

[apoc06]

exactly, in one years' time the two consoles will have had an equal cost; assuming that you play games online. however you also get the added benefit of being able to play blu-ray movies and "full" backwards compatibility. even without the online capabilities, i think those two functions make up the difference b/w the two consoles.

personally, until i get both consoles underneath my tv by the end of the year hopefully, i see them both on even ground. maybe with sony in the lead due to a better gaming lineup.

Re:What you get

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a fucking clue what an idiot you look like foaming at the mouth ranting that Sony is somehow 'forcing' a 25gig disc format onto the poor console playing consumer???

When developers themselves are right there on record stating their games are already taking 20+ gigs of storage!

Dude, when your fanboy damage control get as pathetic as the crap you just posted it's time for you to find some other hobby other than console games.

Re:What you get

[Control Group]

Do you have a fucking clue what an idiot you look like foaming at the mouth ranting

Er. Mr. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot. Moving on:

When developers themselves are right there on record stating their games are already taking 20+ gigs of storage!

I'll believe that this is a current, pressing problem when I start buying PC games that span more than one DVD. The PC has no such limitation, be it 4.5 GB, 9 GB, or 25 GB, so if all these developers are straining at the leash imposed by a DVD-ROM, why aren't I seeing all the new PC games coming on multiple DVDs?

I'm sure that games will eventually be big enough to fill 25 GB with useful content (no, FMV doesn't count, even if it's in 1080p). I'm also sure that I'll buy the next generation of consoles. My money is on the former happening after the latter.

But hey, I could be wrong.

Oh, and just to make a point of information: the original poster made a claim about it being a Blu-Ray player, and I specifically explained I don't want a Blu-Ray player. Had the argument been about the game storage capacity of the discs, I would have used a different rebuttal, which probably would have gone something like what I just posted to you.

In any event, I now return you to your unseen Anonymous Cowardice. I'm obviously not going to drop mod points in this thread anyway.

Re:What you get

[SuperKendall]

Which is dandy if you want to play Blu-Ray movies. I don't. I want to play video games. If they were selling stand-along Blu-Ray players for $100, I wouldn't buy one. Why should I be forced to buy one when all I want is to play video games?

It's also better for video games as it allows more storage - it allows for larger demo discs with more playable games. It allows for more extras in games like directory commentary and making of videos. Even if you don't care a whit for HD Pixar movies it
s still better for me, as a gamer.

That's an awful lot of faith you place in Sony Online to provide you a quality experience. But it's justified, because they've done so well with...um. Well, something, I'm sure. It's completely likely that they'll do just as well in their first iteration of the product as MS does with it's second iteration. In Sony Online we trust, and what not.

Well, they did actually do sort of well with a little something called the PS2. You may have heard of it. The Sony games group does have the capability for good design.

As for it being the first iteration - yes that's true but don't forget they can liberally borrow ideas from Live. Microsoft is the pioneer with the arrows in the back on this one, they have a great service now but they've paved a path Sony can follow.

Secondly, I find it pretty interesting that you list all the features that the two consoles have in common, and use that to lead into an argument how it makes sense that one of them costs $100 more than the other

Actually I point that out because so many people seem to focus on what the $500 model lacks whcih is how they justify saying the "real" PS3 is $600... but if you note that the lowest priced PS3 at $500 has everything the most expensive 360 offers, that changes the pricing equation. You aren't being shorted by buying the $500 model, you are just getting more for the $600 one.

So I'm paying $100 extra for a Blu-Ray player I wouldn't pay $100 for by itself, and for the privilege of going through SOE for my online fix? Oh, and for the privilege of waiting an extra year to play next-gen games? Oh, and for the privilege of being SOL when they turn the content flag on, and I can't even use the Blu-Ray player I had to buy anymore?

Except that it will take many years before enough people have HDMI equipment much less players so they could even turn the flag on if they wanted - at which point you just buy a $100 player and keep playing Blu-Ray discs on that. How are you "screwed" exactly when you can still play the movies you have? Seems to me you're a bit more "screwed" if you actually pay $200 for an HD-DVD player on the 360 which can't even help store game content.

I just don't think you fully understand who's the thief, here.

And I think you are a little to quick to accuse someone of being a thief.

Re:What you get

[Control Group]

It's also better for video games as it allows more storage - it allows for larger demo discs with more playable games. It allows for more extras in games like directory commentary and making of videos. Even if you don't care a whit for HD Pixar movies it's still better for me, as a gamer.

Regarding the possible extras, granted. I wouldn't mind seeing making of documentaries and such, and 25 GB does open that possibility. I still don't think it's worth the extra expense, but at least it's something that does appeal to me as a gamer. Larger demo discs...well, sure, I suppose that would be nice, but I'm not about to start making console purchasing decisions based on how much content they can cram on a demo disc.

Well, they did actually do sort of well with a little something called the PS2. You may have heard of it. The Sony games group does have the capability for good design.

Don't confuse the PS2 with Sony Online. Sony Online is the organization responsible for such majestic hits as Star Wars Galaxies, and it's the only place Sony has to pull from if they want experience in managing an online games service. Sure, they could be starting from scratch, but then you're back to the first iteration problem. Either way, I'll only be convinced they managed something decent this time when I've seen it. Being able to borrow ideas from Apple didn't make Windows 3.x better than System 7.

Actually I point that out because so many people seem to focus on what the $500 model lacks whcih is how they justify saying the "real" PS3 is $600... but if you note that the lowest priced PS3 at $500 has everything the most expensive 360 offers, that changes the pricing equation. You aren't being shorted by buying the $500 model, you are just getting more for the $600 one.

All well and good, but it's still more expensive than the $400 360, and it will be by a wider margin than $100 when the PS3 comes out.

Except that it will take many years before enough people have HDMI equipment much less players so they could even turn the flag on if they wanted - at which point you just buy a $100 player and keep playing Blu-Ray discs on that. How are you "screwed" exactly when you can still play the movies you have? Seems to me you're a bit more "screwed" if you actually pay $200 for an HD-DVD player on the 360 which can't even help store game content.

You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one. You're willing to place your faith in the movie industry to behave with enlightened self interest, and recognize that alienating potential customers is ultimately self-defeating. You're saying they won't turn it on, and that's good enough for you. From my point of view, based on everything I've seen out of the entertainment industry over the past couple decades, I know that they can turn it on, and that's bad enough for me.

Same sort of reasoning that makes me want the FBI to need warrants to wiretap or search my home.

*shrug*

Anyway, you're right, I would be screwed to pay $200 for the HD-DVD add-on to the 360. Which is why I won't. Sony's not giving me that option, because they're irreversibly welded to the idea of getting a Blu-Ray player in as many living rooms as possible.

Re:What you get

[docdude316]

I think you're a little delusional if you think that the PS3 is going to have anywhere near full backward compatibility. The PS2 doesn't even have full backward compatibility with PS1 games and it isn't using a software solution like the PS3 will be. Personally I see them having just as many bugs and non-playable games as Microsoft has at this point. It seems to me that the only console that will come close to having "full" backward compatibility is the Wii (yes I know it uses a software solution for games from the NES, SNES, N64, TGX, and Gen, but compare emulation of an NES to emulation of a PS2 and you'll see the difference).

Re:What you get

[apoc06]

i used full in quotes for precisely that reason. currently we do not know what backwards compatibility solution will be in place for the ps3. i have heard rumors that they will include the hardware, and i have seen an official statement that said that they arent disclosing the full details of their BC. we know that sony has a trackrecord of providing solid BC thusfar, so until proven otherwise i will just have to take their word that 99.8% of titles will run.

the wii will pretty much be in the same boat, at least in terms of emulating the GC if teh wii processor isnt that much more faster than the GC.

Re:What you get

[docdude316]

the wii will pretty much be in the same boat, at least in terms of emulating the GC if teh wii processor isnt that much more faster than the GC.

The Wii isn't using a software solution for GCN backward compatibility. Since the Wii hardware is basically an extension of the GCN the Wii will be using a hardware solution to play GCN games while using a software solution for all other platforms.

Re:What you get

[Ikeri]

>Only now it's not $100 more because I also get the equivilent of XBox Gold for free, which is $50 There is one big flaw with your argument. You are assuming that Sony is not going to charge for their online service. They haven't even releases the API for their online sdk so there is no way to know just what it will be able to do. Part of the reason that M$ charges for the service is it cost them money to run it. If Sony is going to offer the same set of features (which I don't think they will) then I bet you will see a cost to it.

Don't forget the HD! $100 more.

[SuperKendall]

If you actually were unfortunate enough to pay only $400 for a 360 you still have to pay $100 more just for a 20GB HD, the same size as the one in the cheaper PS3.

The iPod of gaming consoles?

[SuperKendall]

The iPod was also just a combination of things that had been done before, but refined and polished. Even if any individual component of the PS3 is not exactly innovative, if the execution is really good then it can be very popular.

Of course Nintendo is very good at innovating and at the same time adding the polish to make it work from the start, so I think the Wii will do well. I just think the PS3 has a very good chance of still being the sucess the PS2 was, and more - because they have taken the time to improve everything about the console from a next generation standpoint at the start that enhances the primary selling point, which is power. The Wii has a different focus and it looks to do wuite well with that approach.

Re:The iPod of gaming consoles?

[caffeinatedOnline]

Hehe... trolling here, but did you really just use the words 'refined and polished' in the same post as the word Sony? Really, though, I don't see Sony having the same success as they did with the PS2. The PS2 was the much anticipated follow-up to the PS1, and while MS attempted to get into the console business at the same time, and spent ALOT of cash to achieve that, the developers flocked to the PS2 because it was a 'given' that it would be successful. This time around, though, the cards are up in the air, and I don't see any console really getting 'killer' exclusives.

Re:The iPod of gaming consoles?

[Format_see]

"I don't see Sony having the same success as they did with the PS2." Really, The fucking console isn't even released and you have summed this up, thanks Please go back to your parents basement with your Xbox360 son!

Re:The iPod of gaming consoles?

[apoc06]

right now, with the exception of halo3 and gears of war, sony has the bulk of "killer" exclusive titles. here, im defining killer as third party franchises that can be extrapolated to sell well into the 1M mark. halo isnt third party, but its guaranteed to move enough consoles, that i'll include that one.

thusfar, sony still has the metal gear, tekken, unreal tournament, devil may cry and final fantasy series exclusively. each of these will push lots of numbers. all of the wii first party frnachise titles will ease into the million seller range [metroid, mario, smash brothers, pokemon...]

the developers are lined up for the ps3, since japan doesnt seem to be all too receptive to the x360 i dont really see a mass exodus to the console. if nothing else, i can see wii third party development ramp up.

even now, im not adverse to buying all three, but someone is definitely going to wind up losing out this console generation. as much i as i can't wait to play gears of war and halo3 myself, its looking like microsoft may end up odd man out in the long run.

Re:The iPod of gaming consoles?

[caffeinatedOnline]

Thank you for a little more comprehensible reply then Format see left... heaven forbid I voice an opinion on the PS3 not having the same success as the PS2 (BTW, Format, I was out of my parents basement making 6 figures and starting a family by the time you were just moving in with your ragged copy of Club magazine and a half full jar of Vasaline.... boi)

Anyhow, more to the point was a quick google of the titles you mentioned show that Tekken and Unreal Tournament are possibly going to be released for the 360 as well as the PS3, and MGS and Final Fantasy will not debut on the 360, but will be released at a later date. The Wii, on the other hand, seems to be getting the scraps of 3rd party developers for the time being. (Not a 360 fanboi, but just trying to show that very few titles are going to be 'exclusive' this time around)

Re:The iPod of gaming consoles?

[apoc06]

i dont think the ps3 will do as well as the ps2, but i dont foresee imminent death for sony either.

the problem particularly with console game news, is that there is alot of misinformation across the net. tekken6 is only going to be released on ps3, haven't even heard a rumor to the contrary. so if you can provide a reputable link, i'd like to check it out.

UT2007 is only going to be on ps3 and the pc [with linux and mac ports down the line], although there is alot of wishful thinking for a x360 port as well. a port of UT to x360 is as likely as a port of GoW to ps3. the engines have already been created, so porting the game back and forth shouldnt be too major a deal.

metal gear will NOT be ported to x360, straight from the mouth of kojima himself.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?i d=139826&skip=yes
as a matter of fact, he went on record saying that certain effects used in the game are only available on the ps3.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?i d=140990&skip=yes

final fantasy xiii was confirmed to only be released on ps3. final fantasy versus has not been confirmed or denied having a x360 port. so maybe there is hope...

Open strategy

[SuperKendall]

I agree that selling music online is probably not going to work out well for Sony, but I'll bet because of the rivalry in consoles they will not do so becase they'd have to support the Microsoft DRM on the console - giving Microsoft a small payment for every PS3 sold!

The basic theme of the PS3 seems to be openess, so I am thinking they'll let you copy MP3's and unprotected AAC files to the PS3 to make use of them. I could even possibly see a partnership with Apple where they would allow ITMS sales from the PS3 which would be inetresting indeed... don't forget the president of Sony was on stage with Jobs at Macworld last year.

Re:Open strategy

[Control Group]

The basic theme of the PS3 seems to be openess

You'll forgive me if I believe that only when I see it, given Sony's track record.

Article said match service is free

[SuperKendall]

Sony has an online service they charge over 250 bucks a year for. That adds over a thousand bucks to the cost of a PS2. (SOE online pass for EQOA for those of you wondering just where I pulled the numbers from)

That's an inetresting bit of information but irrelevent since the whole article this Slashdot story is based on said that the online matching service was free.

But the other thing they might do.. since you ask so nicely.. is to release some MMORPGs on their service. They could just buy the rights to AC or AC2 and port them to the 360. (a lot of the "exploit/macro/botting" problems can go away when you move to a console after all)

They don't go away at all. They just change forms. Online console play is rife with cheating and many controllers offer extensive macro options making that aspect even worse (since it's harder for most people to macro PC games, no as easy to set up as a controller that features macros).

In other words, there are a lot of things MSFT might do and even though we are all supposed to rabidly hate MSFT, some of us still would not mind seeing Sony take it good and hard for all the ways they screwed over their customers in their neverending effort to achieve total media lock.

And what would those be? Are you sure you hate Sony gaming, or could it be your real enemy is Sony/BMG? Be careful to pick the right target.

I will not buy msuic from Sony/BMG because of the whole rootkit fiasco and general cluelessness when it comes to media. But I have no problems supporting Sony Gaming and the PS3, which seems to be to be trying to make a decent attempt at following a path of openess - every PS3 shipping with Linux and so on.

Re:Article said match service is free

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fool to think that just because Sony is shipping with a variant of Linux on their hard drive that the system will be an open Linux box. It is more an indication on Sony's lack of software experience than any kind of "openess". Further proof of that is their acquisition of SN Systems after their own pathetic attempts to hack gcc into a usable compiler for the Cell yielded a dev environment that was completely useless. Sony is not going to allow any kind of user-created applications. Unsigned apps aren't going to be allowed. Heck, paying developers can't even get the low-level registers of the GPU in order to get reasonable performance, so what makes you think nVidia and Sony will be more open to Joe Blow? Remember, Sony is going to be losing HUNDREDS of dollars on the hardware, and they have to make it up in software. Free software (like MAME or Marble Blast) = Sony goes bankrupt.

Re:Article said match service is free

[apoc06]

i would rather know that something runs on linux than knowing that its running on a bastardized win2k kernel. how about you? then again, i bought an xbox1 so it doesnt really matter.

if you have a problem with how sony decides to distribute linux, not a problem... it will be only a few months before the homebrew community finds a full linux solution for you. no big deal.

You must not have gotten the memo.

[BlackCobra43]

It's " $on ", to better reflect its... rich cultural heritage.

The real headline...

[steveo777]

Should read

Sony to nickel and dime gamers to stay afloat

I really don't like the idea of episodic content. I'm not paying any developer, publisher, or hardware maker more money for a game I bought (non subscription, I do play WoW) just so I can get a better gun, or a new level, but I am okay with real expansions.

Re:The real headline...

[madsax]

Uh... so you don't like episodic content. Have you tried Half-Life 2: Episode One?

Re:The real headline...

[ClamIAm]

So what defines a "real" expansion? I'd rather pay $2 for a (good) new level than $20 for an expansion that sucks.

Re:The real headline...

[steveo777]

That's a good call, but like I said. Nickle and Dime. I'd read an interview with a Sony rep who used the example I gave in my original post. A dollar for a new gun. Not a big deal to begin with, but it adds up quick. People have used that scheme for years. Ever buy a car? Well, you can get that cool looking spoiler for another 750 bucks! Only another 20 bucks a month with the financing.

Dell does it on their site too. 2Gigs or RAM for 100 bucks more, but hey, that's only another $3/month, so you can afford it.

A real expantion? I'd say a real expansion should include more than just a few more levels on an FPS. Like with Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. Each faction gets many new units. There are many new ways to play (Generals). And, the standard extra levels that last about as long as the whole game.

A better example would be BG: Tales of the Sword Coast or BGII: Throne of Baal. Each contained more charecters and hours to days of extra content.

Re:The real headline...

[captaincucumber]

I'm not paying any developer, publisher, or hardware maker more money for a game I bought (non subscription, I do play WoW) just so I can get a better gun, or a new level, but I am okay with real expansions.

Similarly, I won't eat anything with onions or mushrooms on it, but I'm okay with red peppers.

You do see my point, I hope?

Re:The real headline...

[steveo777]

Not really. See, if I went to Subway and got a foot-long turkey breast sub with onions and mushrooms, and they tried to make me pay a quarter for the mushrooms and 35 cents for the onions... I'd probably quit eating there. Not the greatest analogy.

Let's say I got a gym membership. (online service cost/month+initiation fee) Let's say they have everything I could want. Free weights, machines, and some cario machines. Say they put up a sign that says I have to pay them another 20 bucks for use of every new weight or machine after I join. It would be a one-time fee, but, hey, I can pick and choose what I want to excersice with. They're not much different from the other machines, but say the new eliptical measures heart-rate now. Nope, not worth it.

Now lets say that for 70 bucks they say I can use their all-new expantion with a running track, pool, and a big space for gymnastics, wrestling, or martial arts.

Hmm... In the first senario, there really isn't anything new, just slightly improved. No real reason to pay for it. The second senario includes different, perhaps even improvements on the old. Sure, some people may pay to use the stuff in the first senario, but most would be interested in the second.

Re:Don't forget the HD! $100 more.

[zeroduck]

The Premium 360 ($399) comes with a 20gb hard drive. Right now comparing Live to the PS3 online services is pointless, and I hope you all realize that. If Sony provides the same level of service as Live, then it's a win in the Sony column. They've hyped a lot of things in the past that didn't live up to the hype--at this point, it's much wiser to take a wait-and-see approach.

Are you a DVD box set fan?

[tepples]

If you're so against the idea of an episodic video game business model, then let me guess: you don't watch TV either, and you buy all your TV series in DVD box sets.

Re:Are you a DVD box set fan?

[steveo777]

You're right. I don't watch TV. If I do, it's a baseball game at a friend's house. I have a TV for my games, but I don't even have an antenna for the thing. For me, TV is a waste of time. One day I got so fed up with commercials (I'd been muting them for years) that I decided I really never wanted to see one again. So I shut off the TV. That was three years ago.

I read, play softball, train in kung fu, play board games and video games, go to a Twins game, jog, clean... What do I do if I need to just wind down and not think? I play some non-thought intensive games, like an FPS for some amount of time, but as opposed to TV, games at least require thought or interation. I play a lot of strategy and puzzle games, but I also like to play Mario Kart or Halo with friends.

And as far as DVDs goes, I have about 20 of them. They gather dust in a pile out of sight. I'll buy a movie used on rare occations, almost never new. I may watch them once or twice with people, but almost never by myself. Except Ronin has a special place in my heart, and I occationally will play it in the background while I'm cleaning my house.

Re:Don't forget the HD! $100 more.

[Control Group]

Huh?

The $400 360 is the premium version, which most assuredly has a 20GB hard drive. I say this with some confidence, since I spent $400 on a 360, and it has a hard drive.

I only read the article

[SuperKendall]

And I find it amazing how certain you are about the details of a service that no one outside Sony has even seen a glimmer of. Maybe you're right, of course - maybe Sony is unswayed by the proven fact that people will pay $50/yr for a quality online service.

I find it amazing you are attacking me for repeating what the ARTICLE says, which quotes Sony! Of course I have not seen the service but it doesn't take Columbo to be able to say "online matchmaking is free" when Sony publically says "online matchmaking is free".

Also I hardly think it's "proven" that a WIDE audience of people will fork over $50 a year for online play. I will not which is why I do not own an XBox of any flavor.

Perhaps they're willing to forego that revenue stream, while still providing a service of equivalent or better quality.

No, what they noticed is that people will pay $5 for a virtual horse blanket in a game! How stupid do you have to be to drive consumers away from a service with a $50/year fee when many of those same consumers pay well pay you a few hundred dollars over the course of a year with one-off payments?

Japanese games

[SuperKendall]

Sony still has much of the Japanese development force on its side though, at least over the 360 (the Wii has a similar advantage).

As for polish I am only talking about the Sony gaming stuff here. I think the PS2 is actually pretty well designed and does have a lot of polish to it, they are pretty much the only division of Sony I'd trust to produce something I'd want to buy (as a rule of thumb I avoid Sony video and audi equipment, except for camcorders which are decent).

A few last comments

[SuperKendall]

Don't confuse the PS2 with Sony Online. Sony Online is the organization responsible for such majestic hits as Star Wars Galaxies, and it's the only place Sony has to pull from if they want experience in managing an online games service. Sure, they could be starting from scratch, but then you're back to the first iteration problem. Either way, I'll only be convinced they managed something decent this time when I've seen it. Being able to borrow ideas from Apple didn't make Windows 3.x better than System 7.

I agree SOE has screwed the pooch any number of times. However the raw mechanics of the services they offer are not too bad, they can manage large server farms - it's just the game mechanics that generally suck. That's why I feel like the ability to manage server farms that SOE has coupled with wisdom from the console division could actually work pretty well, as long as SOE is not actually making games.

You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one. You're willing to place your faith in the movie industry to behave with enlightened self interest, and recognize that alienating potential customers is ultimately self-defeating. You're saying they won't turn it on, and that's good enough for you. From my point of view, based on everything I've seen out of the entertainment industry over the past couple decades, I know that they can turn it on, and that's bad enough for me.

I'll agree to disagree on this one, although I feel the reasons for my belief are pretty sound - I think the studios will not turn on the flag not out of enlightened self interest (which would indeed be very hard to believe) but sheer greed! A movie released that turned on that flag has a potential market measured in the tens of thousands rather than the millions. That's really why the studios have rejected use of the flag, because the bean counters were able to come forth and say "look at what happens if you turn this on". When money is a primary motivator I have a lot easier time believeing a large company will do something.

That is also why I advoate that if anyone is going to purchase a PS3 they should avoid the $600 model and only consider the $500 model. If people only buy players capable of non-HDCP high resolution playback for long enough, we'll start to see cheaper HD displays come out that support 1080p but drop HDMI ports to shave costs. At that point the market will be mixed enough that the ICT flag will never be enabled because of risk or marketshare loss and angry consumer returns. It's all about a marketshare for HDMI ready households being under 60% or so, that would be enough.

Messed up response

[SuperKendall]

I agree my response made little sense, I was thinking of the non-premium version when I wrote the bit about the HD being $100 - it was more a point that it brings the cheaper 360 up to the price of the premium 360, which is in turn then within $100 of the $500 PS3 model.

You are not factoring in the online service

[SuperKendall]

You're a fool to think that just because Sony is shipping with a variant of Linux on their hard drive that the system will be an open Linux box. It is more an indication on Sony's lack of software experience than any kind of "openess". Further proof of that is their acquisition of SN Systems after their own pathetic attempts to hack gcc into a usable compiler for the Cell yielded a dev environment that was completely useless. Sony is not going to allow any kind of user-created applications. Unsigned apps aren't going to be allowed....Remember, Sony is going to be losing HUNDREDS of dollars on the hardware, and they have to make it up in software. Free software (like MAME or Marble Blast) = Sony goes bankrupt.

What you are forgetting is that this round, Sony has an online service that they are going to want content for - including games they can sell online. What if you as a consumer can create a game, and sell it online with Sony taking a part of the cut? Suddenly it makes sense for Sony to welcome a flood of "free" games.

Now it may well be that Sony has to sign them in order for other PS3's to play them, something along those lines would not be unexpected. But then again if every PS3 comes with Linux and a compiler you could distribute a game in source form with a nice wrapper to compile it on anther users PS3.

I prefer to keep an open mind and assume that Sony has learned a few things from mistakes made the last round with the PS2 and Linux. After all, it is in Sony's self interest to do so in order to encourage more content to sell online.

Re:You are not factoring in the online service

[zeroduck]

Sony ship a compiler with the PS3? Thats about as likely as me winning the lottery today (and no, I didn't buy a ticket).

Could be risky

[Onuma]

Wait wait...Sony intends to make more money through "E.D." ?

Sounds like Pfizer might get a run for their money.

Reading the article...

[SuperKendall]

There is one big flaw with your argument. You are assuming that Sony is not going to charge for their online service.

That would be a big flaw indeed if the main article itself had not quoted Sony as saying they were not going to charge for online matchmaking services. It's kind of hard to read "not going to charge" any other way unless you think it means they'll not take Visa.