Slashdot Mirror
In Wake of Price Drops, Further PS3 Doubts
Sony fans undoubtedly cheered the news of a $100 drop in price for the 60GB PS3, but even with the price drop there are several issues surrounding the console. 1up reports that the 80GB PS3 is following the lead of the EU-released PS3s by removing the Emotion engine and relying on software emulation for backwards compatibility. In an effort to decrease costs Sony continues to reduce features and develop their product. Meanwhile, Konami executive Kazumi Kitaue doesn't see much impact from the cut ... and in fact told Reuters that they're seriously considering a multi-platform release for Metal Gear Solid 4. "Kitaue said Konami may need to expand the target hardware for its blockbuster fighting game Metal Gear Solid, which has so far been developed for Sony's PlayStation machines, to other consoles in the future to recoup development costs ... The release of the latest version of Metal Gear Solid series is expected to help lure hard-core gamers to the PS3 and alleviate concerns over scarcity of strong PS3 titles. Underscoring sluggish PS3 sales and robust demand for the Wii, Nintendo shot past Sony in market value last month and bumped the Tokyo-based electronics conglomerate off the list of Japan's 10 most valuable companies."
I was really hoping to get MGS4 for my Wii60 :)
I doubt I'd be all that pleased. To me, it would seem that I payed $100 too much since they're dropping the price so soon after launch.
For some reason that kind of surprised me. Sony is such a huge company with their music label, movies, consumer electronics, computers, video games while Nintendo is pretty much only in the gaming market. The Wii must be really selling a huge number of consoles to climb over Sony like that...
Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!! Software emulation as been in the Euro consoles since release over there. No features are being taken away at all. This is a gaming console we're talking about, not a PC. There is no disadvantage of emulating in software rather than hardware. There are no background apps that will be starved for CPU time because the emulation is in software rather than hardware!
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
It's kind of like a Catch-22, with Sony stuck in the middle.
Price flamewars aside, the main issue with the PS3 is its library isn't really spectacular. Without a decent library (either general or exclusive titles) it is not going to sell well, even if it was the exact price of an XBox 360.
So, Konami is thinking about not making MGS exclusive to the PS3 because the sales have been poor.
But the sales won't increase without publishers hitching their star to the PS3 as exclusive titles (even if it's just exclusive for a year or so).
Then again, I don't see why 3rd party publishers go exclusive anymore. If you can increase sales by 50% by simply recoding an existing product then go for it. Note: I'm a software developer and I know very well that's not as easy as it sounds. But it's obviously possible asince it's being done now (even across the Wii and the 360, which are as different as you can get).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The price cut will definitely steal buyers away from the 360. Why buy a 360 for $400 (or $480) when you can get a PS3 with free online, HDMI (only 360 Elite has HDMI), Blu-Ray player, free online forever and a free MMO forever (Home). In addition there's no big quality problem with the PS3. Unlike the 360, the PS3 is well-engineered and doesn't suffer from widespread overheating problems. Yes, M$ upped their warranty, but sending your console away to get fixed is still downtime.
People think the PS3 is trash or the best thing ever, it is plain that the Sony braintrust has to do a serious rethink as to their marketing, packaging, partnerships and PR in regards to their console. A $100 price drop isn't going to help their cause much. They gave Nintendo a lesson back in PS1 vs N64 days, a lesson they seem to have forgotten.
Last generation, the XBox was my "Don't WANNA" console. I didn't want to buy it, but I had to for Ninja Gaiden. So I basically spent hundreds of dollars for one game, and I only played Halo 2 on it after that. (Actually, my computer was my primary game machine, but out of the consoles, my PS2 got used the most, primarily as a DVD player.)
I'm not doing that ever again. (Especially now that I'm married and my wife would kill me.)
So this generation the PS3 has become my "Don't WANNA" console. I don't wanna have to buy it, and I probably won't, even if Final Fantasy XIII remains exclusive to it. There are no games that will make me spend the ungodly amount of money I'd have to drop on the PS3.
I have the HD-DVD add-on for my 360, and in retrospect I think it was a bad purchase. Thanks to the HD war, not all the movies I want to see are available for HD-DVD, and I find that when I'm forced to resort to regular DVD...I don't really care. I'm just as happy either way, to tell the truth (with my 1080p tv). I could've and should've waited, and I can tell you from experience, HD movies aren't worth a 200 dollar player right now...and they CERTAINLY aren't worth a 500 dollar player.
What have they screwed up besides the unreasonably high price? I wouldn't want them to scrub the PS3 and start over, the replacement would just be MORE expensive.
Username taken, please choose another one.
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think people really like to rag on the PS3 for not being vary successful, but it seems to me that it's not doing terribly bad. If you look at sales numbers and align the launches of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, the PS3 is more or less on the same track that the Xbox 360 was on.
If you check Amazon you can see that the PS3 moved up to the number one selling item in the video game section. I think it was substantially lower (If I recall correctly it was 28th) before this from what I've been reading on other sites.
With E3 and the possibilities of some big ticket games being shown, It's possible for Sony to pick up even more steam. They've done a lot to shoot themselves in the foot, but I think they can still make a decent showing this round. Right now it's outpacing the Gamecube and the original Xbox, both of which were wonderful systems with great exclusives. I think Sony is given a lot more crap than they deserve.
At any rate, for myself, selling me a crappier system for $100 less is worse than selling me the real deal for the original price.
And the glass is only half empty if you drank the water first, right?
Bullshit. The Xbox was basically a PC, and compare the games from the beginning of it's life to the end. Vast difference in quality. I have no doubt that 360 games will continue to look better as time progresses. The PS3 may in fact have more grunt than the 360 (though from what I've read, the 360 sounds to have the better graphics subsystem while the PS3 seems to have a far more powerful CPU) but to say that the Wii and 360 have already maxed out on their graphics is asinine.
Software emulation on the PS3 works just as well as the hardware emulation!!
Not according to Sony's own compatability list for the EU PS3. While many games work fine, there are also a significant number in the lowest-score "noticeable issues" category. Also note the caveats, like how you should skip optional FMV sequences and how you shouldn't use network modes due to graphical corruption.
The fact is without even the specifics it should be obvious that software emulation will not work just as well as hardware emulation. Which isn't emulation at all, it's hardware compatability, it's physically utilizing the original PS2 hardware that the game was originally designed to run on. With the hardware "emulation", you basically have an actual PS2 to run your PS2 games on. The Emotion Engine is not simple, and creating a perfectly compatible software version that exactly matches not only every bit of functionality but also the relative timing of operations which many games depend on is very difficult and not something that is going to be made perfect. They will necessarily have to go on a case-by-case basis finding games that depend on a particular quirk of the Emotion Engine and fix them and issue patches.
I'm not saying the software emulation is crap, and if the games you want to play are well supported according to the compatability list then you should be good to go. I am saying that the switch from hardware compatability to software emulation has hurt backward compatability. That's not FUD, it's a fucking fact. Which should be obvious, because before the EU PS3 release they didn't even have a compatability list because there was no point.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yea guys. The Cell processor is pure chocolate magic. Don't forget that. Just like the Emotion Engine before it. Remember the raw emotion that little baby pumped out! It was crazy town. Wait, what?
I understand that Sony has dropped the price of the PS3, and I understand that they've updated its internals for the sake of manufacturing expense.
But it seems to me that the feature set available to the user are identical. Am I missing something?
Since the 1.8 firmware, even the models that have the hardware emulation have been using the software emulator if you enable upscaling. Yet the emulation is still better than acceptable. Certainly, I prefer it to my non-upscaled actual PS2.
But you should swear about it, and turn it into a huge issue, and pretend that it's worse than the competition, etc... Go right ahead. It's what we expect from the Slashdot 360 Fanboy, er.... Slashdot Games section.
That is all you need to know. Think of how many billions they have made on that simple fact. It isn't like it costs $8 to print 10-20 cards. You are seeing pure profit in the card game. Not to mention the millions in TV franchise rights, movie revenues, and finally video game sales (which also happen to require requisite video game consoles which also sell at a profit unlike competitors). It has been a cash printing machine for the last 10+ years. It makes more money at less risk then any music business can.
You also forget that Nintendo owns a LOT of different IP which they license to many other entities. Their entire business model is based such that even if console tanks, they have enough cash to continue onwards. They keep their development costs low as well as their production costs and make sure they always are making a profit on each and everything they sell so they do not have to rely on future revenue from game sales to make a profit. They have had several systems which have flat out tanked in the past, but have always been able to continue through the market ups and downs (unlike some competitors, Atari, Activision, NeoGeo, SEGA... who couldn't last a single bad console release).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
What are you talking about?
The emotion engine is the core of the PS2, it has nothing to do with the speed or quality of PS3 games, and the PS3 CPU is fast enough to easily emulate the PS2 and more. In fact, as the software emulator gets better I fully expect PS2 games will be better on the PS3 than they were on the PS2.
Screw-up is harsh term for the PS3 thus far. I wouldn't ding them that harshly. Once the price issue is removed, it isn't a catastrophe, it's just...not the best. It's got online and it's free, but it's just not as good. Interface has a few nice features like internet browsing, but overall, it's not as tight of an experience as Xbox360 with relation to gaming, and this is a gaming console. On the other hand, the Wii is far worse, so I wouldn't say the PS3 is doing terribly here, just not as well as the Xbox360.
Games and lost exclusives, it is indeed Sony's job to make sure the games are in place, this is their biggest problem IMO. They didn't have enough of the right games, and have lost exclusivity on some of their better ones. But this is very much a matter of opinion, and I don't see them doing terribly here, just not as good as the Xbox360 or Wii in targeting the seperate markets. The Xbox360 is a direct competitor to the PS3 in terms of the games being fielded, and it's winning, while the PS3 can't compete at all with the Wii for obvious reasons.
So while there are no catastrophic mistakes aside from the price added by packing in Blu-ray, coming in 2nd-place in all categories leaves this console without a clear picture of what it's good for and who should buy it.
If I were to pick the worst part of the PS3's performance, I would have to stretch to include the marketing. It has been pure CRAP. Truly terrible. You would almost think that they have intentionally been sabotaging themselves. Have you seen the "This is Living" campaign? Soccer fanatic lying naked except for a jockstrap masturbating to a soccer game on TV? A busty-blonde pooping in a toilet telling stories about her mother? The mercenary's clip had a superb performance by the actor, really good stuff, and unfortunately, the message was that you should go and buy a bar of chocolate. However, this was a European campaign.
The U.S version was not that much better, though it had improved later on to actually show some clips of a game (Resistance). However, it had kicked off with a plastic baby crying blood to the sounds of Armageddon in a white room. Apparently they're trying to tell you that the PS3 kills babies and will bring about the Eschaton.
But as I have said, the PS3 isn't that bad of a package aside from the pricing. The games will happen someday, and when they do the PS3 will pick up some momentum. I don't think it has any chance of catching the Xbox360 or Wii. However, the PS3 has successfully established the next media format. HD-DVD is dead in the water since there are so many more blu-ray players in the wild. And releases will go to the format with the most people who can play them. And people will buy the format with the most releases on them...etc. etc. So Sony has that at least. Whether that translates into PS3 sales later on due to Blu-ray's lead on HD-DVD is questionable though.
He says: With $500, you can buy a personal computer.
No you can't. Not one that lets you play the new games at the same quality as the PS3 anyway.
The PS3 may or may not be too expensive still, but not for this reason.
Do a bit of digging for the technical specs on the PS3 and 360. You'll find that the 360's graphics hardware is in fact superior to the PS3's, and its memory architecture is more flexible.
Developers will come to know the power of the PS3, true, but they'll also come to know its limitations. And in these days of tightening deadlines and limited budgets, it is unlikely that many developers will even complete the learning process.
The console death spiral: gamers aren't buying, so developers hold back. Devs hold back, so gamers hold back even more. And so on...
The PS3 has begun its descent already. It will take a lot of time, money, effort and random luck for Sony to dig it out. It's not impossible, but it's also unlikely. Good luck...
Heck, Legend of Dragoon is a PS1 title and is given their lowest rating for playing in software mode.
This is why Nintendo is winning this war, folks. Sony and Microsoft have narrowed their focus to the testosterone-junkie market, leaving all the little kids, old folks, and females to be served by the DS and Wii.
My wife is the big gamer in our house. She owns almost console ever made. Yet until Ratchet & Clank comes out, there won't be anything on the PS3 to grab her attention.
------RM
And besides, the overwhelming success of the Wii should show that, despite what a certain type of elitist gamer would have everyone believe, *most people don't really care about "cutting edge graphics"*!!!
This will help when it comes to anyone who hasn't bought a PS3 or 360 yet, I'm just not sure how much going to impact people who have already bought a 360. There isn't much reason to own both, as the exclusive are (for the most part) rather similar in genre and nature. Barring games like Dead Rising and MGS4, the exclusives are mostly analogous.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Ok, Sony Started out with 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. Now they have 2 versions selling at $499 and $599. The feature spec is now different, but how is that a price cut? For the sake of comparison let's take Sony out of the picture and compare Cameras.
Last year you could buy a 5.1 Megapixel camera solo for $199, or a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $249.
This year you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, & extra batteries for $199, or you can get a a 5.1 Megapixel camera with a bag, extra batteries and a memory card for $249 and they no longer sell the 5.1 Megapixel camera by itself.
You are getting more for your money, but at the core you're buying a camera at the same price as was offered last year.
If you want to buy a console to play Blu-Ray movies, then your argument holds water. If you wanted it to play games, you'd happily buy a 360 and some games or extra controllers instead of the PS3. On top of that, expect lower prices for the 360 soon, and an improved manufacturing process that will help lower the defect rate. I am interested in adding a PS3 to my 360, Wii and older consoles but I honestly can't think of a single PS3 exclusive that I want to play. I will probably wait for the next price cut, in the hopes that some AAA titles will come out between now and then.
I was going to go buy a PS3 this week after the price drop, but then I remembered that the only game of any interest available on the PS3 is some car racing game that I can already play on the XBOX 360.
I'm happy to buy a PS3 as soon as they manage to get at least a few PS3-only games that I absolutely want to play.
But hey, it's only been nine months. You can't expect a company to release at least one good game in only nine months, right?
The price of entry for the average Joe looking for a PS3 is still $500. While he's getting more for his money, the minimum amount of cash he needs hasn't changed.
Some people will get ebayed PS3s cheaper, but that isn't the primary method by which any console is bought (save for the first 24 hours after a launch).
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
This sounds like the commentary of somebody who hasn't spent much time with a PS3.
I used to think exactly what you just said, but my console experience this generation was limited to the 360, and the Wii. I had only played with store demo PS3s. I recently picked up a PS3, though, because I needed a new DVD player, and I wanted the upscaling and the BluRay support, and I must say that i'm generally impressed with the interface; even the online parts. "Tight" is exactly how I would describe it, and everything about the system. It's the first console I've ever owned that doesn't feel like a toy. I was also surprised to find that the downloadable content for the system far surpassed what was available for the Wii, which basically only has "classics" (read: old games; only some are truly classic). I haven't even turned my Wii on since I bought the PS3. I was also surprised by how open the system is. Standard memory card formats, many codecs playable from standard media servers, the ability to upgrade the hard drive, the controller being a HID compliant USB games controller.... Very un-Sony-like, but also very good.
I do agree that the marketing for the system is terrible though. And the game selection is still mediocre. The price was a little steep for me, which would mean that it was really steep for a college kid, or a parent, but with the price cut it'll hurt a little less.
Who said anything about it being worse than the competition? Point me to one quote in this thread saying that. What people are saying is that emulated back compat is not as good as hardware back compat, and that this means that the newer model PS3's are not as good (in this specific respect) compared to the older PS3's. That's all.
There's no doubt that the PS3, even using software emulation, is better at BC than the 360 - but the original PS3 implementation and the Wii are both better yet as they include the actual hardware.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
The graphics architecture on the 360 is only better if you ignore the cell proc. However, if you even task 1 SPC to graphics processing the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water.
Holy Fanboy, take off your tinfoil cap! The parent never compared the PS3 to the 360, they merely explained that software emulation is worse than hardware emulation.
The GP did say Sony, and I know I've read many comments, many previous to launch, where people were planning on not buying because of the PC root kit fiasco. They've also been severely trashed for not having rumble in the controller. I hear their isn't much to their library, and nothing you couldn't get on the 360 so why spend the extra cash.
I suppose all of the other PS3 issues relate in some way to the price of the console. When Sony first announced the price of the console, the executives acted very aloof like they were giving customers the privilege of being able to buy a PS3 at $600 (Apple has managed to do the same thing with a phone that also requires a $40 service plan and get adored for it), made statements about how the next generation didn't start until they launched, and generally acted like they didn't care what the customers thought and people should be lining up to give them money just because they're Sony. That's not a very customer friendly attitude to have, and has made everybody that felt condescended by Sony look at their product and decide that there isn't enough of a difference between the PS3 and the 360 to warrant the higher price, so they'll get the 360 since most games will be ported anyway.
Sony also has not paid attention to the history of consoles, and how no $500 console has ever done well. Further, all of the tens of millions of people that bought the last system are now about 2-6 years older than when they bought a PS2. For the twenty and thirty somethings in that group, many are now married, have kids, and the $700 or $800 (because you want games with that console right?) commitment is not as feasible that the $400 or $500 of the PS2, and many have also decided "been there, done that" for most of the games, and decided not to ante up for the newer model when they older one does just fine, or they've moved to the 360 for a better online experience, or to the Wii to try something new.
The last round, the Xbox was the hard core system, the PS2 was mainstream system with the GameCube. It's like Sony decided they wanted to switch roles with Microsoft, and go after the higher end market. HELLOO!!! You guys kicked the crap out of the Xbox last time because they were the high end system, and you were more affordable, and you decided to go after their part of the market, and left the core open for Microsoft and Nintendo to swoop in and take it away from you.
Also, with the PS and PS2, Sony used misinformation and hype to bury their competition because everybody waited to see what Sony had to offer which made the Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn and Dreamcast suffer, and Sony managed to do well enough to beat those offerings plus the N64, GameCube, and Xbox. This time, they're competing with a 360 that is comparable to the PS3 on value basis and a Wii that wants to take away the casual gamers that Sony had last generation.
The biggest thing of all has been the word of mouth. Sure, Sony kicked Nintendo's tail on launch week. But it didn't take long until word of mouth got around and demand for the Wii was through the roof. My wife reads lots of parenting magazines, and every one of them has had articles recommending a Wii for family friendly fun so that the family can spend time together while playing instead of junior hanging out in a corner of the basement alone, and they have the option of providing junior with active games so he'll be in a little better shape than he would be with any PlayStation game other than DDR or Guitar Hero. They also option of playing games that they played 10-25 years ago, and wouldn't mind playing again, with their kids.
Apparently they're trying to tell you that the PS3 kills babies and will bring about the Eschaton.
Hell, had I known that, I'd have bought one already!
I won't, because there wasn't one. That doesn't mean it's not relevant though. Nor does my saying that invalidate the rest of my point. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but last I checked, the PS3 was competing against another system, not against itself. Comparing it to the competition isn't what you do when you're a "fanboy" (as your sister post implies), it's a sane comparison. If I had only mentioned the comparison to the competition, you might have had a point.
I'm sorry if I offended your system.
While you were focusing on the fact that I mentioned the 360, you missed my actual points, which were that the software emulation is actually preferable in the majority of cases (due to upscaling), and that it's being used on the older systems (even if they have the chip) anyway.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The PS3 still has a chance to be successful. In the end it may not be the dominant system, but it can still do quite well. However, it has one giant obstacle to overcome, even larger than it's price tag. And that's a lack of games.
The PS3 is suffering from the same problem as the PSP, most games available for the system are crap. There are quite a few that are decent, for the PSP anyway, but virtually none that truly stand out. The cost of the console and questionable media format are mostly secondary factors driving people away from the system.
It's crucial, of course, that Sony and third party developers are devoted to the console in the long run. I'm impressed by the broad appeal of the Wii. I've met people who I'd never expect to be interested in game consoles telling me they own one. However, I'm also discovered a recurring pattern amongst these people. Many of them own one game: Wii Sports. If they own a second game it's almost always Wii Play, and that's because the game comes with a second controller. Unless there's a somewhat informed gamer in the household I don't see these people buying anything else. And when they do own additional games everyone uniformly considers Wii Sports the most fun. That's the thing with casual and non-gamers. They aren't the most loyal of consumers, at least not in this segment. They're not going to be buying 10 games or more a year.
So this is where the PS3 still has a viable future. Provided, of course companies start releasing some great games for the console. If the PS3 had phenomenal games people wouldn't be complaining about cost and Bluray. People have no problem paying for an iPhone which other than having a unique interface and the Apple brand image doesn't really do anything the competitors can't do. And on top of that it costs as much as a PS3!
Sony's launch prices for their two versions were $499 and $599.
Now, after the "price drop" the prices for their two versions are...$499 and $599.
Sure, the harddrives are bigger between then and now, but other than that not much is different (oh, except it's SW instead of HW backward compatibility, which is a downgrade whichever way you slice it).
Not sure your point is very well founded. I would've paid more for my PS3. I love it and every feature it has, it was worth every penny.
As someone that bought a PS3 and a 360, I think the PS3 is a much better system.
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
5) Blue-Ray
6) Up scaling DVD's
7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
Granted as working adult I find the difference in price meaningless.
You hit the nail square on the head with that one. Sony's arrogance has cost them and their aim was way off for an ever expanding market. In my house we own a Wii and Ps2 and a 360, none of the kids have even mentioned a ps3 other than my son who asked why it was expensive. Gamers are getting older, the Atari generation has grown up. Nintendo has it right on the game and price side but is lacking on the online side, though there is time to catch up on that.
As far as I am concerned, Sony's greatest screw up was the root kit they included on some of their CDs. I had to remove it from my parents' PC, and I decided that I will avoid buying anything with their brand. I own a PS2, and my stereo is a Sony, but I have not spend a dime on their products in a long, long time. Once Virtua Fighter stopped being an exclusive, I knew I was going to be able to stick to my "boycott".
No good deed goes unpunished...
Exactly. Look at Square-Enix's "The Last Remnant". Perfect example of trying to reduce costs and turn as big a profit as possible.
Let's see:
* Licensed Engine? Check.
* Cross-platform to reach largest possible audience? Check.
* Protagonists to appeal to both Eastern and Western audiences? Check.
Insert Sig Here
The PS3 is a damned cool machine. That's what I've been telling people since I got it. It's been a fun machine to own, it works great, there's nary a glitch to be found anywhere. Sony has continuously improved the capabilities of the system with each update, and Home should add a whole new dimension to online play when it's released.
Nobody will be disappointed with the PS3 if they actually purchased one. The only people you really hear complaining about it are the owners of the Xbox 360; I guess they don't want the competition.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I keep seeing the PS3 and keep feeling it is vastly overpriced. At the moment in NZ we are expected to pay $1199 for a PS3 despite the high value of the $Kiwi. At current exchange rates that would make a standard 60GB PS3 $935 US. I know we always get the sh***y end of the stick but nearly double the price for the same piece of hardware is way beyond a joke. I'm sure the price difference is similar in the EU too. Of course, the price of all the other consoles are equally crazy. With the $Kiwi at its highest level ever we seriously need to be seeing some exchange rate price cuts rather than importers taking the piss like this and that goes for all consoles.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
From what I see so far, it seems that the PS3 has two potential killer apps that could "save" it. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy 13 are the only two games that come to mind that make me even remotely think, "Maybe I'd want to pick a PS3 up because I want to play these games."
MGS4 going multiplatform would be yet another big blow to the system, and it seems at least somewhat likely this will happen.
FF13 going multiplatform is less likely from what I understand, but it would certainly suck for the PS3 if it happened.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
x PS3 titles = scarcity of strong PS3 titles
x+1 PS3 titles = alleviate concerns over scarcity of strong PS3 titles
Not to mention that MGS are not exactly games that appeal to everyone.
So in short, that sales chart does "short change" the 360 and the Wii.
In any case, I think the whole "well so-and-so console is performing as good as console Y did in its lifecycle" is not nearly as important as many seem to think. It's an interesting statistic, but ultimately, consoles aren't competing against each other's history. They're competing against what else is on shelves now. It's actually damned easy to skew statistics and find something that "looks good" for whatever console you happen to be a fanboy for, but at the end of the day, it's going to be the actual sales units and current sales growth that's important.
Right now, the 360 still has a nice unit lead over the Wii and PS3 (thanks to its head start, of course). But the Wii is beating the pants off both, in terms of sales growth (and it's still supply limited). Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of good news for the PS3, other than employing shady statistic techniques (blah blah compared to other console lifecycles, etc).
-- jchenx
Ballmer would explain why you are wrong as "cache cache cache cache cache." The bottom line is the Cell's smaller processors have a very small memory cache, and a hard time accessing the RAM. So, not quite true. Also, keep in mind that the PS3 specs remove three of the smaller Cell processors (one because the manufacture was too difficult to make reliable, and *2* for internal OS stuff).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Who's "He"? Me? Show me a post where I've bashed Nintendo. Go ahead, try to find one.
It's all old stuff. You can read most of it in Game Over if you're inclined.
Basically, Nintendo was extremely strong-armed with third party developers during the NES days. You could only publish so many games a year(hence Contra being released as an ULTRA title), and you couldn't publish for other platforms like the Master system. They tried, unsuccessfully to crack down on unlicensed titles via their lockout chip, which was cloned by tengen(among others) and lost the resulting court case. That's also the source for the Nintendo seal of quality(all it really meant then was that a developer had paid the licensing fees, followed the rules, and the cart had a 10NES lockout chip).
They kept this up(being controlling in regards to third parties) to a certain extent until Yamauchi handed the reins over to Igawa.
Additionally, they strong-armed retailers, and to some extent manipulated the software market by having a hard lock on cartridge production.
Also, their Nintendo Authorized Repair Center thing(the US NES had a tendency to break because of the way it loaded, putting stress on the contacts) was a little bit of a scam.
Oh, and censored the original Mortal Kombat for the SNES, before the ESRB came into existance. I think that about covers it all.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Just adding some counterpoints for interests sake (disclaimer: I have both a 360 and PS3):
1) This is only true IF you have a large TV or you sit closer than optimal viewing distance. The difference between 720p and 1080p is very hard to spot on anything less than 40" (unless you sit too close - at least 1.5-2x the size of the television is the distance away you ought to be). The difference between quality of different TV brands is much more a concern - a high quality tv at 720p can definately look better than a POS at 1080p (I'm looking at YOU, Hitachi!).
2) Very true, but as a working adult you must admit that $60 a year is a pittance, and for many people it's worth it for the seamless online service that xbox live provides. I much prefer the 360's online functionality to that of my PS3, free or not.
3) Actually most comparisons I've seen put them on equal footing graphics wise. Only oblivion comes to mind as having a hands down superior version on the PS3, but it did come out 10 months later or so on the PS3 than on the 360, so I would expect (demand?) as much.
4) True. Lets just hope developers learn to take advantage. Superior hardware doesnt always mean success.
5) Very true. The PS3 is a very cheap Blu-Ray player, and bluray movies look awesome. I doubt the HD movie market will be anything other than a niche market for the next few years, but for those of us early adopters the PS3 is a good choice for a bluray player, at least until standalones come down in price. Compared to modern standalone DVD players the PS2 sucks horribly, and I suspect the same will be true of the PS3's bluray capability by the time Bluray catches on. In the mean time however, it works.
6) Bah. PS3 upscaled dvds look better than non-upscaled dvds, but my $60 panasonic dvd player (also with hdmi output) does a much better job and has many more options. Maybe sony can update the upscaling software some more and it will be on par with standalone players, but I won't hold my breath.
7) All of my xbox games work on my 360, and all of my PS2 games (except Guitar Hero 1/2, because of the controller) work on my PS3. Guess I'm just lucky. There never was a huge number of must-play xbox exclusives - are there any that the 360 won't handle?
8) I like this a lot actually. It's like playing Playstation 1 games with epsxe on a computer. Of course the older games I choose to play again I would be playing anyway with or without sharper textures, but it's a nice bonus. Keep in mind the 360 also updates the graphics of emulated xbox games.
9) This is pure guessing. The PS2 certainly had a long lifespan, but the success of the PS2 (so far) has not translated into similar success for the PS3. One would hope with it's superior hardware that it would last longer, but as you pointed out the xbox (which had better hardware than the ps2) launched a year after the ps2 (as the ps3 lauched a year after the 360) and it didnt have a superior lifespan.
Is it possible for the primary method of purchase to be ebay?
Even if 100% of consoles are sold on ebay, it is still only half.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Define "much better". That term is pretty ambiguous as given, especially considering that both consoles support 1080p.
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
This is somewhat true, but I wouldn't consider Sony's service to be comparable. Xbox Live is, for now, just a better experience and worth the money.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
Again, you're way too ambiguous. How are they better? Do they have better graphics? Do the controls feel better? From what I've seen of comparisons, the Xbox 360 has actually come out ahead in terms of image quality with games like Armored Core 4. And, D-pad aside, I don't see how anyone can call the SIXAXIS a better controller than the 360's. The analog sticks have about as much tension as a narcoleptic on muscle relaxants, the analog triggers feel like mush and have no travel, and the controller itself has no heft.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
The HDD statement is true, but the comment about processing power is disingenuous. They're both running at comparable clock speeds using a similar architecture. The major difference is that the PS3 has its power distributed over more cores, which can be as much of a liability as an advantage-- thread management becomes more difficult; and because some of the cores aren't general purpose, you can't necessarily take advantage of all the CPU cycles available to you. Then there's the RAM architectures: the PS3 and the 360 have the same amount of RAM, but on the PS3 CPU and GPU memory segregated; whereas on the 360 they use a shared pool. This has a couple of potential advantages: the developer has the ability to allocate RAM in a manner that best suits their game, and the CPU can directly affect texture memory for things like procedural generation.
6) Up scaling DVD's
The 360 does this when connected via VGA or HDMI.
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan.
That's a mighty nice crystal ball you have there, sir. Do you read palms too?
GT2 was the reason I sold my N64 and bought a PS1!
The embedded PS2 chip in the original PS3s was one of the most glaring signs that Sony had rushed the PS3 to market before it was ready. The several firmware upgrades in the 7-8 months since its release (up to 1.82 or so now) are more signs that Sony's tech is catching up to its marketing rollout.
The PS3 HW was always planned to offer PS2 support in SW emulation, not the chip. But they didn't finish the SW until the EU rollout, when they could finally drop the chip that was faster to design in than was emulation.
So what has happened is that Sony is now dropping its PS3 price right as it's dropping the more expensive HW kluge. That alone doesn't raise any realistic doubts. If anything, it shows how skillful is Sony in mitigating its project management and marketing risks with alternate designs. Because users won't even notice the difference. All they'll notice is dropping prices and increased functions.
But what I want to see is Sony actually change 2 basic PS3 limits that hold back Linux on it. First, Sony must offer a model with RAM expandable beyond the 256-500MB hardwired into current models. Without more RAM, the fast Cell rips through all the data in 2ms, then can rely on all its IO to get only enough data to keep the Cell about 2-5% busy.
The other change Sony should make is to open the Hypervisor to allow SW running on the Cell to call at least the 2D graphics functions on the RSX videochip. Otherwise, all video must be computed on the Cell. PCs all put all that graphics/video computation/rendering on the VGA coprocessor.
If not, people will have to port Linux X drivers to the Cell SPEs. That could happen anyway, for even more interesting video processing than that built into the RSX. Once PS3 has video codecs ported to SPEs or RSX, MythTV will become a killer app, with a USB TV decoder feeding it, and a DLNA server for archive.
--
make install -not war
If the PS3 does fail, (which I highly doubt), then it's not just bad for Sony, but for the gaming industry. In a capitalistic world economy, the more competition, the better. If the PS3, Wii, and XBox360 all do well, then the winners are the consumers.
When Nintendo refused to switch to a CD based game format, Sony took up the initiative and the PS1 became one of the most successful platforms. When Nintendo released the Gamecube, it pushed forth with an innovative controller as well as the idea of "party" games which is the most fun with 4 controllers. The Xbox followed suit and the PS2 released an adapter, but Gamecube's games were still unmatched. Now all current platforms support at least 4 simultaneous players.
Xbox implemented internet gaming and interaction and now Nintendo and Sony are still trying to catch up. This market requires more competition because it breeds advancement and innovation. I'm kind of excited to see what the PS3 has to offer, but the price is still prohibitive for me to experience firsthand.
So in summary. Stop wishing for the demise of the PS3. It'll hurt you more than it'll hurt Sony.
>As someone that bought a PS3 and a 360, I think the PS3 is a much better system.
I call "Shennanigans" Hydra-guy
>1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Funny, the 360 does 1080P too and they even give you an HD cable to do it. Plus every cross platform game with the debatable exception of Oblivion has better graphics on the 360. Plus every non-Sony-owned dev has admitted the GPU (that little thingy that does the graphic in a game console) on the 360 is significantly more powerful than the rush job Nvidia did for Sony. Are you sure you can even see the graphics on the PS3? You realize that the cable that came with your PS3 is a composite cable, right?
>2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
And you get what you pay for. Sorry, I'll take actually having online support in games like Virtua Fighter 5 and Tony Hawk and things like universal chat support and ingame notification over Sony's "free" offering. Seriously, what does Sony offer in its online service (not the game devs, Sony) that they could charge for? Plus, plan on replacing those now-obsolete rumbleless Sixaxis controllers at $50 a pop? Sony will make sure you do. Sony gotta eat.
>3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
Completely false. See any game review with the possible exception of Oblivion. Even then the devs (not some raving fanboy) admitted that the small improvements were due to eight extra months of dev time. Even then they had to kill anti-aliasing, HDR lighting, and downloadable content because of the inferior PS3 system.
>4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
Except the devs can't really use it effectively due to a combo of Sony's bad OS design, the fragmentation problem (which devs can't fix- only Sony) and the fact that the HDD performance varies due to user upgrades to the point at which HDD throughput may be lower than the already-too-slow Blu-ray throughput.
>5) Blue-Ray
You mean Blew-ray? Their biggest seller AAA title has sold a grand total of ~70,000 copies. There have been a little more than a million total discs sold. Since, if you believe Sony's numbers, about five million PS3s have been sold, then the typical PS3 owner has bought ZERO discs. At best, only one in five (completely ignoring the standalone players sold for a year because consumers obviously did) PS3 owners buys movies. The format is, so far, a non-event. HD-DVD has about one tenth the number of players on the market but has also sold over a million discs. The biggest selling HD disc on either format is "Planet Earth" and the HD-DVD version outsold the Blu-ray version. If HD-DVD is dead, then Blu-ray dying of apathy.
>6) Up scaling DVD's
The 360 does this too. It also did it before the PS3 could. So does any $60 DVD player at Walmart and they don't stutter during movie playback if you leave the wifi on like the PS3. Most of them also play DiVX movies, unlike the PS3.
>7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
Better hope you don't have to replace your PS3 with the new "improved" model or else you get stuck with software emulation just like the 360.
>8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
Complete BS. At least with the 360s BC (about sixty percent of my titles work), the games are natively rendered at HD (Ninja Gaiden Black actually looks sharper and has less aliasing than Sigma in BC mode) unlike the PS3 where they just upscale the whole framebuffer making them blurrier and in many cases unplayable (see Burnout). Pretty lame.
>9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
And people are buying twice the number of 360s as PS3s worldwide every month and six times the number of Wiis. PS2s got a boost because the BC
Oh, I forgot to note that the Blu-Ray in the PS3 has a lower average throughput than the 360's DVD drive. This is enough of an issue that a lot of developers have the same data multiple times on one disc to improve read speeds. Even something as simple as taking advantage of higher storage capacity on the PS3 takes extra work for developers.
That's the thing, this $200 sweet spot apparently doesn't psychologically adjust itself to inflation. So you can't get away with arguing "Yeah, $500 seems like a lot, but if you adjust for inflation, it's like you're getting a console that costed $200 many years ago. We're sure our logic will overcome your psychology without difficulty!" Except that electronics goods are constantly getting cheaper, so we expect them to cost the same or less in the future, using whatever the current dollar is.
The saying "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. It's too little and too late.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Hey, buddy, you're the one who used the term fanboi, and I brought it up because it disgusts me, and because it's only ever used by people who are swinging low.
No, it's used by a lot of people who simply aren't uptight asswipes desperately trying to score points.
I urge you to go back and find where I ever accused you of saying anything other than "fuck" and "fanboi".
Sure thing, and it'll be easy too. Your first post: "But you should swear about it, and turn it into a huge issue, and pretend that it's worse than the competition, etc... Go right ahead. It's what we expect from the Slashdot 360 Fanboy, Slashdot Games section."
"Huge issue", "worse than the competition" -- i.e. FUD -- and "360 fanboy", everything I said you were calling me. Now shut up, idiot.
The enemies of Democracy are
Don't forget the price fixing. I remember being a kid seeing games just before the SNES came out and they STILL where the same price as they were when released. Of course being a kid I thought this was normal, until I read an article about it and got a $20 check from Nintendo.
I'm not going to bash the system, almost everyone understands the problems of the PS3. However the price drop is putting Sony into a different problem, and it's worse.
Sony has all but admited that they are removing the emotion engine from 60gb systems. The 80gb system have been confirmed not to have it. Instead they will be using software emulation (like the European systems) for backwards compatibility so anyone who wants a ps3 and the ability to play ps2 games are running out and picking up 60gb systems. They arn't buying games, they are getting 5 blu ray dvds free, and they are getting other tie ins (I got a second controller from circuit city). Assuming the system costs around 800 to make they still lose 300 on the system not counting the tie ins.
This means they are at least 300 dollars behind for each system they are selling now, and if more people run out buying 60 gb systems for the backwards compatibility and wait for later games, that's more and more money in the hole. It's not unlikely for people to do this (the backwards compatibility on the 360 is horrendous, the european ps3 emulation is weak at best).
So essentially you might see 1 million systems in a month sold but at the same time that's going to be somewhere around the neighborhood of 250 million dollars loss. I don't hear about many people running out and picking up 10 games with their systems either. And Sony's going to get a lot more desperate, methinks. They'll brag about their new numbers but I have a feeling they'll be scared once they realize how many games everyone is buying with their systems.
Oh and here's a beauty. Licensing for Sony systems is only a handful of dollars per system so 300 dollars could mean anything from 10 first party game to 30 third party games. So it's not just 5 games. Plus used games gives them 0 dollars, Blu-ray might help a bit but I don't know of anyone going out and replacing their old collection with new movies, and the rest of the system makes it sound like the PS3 will be hurting even more than before.
But personally I'm more interested in putting in my copy of Okami tonight for a little game session.
You do realize that not only are they losing because of titles and lack of them, but they were losing almost $300 per console before the price drop. Now, they lose $300-$400 per console, and aren't making it up in terms of software licensing fees, because who wants to launch exclusives on the Titanic? If I were Konami and had tied my company's fortunes to the PS3, I'd be looking elsewhere fast also. The 360 is a solid gaming platform, and it's online component is solid. Wii, while many claim that it is going for the non-hardcore market, does have a healthy new market of people who are buying their first video game systems. What better way to get rid of some of the "gamers are evil" FUD that the media has put out, than to expose some of these new gamers (gamers in the most newbie aspect of the word, mind you) to solid, fun titles? Not saying the Wii will match 360 or PS3 in graphics, by any stretch. But it does have a large, growing audience and they are hungry for games. A company looking to recover costs and not building just another mini-games title for the Wii might make a buck or two.
I recently bought our first game console for the family. I would have been open to any brand but Sony appears to be a terrible technology bully forcing propriety solutions onto the market and then fleecing it's customers as long as they can. To me Sony as a publisher is one one the most active DRM fanatics whipping their customers into shape.
Basically, Sony is not a brand that I associate with fun and entertainment but with litigation and bullying it is that simple. We are due for a new TV and sound system. Sony products will simply not be considered regardless of how good or cheap they are.
I don't want to do business with Sony and I am hoping their problems are due to the fact that more people feel this way. I am hoping that people finally stand up to large brands and tell them to play nice or piss off.
Ohh hell no - I've had three upscaling DVD players and they've all done an absolutely shitty job of scaling DVD's compared to the PS3. The PS3, in my opinion, gives a great balance of crisp-ness without making things look plastic. It's very nice. The only time you'll find better if when you have a really expensive $1800 DVD player or a $2000+ scaler.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Really? By what measure?
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
Yup. No question. As someone who doesn't play online games much, but likes to have the ability, XBL is a complete waste. I think XBL may be the better server (given it been around since xbox 1 and even the 360 has a 1 year head start, this is no surprise... for the amount I play, XBL isn't worth it.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
Really. Most reviews seem to be giving the nod to the 360.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
Fair enough on the HD. But the cpu power is a non-starter. Most professional analysts conclude
that the the PS3 can't realize most of its potential even in ideal circumstances, and that games are not remotely ideal circumstances. The PS3 is effectively crippled. The 360 has less theoretical power, but its able to use most of it, and its architecture is in line with the needs of games.
5) Blue-Ray
And I'm unconvinced yet that its worth the money. By the time that it IS worth the money, BR players will be more affordable and having it lumped in with your console is less of an issue.
6) Up scaling DVD's
Better off buying a decent upscaler, then ALL your devices benefit. Better still buying a TV with a good upscaler, and then you don't even need a separate upscaler. But ok.... its still a good feature. Then again the 360 can do this too.
7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
I don't buy 600 consoles to play last generation games of the most successful console. I mean who doesn't already have a PS2? And if you want PS2 games, a PS2 is cheap. I mean, Wii backwards compatibility is kind of cool... lots of people don't have cubes, so buying a Wii really does open up a whole extra library.
8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
Its not upgrading the graphics, its just upscaling them. If you had a decent upscaler (either standalone or in your tv) this would be a non-issue.
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
People are still buying more PS2's than PS3's too.
So... you didn't say But you should swear about it, and turn it into a huge issue, and pretend that it's worse than the competition, etc... Go right ahead. It's what we expect from the Slashdot 360 Fanboy, er.... Slashdot Games section.?
Newsflash: some people prefer flawless backwards compatibility over prettier pictures. You seem to be ignoring that. Sony themselves said the emulation isn't perfect. You may not have one of those games that isn't BC, but others might.
Frankly, that alone was a dealbreaker for me on ever getting a PS3. I just don't like software emulation on a bulk scale. It's. Not. The. Same.
So, yes, in my case, software BC IS a huge issue, and yes, I'm quite aware it's a personal feeling, but it's also my personal $500 that would get a PS3, so I think I'm entitled to my opinions on what is or isn't a huge issue about it.
Actually it is just between Sony, and MS. They are fighting for second place.
I don't know about cross-platform games, but what that generally means right now is "Ports from the Xbox 360." Many developers will rework the game engine a little bit to make it run on the PS3 and release it. Games that actually had some work put into them, such as Oblivion, show that the PS3 is a better system then you make it out to be.
More work to make the games work better on the system? Boo frickin' hoo. Game production ALWAYS gets more difficult as the years go on. Stop using that as an argument. It's not an impossible task to write PS3 titles properly; it's being done. I have no sympathy for developers that can't develop.
About the memory thing, it should be noted that the CPU RAM is clocked at CPU speed. 3.2Ghz, no tricks.
Only the Elite supports 1080p.
Every single PS1/PS2 title I've tried from my friends' very large game collection have worked flawlessly. Out of the 10 titles I have for my Xbox, five gave me shit on the 360. Awesome.
And don't give me shit about the PS3 controller. It's nearly perfect. Don't you think that Sony would have changed things around with it a little bit in the last decade if people didn't like it? And what, it's not HEAVY enough? Go dream up some new FUD and get back to us. (You don't even mention that the SIXAXIS in the SIXAXIS controller means it's motion sensitive, and it works well.)
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The XMB user interface is generally excellent and simple to use. It gets a bit hairy in some of the system settings but I think the UI of the PS3 and the sheer breadth of features it offers are second to none. I think the 360 does have a better online story, but so it should if you're paying $50 a year for it. Even the free PS3 experience is no different from what you find in PC land so it varies but some some games such as Resistance have superb online support - clans, ranked / unranked games etc. In some ways the PS3 may surpass the 360 for online since vendors are more able to play around with their own business models such as allowing mods or map packs.
If Sony doesn't want to fall into distant third in this round of the console wars, they need to get off their backside and take action to get this pig selling.
The formula is simple:
Nintendo has made a bold statement with a $250 console. Sony should "see and raise" Nintendo's position.
- Sell the 80-GB console for $199.95 (The Wii killer)
- Announce a 300-GB console with bundled DVR software and lifetime subscription to channel guide for $499 (The Tivo killer)
- Announce free signing for any GPL Linux Distributions (The PC killer)
Badda-bing, Nintendo is back to sucking hind teat.
It should be pointed out that it's software assisted emulation since some of the PS2 hardware remains (the GS chip). However, the emulation is pretty good. Not as good as pure hardware emulation but it supports thousands of games and emulates most of them perfectly. I assume that when the US / Japanese regions get the software BC that it will be even more robust since it must support each region's most popular titles.
My experience is that even titles tagged as having noticeable visual issues still work fairly well. For example in firmware 1.6, Resident Evil 4 had a few screwed up textures (on a washing line of clothes) but otherwise worked fine. Whatever the problem was, Sony fixed it and emulation is now perfect. Same for highly demanding games such as God of War II, Shadow of the Colossus etc. Also, I wouldn't take the current BC list as gospel since Sony take ages after a firmware update to make it current. Titles like God of War II are still not listed (as I write this) even though I know the emulation is flawless.
Unless someone is hoping to play some obscure collection of titles, they really don't have too much to worry about the move to software BC. I expect that Sony will put up a BC list for the US soon enough so people will be able to check for themselves.
there's a much smaller entry fee and this goes beyond the console. I think a lot of people feel that you have to have an HD TV to really take advantage of the PS3. You don't need that with the Wii. Most of the people I know don't have HDTV's in their house. A few do, but the ones that do, don't have an HD-DVD or Blue-Ray player. People haven't really taken to the new technology. I think part of it is that most people are happy with their old TV's and there's not enough HD content to justify it. This all effects the PS3. It's a really expensive console that you really don't benefit from unless you have HD.
I bought a PS3 for my nephews when it first came out. This the third console I've bought for them. They play there old ones more than the new one. They think it's cool, but they don't use any of the ooh aah features. These are 12 to 14 year old kids. They just don't care about all the extra's. The blue-ray has done nothing for them and they don't have an HDTV in their game room. I'm sure this is how a lot of kids are.
If Blue-ray and HD-DVD were really popular and people were raving about how awesome it is, then it would make sense to buy a PS3 for that feature alone. However, no one I knows cares about HD content because there's just not enough and there's too much overhead to get a full setup. Kids certainly don't care. The ooh aah effect lasts about 2 seconds, then it's all about how cool the game is.
Oh, right, they strong-armed the retail and wholesale channels to keep prices at whatever level they wanted to. You don't need to do that anymore though, since you can contractually set minimum pricing due to a recent SCOTUS decision.
Weren't they even more devious though, and it was something like $20 in Nintendo cash?
This is like playing a game of, "hey, remember the 80s?"
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
The XBox 360 uses software emulation that does NOT support all XBox games.
The XBox 360 also seems to break alot
I honestly don't see the appeal of an XBox 360. Yes, I have played one, I hired one out. Yes Gears of War was fun, at least it was until the machine broke down and started saying "Please insert this disk into an XBox 360"... I shit you not.
If you really don't understand the difference between the 360 upscaling 720p content to 1080p, and the PS3 natively supporting 1080p output then try the following:
Take two pictures with a digital camera: One at 1MP, and another at 2MP. Copy the photo files to your PC and then note the resolutions. Now, use a photo editor to stretch the image of the first photo to the same resolution of the second. Notice a difference between the two? The first photo lacks the detail of the second because it never had the additional detail in the first place.
So sure, 720p games scaled to 1080p will look good, but the art assets (textures, etc.) were not created for the higher resolution.
As for the media drives, I prefer the quitness and constant throughput of the PS3's drive, thanks. Last night, for shits, I loaded up Gears of War (gamertag: Ilidd, if you want proof) again after having not played my 360 in several months. The DVD drive is just as obnoxiously loud as I remember it.
I don't buy 360 versions of games anymore and I'm seriously playing with the idea of selling my 360 because the system is unreliable and noisy. Yes, I know the 3RRoD is warranted for 3 years now. I don't care. A console shouldn't break that quickly in the first place.
No matter what happens to the PS3 at this point (win, lose, becomes another Dreamcast story) I've already recieved lots of enjoyment from it. Yes, it was expensive but it was worth every penny. I can honestly see that system physically lasting for 10+ years because of the build quality. I can't say the same for my 360 and I won't replace it when it breaks.
I guess my whole point is that if gamers were to sit down with a PS3 and play all the games it has, I think they would really enjoy it. Every person I've had play mine loves the system and the games, except for one guy, who as much as I like the dude, is a Xbox fanboy in the worst way. Some people are that way and it's honestly their loss. I hate Microsoft's shoddy products, but I still gave both their systems a chance. I didn't like the direction Nintendo went with the Wii, but I bought one. I sold it because it was boring to me, but I still see why some people go crazy over it.
Peace.
assuming you really weren't making a "huge issue" when you started using such strong language
I explained exactly how big an issue it was: "I'm not saying the software emulation is crap, and if the games you want to play are well supported according to the compatability list then you should be good to go. I am saying that the switch from hardware compatability to software emulation has hurt backward compatability. That's not FUD, it's a fucking fact."
What part of that did you not understand? Can you actually disagree with that in any substantive way, seeing as how it is very much true according to Sony themselves? Or are you just such a sheltered wimp that a single use of the word "fucking" sends you into a tizzy at "such strong language"? If that's the case, you should get off the internet because you aren't cut out for it.
But at least you admitted that you actually said what you actually said. Your connection to reality is improving.
It seems to me that the line you pasted confirms what I said, not what you are asserting.
Yes, it confirms that you called me a fanboy, that you accused me of making a huge issue out of it, and of pretending that the competition was better. Because that's what it explicitly says: "360 Fanboy". Oh, and you also by extension called all of Slashdot 360 fanboys too using the famous "generalize one comment into representing slashdot's mythical group-think".
I am sure it will be hilarious hearing you explain how what you wrote actually meant the opposite. But you're right, reading comprehension is difficult when the writer is an insane idiot. When there's no connection between your brain and your words, how could anyone possible tell what you meant?
Also, the term "fanboi" is used by two types of people: Those who wish to make derogatory comments about young Asian people who are overly passionate about something, and stupid idiots who think they're cool because they copied what somebody else said without actually understanding what it means.
It's also used by Asians who aren't uptight pricks and who have a sense of humor, often to describe themselves. I hang out with them a lot. I picked up a spelling affectation for a word as a result. You don't even hang out with enough Asians to justify your mock outrage or you'd have a clue. I do. I also have lots of black friends, so the word "nigger" isn't so offensive to me that I can't find Blazing Saddles or a Chris Rock routine hilarious, and you're as pathetic as a white boy telling Mel Brooks he's racist or that Chris shouldn't use that word. Sorry if my offhand use offended you, but you really, really need to lighten up. And more importantly, you need to stop fooling yourself into thinking that being uptight means you're mature. It doesn't. It means your are poorly adjusted. You need to grow up, and that means getting exposed to language you don't like and learning to cope with it.
The enemies of Democracy are
The PS3 has three good online games: Stardust, Calling all Cars and Rampage. The Wii has dozens. I own both, and right now, I'm putting a lot of time into Stardust, but all in all, the Wii's online offering is much, much better than the PS3's, even without any new games.
I'm sure you would've paid less for it, too.
...while Nintendo is pretty much only in the gaming market.
They might be, but what they get right is their focus. Although Nintendo hasn't always got things right, they are the only console maker that has been there from the beginning and it still here. Sony and Microsoft are new comers and the other companies who were there at the beginning are either gone or only developing software. While the PS3 has a lot of potential, which it might still fulfill, it is trying to be too much a jack of all trades and not really focusing - I would rather have a great gaming system that his half-assed at everything else, than not really knowing what it is.
BTW There might be some of you who mention that Nintendo has also got non-gaming features in the Wii, but these are currently fairly basic and aren't what is getting the focus. Yes it has Opera, a weather channel and a news channel, but I feel that they aren't what are being used to sell the console, but instead are treated as after-thoughts, which get development focus after the game aspect is made a success.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What online offering? They have some of their backcatalog up via VC, but alots of thats games we played 20 years ago that are easy ports. The downside is you can't play these off a memory card, and you have to buy additional hardware in the form of a GCN or classic controller to play alot of them. Not to mention you can only have so many active channels, max of 50, which may make things hairy in the future. Toss in the total lack of any worthwhile online play of any sort, and i'd say Sony's got the leg up on them here.
Dont count on it, the graphics dont really come from the Cell, the cell is good for many things, in the PS3 mainly for marketing.
The cell is a sluggish general purpose processor with only one core, and a handful of dsps attached to it. What you get is basically blazingly fast signal processing.
Excellent if you want to encode videos, or if you want to do some serious 2d imaging or physics calculation, but the number of polygons pushed are not getting higher that way. (A simple NVidia GPU is taking care of that)
in fact it makes things way harder for the people utilizing it because the cell definitely does not make multithreaded programming easier and normal program execution times are way worse, after all you cannot push a lot of algorithms which need parallel processing through a multitude of dsps!
Why buy a 360... Maybe because it has more games? For a gamer the cost of a console is basically the entry fee to a games library and the PS3 doesn't offer nearly enough games for the amount you pay for it. The PS3 could steal people away who know jack shit about the games available on each platform but those aren't the kind that buys many games and not an attractive userbase to developers.
Furthermore, Sony needs to worry more about the Wii than the 360. They can harp on the advantages of HD as much as they want, the Wii offers access to a games library for half the price (even less than that in Europe) of the PS3 and it has impressed developers so much that even EA is retooling its game designs for it. The Wii is getting more and more reports of new games and new developer support while the PS3 is getting one story after another about games that are no longer exclusive to it. Unless Sony can reverse that trend soon (and I have doubts about that, more games mean more users mean more games and thus the cycle cannot be reversed easily) they don't even stand a chance, they're going to be annihilated by a cheap console with weak hardware that promises what people have been wanting from gaming for a long time, accessibility and innovation.
Sony sees the console as the center of the living room and thus something you'd want to spend $$$ on but does the end user share that vision? To me it looks more like the end user just wants something cheap to game on.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Actually this is more like the rosy-eyed glasses you wear when you think of an ex-girlfriend until you remember the time she decapitated your pet goldfish, rolled your car off a cliff, then announced that she was pregnant.
Interesting observation. The only way it could be the primary method is if Sony sold them through eBay as their primary / only outlet.
Ahhhhhhhh the good old days.... :-)
Er... What?
1) I have a 1080p screen and at that resolution the PS3's graphics are much better.
Except that most PS3 games run at 720p anyway, irrespective of your screen resolution. But I'll give you this one.
2) If you play online games the PS3 is much cheaper over several years.
It would take 4 years of live service to equal the price of a PS3. So "much cheaper over several years" is misleading.
3) Cross platform games are better on the PS3.
This is the one that makes me laugh the most. Please. Sports games runnung at half the frame rate is better? Virtua Fighter 5 (and other games) without online play, where the other platform has them is better? You have an interesting definition of better.
4) PS3 games have much more to work with aka a HDD, more processing power etc.
But they have yet to actually show anything useful with it.
5) Blue-Ray
A valid observation, for the 2-5% of users who care about it. The other 95% still have to pay the premium.
6) Up scaling DVD's
How is this better? They both do this.
7) It plays enough PS2 games that I don't need a PS2 but I still need the Xbox for a lot of old games.
Sure, but at least the 360 now has enough games that you don't _need_ to play the old ones.
8) It upgrades the graphics on old PS2 games. (So it's better than just backwards compatible.)
Also something both consoles do, so where's the "better"?
9) The PS3 has a longer lifespan. (Xbox 1 came out a year after PS2 but the 360 came out a year before the PS3. People are still buying more PS2's than 360's.)
Making assumpttions based on previous models may not be all that accurate. Sure, Sony would love a 10 year life cycle for the PS3, but if it continues to flop, they may do something else.
Has Sony rectified the problem of some games only being able to output in 720p and 480p, but not 1080i?
What part of that did I not understand? Are you listening to yourself?
"Look at me everybody. Let's accuse somebody of doing exactly the same thing I'm doing right this instant!"
Can you seriously think you're taking the high-ground by accusing me of failing to make an argument I wasn't making while at the same time accusing me of doing the same to you?
You have yet to stop focusing on the fact that I thought you were flying off the handle to actually read the substance of my original content, which was that there aren't any PS3s using hardware emulation anymore; Something which I'm sure many people would agree is a perfectly reasonable, topical tangent to have taken at that point in the conversation. Instead you've decided that I disagree with you about the reduction in compatibility, rather than noticing that what I really disagreed with was how big a deal it was.
I hope you found that as hilarious as you were hoping. I wish I could say that I found your misguided justifications in your last paragraph hilarious, but it was just sad, really. If you can't see the difference between using certain words in a humorous context and in the context in which they were originally intended as offensive, you're in for some hard times at some future point. It's funny when Mel Brooks or Chris Rock use the term "nigger" because they're saying it in jest or in satire. If they were saying it because they wanted to say something derogatory or mocking to/about a black man it would be different. You can use that term colloquially amongst your friends because they understand that you're being ironic. Can you really expect anybody to have believed that when you said "You're assuming such just shows how you think, fanboi.", especially after having used the "fanboy" spelling elsewhere in your comment that you meant it in an ironic, comic, or satirical sense.
It's been kind of fun reading this little personal flamefest between you two. Probably because you're both so pathetic that it makes me feel really good about myself.
Last response to what is clearly a Trolling AC...
I *don't* Nintendo bash. Sure, I've criticized them in the past for failing to meet demand with the Wii, but I hardly consider that "bashing". I've said my fair share of negative things about Sony too. Probably more than I've said about Nintendo.
Just use Google if Slashdot's search doesn't help you. It'll take you back years. Try something like "ivan256 Nintendo site:slashdot.org". You'll find plenty of negative commentary about Microsoft (deserved, I think, but some might call it bashing), and about analysts and reviewers and journalists, sure. The only bad thing you'll see me saying about Nintendo, though, is that they should have been able to get Wiis in stock by now.
Sony overprices everything they sell like a Las Vegas call girl. It may look good on the outside, but on the inside it's a festering taint of disease and still costs more than two week's salary.
-Kinsey
The thing about the Wii online catalog is that I own most of those games already for my Genesis, TurboGrafix16, SNES, etc, and I even already own re-releases for many of them in GameCube form that works just fine in my Wii. The PS3 has original and semi-original downloadable content that is actually pretty good. fl0w, GripShift, Stardust, GoPuzzle!, Super Rub-a-dub.... I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head.
I'm sure that Nintendo will have some Wii original offerings in their store eventually, but right now they've got none.
You mean like:
FINAL FANTASY XII
METAL GEAR SOLID 3: SUBSISTENCE
GRANDTHEFT AUTO VICE CITY
GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS
GRAN TURISMO 4
GOD OF WAR
Just to name a few titles that are flagged with "Noticable Issues".
Can you seriously think you're taking the high-ground by accusing me of failing to make an argument I wasn't making while at the same time accusing me of doing the same to you?
But you were. You explicitly called me a fanboy, said I was pretending the competition was better, and so on. You offer no justification for how those exact words which I can quote for you again if you want were anything other than what they appear. You can't because you'd look retarded doing so. "When I said 360 fanboy, I meant... uh... not a 360 fanboy".
At least I can stand by what I wrote as meaning what I wrote, and you're only problem understanding me was that you can't handle profanity.
You have yet to stop focusing on the fact that I thought you were flying off the handle to actually read the substance of my original content, which was that there aren't any PS3s using hardware emulation anymore...
Yeah, strangely after being called a 360 fanboy for stating a simple fact I didn't care much about your opinion on whether sacrificing a degree of backward compatability was worth being able to upscale old games. Why would I start caring now?
You can use that term colloquially amongst your friends because they understand that you're being ironic.
If you think Chris Rock, or black people in general, only use the word "nigger" ironically, then you're just an idiot with no experience. They don't use it in the same way as the racists who coined the term, either. Those aren't the only two options. You see when you're in a group where nobody is racist against anybody in the group, you can use words in different ways without them being offensive, and without having to grandstand behind being "ironic". Hanging out with Asians who use "fanboi" interchangeably with "fanboy" leads to not being uptight about it. Sorry you aren't in the group, and sorry if my spelling error based on having hung out in that group offended you because you're so fragile.
The enemies of Democracy are
Glad to be of service. I feel better too after venting my spleen. But lets not either feel too good -- you're still posting on slashdot, and responding to a flamewar. ;)
The enemies of Democracy are
I'd also suggest turning off the radio whenever a Sony BMG song comes on.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
The other question is where are the quirky third party exclusives going to come out -- things like Rez, Okami, Odin Sphere, KoTOR, Katamari, Amplitude, Eternal Darkness, Ikaruga, Guitar Hero*. Last generation, the PS2 seems like it got the lion's share of these. This round, I'm hoping it's the Wii.
I'm rooting for the PS3 not because I love Sony and hate MS, but because I don't want to buy a PS3 and a 360. I just want to play the games.
* Yes, some of these are no longer exclusives, but they debuted and remained on one platform for a long time. Guitar Hero was exclusive to PS2 for 1 1/2 years, for example.
All you need is a majority of people to agree with you (and the sales numbers say they don't) and you've actually refuted the point.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
What pisses me off is they removed the hardware emulation from the EU version to cut costs, then made it nearly $100 more expensive after tax (current difference is $180, as no sign of the price cut in UK - $680 for the 60GB model before VAT). That's just a 'fuck you' from Sony to Europe. For the record, I don't own an Xbox360.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Forza may not be identical to GT5, but it's aimed at the same market and is already available on cheaper hardware. The GT-style experience isn't exclusive to the PS3, even if GT itself is, and ultimately exclusive experiences are better system sellers than exclusive games.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
What I don't understand is why it seems so many people here are willing to boycott Sony for their actions, but very few people here seem willing to boycott MS for theirs - especially given the normal hatred of MS around here. I'm not calling anyone hypocrites or anything like that, I'm seriously curious as to the reasons behind this. Can anyone shed any light or insight?
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
What have they screwed up besides the unreasonably high price? I wouldn't want them to scrub the PS3 and start over, the replacement would just be MORE expensive.
Where to begin...
Hardware:
- cell was a bad decision. Multi-threaded programming is an order of magnitude harder. Oversimplifying, the more cores, the harder it is. In addition the cell had poor yields (due to its complexity), which increased the cost. Much, much more could be said about this. The short version is that they picked a fantastic chip for the datacenter but was less than ideal for a console.
- blu-ray was a bad decision. They assumed that history would repeat itself and that people would buy the thing for the Blu Ray (similar to the PS2). This further increased the price
Marketing:
- arrogance: "You will work yourself to death to own one"
- general poor delivery/communications management
Business:
- the force feedback on controllers (not licensing etc)
- loss of exclusive titles
meh
That said, I guess I'll take the bait and respond again to your confusing analysis
If the 360 truly were market saturated, then that doesn't explain why it continued to sell the way it has for the next year (along with a pretty healthy bump last holiday season).I agree that we can't "ever know for certainty". I would argue that sales would be greater, and you are free to argue otherwise.
However, I would say that in some of your previous posts, you actually assume you "know for certainty" and are masquerading around as if it's fact. I'm calling you out on that. You can't conveniently leave out the fact that there were shortages around the 360 launch timeframe, just because it wrecks a hole in your "well, the PS3 is doing as well as the 360 did at its launch!" theory.
Dude, either you're just another Sony fanboy that's spinning the numbers just to make your "beloved platform" look good (and doing a pretty bad job at it), or you're somehow affiliated with Sony and not being truthful about it. Own up, please.
Even as someone who works at MS, I will happily admit that while the 360 is doing fine in the US and Europe, it's absolutely being trounced in Japan. And the Wii is, very quickly, catching up to it. I'm not going to fudge numbers or try to spin statistics otherwise. Why are you trying to do it for the PS3, though, is beyond me.
-- jchenx
Yeah, but he's probably flaming ironically because he spends time hanging out with Asians who do that all the time. You and me just aren't in the group, so we don't understand this.
You know the great thing about flamewars? The longer they go on the more chance someone who seemed initially fairly sane if a bit obsessive will say something that's so easy to parody it almost feels unfair to do so.
There's a site called fandomwank in fact that exploits this - they pick out some angry and unintentionally funny comment from deep in a flame thread for people to laugh at. My favourite was someone who posted a long rant about how he thinks of himself as a dragon. He tried to justify it with lots of stuff about otherkin, totem animals in Native American culture and so on. Needless to say spiteful people then trolled the hell out of him. In the midst of this he posted the immortal words "Fuck you, I'm a dragon".
Come to think of it, before the internet, Private Eye magazine had a column called Pseud's Corner which exploited the same effect in interviews.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Because with Microsoft you have a choice, and, as of yet, no one has found a MS developed trojan. You can always run linux, find a small company using something other then windows(hard to find, but they do exist), etc.
If you want a hard copy of your music, love your album covers, you're kind of SOL.
This illustrates the further problems of the Sony strategy for the PS3. Another "exclusive" is planning to go multi-platform. This is a kin to rats leaving a sinking ship.... Maybe when it does sink, Kas and the rest of them will see their almighty "giant enemy crabs"? This site says it all - http://lexluthorbeating.ytmnd.com/ Don't be afraid to sing along!
_____
"Since when did Bush become the Emperor, and who's the Jar Jar Binks we need to hang? Oh forget it... Let's just hang Jar Jar anyways..."
The best part about it is finding out that "fanboi" is a racial slur. I honest to god had NO idea. I thought it was just an irritating spelling corruption like "sk8r boi." No mention of it on Wikipedia, or anything.
How about over 100 of the best games released during the last 20 years?
They have some of their backcatalog up via VC, but alots of thats games we played 20 years ago that are easy ports.They aren't ports, they are the original games, emulated. What difference does it make how hard it was to release them? The Wii has over 100 games, the PS3 has about a dozen.
The downside is you can't play these off a memory card,Yeah, that sucks. Also, you only have a limited number of chanel slots you can fill.
and you have to buy additional hardware in the form of a GCN or classic controller to play alot of them.GCN controllers cost like five bucks, and you want them anyway to play GCN games.
Toss in the total lack of any worthwhile online play of any sort, and i'd say Sony's got the leg up on them here.The total lack of any worthwhile online play? I must have been playing Mario Strikers online in my dreams, then.
I don't know how well the 2 year argument holds. According to a previous post, the PS3 is following the sales trends of the GameCube. If that is true, in due time it will be getting the shoddy ports just like the GameCube did. The kind that make it look like a piece of shit no matter how powerful it is.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
They will appear in 2008, but it's true, as of now, they don't have any original games (unless you count "Everybody Votes" :-).
People making a mountain out of a molehill. It trounces 360 BC, and it's just fine for the vast majority of existing PS2 owners.
"[We] fools" as you put it are simply pointing out that the BC is perfectly acceptable. How do we know this? BECAUSE "WE FOOLS" HAVE ACTUALLY USED IT. You haven't and yet you feel qualified to proclaim that the EU got shafted or similar. The EU may have gotten shafted for the price of the console, but the BC really is not an issue.
What a fascinating discovery. Somebody alert Alan Turing!
What? Gamerankings has 44 PS3 titles with at least 5 reviews, but 69 Wii titles with at least 5 reviews. My local game stores confirm this. The PS3 has half a shelf of games, the Wii has a full shelf.
Online games is similar. The Wii has over 100 games, the PS3 has a few dozen at most.
Inflation doesn't count for technology. Tech becomes cheaper with time, not more expensive. The pricing sweet spot is 200 US$, and so far, none of the manufacturers have cracked it. I guess Nintendo will be the first to go below 200 US$ - as soon as they manage to ramp up production enough to meet demand.
Precisely. As far as quality goes, a movie is either good enough, or not good enough. If it's good enough, you stop noticing the quality after a while. DVDs are good enough.
I'd even say that VHS was good enough in most cases. DVD didn't win becuase the quality was better, but because you don't have to rewind them, and because the quality doesn't deteriorate each time you watch it.
I own a PS3, and the only Blu-Ray movie I own is Casino Royale. I got that for free with the console. Blu-Ray is neat, but I'm not going to pay twice as much for a movie I can't rip to my PSP.
Right now the cheapest and best entertainment comes from the Wii. Two console generations ago, the cheapest and best entertainment came from PS1. Nintendo got the message, and that's why they are so successful.
Same here, I thought it was just an age based thing. ie. fanboy = person, fanboi = child. I never used the 'fanboi' variant anyway, because it looks retarded.
It's rare, but slashdot has taught me something today.
Wow... MS was one of the most evil companies for a while in snuffing out Netscape - pressing company powers so badly that they get hit by antitrust.... and people forget. MS fights it so long in court that they last until the Bush admin, which wimps out on pursuing it (some states keep pursuing it).... and people forget.
Sony puts a rootkit on, later removes it (granted, not of their own immediate volition)... and people threaten lifetime bans for something arguably of less weight than the things MS did.
I'm not saying those people who boycott Sony are wrong, but those who act like MS hasn't been the more "evil" company need to take a longer look.
Ah yes. Microsoft is so evil for taking advantage of the system. Who is to blame for the woman who got millions in a lawsuit against McDonalds because she intelligently burned herself with hot coffee, the woman, or the system? Did she deserve it, no. Is she an idiot, yes. Is she evil for what she did? Not by the law's standards.
Every monitary transaction is providing something at someone elses expense in some way shape or form. Can these fools be blamed for trying to take advantage of the system? That is the American dream. Not to say its right, or your opinion isn't valid, but as long as the court systems agree, all's fair. If you have a problem, that's what your congressman/elections are for.
The problem with Sony is that they opened up a whole new avenue for hackers to break into system, rather then report the bug that allowed them to hid from AV software. Granted, I know there is the whole MS insecure code debate, but the two are apples and oranges.
The ps3 won't have pricecuts in Scandinavia because the distributer doesn't feel a need since they don't consider the competition to be as strong as it is in America.
So, what you're saying is...
INVISIBLE PRICE DROP
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Best for people under 12 or over 50.
Even though it may not "be fair" that the 360 got a head-start over the PS3, the fact of the matter is that it did. It's the same advantage the PS2 had over the original Xbox. Heck, even though the Wii released a year after the 360, we're already seeing that it's going to catch up pretty darn quickly. It's becoming fairly evident that right now, the PS3 isn't doing fine.
IMHO if I were a Sony exec, I wouldn't be thinking that the platform is in good shape. They need to take action to be more competitive. I think it's fine to admit that, as long as you have a plan on righting that ship.
-- jchenx
"Only the Elite supports 1080p." Actually, all 360s have supported 1080p since a software update in late 2006. The Elite is the only one with HDMI, but you can get 1080p over component. I've done it. You should probably get your facts straight before you go accusing others of FUD. You should also probably stop presenting it as a fact that the PS3 controller is "perfect", give me a break, it's a matter of opinion. For the record, I own neither a 360 or a PS3, but I did borrow a friend's 360 for a bit to test the HD-DVD drive and I decided I'd rather wait for the standalone players to drop in price a bit instead.
Ohh you proved me wrong - there's at least five TV's out there that can take 1080p over component.. It's not FUD. Almost no devices accept 1080p over component, never mind the fact that most TV's don't even take it over HDMI.
This is a message board, and I offer my opinions. I believe the size and shape of the Playstation controller to be near perfect for a general purpose controller - almost anyone can use it, big or small, it doesn't cramp your fingers too bad if you play over extended periods (although, like any controller it can depend on the game) it's not too heavy and it's sturdy as hell. I never hear anyone complain about the PS controller style unless they're a YAMB (Yet Another Microsoft Bitch) trying to start shit.
If you think I'm "presenting as fact" something that obviously COULDN'T be (the idea, by it's very nature, is an opinion even if it were to be shared by 100% of people you polled) then I don't know what to say except perhaps that you might grow up a little bit.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Credibility is seriously in doubt when Metal Gear Solid is referred to as a "Fighting game"
What's wrong with saying, "The PS3 is behind right now, and it will need to improve sales in the future, in order to catch up to the 360 and Wii"? I think that's a very respectable and truthful statement. It's by no means "OMG PS3 IS D00MED", just an honest look at the sales situation today.
What I think is dishonest is saying that the PS3 is doing well now. It is certainly not where Sony wants sales to be right now. One reason why so many gamers and tech junkies have so much hate for Sony is because, in the past, they tended to spin and lie all the time. Remember the whole, "There are lots of PS3 shortages right now" claim earlier this year, when it was obviously clear there wasn't any? (Penny-Arcade famously called them out on this)
-- jchenx