You don't have to argue. The 360 already has this capability. With the announced arcade ports, Xbox Live is looking to be just as retro-friendly as the Wii.
Since I haven't seen a detailed picture of the backs of the two PS3 units, I just don't know enough. I will note, though, that it could be slightly more complicated in the sense that they could, similar to the original Gamecube, have separate analog and digital (well, NTSC and 480p) outputs. I've found it interesting that so far the Xbox 360 doesn't have a DVI/HDMI adapter available, going instead with composite/S-video/component/VGA - the fact that they're all analog leads me to wonder if there's an extra chip/component necessary to enable digital video.
As for which one to buy, I'm mostly with you on waiting for the games. But, my resolve is weakening every day I have no personal PC while Oblivion for the 360 sits on store shelves. The PS3, on the other hand, would have to have some very awesome games considering the price differential.:)
It's too bad that Nintendo generally (and Miyamoto specifically) hate GTA. A Nintendo-style sendup of GTA starring Mario would be pretty cool. He could go into business selling mushrooms on the street, aggressively taking territory from Bowzer's gang [of Haitians].
I'd blame microsoft for making such a big deal out of having GTA4 on their console.
I don't blame them at all. Since the Xbox 360 hit, or dropped softly onto, the street, Interweb rumor after Interweb rumor has had GTA being either exclusive to the PS3 or at least coming out way ahead of an Xbox 360 version (said rumors being driven mostly by the franchise history). Given the extreme popularity of the franchise, and the fact that the Xbox 360 will be much cheaper than the PS3, this is indeed a very big deal for Microsoft. While Halo 3 will have the legions of fans of the previous two games, those legions are expected to get 360s anyway. With GTA hitting simultaneous on both boxes, they're going to be able to steal a lot of people who look at the two games, see that whatever differences (the additional episodic content) there are between the two versions play to the benefit of the 360, and decide that paying $100+ extra isn't a great deal.
I understand the hands-free necessity in cars - but is it necessary to wear a headset all the time? Are we getting too lazy to hold a phone up to our ears while walking? It may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it certainly clearly labels anyone talking on a phone as talking on a phone.
You haven't answered anyone else, so I'll ask you straight out: Why should I care that you know whether or not I'm talking on a phone? Further, why should I subject myself to what you yourself identify as discomfort in order to accommodate your neurosis?
It's one thing to get irritated by someone who's got a ringing cell phone and/or talking loud on the phone in a quiet restaurant or a movie theater. It seems like a pathology, however, when you're feeling uncomfortable because someone is using a cell phone with a headset while walking down the street.
I don't have a cell phone myself (I don't spend all that much time out and about and I'm reluctant to make myself available 24/7 in any case) but if I did I would never use it without a headset. I've been using headsets and speakerphones at home for years now and I hate when I have to hold a phone to my ear. I certainly wouldn't change that habit because someone on the street is so oversensitive that they can't deal with the idea of someone using technology to enhance their comfort.
I considered mentioning M.U.L.E. but it gets mentioned all the time. Microprose's offerings for the C64 (and its contemporaries) just don't get enough love.:)
You make a good point, though I was also referring to additional content as opposed to, or in addition to, bigger textures. People expect more and more out of their console games, and if they've got a Blu-Ray drive they're going to expect that much more.
All that said, I think the truth of the matter is still that Blu-Ray isn't going to have as big an impact in gaming as some people think. If you look at PC games which have had to accommodate bigger resolutions for years, you find that one DVD is still (barring expansion packs) all they need, despite the fact that multi-CD releases have been common for years. There are exceptions that are pushing the envelope, like Oblivion, but there are few games that have that much going on.
You're right. I picked the wrong one. There was a "060509ae.pdf" and a "060509be.pdf" - however, I can't seem to get through to either one (could be a local problem because Acrobat is acting up) at the moment so I'm not going to throw another link up.
Suffice it to say that the PDF I was looking at had a specs chart that gave the information I indicated.
The sentence below is rude, and probably flamebait.
I get the feeling that if Sony bundled a 17" widescreen HD LCD with every PS3 and sold the package for only $1,200, GP would probably applaud them for that as well..."It's about time!";)
Don't forget to take into account the cost of developing those game assets. 25GB worth of game (or however much a single-layer Blu-Ray disc holds) would cost a lot of money. It's already ridiculously expensive to develop a game that fills up a DVD. Further, if the majority of developers go cross-platform with their games (another "good thing" in light of high development costs) then they're going to cater to the DVD drive in the Xbox 360 anyway. So, even if they have a potential use for the extra 15+ GB of space, they're probably not going to try for fear of not being able to sell the "crippled" DVD version for the 360.
Having read the PDF detailing Sony specifications for the two models, I retract the above. While I do think the PS3 is overpriced compared to the Xbox 360, the 60GB version is actually a pretty good deal compared to the 20GB version since you get wireless networking, flash capability and the HDMI output in addition to the extra 40GB of HD space. This is particularly true since, supposedly, you can't get full resolution out of Blu-Ray without using either HDMI or DVI with HDCP...
Within the first thread is a PDF that you might want to look at. It's an overview of the technical specs of the two PS3 models, and the cheaper model has neither digital video out (meaning that out of the box it will not play Blu-Ray movies at their full resolution) nor wireless networking (there's Bluetooth but no 802.11b/g). I haven't seen a list of accessories and prices yet, but since even third-party wireless networking products for the 360 are coming in at around $80, it will probably cost at least $100 to get the 20GB PS3 up to the 60GB PS3 specs without the increased HD space.
Hehe. Nice memory! I'd forgotten all about that classic Kutaragi smacktalk. The PS3 was going to be driving two 1080p displays at a time way back when. I remember telling someone at the time that clearly the Cell processor had magic pixie dust in the silicon to manage that...maybe they didn't have enough?
What's the point of having a 20 GB hard-drive? Why don't they have a base model with only 5 gigs or something?
The reason that both MS and Sony went with 20GB drives is because that's the cheapest 2.5" hard drive you can buy in quantity. I don't think anyone even makes a hard drive smaller than that anymore. Even the cheapest new laptops lately have been starting at 30GB. Of course, the $100 price differential between 20 and 60GB is still ridiculous (the price differential when looking at Newegg is more like $30-50), but I suspect Sony is trying to make up at least a little for what could be a large loss on the 20GB versions.
Say what you want about the Xbox 360 core versus HD deal, but for that extra $100 you got the hard drive, a wireless controller and the high-definition connector (as well as the remote control early on).
For one thing, it's a trivial exercise to add the hard drive to the core system, so it's not so much crippled as it is wounded with sutures available. For another, my point wasn't that MS didn't make a mistake with that plan (I think they did, and I expect it will be rectified by the end of the year, probably consolidating into one HD version with a wired controller and a $50 price cut). My point was simply that, by way of comparison, the PS3 looks a lot less attractive now than the 360 given the pricing, so the non-HD/HD issue seems silly in retrospect. Unless the PS3 titles in the next year are way ahead of what developers are doing on the 360, the price difference is going to kill Sony.
Another thought is that Nintendo might actually be helping the Xbox 360 with their pricing (which people are projecting to be under $300, probably in the $200-250 range). At that point, the 360 will probably seem like an even better balance of power and price with Nintendo deemphasizing higher resolutions. If HD-DVD players can get down to $300 and under over the next 12 months (I think that could happen by the holiday season), things will look even grimmer for Sony...
I'm going to be buying an Xbox 360 and a Wii this year. Sony's pricing has guaranteed it.
You may complain about the size. But at least it's there. *cough* *XBox 360* *cough*
Excellent! Really, well done! Taking a shot at the X360 core system when a) Sony is also releasing two PS3 models at launch and b) the X360 core with a memory card can play every Xbox 360 game released so far for $160 less than the base PS3 system.
One would hope that, considering Sony's price point, the complaints about the Xbox 360 (apart from the number of available games - which will probably be at worst equal to PS3 at launch if developers of available X360 games have their ports ready) would die out. $500-600?? Considering how much Sony is charging for that 40GB difference I've got to believe that they're going to at least be selling the 20GB version as a big loss leader. Otherwise, they're just gouge-happy...
Perhaps what's needed is a "superfunny" moderation which would give karma credit to people who deserve it.
Obviously disqualified (and subject to said disqualification through metamoderation) would be items like "In Soviet Russia, recorder PVCs you!" or "Netcraft confirms TiVo PVC is dead."
I know this is Slashdot and all, but all this talk about needing very high resolutions (HD, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 are what I've seen mentioned so far) is just silly. These folks don't seem to be developing a solution to replace a computer monitor. They're working on a solution for watching portable video - a much larger market. At [a virtual] 7 feet, a [virtual] 40-inch 480p (720x480) display would look great - I owned a 40-inch NTSC widescreen TV several years back and people loved the way it looked with DVDs and console videogames.
That's not to say that the same [virtual] size and distance wouldn't look even better with a higher resolution, but I hardly think that 480p or similar would be inadequate. It might be inadequate for modern PC use but, again, that's not relevant to this.
The sweet, red-headed fellow you're talking about was Avengers liaison, Henry Peter Gyrich who, by the way, became something of a "nice" guy during the last run of Avengers leading up to the infamous (and annoying) "Avengers Disassembled" storyline. One of his "best" moments was when he forced The Falcon onto the Avengers because he felt that they didn't have enough minority representation (and, to be fair, they didn't). It was a pretty interesting storyline considering the uproar that Affirmative Action has caused over the years.
1980-1981, as I recall. It's remained a consistent reference ever since because the future is never in the present. So, though the inciting details have changed this could lead to the DoFP events as easily as assassinating Senator Robert Kelly (who, by the way, went mutant neutral/pro a while back).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to argue. The 360 already has this capability. With the announced arcade ports, Xbox Live is looking to be just as retro-friendly as the Wii.
...the XBox 360 will have dropped in price to $400 or $450...
The Xbox 360 is already $400 for the HD version, $300 for the "core" system.
a) I've seen and read Miyamoto taking shots at GTA's content - I'm well aware that he has expressed appreciation for overall design.
b) It was a joke.
Look at the dates again. GTA is apparently set to ship in 2007, thus it will never be an "exclusive."
Since I haven't seen a detailed picture of the backs of the two PS3 units, I just don't know enough. I will note, though, that it could be slightly more complicated in the sense that they could, similar to the original Gamecube, have separate analog and digital (well, NTSC and 480p) outputs. I've found it interesting that so far the Xbox 360 doesn't have a DVI/HDMI adapter available, going instead with composite/S-video/component/VGA - the fact that they're all analog leads me to wonder if there's an extra chip/component necessary to enable digital video.
:)
As for which one to buy, I'm mostly with you on waiting for the games. But, my resolve is weakening every day I have no personal PC while Oblivion for the 360 sits on store shelves. The PS3, on the other hand, would have to have some very awesome games considering the price differential.
It's too bad that Nintendo generally (and Miyamoto specifically) hate GTA. A Nintendo-style sendup of GTA starring Mario would be pretty cool. He could go into business selling mushrooms on the street, aggressively taking territory from Bowzer's gang [of Haitians].
If they'd just cut their hair and wear ties, they could all afford Xbox Live!
I'd blame microsoft for making such a big deal out of having GTA4 on their console.
I don't blame them at all. Since the Xbox 360 hit, or dropped softly onto, the street, Interweb rumor after Interweb rumor has had GTA being either exclusive to the PS3 or at least coming out way ahead of an Xbox 360 version (said rumors being driven mostly by the franchise history). Given the extreme popularity of the franchise, and the fact that the Xbox 360 will be much cheaper than the PS3, this is indeed a very big deal for Microsoft. While Halo 3 will have the legions of fans of the previous two games, those legions are expected to get 360s anyway. With GTA hitting simultaneous on both boxes, they're going to be able to steal a lot of people who look at the two games, see that whatever differences (the additional episodic content) there are between the two versions play to the benefit of the 360, and decide that paying $100+ extra isn't a great deal.
I understand the hands-free necessity in cars - but is it necessary to wear a headset all the time? Are we getting too lazy to hold a phone up to our ears while walking? It may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it certainly clearly labels anyone talking on a phone as talking on a phone.
You haven't answered anyone else, so I'll ask you straight out: Why should I care that you know whether or not I'm talking on a phone? Further, why should I subject myself to what you yourself identify as discomfort in order to accommodate your neurosis?
It's one thing to get irritated by someone who's got a ringing cell phone and/or talking loud on the phone in a quiet restaurant or a movie theater. It seems like a pathology, however, when you're feeling uncomfortable because someone is using a cell phone with a headset while walking down the street.
I don't have a cell phone myself (I don't spend all that much time out and about and I'm reluctant to make myself available 24/7 in any case) but if I did I would never use it without a headset. I've been using headsets and speakerphones at home for years now and I hate when I have to hold a phone to my ear. I certainly wouldn't change that habit because someone on the street is so oversensitive that they can't deal with the idea of someone using technology to enhance their comfort.
I considered mentioning M.U.L.E. but it gets mentioned all the time. Microprose's offerings for the C64 (and its contemporaries) just don't get enough love. :)
Neither does Gunship. The PS3 has a long way to go to match the Commodore 64...
You make a good point, though I was also referring to additional content as opposed to, or in addition to, bigger textures. People expect more and more out of their console games, and if they've got a Blu-Ray drive they're going to expect that much more.
All that said, I think the truth of the matter is still that Blu-Ray isn't going to have as big an impact in gaming as some people think. If you look at PC games which have had to accommodate bigger resolutions for years, you find that one DVD is still (barring expansion packs) all they need, despite the fact that multi-CD releases have been common for years. There are exceptions that are pushing the envelope, like Oblivion, but there are few games that have that much going on.
You're right. I picked the wrong one. There was a "060509ae.pdf" and a "060509be.pdf" - however, I can't seem to get through to either one (could be a local problem because Acrobat is acting up) at the moment so I'm not going to throw another link up.
Suffice it to say that the PDF I was looking at had a specs chart that gave the information I indicated.
The sentence below is rude, and probably flamebait.
;)
I get the feeling that if Sony bundled a 17" widescreen HD LCD with every PS3 and sold the package for only $1,200, GP would probably applaud them for that as well..."It's about time!"
Don't forget to take into account the cost of developing those game assets. 25GB worth of game (or however much a single-layer Blu-Ray disc holds) would cost a lot of money. It's already ridiculously expensive to develop a game that fills up a DVD. Further, if the majority of developers go cross-platform with their games (another "good thing" in light of high development costs) then they're going to cater to the DVD drive in the Xbox 360 anyway. So, even if they have a potential use for the extra 15+ GB of space, they're probably not going to try for fear of not being able to sell the "crippled" DVD version for the 360.
Having read the PDF detailing Sony specifications for the two models, I retract the above. While I do think the PS3 is overpriced compared to the Xbox 360, the 60GB version is actually a pretty good deal compared to the 20GB version since you get wireless networking, flash capability and the HDMI output in addition to the extra 40GB of HD space. This is particularly true since, supposedly, you can't get full resolution out of Blu-Ray without using either HDMI or DVI with HDCP...
Within the first thread is a PDF that you might want to look at. It's an overview of the technical specs of the two PS3 models, and the cheaper model has neither digital video out (meaning that out of the box it will not play Blu-Ray movies at their full resolution) nor wireless networking (there's Bluetooth but no 802.11b/g). I haven't seen a list of accessories and prices yet, but since even third-party wireless networking products for the 360 are coming in at around $80, it will probably cost at least $100 to get the 20GB PS3 up to the 60GB PS3 specs without the increased HD space.
Hehe. Nice memory! I'd forgotten all about that classic Kutaragi smacktalk. The PS3 was going to be driving two 1080p displays at a time way back when. I remember telling someone at the time that clearly the Cell processor had magic pixie dust in the silicon to manage that...maybe they didn't have enough?
What's the point of having a 20 GB hard-drive? Why don't they have a base model with only 5 gigs or something?
The reason that both MS and Sony went with 20GB drives is because that's the cheapest 2.5" hard drive you can buy in quantity. I don't think anyone even makes a hard drive smaller than that anymore. Even the cheapest new laptops lately have been starting at 30GB. Of course, the $100 price differential between 20 and 60GB is still ridiculous (the price differential when looking at Newegg is more like $30-50), but I suspect Sony is trying to make up at least a little for what could be a large loss on the 20GB versions.
Say what you want about the Xbox 360 core versus HD deal, but for that extra $100 you got the hard drive, a wireless controller and the high-definition connector (as well as the remote control early on).
For one thing, it's a trivial exercise to add the hard drive to the core system, so it's not so much crippled as it is wounded with sutures available. For another, my point wasn't that MS didn't make a mistake with that plan (I think they did, and I expect it will be rectified by the end of the year, probably consolidating into one HD version with a wired controller and a $50 price cut). My point was simply that, by way of comparison, the PS3 looks a lot less attractive now than the 360 given the pricing, so the non-HD/HD issue seems silly in retrospect. Unless the PS3 titles in the next year are way ahead of what developers are doing on the 360, the price difference is going to kill Sony.
Another thought is that Nintendo might actually be helping the Xbox 360 with their pricing (which people are projecting to be under $300, probably in the $200-250 range). At that point, the 360 will probably seem like an even better balance of power and price with Nintendo deemphasizing higher resolutions. If HD-DVD players can get down to $300 and under over the next 12 months (I think that could happen by the holiday season), things will look even grimmer for Sony...
I'm going to be buying an Xbox 360 and a Wii this year. Sony's pricing has guaranteed it.
You may complain about the size. But at least it's there. *cough* *XBox 360* *cough*
Excellent! Really, well done! Taking a shot at the X360 core system when a) Sony is also releasing two PS3 models at launch and b) the X360 core with a memory card can play every Xbox 360 game released so far for $160 less than the base PS3 system.
One would hope that, considering Sony's price point, the complaints about the Xbox 360 (apart from the number of available games - which will probably be at worst equal to PS3 at launch if developers of available X360 games have their ports ready) would die out. $500-600?? Considering how much Sony is charging for that 40GB difference I've got to believe that they're going to at least be selling the 20GB version as a big loss leader. Otherwise, they're just gouge-happy...
Perhaps what's needed is a "superfunny" moderation which would give karma credit to people who deserve it.
Obviously disqualified (and subject to said disqualification through metamoderation) would be items like "In Soviet Russia, recorder PVCs you!" or "Netcraft confirms TiVo PVC is dead."
I know this is Slashdot and all, but all this talk about needing very high resolutions (HD, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 are what I've seen mentioned so far) is just silly. These folks don't seem to be developing a solution to replace a computer monitor. They're working on a solution for watching portable video - a much larger market. At [a virtual] 7 feet, a [virtual] 40-inch 480p (720x480) display would look great - I owned a 40-inch NTSC widescreen TV several years back and people loved the way it looked with DVDs and console videogames.
That's not to say that the same [virtual] size and distance wouldn't look even better with a higher resolution, but I hardly think that 480p or similar would be inadequate. It might be inadequate for modern PC use but, again, that's not relevant to this.
The sweet, red-headed fellow you're talking about was Avengers liaison, Henry Peter Gyrich who, by the way, became something of a "nice" guy during the last run of Avengers leading up to the infamous (and annoying) "Avengers Disassembled" storyline. One of his "best" moments was when he forced The Falcon onto the Avengers because he felt that they didn't have enough minority representation (and, to be fair, they didn't). It was a pretty interesting storyline considering the uproar that Affirmative Action has caused over the years.
1980-1981, as I recall. It's remained a consistent reference ever since because the future is never in the present. So, though the inciting details have changed this could lead to the DoFP events as easily as assassinating Senator Robert Kelly (who, by the way, went mutant neutral/pro a while back).