Sony Announces 34 PS3 Games At Gamer's Day

destinyland writes "Sony just announced a whopping 34 titles that are upcoming for the PlayStation 3. Despite record losses for the game group, their stock shot to a five-year high and they promised to eliminate 80% of their operating loss within one year. Analysts think that Sony's plan for that might include eventually lowering prices for the PS3." The 'Gamers Day' event featured a great deal of new information about Sony products and services, including the new PSP Store. Joystiq had some hands-on time with highly anticipated titles like LittleBigPlanet and Heavenly Sword.

Comments

34 Games in the next year

[drinkypoo]

How many of those are coming in, say, the next quarter? And how many of those are going to be games worth playing, and not a mary-kate and ashley title?

Re:34 Games in the next year

[Intellectual Elitist]

Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Lair, Warhawk, Stranglehold, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, Stuntman: Ignition, Heavenly Sword, and Sega Rally Revo are all due before the end of September.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[maddskillz]

All EA sports games shouldn't count as new games either. They are just rehashes of last years game, with updated rosters

Re:34 Games in the next year

[jollyreaper]

0.o They say it takes all kinds... I wish it took less.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[DrXym]

Why don't you go to GameSpot, 1Up, Neogaf, Kotaku, Destructoid, GameSpy, IGN, Eurogamer or any other game site and find out?

Re:34 Games in the next year

[hal2814]

Right. That's why they sell at new game prices and sell quite a few copies at those new game prices. I don't currently buy every year of Madden or NCAA football or FIFA but with very few exceptions, I'd much rather play the most recent year's copy than the previous year with updated rosters. If you want to talk about rehashes, the FPS genre is probably most suspect.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[JFMulder]

So, considering Lair (3rd person dragon riding), Warhawk (3rd person shooter), Heavenly Sword (3rd person brawler) and Ninja Gaiden (3rd person brawler) are exclusives (tough 360 owners can get the Xbox version of that last one), all those other games are also available on the 360 right now or will be at the same time as the PS3 version.

And those are 360 exclusives coming soon, Blue Dragon (RPG), Forza 2 (racing), Halo 3(FPS) (sigh... I must be one of the rare 360 user who doesn't care about this one) and Bioshock (FPS, on the PC too).

It's really going to be a battle of the exclusives. And in this case, the 360 actually seems to have the better hand.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[adisakp]

For John Woo / Chow Yun Fat fans, the special edition Stanglehold on PS3 will also come with the full BluRay version of the movie "Hard Boiled".

Re:34 Games in the next year

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fucking kidding right??? You're calling the FPS genre rehashes (I do agree for the most part about this, but) in defense of EA's sports titles??? I still don't understand how people come away with the impression that /. is an intellectual community.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[7Prime]

Don't forget Eternal Sonata (RPG), which is looking to be, quite possibly, one of the greatest RPGs ever made.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[hal2814]

"I still don't understand how people come away with the impression that /. is an intellectual community."

Probably because there are at least a few people here and there who don't just go along with the popular groupthink and make their own minds up about issues.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[wolfing]

What's so good about it? I saw some videos of it and, to tell you the truth, looks just like Fable to me. I am more concerned about the absence of JRPGs (turn based) in both the 360 and the PS3. Looks like Sony wants to take people away from the 360 with action games and shooters, which is not going to happen, and it's neglecting one of their strongest points, one that the Xbox and the 360 barely touch. I know in my case, I won't buy any console until I see which one has a library of RPGs. I could care less about shooters, sports or racing games.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[7Prime]

Ummm, Fable? WTF? It's nothing like Fabel. It's a cell-shaded, story-driven, jRPG that takes place in a dream world with a battle system about halfway between Grandia and Tales. How could you get any farther from Fabel?

Are you sure you saw the right video? I don't know how anyone could say it looks anything like Fabel. To me, it looks more like Tales of Symphonia.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[Mattsson]

I know in my case, I won't buy any console until I see which one has a library of RPGs. I could care less about shooters, sports or racing games. "Me too"(tm)

Seriously, I haven't seen one good title on either XB360 or PS3 yet.
Actually, for the entire 2006/2007, this goes for all other consoles too.
One problem might be that, after playing World of Warcraft for half a year, I can no longer stand any game that has a "Do task x, get object y. Kill z, get p experience. Get n*p experience, gain 1 level" style of gaming.
This includes almost all mediocre RPGs or MMRPGs, and also most of the ones I used to like but no longer can stand playing. =(

Somebody needs to reinvent the RPG.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[JFMulder]

Enchanted Arms was a nice turn-based JRPG from From Software on the 360 (it was also released recently on the PS3). Eternal Sonata is turn based too, but there's no release date yet outside Japan, except that it will be released. Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey (once again, turn based) look really cool and are almost here (August for BD, LO in December).

Re:34 Games in the next year

[wolfing]

I saw this video http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=19505&ty pe=wmv&pl=game When I said Fable I meant more like an action RPG, not a traditional RPG. Guess I should have said it's more like Kingdom Hearts.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[7Prime]

It's turn based with an action element. As I said, think Grandia (stop-time turn-based, but where the characters run around on the screen, so distance and location plays into the strategy), mixed with Tales (battle screens are button-mashers with combos and special attacks). From what I've heard, it's stop time, but then when every character takes a turn, they have a certain amount of time to perform a series of attacks executed in real-time. This way, you control all characters, and at it's heart, it's a simple Grandia-style turn-based system, but with a little more interactive element. Pretty far from an action RPG like Kingdom Hearts (which I HATED because of the action element). Even more turn based than FF12.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[Dutch Gun]

Enchanted Arms was a nice turn-based JRPG from From Software on the 360 (it was also released recently on the PS3). Eternal Sonata is turn based too, but there's no release date yet outside Japan, except that it will be released. Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey (once again, turn based) look really cool and are almost here (August for BD, LO in December). Enchanted Arms was not a horrible game, but I'm not so sure I'd even call it 'nice'. It looked very last-gen (the environments were horribly bland - compare to Oblivion and you'll see what I mean), the English voice-acting was so bad, I had to switch to the Japanese soundtrack, and the game balance was pretty lacking (they give you all these cool golems, but I pretty much played the entire game with only humans in the party).

I have to admit, Obvlivion disappointed me deeply with its flawed auto-scaling (pretty much obliterating any real challenge or need to level up, or the satisfaction of coming back to smack around some enemies that were killing your before).

So... I'm pretty much pinning my hopes on some of the 360s upcoming RPGs, such as Blue Dragon and Mass Effect. All in all, I guess I may eventually get a PS3, but only if they've got a very solid lineup of exclusive RPGs. And when they're cheaper.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[DarkJC]

Except there's a bunch you forgot. Ratchet and Clank: ToD, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune are both shaping up to be HUGE titles. Of course Halo 3 is going to sell bucketloads, but honestly I don't see how you can say Blue Dragon, Forza 2, and Bioshock are better than all the SCEA exclusives coming this year. There's more in terms of numbers, and at least three (Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, and Uncharted) that are shaping up to be top notch AAA titles. If anything, the hands are about even at this point.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[KDR_11k]

Somebody needs to reinvent the RPG.

Try one of the Mario RPGs. My personal favourite is Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. It does have stats but the combat system is a lot of fun and strongly skill-based which makes fighting different enemies much more different than "use fire on one, wind on the other".

Re:34 Games in the next year

[wolfing]

Hmm... I'm dubious about that button smashing part, when I play RPGs I don't want my reflexes to have any part in them, it's the character who has a 30 DEX, not me. Still, will keep an eye on that title (and it's not an X360 exclusive, rumor is that it's coming for the PS3 too, just not officially announced, and maybe in a delayed release)

Re:34 Games in the next year

[7Prime]

Yeah, no telling for sure... although the rumor is that it's multiplatform, and the style would fit very well with the Wii (and the graphics look simple enough), I could easilly see it going that direction.

Have you played any of the recent Tales games? Namely Symphonia and Abyss? Abyss is one hell of a great game, with amazing characters and dialog... and I must say that the battle system is lots of fun too, regardless of it being action based. If not, you're really missing out, it kicked the shit out of FF12 for traditional RPG of the year, IMO (exclusing Okami and Zelda).

Re:34 Games in the next year

[wolfing]

Well, normally I just divide RPGs (console RPGs that is) in either turn-based or action. I stay away from action and play turn-based ones. One day I tried an action RPG because, maybe I was wrong, maybe I could like them. Checked one with very good reviews. Kingdom Hearts had an almost universal 9.5/10 score or something, so I tried it... Didn't like it. So, the first thing I see is if it's action or turn based, and limit myself to the turn based ones. I guess I prefer selecting an action from a list of 20+ instead of remembering that I have to press XXYX for the fireball instead of XOXY for the lightning bolt. But I may give it a try to those you mentioned, maybe rent them or something.

Re:34 Games in the next year

[7Prime]

I hated Kingdom Hearts. I played it for about 8 hours and gave up. The battle system was terrible, the characters were unappealing, and it was no fun to play. Give the Tales series a shot (either Symphonia or Abyss, both are incredible). They have an action element, but their game philosophy, overall, stems more from the turn-based side of things. Basically, they are like a turn-based RPG in every way, until you hit the battle screen.

In many ways, it's sort of the perfect action-rpg for those who hate action-rpgs... sorta like Metroid Prime is the perfect FPS for people who hate FPSs (myself included).

Hmm..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So, where's the list? If they have 30+ I want a list of names, not figures and 3 names.

Re:Hmm..

[UbuntuDupe]

Oh, I got that right here. My close, personal friend, Dick Marks, posted them here. The one I'm REALLY looking forward to, is the untitled, unannounced sports game from a to-be-determined studio.

Re:Hmm..

[CastrTroy]

Wow, they're coming out with 34 games, 9 of which are called Untitled, with no release date, and quite a few others that have a name, but still no release date. Is anybody less than impressed with this list of games?

Re:Hmm..

[powerlord]

The best list of upcoming titles I know of is http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/ message?message.uid=27804779#U27804779

Unfortunately it doesn't list release dates, and I'm not sure how often it gets updated.

Re:Hmm..

[tbannist]

Did you even look at the date that was posted? It's from December, so chances are it's not the list they announced yesterday.

Lower the price?

[grogdamighty]

"Despite record losses for the game group, their stock shot to a five-year high and they promised to eliminate 80% of their operating loss within one year. Analysts think that Sony's plan for that might include eventually lowering prices for the PS3." Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how do you eliminate operating loss by lowering prices? Is this one of those crazy "make it up in volume" schemes?

Re:Lower the price?

[hal2814]

You see they're going to let you sell them and you'll get a cut of the sales. Now you can get someone to sell them for you and then both you and Sony will get cuts of the sales. That chain can keep on going. Eventually, you'll be able to get enough people under you that you don't even have to sell PS3s anymore. You can just watch the money pour in from your underlings selling PS3s.

Re:Lower the price?

[alvinrod]

Imagine if you will, that Sony has produced six million PS3 consoles up to this point. If they have sold roughly half of those for six hundred dollars and lose two hundred on every sale, then they will have lost six hundred million on the consoles they have sold, but will have lost nearly two and a half billion dollars on the consoles that they haven't sold. If they were to drop the price of the console to five hundred dollars and sell the remaining three million, they would cut losses by one and a half billion dollars. They've still lost money, but not nearly as much.

Of course Sony likes to push the number of units shipped usually so perhaps they have sold six million PS3 consoles, at least to retail outlets. Of course if the number of sales by the retail outlets it low, they won't buy any more units from Sony. At some point, Sony gets stuck with extra consoles that they haven't sold.

This is the reason why anyone who says to buy a console selling for a loss to put Microsoft or Sony out of business is an idiot.

Re:Lower the price?

[orclevegam]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how do you eliminate operating loss by lowering prices?

Well, seeing as the PS3 is just sitting on retail shelves at its current price they're not really making any money off of it. So, if you lower the price, and sales pick up, your making more money. A little income, is better than no income. Besides, the units have already been manufactured, and prices have also come down on the components I'm sure. They really have no choice but to lower the price, if they don't they'll never catch up with the others, and they might as well just write the PS3 off as a total loss.

Re:Lower the price?

[Aladrin]

You've made a bad assumption. Your scenario assumes that Sony will not produce and attempt to sell any more consoles than it has already produced. They can only cut their losses on the currently existing ones if they don't plan to make any in the future. Otherwise, there's future losses at the reduced price that negate any 'cut losses' on the current inventory.

If Sony really WAS going to stop producing PS3s forever, they would have to cut the current ones to a ridiculous price to sell them.

Sony's not giving up any time soon.

Re:Lower the price?

[alvinrod]

Additionally, getting extra PS3's into the wild will increase the number of game sales which also increases profit for Sony. In addition to this, every PS3 out there is also a Blu-Ray player and helps move Sony a few steps closer to winning a format war that they've invested a lot of money in. If Blu-Ray wins out, people are more likely to start buying Blu-Ray players and Blu-Ray movies (both of which Sony sells) which will also generate some extra revenue for Sony.

There are probably a few more angles I haven't seen, but I think that covers most of it.

Re:Lower the price?

[Rolgar]

They know how many units they have to sell to reduce costs by more than they're cutting their price. The hard part will be getting enough decent games on the shelves to get people to buy a system and multiple games to make each sell a smaller loss.

I don't know if Sony has any back inventory PS3s sitting in a warehouse somewhere, but if the number of units available is any indication, Sony has a lot of units to move. People might think that cutting costs will make them lose more money. Sure, lose more compared to selling every unit at it's current price, but if they aren't selling fast enough, you're better off taking a bigger loss now to accelerate getting your economies of scale (where your R&D and fixed costs matter less). Of course, if they don't sell, you'll end up paying for a bunch of product you can't sell.

Good luck to them, I won't be buying one at any price.

Re:Lower the price?

[thepontiff327]

Well as the blue laser diodes are costing them less a price drop may not increase or decrease operating loss per unit but it may increase numbers sold. I know I am sitting on the fence with all the "journalists" speculating on price drops. I would hate to buy one now to have it be $100 less by the end of the year.

Re:Lower the price?

[aichpvee]

Ok, so let's go back to the GP's example. If Sony has produced 6 million PS3s. They've only managed to sell 3 million at $600. Losing $200 per console they've lost 600 million on the consoles they've sold, but 1.8 billion on the consoles they haven't sold.

Now if they could sell the remaining 3 million PLUS an additional 3 million consoles by cutting the price to $500, they'll lose the same 1.8 billion but they'll have increased their installed base by 200%. Meaning more games sales, since it's pretty safe to bet that most people will pick up at least 1 game. This would be the sensible thing to do if your business model is based around "giving away" the hardware and making it back on software and over-priced accessories.

Obviously this won't account for an 80% cut of losses, but you can see how it would be advantageous for them to cut the price even if they aren't discontinuing the system. This also assumes that PS3 hasn't become cheaper to produce, which it most likely has.

For the loss cutting I'd wager that they claimed a lot of the R&D as losses last fiscal year and without that on the books this year (or less of it anyway) it'll look like they've lost a fuckton less money.

Re:Lower the price?

[DrXym]

Those record losses undoubtedly include a lot of one off charges. I doubt the market is too bothered by those.

Re:Lower the price?

[tkrotchko]

No, but it probably exposes a little bit of the ridiculous claims that Sony is losing massive amounts of money per console.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/sony-losing-mad -loot-on-each-ps3/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/88295/son y_losing_money_on_ps3_systems.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061116/085020.s html

And it proves the point that as consoles age, they become much cheaper to produce.

Re:Lower the price?

[revlayle]

It's like the Video Game division of Amway!

Re:Lower the price?

[Anonymous Coward]

You pretty much nailed it.

The other angles would be that someone who have bought a PS3 might be inclined to buy a big-ass HDTV and a surround sound system (both of which Sony sells at a nice profit) to take advantage of their shiny new PS3.

Also more units sold, means it gets easier to entice game houses to release more titles for the console.

Re:Lower the price?

[amuro98]

Sony's math doesn't make sense.

Sony has built 6 million consoles. Let's say each console costs Sony about $800 to make (probably a low figure). That's an immediate cost of $4.8 billion. Regardless of what they actually sell each console for, they had to spend $4.8 billion first.

3 million consoles so far have been purchased by consumers for $600 each, so Sony made $1.8 billion, and is now only $3 billion in the hole. (heh..."only -$3bil...")

If Sony drops the price to $500, and sells the remaining 3 million consoles, they'll only make an additional $1.5 billion, leaving them with -$1.5 billion.

Even assuming Sony incurs no more expenses for their fiscal year (additional consoles, marketing, salaries, rent, utilities, etc etc etc.) to eliminate 80% of their debt, as they stated, they'll have to make approximately $1.2 billion from sales of games and accessories. If we assume an average of $20 in profit to Sony for each game or accessory sold, that's still means every one of those 6 million PS3 owners will have to buy - at a minimum - 10 accessories or games.

Granted, Sony has been able to improve their manufacturing processes for some of their more expensive components, and will undoubtely also save a little money on each console that doesn't ship with PS2 hardware inside for backwards compatibility, so newer PS3s won't cost Sony as much to build. Even so, Sony will still have to depend on each and every PS3 owner out there to buy a solid dozen games or accessories within the next 12 months.

Re:Lower the price?

[amuro98]

Huh?

There are already plenty of PS3s "in the wild". If you want one, just go to your local store and get one. No waiting. It's not like Sony is hoarding PS3s or anything, nor are stores facing a shortage (real or artifical) as they are with the Wii. I see plenty of PS3s (and 360s for that matter) in stores, but I've yet to actually see a Wiii on a shelf.

The problem is, they just aren't selling. It's overpriced, it doesn't have enough exclusive games, and its multiplatform titles don't look any better than its cheaper competitor, the Xbox360. As for Blu-Ray, no one really cares about that either. The total of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD COMBINED have yet to account for even 1 percent of what DVD sells in a month. Even Blu-Ray's target market - the high-end videophile - isn't interested because no one likes a format war. Furthermore, there's strong evidence that we'll see a hybrid player later this year that'll play DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray. At that point, the PS3-as-a-Blu-Ray-player will be obsolete, just like every other single HD format device out there.

Putting more PS3s on shelves isn't going to help Sony sell more games. Getting people to buy PS3s will help Sony sell more games - but at what cost? Yes, yes, selling consoles at a loss and making that money back with the sales of game and accessories is the common business practice here.

Right now, the PS3 is too expensive (based on its performance compared to the 360) and doesn't have a large enough and compelling enough library of games - especially exclusive games.

Re:Lower the price?

[powerlord]

Those record losses undoubtedly include a lot of one off charges. I doubt the market is too bothered by those.

Exactly. Sony took a similar hit on the PS2 during the first year post release.

Re:Lower the price?

[DrXym]

There are probably a few more angles I haven't seen, but I think that covers most of it.

Don't forget HDTVs. Sony is selling them by the metric shitload.

Re:Lower the price?

[IpalindromeI]

I would hate to buy one now to have it be $100 less by the end of the year.

I know you didn't relate your entire financial setup in your post, but waiting six months or more to save $100 doesn't seem like that great of a deal. Especially if you consider all of the time you'll lose to actually play the thing. Plus, you don't even know that the price will drop (although I think it might), or that the drop will be $100 (unlikely, in my opinion).

I'm not a PS3 supporter, but I am a supporter of people weighing their options more critically. Life's short, delaying six months of fun to save $100 doesn't seem worth it.

Re:Lower the price?

[NonSequor]

Most of those one time costs are capital expenditures (costs used to acquire durable assets). I don't know that much about corporate finance, but I'm pretty sure that operating losses don't include capital expenditures. Or at least, if they are, then they are probably amortized over the life of the asset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_expenditure.

The idea is that if a company buys something that's going to last a long time, the cost for it needs to be spread out over the lifetime of the asset to prevent front loaded costs from distorting their profit reporting.

Re:Lower the price?

[tbannist]

There's another issue that's hurting PS3 sales... There are still some good PS2 games coming out. I know there's a lot of PS2 owners who won't upgrade to the PS3 ever, but I suspect there's a lot who are waiting for the price drop, but are content to wait a year for that $100 drop because they can spend that time playing the good PS2 games that are still coming out, or the good one's that were previously released but haven't played yet.

It's not a matter of delaying six months of fun, unless you have no alternatives. It can be considered rearranging your fun to take advantage of an expected future event, rather than delaying it. I know I've got a couple of good computer games to play (Galactic Civilizations 2, Heroes of Might and Magic V), some good PS2 games (God of War, Disgaea 2, Final Fantasy XII, plus at least a half dozen others) before I start looking for a new console. Plus for me, the biggest reason to upgrade to a PS3 will probably be when the new Dynasty Empires for PS3 comes out. I love the co-op games. There's still the issue that the games I really want aren't on the PS3 yet. Dynasty Empires, Ratchet & Clank, FFXIII. So if my purchase comes after a price drop, I've saved a little money.

As for the 360? No thanks, I'll get more than my fill of Halo 3 from playing it at a friends place and even Blue Dragon doesn't interest me that much. For some reason, the game doesn't appeal to me, I suppose I grow tired of games featuring childish heroes. It's still the console of choice for FPS, which just isn't my cup of tea.

Get a higher paying job?

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta pay to play.

Doesn't mean much

[AKAImBatman]

Sony just announced a whopping 34 titles that are upcoming for the PlayStation 3.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a single gem like Super Paper Mario than 34 unnamed, generic, run of the mill "games". I'm sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore. I don't have time to play constant mediocrity. So a single really fun game is going to appeal to me more than a gluttony.

And while I'm on the topic, I'd like to point out that Super Paper Mario literally defines what Nintendo means by "fun over graphics". The graphics are quite pretty vector drawings, but there is no $4,000,000, ultra-realistic, shiny armored characters that look good on an HDTV. Instead, the company put their budget into every aspect of the game. There are nearly a dozen different "pixls" you can pick up, giving you a wide variety of methods of solving puzzles. EVERY character in the game has its own lines. There are no "generic" NPCs. The storyline (while quite lengthy at times) is amazingly well done and lends itself directly to the gameplay. All the towns and areas have rich histories and plenty of text about the characters that populate them. The gameplay itself changes quite often. Besides the usual jumping around, there are amusing street-fighter-type battles, a cute NES-style RPG simulator, passcode protected areas, puzzles requiring special button presses or a specific order of block bashing, switch puzzles, item combinations to make new items, a shoot'em'up boss level, etc, etc, etc.

I have been making a point of purchasing most of my Wii and Gamecube games at either used or below retail prices. But Super Paper Mario was worth every penny I paid for it. It is truly a fresh game that drives the bar of quality ever higher. If the PS3 had a game like Super Paper Mario, I can tell you that they'd be selling a LOT more boxes right now. Even at $699.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[AKAImBatman]

Sorry, s/699/599/g

Re:Doesn't mean much

[toolie]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a single gem like Super Paper Mario than 34 unnamed, generic, run of the mill "games". I'm sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore.

Uh oh, now you've done it. Prepare for the onslaught of 'Mario?!?! LOLZ, what r u, 14?' comments.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[hansamurai]

How do we know that within those 34 games, there isn't a "Super Paper Mario"-equivalent for either you or some other older gamer? Everyone has different tastes, some people like specific genres, some people will play something from every genre. I've grown out of the stage where I must own the latest and greatest right now and I really only have time for a couple of new games a year, yet I can still find those games across platforms and appreciate them, even though they're not Mario. Right now I'm playing Okami, Guitar Hero, Puzzle Quest DS, and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Now that may sound like a lot but considering I only have a few hours a week, those will last me a long time. I only have time for games that are worth playing, I don't try to hold every game I play up to Chrono Trigger, but I'm not so elitist towards game companies or platforms that I don't even consider them.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[DrEldarion]

What's to say there won't be a few amazing gems in there? Why do you assume they'll all be generic and run of the mill? As far as I know, there's nothing preventing anyone from making fun games for the PS3.

Also, "fun over graphics" makes me roll my eyes. Get this through your heads, people - the two are not mutually exclusive. For a non-PS3 example (to avoid fanboy accusations), see Gears of War. I have had a ton of fun playing games on my Wii, but I am very frequently wishing for higher-resolution graphics.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[pl1ght]

Sorry, while paper mario might be fun. It just doesnt cut it in my book of what I consider fun. Id take Heavenly Sword any day over Paper Mario. Different tastes for different people. Nintendo understands the ADD generation where ridiculous short party games are all that many ppl find fun today. Some of us others still enjoy the epic detailed intricate hard games that come with 360/PS3 territory. Not to mention Multiplayer capabilities.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[AKAImBatman]

Nintendo understands the ADD generation where ridiculous short party games are all that many ppl find fun today. Some of us others still enjoy the epic detailed intricate hard games that come with 360/PS3 territory

Not epic and detailed? You obviously haven't played Super Paper Mario.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[theantipop]

I completely agree with you about SPM. I just finished the game yesterday and the culmination of gameplay elements into the last boss was astoundingly well done. Not only that, but I "beat" the game and there is still lots of stuff for me to go back and play around with. It's one of the best platformers I've played since Super Mario World, and it's got just the right amount of RPG in it.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Reapman]

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps there are good games in there? Not all will be triple A quality, probably not even half, but I know that games like the new Ninja Gaiden are looking VERY promising. I've never played any of the earlier ones, but after playing the demo all I gotta say is WOW. Oh and here's a news flash, did you know you can get good graphics AND good game play in one package? Yes I know, it's hard to believe but the two can exist together.

BTW - although I sold my GameCube, I have several of the Nintendo games including the previous Paper one, waiting until I Can find a Wii in stock somewhere. So I don't consider myself a fanboy, just someone who likes what they like, and I like the PS3 and Wii for seperate reasons.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[AKAImBatman]

What's to say there won't be a few amazing gems in there?

Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up." Very few people think in terms of how many Wii games are coming. (Most of them are the boring market analyst types.) Nearly everyone thinks in terms of Super Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Party, Strikers, NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, etc. i.e. Powerful titles that carry weight in their names. Not "We've got X number of games coming to the Wii!"

Also, "fun over graphics" makes me roll my eyes. Get this through your heads, people - the two are not mutually exclusive.

I'll get that "through my head" when you agree to get this through your head: There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. There MUST be a balance between the two. Super Paper Mario took the opposite extreme. It used a 3D Vector Drawing engine to produce 2.5D graphics (they're really 3D, but you usually see them from one side) of a drawn nature. The engine isn't going to win any awards on photo-realism, but it does the job very nicely.

The money that the Intelligent Systems team didn't spend on graphics was then able to go to story line, scripting, level design, puzzle design, game variations, item variety, character design, etc. The result is a stunning example of a game that is nice to look at, but truly pulls its weight in the gameplay department.

Remember, graphics don't make the game fun. They enable fun games to be created. If you don't balance the two, the result is games that aren't fun. (With the CD-i Zelda titles being the extreme end of that.)

Re:Doesn't mean much

[toolie]

Nintendo understands the ADD generation where ridiculous short party games are all that many ppl find fun today. Some of us others still enjoy the epic detailed intricate hard games that come with 360/PS3 territory.

I'm over 5 hours into Paper Mario: Lost in Time and doubt that I'm 1/3 of the way through the game yet. I hardly doubt that qualifies as an ADD game. Some of the fights are a major pain in the ass. Its possible I just suck at it, but I doubt it.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[DrXym]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a single gem like Super Paper Mario than 34 unnamed, generic, run of the mill "games". I'm sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore. I don't have time to play constant mediocrity. So a single really fun game is going to appeal to me more than a gluttony.

And how do you know that none of these games are gems? To blanket dismiss all of them is sheer idiocy especially since you seem to know nothing about any of them.

I don't think it would be any exaggeration to say that if Little Big Planet were a Nintendo game that people such as yourself would be raving about it right now. But since it isn't a Nintendo game, you simply hand wave it away and claim it to be "mediocre". Likewise with hotly anticipated titles such as Drake's Fortune, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank and Warhawk, ALL of which are getting extremely positive previews.

And while I'm on the topic, I'd like to point out that Super Paper Mario literally defines what Nintendo means by "fun over graphics". The graphics are quite pretty vector drawings, but there is no $4,000,000, ultra-realistic, shiny armored characters that look good on an HDTV. Instead, the company put their budget into every aspect of the game.

Fun is not inversely proportional to graphics. Another silly assertion.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[fistfullast33l]

Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up."

Umm, they did. They didn't just release a press release consisting of one sentence - "We've got 34 games coming up." They had info sessions for each of them. Want coverage? Go here. At least 30 links for you to dive into for about 25 games/environments (Home isn't really a game and it has 5 links). Plus streaming video.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Anonymous Coward]

Ninja Gaiden are looking VERY promising. I've never played any of the earlier ones, but after playing the demo all I gotta say is WOW.

Ever see a movie where the trailer for the movie was better than the movie itself? Modern games are like that too. The demo is cool, but when you buy the full game you find that everything you wanted to play was actually in the demo. Suddenly, 20-40 hours of gameplay seems a lot more like 18-38 hours of drudgery.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[AKAImBatman]

From your link:

OK, so what actually "was reported"? It looks to me like you were handed a cd full of screenshots by Sony and then ran home and uploaded them. Nearly all of the screen shots have already been posted to this site or other sites weeks if not months ago.

Is this seriously all that came out of SDG?

Seeing as the 2.0 firmware notes seem to have been a fake, I was really hoping for something more out of SDG than just a bunch of screen shots. --Travis

I am bit dissapointed as well for no announcements. Isnt today the last day? maybe they will have a "grand finale" announcement - like Star ocean 4 exclusive or some other exclusivity. --shase

Looks and sounds like a whole bunch of nothing to me. --haywood jablomey

Your link doesn't really prove your point.

Digging through all of that link-cruft, it seems like the only "must have" title is Little Big Planet. (Which is not new information.) If it's as good as Sony is claiming it's going to be, it may help sell a lot of PS3s. But that's still a pretty small list. The rest is your standard list of sequels and military games. WarHawk, Devil May Care 4, Rainbow Six, MLB '07, Ninja Gaiden, etc. While each may be a moderately fun game in of itself, nothing really reaches out to me to make me want to part with $599 of my hard earned cash.

Some of the upcoming PS3 titles will be available on the PC if I'd like to play them there. My wallet is still not opening. They'll even be cheaper than the PS3, and be available in the bargin bin in a year. Nope, I got better things to spend my money on.

Sony NEEDS "must have" games. Games that will reach out and pry people's wallets open with a crowbar. So far I'm not seeing them.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[CastrTroy]

I as well as many other people (along with the OP) are aware that Fun and Graphics are not mutually exclusive. However, they both come from the same budget. I'd rather have a game that had it's budget split 70/30 on fun/graphics than a game that was 30/70 fun/graphics. Many games seem to have only 10/90 fun/graphics split which produces some really nice looking games, but they aren't really that fun to play. Some of the games I had for GC that were really fun without extrememly good graphics are Chibi Robo, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, and Zelda WW. The graphics on some of those aren't terrible, you can see that they spent more of their budget on making the game fun rather than making it look good.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. "

Oh, please. If this were truth, then it would have to apply to all video games that have ever been made, even old ones where graphics were so limited that they were typically done by one guy. But miraculously, there were shitty games back then too! Even when they could focus ALL of their effort on the gameplay and not the graphics and music, there were still many lousy, half-assed games.

History doesn't agree with your statement, and neither do I. Just take a look at Wii's lineup right now. Graphics that range from hideous to decent, but gameplay? According to gamespot, there's only been 1 game that scored higher than a 9/10, and the majority that approach a 9/10 are old virtual console titles. If your statement were truth, there'd be far more gems than stinkers out there, but there aren't.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[bigstrat2003]

Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up." I call BS on this statement. There's no reason they can't do both, and indeed, you make it sound like high-profile games aren't coming to the PS3. I guess FF13, GTA4, and MGS4 don't exist to you? Saying the PS3 doesn't have any spotlight games coming up is about as ridiculous as saying the same of the Xbox 360.

I'll get that "through my head" when you agree to get this through your head: There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. There MUST be a balance between the two. Super Paper Mario took the opposite extreme. It used a 3D Vector Drawing engine to produce 2.5D graphics (they're really 3D, but you usually see them from one side) of a drawn nature. The engine isn't going to win any awards on photo-realism, but it does the job very nicely. The money that the Intelligent Systems team didn't spend on graphics was then able to go to story line, scripting, level design, puzzle design, game variations, item variety, character design, etc. The result is a stunning example of a game that is nice to look at, but truly pulls its weight in the gameplay department. So you've never, ever played a game which had great graphics and great gameplay to boot? I feel bad for you if that is indeed the case. It doesn't sound like you accepted the GP's point at all: graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. Some games, for example, don't need tons of new gameplay mixed in to give us what we expect. When the next version of UT comes out, the fans of the series know what they're getting into, gameplay-wise. The improvements in gameplay will be evolutionary, not revolutionary, but the improvement in graphics should be extreme. There's a good example of graphics trumping gameplay in terms of development time.

Not all games are an established FPS series, you'll say, and I agree. So for an even better example, I bring you a game straight from the same camp as your example: Final Fantasy VII. Like Super Paper Mario, it's an RPG. Unlike SPM, FF7 was hailed at the time, as I recall, for its stunning graphics, especially the CG cutscenes. FF7 is also (rightfully so, imo) hailed as one of the greatest RPGs of all time, if not the greatest RPG of all time, if not the greatest game of all time. It earns this praise for its story, and its gameplay, both of which are very endearing to people.

So, not just any game, but an RPG, like Super Paper Mario, which had great graphics, and great gameplay and story as well. You have one example of a game which is fun without cutting-edge graphics, but your point (or what seems to be your point) falls apart, because we can pull up example after example of games which are damn fun while still having great graphics.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Anonymous Coward]

If the PS3 had a game like Super Paper Mario, I can tell you that they'd be selling a LOT more boxes right now.

You mean something like Little Big Planet?

Re:Doesn't mean much

[benzapp]

It's true though. I'm 29, and I first played Super Mario Brothers when I was 7. I've had enough. Please, let us move forward from these tired characters.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[badboy_tw2002]

Oh Lordy Lords...can we please just be done with that old "Gameplay vs. Graphics" chestnut? I love playing the Wii and all, but I really hate the spineless doublethink that gets brought up as soon as someone mentions something from another platform. "Ugh, probably just some pretty pictures on some $10,000 HDTV no one owns - I for one prefer GAMEPLAY in my GAMES over GRAPHICS, but maybe that's just ME and not some beer-guzzlin sheeple - sniff sniff"

I've worked in game development for a while now, and have done programming and project management. Let me assure you, we do not have a column with dollar signs that says "Graphics" and one that says "Gameplay" and add money to one and subtract it from another. You know what makes great games? Great ideas, great designers, great execution. You really can't polish a turd, but you can take a great idea and make it a steaming pile by not executing on it. Execution means polish, and polish a lot of the time means a high graphic standard (not photorealistic - Okami anyone?) Here's another fun fact: Artists are cheap. The real cost in HD game devlopment is still what it always was - engine development, tuning, optimization, getting that 60 fps so you don't look like a chump (well, that's a programmers point of view :). So all those "skyrocketing prices of next gen game development!" FUD pieces you read, well, no one around here suddenly went "oh shit, HD, we need twice as many artists, and we need to shudder our windows with $100 bills so the HD looks really good!" Game development hasn't changed because suddenly the resolution doubled. Hell, HD was passed a while back on the PC, and you never saw any "oh shit, now we're totally screwed" pieces in the PC world.

The fact of the matter is, a good game is a good game. Graphics can and do make a game more enjoyable. The two aren't mutually exclusive, no matter what the Nintendo PR (is it even them saying that?) machine would have you believe. After all, where was that talk when the Gamecube was putting out equal or better quality graphics as the Xbox/PS2?

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Floritard]

I bought Paper Mario a week ago. I love platformers, so I was pretty psyched about this game. I was lead to believe this game would be much less RPG and more straight up action than its earlier outings, which I welcomed. Wrong! God it takes like 20 minutes to actually get into the game and I was mashing buttons ignoring as much inane character text as I could. I dread the thought of ever starting over again, just like that damn Twilight Princess game. I was also lead to believe it was a good old 2D platformer with the option of switching to 3D, but alas, you actually have to switch to 3D often to solve puzzles, gah. Last time I played, I found myself begging for a save point so I could just turn the damn thing off. I anticipate really getting into it eventually, unlike Twilight Princess which I finally just traded in, but I was definitely left cold the last time I played.

OTOH, I found the little bit of footage that I've seen of Little Big World to be very interesting. I'm sorry but it just strikes me as odd that anyone could say PS3 has nothing like Paper Mario when it has this great little gem coming out exclusively from a solid little dev house with a bit of indie cred. I for one won't be buying the PS3 unless someone drops a steaming dump of greenbacks on my chest, but I really don't wanna buy a 360, especially if they're half as loud or likely to breakdown as I hear online. If Sony doesn't lower the damn price maybe I'll just sit this generation out and play with my Wii, but at least they seem to realize it's all about the games. Here's hoping Sony pulls their heads further out of their asses than the people at Microsoft can.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[ravenshrike]

True, but getting something as intensive as the Fallout or BG series just doesn't happen lately. Instead you get oblivion, which as a game prety much sucked, but as a tech demo/single player gimped MMO was quite good. Or you get NWN, which had an ok storyline but was still pretty damn linear. Ah well, here's to hoping the expansions will be more like HotU.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[powerlord]

I as well as many other people (along with the OP) are aware that Fun and Graphics are not mutually exclusive. However, they both come from the same budget. I'd rather have a game that had it's budget split 70/30 on fun/graphics than a game that was 30/70 fun/graphics. Many games seem to have only 10/90 fun/graphics split which produces some really nice looking games, but they aren't really that fun to play. Some of the games I had for GC that were really fun without extrememly good graphics are Chibi Robo, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, and Zelda WW. The graphics on some of those aren't terrible, you can see that they spent more of their budget on making the game fun rather than making it look good.

Yes, but I'm far too leery, that most developers will just say "slash the budget on art, and we can have bigger profits all around".

Just because a game might cost less to produce in one area, doesn't mean the money saved is going to go into the other areas instead.

I'm not saying that it can't happen your way, and I hope you are right, because more developers need to think of the game design and wether it is fun, but I see the shovel-ware headed to the Wii and expect thats the way 90-99% of the titles will end up.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[7Prime]

Oh good god... Just drop the others and play Okami, already. That game is 70 hours+ of pure absolute amazement.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[Reapman]

No kidding, however I don't think that is a PS3 problem, as much as a gaming in general problem.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[WillAffleckUW]

Sorry, s/699/599/g

I think you meant s/PS3/Wii/g ...

Re:Doesn't mean much

[MMInterface]

Its not just you that feels that way but that would be a really sad situation. Consoles should not have only one or two good games. I agree Sony's lineup is not good and their strategy has been the worste of the 3 but I'm not ready to jump out and buy a Wii either. I play the Wii with friends but its not something I spend hours playing by myself. I think its innovative but equally overhyped. If I get one in the future it will not be because of Wii Sports or Mario Paper, it will be because one of the Gundam games was actually great and the consoles popularity attracts a good lineup. To be honest I find World of Warcraft much more addicting and far more apealing to my tastes. I like fun games but I also like to immerse myself in a setting that I find apealing. I'm tired of Mario. I'm tired of looking at him. Its just not for me anyone. I also disagree that Mario Paper is the reason for the Wii'ss sucess. Its the controls and the its influence on the gameplay. With Mario Paper people are excited that they can actually do something with it besides Wii Sports. If it came out on the Gamecube it wouldn't be that big of a deal. I'm not saying the stuff you mention has no value I just think it goes over most consumers head and I also dont' think Nintendo has created some monopply on good games. The 360 has a solid lineup there are some damn good PC games out there. Right now I'm on the PC and PSP and just waiting for the console thing to play out.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[DrXym]

"Fun over graphics" is one of those idiotic remarks made by some Wii owners to defend the system. Of course games can be fun on the Wii, no one claims otherwise. After all, games were fun on lesser systems. But as you say there is not some inverse rule where fun decreases as graphics get better. After all by that definition it means the N64 is more fun that the Wii.

The Wii is simply underpowered compared to the other "next gen" consoles. Games have to work within the limits, but it doesn't mean other systems are less fun. People have a ton of fun playing Oblivion, or Gears, or Resistance, or [insert any game here]. I can't imagine Oblivion or Gears being more fun on the Wii especially since everything (not just graphics) that makes those games great would have to be slashed to make it fit in the reduced architecture.

Re:Doesn't mean much

[tbannist]

He's a Nintendiot, according to his way of thinking anything that's not for a Nintendo console is, by definition, garbage. I agree that it's sad to see uninformed rhetoric getting modded up. This is the same garbage we've been seeing promoted on slashdot since the price of the PS3 was announced.

Full list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Full list of games or it never happened.

An actual list....

[Churla]

There's more of an actual list, although still only showing about half of the games, over at 3 -games-sony-strikes-back/>Gamer.Blorge.com</a> But even then of those (which I assume are the best ones in order to get mentioned) only about 3 are exclusives. The others are either going to be available on many platforms, or just sequels to franchises... A good summary was over on Fark somewhere..

SingStar Another franchise entry
Heavenly Sword
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Movie tie-in
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Movie tie-in
Madden NFL 08 Another franchise entry
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas Another franchise entry
Grand Theft Auto IV Another franchise entry
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway Another franchise entry
Ninja Gaiden Sigma Another franchise entry
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent Another franchise entry
The Bigs Not exclusive, seems like a lame faux sports title.
NCAA Football 2008 Another franchise entry
Timeshift PS3 Not exclusive
Assassin's Creed Not exclusive
The Darkness Not exclusive
Lair
All Pro Football 2K8 Another franchise entry (Used to be the ESPN NFL line)

You have basically 3 exclusives.. yay.

Re:An actual list....

[Churla]

Curses, I thought choosing Extens would put that URL in there right..

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/05/17/34-new-ps3-game s-sony-strikes-back/>Gamer.Blorge.com

Re:An actual list....

[RorthronTheWise]

You are missing actually the most important of them all: LittleBigPlanet. That one is a paradigm shifting game, and will actually sell PS3s by the buckloads

The other 3 you mention, are actually the most important games in the list.
Heavenly Sword, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and Lair. Each of them are the only ones worth having, with the possible exceptions of GTA4. See their previews in 1up!

Re:An actual list....

[speedy.carr]

Although they may be franchise titles, that by no means indicates that they will be bad. I for one know that all they have to do is hint that GTA IV will be anywhere near as good as any of the others, and I'll be on it in a flash. It may be a franchise game, but it has LOTS of replayability, a relatively open environment to fool around in, and lots of other good things going for it. You can't just dismiss every franchise game as being crap, there are lots of people who love the sports games (they might not be on /. , but they do exist), and GTA is an amazing franchise. I have loved every incarnation of it and will probably continue to do so as long as they keep making them.

Re:An actual list....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing no matter how good is going to sell PS3s at it's current price. Here's why: most consoles are still sold to kids and most of them receive them as gifts for Christmas or their birthdays. For a typical kid, a PS3 is worth at least three birthdays worth of presents. I came from what some people would call a rich family and a $600 would have been completely unattainable for me (even after considering inflation).

Unless they can get the price under $200 within the next two years they'll have trouble even selling 20 million consoles.

Re:An actual list....

[tbannist]

Isn't "Super Paper Mario" a "franchise" Mario entry and a sequel to "Paper Mario"? Doesn't that mean it's a franchise of franchise? Does that make it bad, or maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't judge a game to be bad simply because it's a sequel?

Re:An actual list....

[ivan256]

(which I assume are the best ones in order to get mentioned)

You assume incorrectly. They are they ones that are most recognizable. Pirates, and Harry Potter, Madden, etc... The games on the list were mentioned for name recognition, not in reference to the relative quality compared to the others.

Though who cares if it's a "franchise entry"

[Sciros]

Twilight Princess is "Another franchise entry." Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros Brawl, Metroid Prime: Corruption, etc. -- the games that make the Nintendo Wii's holiday season (hopefully) worth waiting for through the current drought are all "franchise entries." Mind you they are also technically "exclusives."

Cross-platform franchise entries such as NBA 2K8, that's a different story. Those I agree aren't worth getting excited about, at least not over a particular console.

Also, I'd call Ninja Gaiden Sigma a "PS3 exclusive." It's not Ninja Gaiden or Ninja Gaiden Black, really, and it's also not being released for the 360 (sadly, as I am a NG whore).

Anyway, don't think I'm disagreeing with your general sentiments; I'm not. The PS3 is really lacking in titles that make the console worth purchasing. That list does little to change that.

Re:Though who cares if it's a "franchise entry"

[Osty]

Also, I'd call Ninja Gaiden Sigma a "PS3 exclusive." It's not Ninja Gaiden or Ninja Gaiden Black, really, and it's also not being released for the 360 (sadly, as I am a NG whore).

It's not Ninja Gaiden 2, either. Sigma is to Black as Black was to the original -- a slight addition to gameplay (or graphics, in Sigma's case), minor control tweaks (like Black's new camera control), a little bit of extra new content, but otherwise it's still the same game with the same story. If you've played the original or Black, you've played 90% or more of Sigma. Definitely not a $600 system seller, by itself.

Re:Though who cares if it's a "franchise entry"

[Sciros]

Of course I am well aware of all that. If it *were* Ninja Gaiden 2, the Ninja Gaiden whore that I am, I'd be making the argument that PS3 *does* have a system seller, hahah. Sadly I'm still waiting for Itagaki to get cranking on that. I suppose in the meantime I can play the DS game, but I'm not sure how great that will be. I like my DS, but I hate the touch screen with a passion. An analog joystick makes me far happier...

List of the nicest games:

[RorthronTheWise]

This is just a summary of the best ones * Heavenly Sword * LittleBigPlanet * SOCOM Confrontation * Folklore * Uncharted: Drake's Fortune * Lair * Ratchet & Clank A good summary with screenshots, comments and videos can be found on 1up: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3159592 LittleBigPlanet, Folklore, Lair, Drake's Fortune and Heavenly Sword are all of them very bad news for the Xbox360 and even the Wii. Yes, even the Wii. Oh and take a laugh with the Pain simulator!

Duh

[Adam Zweimiller]

Maybe if they cared enough to fix some of the HUGE issues with the PS3, consumer adoption would be higher. Like the 720p problem. I have a Panasonic 27" 1080i CRT HDTV in my bedroom. It does NOT suppose 720p and goes black when a 720p source is fed to it over component. Therefore, I can only get 480p out of my console for games designed to run at 720p. The games that do run at 1080p take a huge hit in framerate and are downscaled to 1080i. Sony has put out many updates to the PS3 and is even now working on firmware 2.0. They have had ample time to fix this and have not. I do believe the presence of a scaler chip was proven to exist in the PS3, however sources conflict on this. On another note, I think the price point of the PS3 is insane considering its competition. It is true that consoles in the past, when counting for inflation have been just as expensive if not more so. Therefore, the $600 price tag is not inherently insane, but considering the $400.00 and $250.00 price points of the X360 and Wii respectively, it is absurd. Proponents point to the BluRay suppose and the cost of the HD DVD addon for the X360 as proof that the consoles cost the exact same in the end. Yeah, but the difference is I opted for that functionality. That's good for two reasons. 1) By the time I got my X360, two games, an extra controller, I wasalready at almost a $600.00 cost for the console. Honestly I wouldn't have had another $200 right then and there to get the PS3. I loved being able to go pay the extra $200 months later and get the HD DVD addon (which I can use with my PC!) at my leisure and choice. Even now, becuase I got my HD DVD drive first, I am a staunch supported of the format. I don't care to buy BluRay movies at all. So when I bought my PS3, I had to shell out $200 more for functionality I don't need or want. And no, I don't buy the argument that next-gen games just absolutely NEED that kind of storage capacity. So yeah Sony, stop shoving your Superior Formats(TM) down our throats and rootkitting our computers, you might actually start making money!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a modern TV then you twat. How old is that tiny 27" CRT, 5+ years? If you don't want HD, piss off any buy a Wii.

Re:Duh

[skobar]

His TV does support hdtv... What do you think 1080i is? Not everyone has money for changing TV every 5 years...

Re:Duh

[fistfullast33l]

How about the $50 you pay anually for XBox Live - it's deferred payment, but it's still there. And you won't be getting something like Home either.

Consumer choice is what it's all about - as a Linux user I find $600 to be a steal for the console, as well as the wireless and the remote play capability between my PSP and PS3 - which at some point will allow play over the internet. Even being able to play my PS3 not on my TV in my own house is great for those situations when girlfriend wants to watch Sex in the City reruns instead.

You can be unhappy and all that, but I'm a very satisfied customer and I think there are others out there who'd agree.

Re:Duh

[grommit]

Sucks to be an early adopter doesn't it? No, you just had to get the HDTV as soon as it came out and now you've got one that doesn't support the better HDTV formats. You also had to get the PS3 before it's glaring problems were fixed.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it Sony's fault that you bought HD too early and your TV doesn't support 720p? It looks like you bought a piece of shit and your real complaint should be with Panasonic. Shitheel.

Re:Duh

[Adam Zweimiller]

No, it doesn't suck. The TV supports 1080i just fine, which is what my cable box outputs. Even most upscaling DVD Players output at 1080i. The only problems I've had is with the PS3. Two more points: I said it was the TV in my bedroom for a reason. I bought the damn TV for $500 dollars when I was a freshman 3 years ago, when HDTV's were MUCH more expensive. It was a deal then and I've enjoyed it immensely. The reason it's in the bedroom is because I have a 61" 1080p Samsung in the living room with the 360 hooked up to it. I only want the PS3 in the bedroom that way I can play it when the fiancee is on the X360 (or vice versa). I do not regret buying the TV, but I do regret getting the PS3. Xbox Live is $50/year, but it Just Works(TM). XBL is polished, well organized and integrated, with lots of features and good performance. Also, charging charging tends to keep the 8 year olds from running amok in games and teamkilling or whatever else. I usually get a XBL card at Christmas from someone, so it's not really money out of my pocket.

Re:Duh

[amuro98]

Based on what I've seen of "Home", I'm not interested.

Does Sony honestly expect people to spend time (and money?!?) decorating their virtual "apartment" and arranging their gaming trophies so they can invite other virtual friends over to look at them?

I'm sorry, but that's insane.

Furthermore, does Sony honestly expect me to log into Home, walk my virtual person out the door, and down the street to the virtual store so I can see what new games or demos are for sale? Again, that's insane. I don't want the hassle of having to play with Home just to do what should be rather straight-forward, non-multiplayer-activities.

Now I have heard some other good stuff about Home - such as better coordination between players when setting up a game - but this just shows that Sony should have had Home ready to go a long, long time ago, instead of launching the PS3 with a sort of hacked-together mess of an online service that doesn't even support every game.

Re:Duh

[benzapp]

Maybe if they cared enough to fix some of the HUGE issues with the PS3, consumer adoption would be higher. Like the 720p problem. I have a Panasonic 27" 1080i CRT HDTV in my bedroom. It does NOT suppose 720p and goes black when a 720p source is fed to it over component. Therefore, I can only get 480p out of my console for games designed to run at 720p. The games that do run at 1080p take a huge hit in framerate and are downscaled to 1080i.

Umm, this is total bullshit. I have a 42" 1080i/720p Toshiba LCD, and it works fine via HDMI cables. I haven't found the framerates of any game I own unusual or unacceptable.

I don't care to buy BluRay movies at all. So when I bought my PS3, I had to shell out $200 more for functionality I don't need or want.

I think you're in the minority. Everyone to whom I've shown Casino Royale has been blown away. I think HD movies are great, and right now my PS3 is my only DVD/Bluray player. Other HD players are the same price as a PS3. Quite frankly, given the low quality of cable/satellite HD channels - a bluray/HD-DVD player is the only way to REALLY see the benefit of an HDTV. I mean seriously, you spend $1,500 on a television - why would you want to wait for HD players to go down in price? Even if it's 6 months, that is a major benefit of an HD player you paid for that you are not using for an extended period of time.

And no, I don't buy the argument that next-gen games just absolutely NEED that kind of storage capacity.

The folks at Rockstar disagree with you. They have already publicly stated that they are having major problems fitting the necessary data for GTA4 on a single DVD.

So yeah Sony, stop shoving your Superior Formats(TM) down our throats and rootkitting our computers, you might actually start making money!

See, this is the kind of stuff that indicates you are just trolling. Bluray is NOT Sony exclusive - it has more industry support than does HD-DVD. And whatever else Sony has done, it is nowhere NEAR as bad as Microsoft. At least I'm happy running Yellowdog Linux on my PS3. I could never do that with another console.

Also, as someone who makes a decent 6 figure income, I could never imagine buying all three consoles and simply have a POS 27" TV. Like most trolls in the console wars, your entire post is a rant made up of misinformation. You don't actually own all these consoles.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually get a XBL card at Christmas from someone, so it's not really money out of my pocket.

One day when your actually PAYING for things, you'll find its quite obnoxious to be hit for $50 a year.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be thankful you're not a PS3 customer in Australia, 600USD is currently about 730AUD but the PS3 here costs an absolutely ludicrous 999AUD (821USD)!

Re:Duh

[Adam Zweimiller]

Coward, I get this as a gift for Xmas, but why do you assume I don't pay for anything? I own my home, make all the payments, in addition to working my way through school. So don't be in such a hurry to trash other people just because you're a foaming at the mouth Sony fanboy.

Size Matters

[MorpheousMarty]

Everything you said was right on the money... right until the end. I think in 2 years you will really start to feel the limited space of DVD. To support my claim look at the features in Splinter Cell Double Agent across all consoles. Sure, there may be a million reasons why the 360 version isn't the most feature packed one, but it seems to me that a good candidate was the space, as when you take a game HD you need the space for graphics. Lets all wait for GTA IV and see what happens. If the PS3 version has more features... think what will happen in 2 years.

Re:Size Matters

[powerlord]

To be fair, the difference isn't only the size of the optical media.

Devs for the XB360 also can't rely on a hard drive being available, which might limit things also. Of course MS may decide to be more lenient on this and just "suggest" that core owners purchase the proprietary (and expensive) hard-drive upgrade in order to get new content.

I'm sure the masses would love that. :)

Graphics

[huckamania]

This is just what the gaming world needs, 34 games that play exactly like games from 5 years ago but with pretty graphics.

Damn, still can't find an unbundled Wii...

Re:Graphics

[WillAffleckUW]

Got to love them graphics. Too bad two-thirds of people with HDTV sets capable of 720i or 1080p can't even figure out how to get a higher res than 480p, which is what the Wii cranks out ...

Re:Graphics

[DarkJC]

What? The Wii cranks out 480p with component cables. If they know enough to buy component cables, guess what, they know how to get up to 1080i. Troll somewhere else.

Re:Graphics

[WillAffleckUW]

If they know enough to buy component cables, guess what, they know how to get up to 1080i. Troll somewhere else.

Sadly, this is untrue. Many people bought the HDMI cables but hooked them up incorrectly, getting confused between their DVR, their cable box, their HDTV, and all the other gizmos. According to actual surveys of real customers, 2/3 of people with HDTV are only getting 480p on the set end. Adding in a game box confuses them even more.

In a perfect world, everyone could follow instructions and get their electronics working.

Instead, most people have 12:00 flashing on and off.

Re:Graphics

[DarkJC]

You missed my point. If they can get to 480p, they can get to 1080i because it involves the same amount of setup. If they are as you describe, they'd still be at 480i, which isn't the max the Wii or the 360 or the PS3 outputs. 480p on the Wii requires the component cables and changing the system setting to 480p. 1080i on the PS3/360 requires component cables and...changing the system setting to 1080i.

My response was based on your original post where you said they could get to 480p. Not that they would simply leave it at 480i even with component cables.

Re:Graphics

[WillAffleckUW]

Ah, then why do surveys still show that most still don't run even close to the resolution of their HDTV set?

Interlaced or not, it's still a far cry.

Wake me in 2009.

That's not sony's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

"It does NOT suppose 720p and goes black when a 720p source is fed to it over component. "

Yeah, Sony should fix that, but aren't you a tad upset that your TV has such a ridiculous bug in it?

Unfortunately not

[Anonymous Coward]

The HDTV spec is 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i.

If it does not support those resolutions, it is not HDTV compatible.

He seems to be complaining that he bought an out-of-spec TV.

Re:Unfortunately not

[xero314]

The HDTV spec is 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i. Ah crap that means all those 1080p TVs are not HD, and all this time I though they were. The vast majority of HD TVs in use today do not support all the possible inputs, and none support all the resolutions natively. At best the TV has a scaler built in, but many do not, specifically in those that are 1080i native. Not even to mention that 480i is Standard Definition, and 480p is Enhanced Definition. According to the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), the standards comity behind HDTV, HDTV is 1080i, 1080p or 720p. According to the US Federal Standard 1037C, HDTV is "Television that has approximately twice the horizontal and twice the vertical emitted resolution specified by the NTSC standard." and " HDTV may include any or all improved-definition television (IDTV) and extended-television (EDTV) improvements. " The "HD Ready" label in the EU has only been a standard since 2005, which is newer than many HD tvs already in use, and it does specifically state the TV must accept 720p and 1080i inputs, and must display 720p or higher native resolution.

One game to Rule Them All

[WillAffleckUW]

One game to Rule Them All
One game to Bind Them
One game for PS3, and not for Wii or xBox360

In the Shadows where the PS3 moans

Three games for the Elven Kings in their Halls of Shrubberies
Full of graphics but with POV that makes them unusable

Five games for the Dwarven Kings in their dank cold basement flats
Hack and slash with no plot

Seven games for Mortal Man, Doomed to Die
FPS is all you get

One game to Rule Them All
Still cannot be found
It, alas, is ported to the Wii
And to Nintendo is Bound!

The PS3 version won't have more features...

[DarkJC]

Rockstar has gone on record saying they've been having difficulty with the DVD9 limitation of the 360, and as a PS3 owner, it sucks thinking about what the game could've been had both systems used a higher capacity format. Honestly, the storage space is needed, and that's one of only two things I think are wrong about the 360 (the other is a non-standard hard drive...they pioneered standard HDs last gen, why step backwards?)

Don't be dense

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah crap that means all those 1080p TVs are not HD"

Only if they don't support the other resolutions.

"The vast majority of HD TVs in use today do not support all the possible inputs, and none support all the resolutions natively"

That almost sounds inciteful, and yet with the exception of CRT's, nothing supports everything natively. It's impossible on a defined pixel display. So most TV's will choose one resolution to support natively. Of course. We all get that. That's different than not supporting 720p. That's like not supporting 16x9 and then claiming HDTV. It's a silly argument.

"According to the ITU (International Telecommunication Union),"

Right, so if the guy would set the PS3 to output 1080i, he'd be all set. He has a set that doesn't conform to specs and then seems mainly mad at Sony for not supporting him better. Please. It's a whine.

"and it does specifically state the TV must accept 720p"

And almost any set made in the past 3 years does support 720p. His doesn't. And then he gets mad at Sony. Personally, I think Sony is a bunch of rat bastards, but his anger seems misplaced.

Re:Don't be dense

[xero314]

I don't think the original poster is particularly mad at Sony, the just would prefer it if, like most HD out putting equipment such as upscaling DVD players, the PS3 would beable to atleast cross scale a game that is natively 720p to 1080i so his tv, like the majority of 1080i native tvs, could display it in the highest resolution he has available. When 1080i TVs, like the one I happen to own, where being made 720p to 1080i scalers where neither cheap nor fast, and the fast part is the more important. TV manufacturers, including high end TVs like my Mitsubishi, chose to not put the 720p to 1080i cross scaler in their units for good reason. If the cross scaler were to delay the video feed in the scaling process even a little it would cause video and audio to be out of sync, specifically if the audio was being run directly to a receive and not through the TV. This is why GH II had to put a lag control in the game. If the scaling takes place in the unit of origin then the audio and video can remain in sync.

Personally I find the lack of a built in up-scaler (it down scales just fine) in the PS3 annoying as well, but for me it just means not supporting companies than don't take advantage of the 1080 capabilities of the PS3. That is until Sony updates the firmware with a up scaler. It will probably be another year or two before I replace my TV, waiting on 1080p projectors to be reasonably priced, so just like the OP, I too take issue with Sony's decisions.