If you talk to average joe gamer, HD elitism has been going on since last gen EVEN IF THEY DON'T OWN AN HDTV.
Sure, let's go down the street and talk to Average Joe and see what he thinks.:P
In some way, I agree that HD elitism has been going on for a while. Heck, you don't even have to be a gamer to realize that HD > SD. If you're a sports fan, you KNOW how awesome HD sports looks (watching football on my father-in-law's 60" DLP pretty much sold me on getting one myself). And everytime you go into a Best Buy or Circuit City, you're inundated with HDTV screens that show how blatantly obvious HDTV is better than SDTV. I definately agree that the "hot new item" to get is an HDTV, if you don't have one yet.
But HD movies? HD-DVD or Blu-ray versus regular DVD? Sorry bub. Not for another few years. Heck, I wonder how many people would even notice the difference between the resolutions (480p vs 1080p). I know I do, but my wife doesn't really notice. Nor do many of our friends. Maybe a few years from now...
Frankly as it's under $1000 it's in impulse buy territory for me. $600 is not a lot of money, I spent $300 on a pair of shoes this weekend because I thought they looked good.
Okay, I make a decent wage (well over the average income), and I'm married to a woman who's into names like Louis Vuitton and Burberry, but even I can't plunk down $300 for a frickin pair of shoes.
Now if it was for a video card or something, then yeah maybe.:)
I'll add my 2 cents as well. The PS2, even though DVD had been fairly established by then, was a crappy DVD player. Using the controller was pretty lame (it was wired, and it was hard to remember what each button was supposed to do). Maybe for its time it was a decent entry-level DVD player, but everyone now realizes that there are many standalone DVD players far superior to the PS2 one.
Now the PS3 as a Blu-ray player? I'd be even MORE skeptical. And even if it was fairly decent, you know that better players are going to come out in the not-too-distant future. Do I really want to be locked down to the Blu-ray format now? Personally, I'd rather wait until it's readily apparent which format has won, THEN I'll start investing in a player and HD movies. But that'll be years from now.
So I'm absolutely not considering the PS3 as a Blu-ray player. It's a game console, first and foremost, with an unfortunate mandatory and expensive add-on attached to it.
... of course by the time the PS3 comes out, I wouldn't be surprised at all of the 360 price drops, or they at least start offering some sweet bundling deals. Gears of War, extra controller, free year of Live, all bundled together = Bad News for Sony.
Well, from a marketing and format-domination perspective, wouldn't a larger user base for Sony PS3s mean that more people would use Blu-Ray and its DRM, thus giving them a lock on the next format?
So, yes, I think at some point they will realize that they want to win the war, not be stuck on past glories. And to succeed at selling movie titles, which is probably more revenue than games, it helps to sell more PS3s.
Retail of $500 is not going to make them bleed to death - $600 is a sweet price for them, but if they sell way more volume at $500 and then people end up buying Blu-Ray movies, they end up making more in the long run.
So your whole post right there, is the problem. And that's probably the exact thinking of more than a few Sony executives, particularly those in Sony Pictures or those responsible for heavily pushing Blu-ray.
I'm definately not alone in saying, "Screw Blu-ray! Just give me a GAME console!" Do I own an HDTV? Heck ya. Am I one of the few that notice a difference between 480p DVDs and 720p HD TV shows? I'll even admit yes to that. But do I really want my game console playing HD movies, *especially* if it's going to cost me an extra few hundred dollars? Most definately NOT.
I am not going to invest in any HD movie format until it's well established which format wins, and I'm not alone (how many times did Beta/VHS get mentioned today?). Even if I did get a PS3 (and I will be getting one, but not till the price drops heavily), I wouldn't get any Blu-ray movies until I know which format to get. Additionally, I would probably just invest in a Blu-ray or HD-DVD standalone player. I know my PS2 was barely adequate as a DVD-player, so I don't have high hopes for the PS3, nor should I. Anyway, by the time the format is decided, standalone players will be a lot more affordable AND probably have a lot more features than the PS3 anyway (better audio capabilities, holds multiple discs, etc.).
Gamers said much the same thing when MS touted all of the media capabilities of the 360. It can stream music, videos, even watch TV. Woo, whatever. Now I've played around with those options on my 360, and sure it's neat. But at the end of the day, I use my 360 to play games. It'll be the same with the PS3. I just wish I didn't have to pay >$200 more dollars because some Sony execs had the same ideas you did.
Adding the protections against re-using the same disk to spawn another player, while supporting TCP/IP play, seems to me to be the non-trivial task as well as an opening toward more buggy behavior, not the other way around.
Incorrect. Doing things like checking if the CD is in the drive before the game is launchable, is something that can be shared across many games. If you're a large game developer or publisher, I imagine there's some common DRM code-base that you can share across all your titles, regardless of genre. It essentially just wraps the game. Heck, there are companies that will do this for you, most notably (and infamously) Starforce.
Do I LIKE that type of draconion DRM? Heavens no. It usually does more harm than good. But it definately is more trivial than adding in "multiplayer spawn" functionality to your game. The former is something you can just license or share across games. The latter is something that can't be abstracted out so easily, so it's non-trivial work for every game.
In a world where there was unlimited time and money, then yeah I'd love for all games with multiplayer to have that type of option. Unfortunately that doesn't happen. What we DO get a lot, though, are multiplayer-only demos. They let you try out the game (even though they're usually limited in some way), and ultimately should encourage you to buy the game.
If a game is good enough, I'm fine with spending money to buy it. And I'll encourage my friends to do the same. What's wrong with that?
In any case, the vendor makes this priority decision long before we have the product in our hands. If they advertise multiplayer play they should allow multiplayer play. If that requires another purchase, either in controller or other hardware or subscription or downloadable key or a whole other boxed distribution then that should be apparant from their packaging.
I think you're confusing multiplayer play with LAN-play. Most multiplayer games now are done over the Internet, with either some sort of embedded matchmaking system or server list, where you choose who you want to play with. Everyone in this system is a fellow owner of the game, and that's to be expected.
Now the problem is when you have a bunch of friends who you want to do multiplayer with that don't own the game already. This happens most often at LAN parties. Well, that's definately more of a corner-case scenario nowadays. For one thing, LAN parties don't happen all that often anymore because they don't NEED to. With broadband availability, I can play relatively lag-free games of Counter-Strike with my friends over TCP/IP. Heck, with things like Ventrilo and TeamSpeak, I won't even lose out on the verbal trash-talking either.
And even in the case where I do get my buddies together, all it takes is making sure everyone brings a copy of their game. Sure, there are times where I really want to play game X, but no one else owns it. Do you know what? We just don't play it. My friends usually wouldn't want to play something they're not that familiar with... so we'll default to something else. I imagine that's the same with most other folks.
So in summary, most games don't require "multiple purchases" if you're going to do multiplayer the usual way (finding opponents who already own the game). The only scenario I can imagine where that's necessary, LAN gaming, isn't exactly super popular anymore.
Gee, drink a lot of Sony kool-aid I see... where do I begin...
Why in the world would they not use a next-gen tech for optical media. I've got a PS2 game that uses two discs (Shadow heart) and considering that ps3 games will be displayed in hd along with any fmv (FF XIII will probably be heavy on that) games will start using more disc space then fits in a DVD. Although on the pricier side this will clearly be an impact on games like ff.
Bzzzt! Larger media does not mean better games. It typically means, yes, more CG and FMV. Now, is that really a good thing? I'm actually a big fan of J-RPGs and I'm saying this. (And yes I will be getting a PS3, but good god not for a few years)
Besides, with many next-gen titles, you can really use the in-game engine to render cut-scenes, and that's arguably better with FMV. You already see this now with many PS2 and Xbox titles, and not many people are clamoring for more pre-rendered FMV.
And finally, with many games being multi-platform, companies will always develop to the lowest common denominator. That's why the original Xbox HD never got utilized that much by 3rd parties, and why Blu-ray capacity isn't going to be that big a deal.
Also by manufacturing 4 million ps2's in the first 3-4 months they will be well into the mass manufacture of their new tech. This will drive prices down for blu-ray players...
You've got to be kidding me. A few MONTHS is NOT "well into the mass manufacture". Try a few YEARS. Yes, Blu-ray costs will go down dramatically after the first year, but the PS3 is essentially being released in its first year. That's why the PS3 is so dang expensive. I'm hoping (along with many others) for a massive price drop in 2007, but unfortunately for Sony, all of their competitors already have a huge head start in terms of pricing, so they'll always lag a few hundred dollars behind.
Next, while many people here like to argue that hd is expensive and it doesn't have a high adoption rate thats true for now. But HD equipment is still quite cheap... I bought a decent quality 36 inch JVC tube tv back in the day for $1000ish that i still use. I can buy a HD LCDTV of around 32inches for that price, thats definately what i plan on going with in the future for obvious reasons.
Okay, I can't argue with you too much here, since I've argued the same thing. (I own an HDTV as well) People seem to think that HD = Plasma = Thousands of dollars. It's not. There are decent HD sets for under a grand. Yeah, they're CRTs and not the flashy new tech (LCD, Plasma, DLP), but they're definately more affordable.
The fact is that TVs, like many other pieces of consumer electronics, are always breaking down or being replaced. Who in their right mind today would buy a regular SD set without at least THINKING about going HD? I'm sure the salespeople are telling them about the "imminent" switchover to HD (scare tactics). At the very least, all the shiny HDTVs are basically screaming "BUY ME" to consumers.
As for price... who would have thought that people would by $400 dollar portable music players of poor sound quality (i've got an ipod--even the headphones aren't of high quality) ten years ago. If Sony's marketting can make the ps3 seem like a value then it will sell.
Yeah, Apple did an amazing job with the iPod. But the mass market consumer is a different audience than the gamer/techno-geek that Sony is vying for. Arguably it is Nintendo that might do a better job here than Sony.
HOWEVER. The launch of the XBOX 360 cannot have faded much from our minds. Shortages. Outrageous prices on eBay. Microsoft taking a loss on the systems anyway. Even though I despise Sony, I have to concede that it would be awfully dumb of them to launch this system at a lower price. They're going to sell out. There's going to be a shortage for months. They might as well take as LITTLE loss as possible on these machines.
No, it's stupid. Yes, you may make a few million on those early adopters, but you have the potential to lose far more in things like mind-share, brand loyalty, etc. which all lead to losing MORE in the end. As soon as Sony announced the price for their PS3, and it was hundreds of dollars more than many gamers were expecting, they instantly switched allegiances to MS. (It probably helped a lot that GTA IV was no longer Sony exclusive for the first few months) Heck, these gamers probably even bought 360s that week (providing they could find any... zing!).
Sony is smarter than to release the PS3 at a high price just to take advantage of short supply. They know the dangers of high price points. They are the ones who sank the Dreamcast by announcing a cheaper-than-expected price for the PS2.
The reason for the high price is simple: cost of goods. Blu-ray is expensive. If they didn't have to do Blu-ray, then the cost would be much more in-line then what most gamers are willing to pay for.
Somehow I feel you're just trolling, but I'll bite...
I have a degree but no job. Which games do you suggest I mod which run on an 0.866 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM?
There are lots of older games that run on that hardware. The original Half-Life game did, and that's what the incredibly successful Counter-Strike was based off. So you can start there. Or save up, get a better computer, and try working on more recent titles.
There are no games companies in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Do you suggest that I move? If so, how?
You want me to give you life advice or something? Or did you want people to give you fricking handouts? For most folks, there is no "easy button" for life. Get a job. If you want to go to a place with lots of games companies, save up and move to Washington or California, where there are a lot of them. But only do so if you've actually got skills.
So how do I make and sell a party style PC game that supports four players on one monitor if the markets for 1. PC games that can be played on a TV-size monitor and 2. PC games that can be played on four PCs owned by a single family are so tiny?
You don't. The same reason you don't make highly detailed games requiring fine control (ie a mouse) on consoles.
If you want to make a party style game that supports 4 players on one monitor, then you have to bite the bullet and try to find a way to break into the console games business. As I've mentioned before, the best way to do this currently is via Xbox Live Arcade. But apparently they are inundated with requests from hundreds of developers, so it won't be easy to get their attention unless you have a killer game. In the future, there may be a similar option with Sony and Nintendo's consoles, although you may want to start making phone calls now.
And if you don't have a killer game in the first place, then why bother? There isn't a market for mediocre/poor console games done by an indie/amature developer. (Well I wouldn't pay for one... there are a ton of them on free web game sites)
I've wanted to do that, but none have been even close to willing to advance me the money for relocation from my parents' basement in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the State of Washington.
I hope you're joking. But if you're serious and you're still just a kid dreaming to get into the games industry, what you need to do is focus on your skills and studies. Get into a decent college, learn CS the right way, and in your spare time, work on modding existing games. Then when you graduate, interview at a games company somewhere and get your foot in the door. Once you've got experience and made enough contacts, THEN you can think about trying to develop and publish your own titles.
One might argue that if platform manufacturers invested more some time and money in a more open SDK that anyone could easily get ahold of, that the influx of content from amature developers would help the platform stay viable, not become a drain. You make this point yourself by referencing the PC game market. As an example, look at the development community around the Unreal Tournament series. Because they've been supportive of community development, there is a rich community driven mod and map set that has kept the title alive for some time now. It's time that platform manufacturers wake up and allow the average joe to tweak their games and have a low cost of entry to their SDKs. The first one that lowers this barrier to entry will see a huge explosion of content to keep their platform breathing long after the "big commercial hits" have passed them by. Now that would be a competitive advantage.
I'm glad you replied, because I did want to talk about opening up platforms, but didn't know if anyone would be interested in hearing my thoughts.
I totally agree that the PC market is an example that opening up games turned out to be a BOON for developers. Take World of Warcraft for example. Blizzard did a fantastic job of letting modders do almost anything they wanted to the UI. The community has created an amazing set of new features that Blizzard developers didn't have to spend one minute on (aside from making the interface moddable). Morrowind and Oblivion, by Bethesda, are also great examples of extremely moddable games. As for original games, Counter-Strike is probably the best example (yes it's a "mod" of HL, but it's essentially a whole game itself).
So I'm a big fan of user-created content. However, the way I see it, the barrier to entry for consoles is high... not because the platform companies WANT to lock users out, but due to technical and cost limitations. Some of the issues, and potentially how they can be solved (especially in this generation)...
1) Controller interface sucks for creating content/writing code: Newer consoles now allow you to plug in a USB keyboard and mouse, so this is now solved 2) Need place to store content: Arguably, memory cards weren't large enough to hold user-created content. But now that hard-drives are becoming fairly standard, this is no longer an issue 3) No easy way to allow users to share content: This is tricky, since platform companies don't want their box to be hackable/moddable, so this needs to be secure (can't just be a matter of letting users stick discs in the system that run arbitrary code). Fortunately with central online services and marketplaces, such as Xbox Live Marketplace and what Sony demoed for the PS3, this is solved. Let users create in-game content and then share it on Marketplace. Heck, they could even set up a mini-economy, where gamers use points to buy/sell items. I think MS talked a lot about this at E3 last year, although most gamers seemed not to care. But that leads me to the next issue... 4) Average CONSOLE gamer doesn't seem to care about creating their own content: This is a tricky one. I would agree that the average console gamer is probably less technical than your average PC gamer, so they're not apt to dive into script languages and such. But that can be solved by creating better tools. Spore is a great example of this. From what we've all seen, it looks dead easy to create fairly complex creatures and environments.
So modding console games? I'm totally for it, and I think it's now possible with the newest generation of consoles. But is it going to happen right away? Of course not. Sony and Nintendo are still focused on launching their systems (and they NEED to be). Ironically, MS might be leading the way here. I've heard that Viva Pinata will have user-created content that's sharable on Marketplace, but we'll see if that actually happens. It would be really cool if it did, and the nex
In typical Microsoft fashion, multiplayer required that you have as many original game CD's as players.
I'm not sure I get you, because most PC multiplayer games are like that. It's not something that Microsoft "invented". If you wanted to play multiplayer with your friends, ideally each one of you should have bought the game. Many games, regardless of developer, check that your CD is in the drive in order to let you play. Now some will let you take the CD out once the game is running, so you can then hand it to a friend... but this workaround didn't work for all titles.
I know this first-hand because in high school and college, my friends and I ran into the same problems as you did. But it wasn't for any MS titles.
Some companies (I think Blizzard was one) did let you spawn multiplayer-only versions onto other computers, which was especially useful for LAN parties and such. I do wish more game companies did something like this, although it's obviously a non-trivial work item to do. If it was between more levels in a game, better gameplay, fewer bugs, or multiplayer-only-spawned versions for LAN play, I'd ditch the latter.
I'm looking forward to Wii and its business model, but NOA has historically been a stickler about who can become a licensed developer, requiring a business and marketing plan and an approved title before developers can even begin to investigate the technical aspects of the platform.
Gee whiz, a console maker wanting to make sure potential developers are serious before they invest time and money in supporting them? Go figure!:P
Now I don't know the specific details of what you're saying, but even if it's true, that sounds fairly reasonable. SDKs are not cheap. Even if you pay for one, there are support costs (calls from developers wanting answers to questions on how X works), as well as all the fees associated with getting a game actually launched to shelves (contracts, lawyer fees, game certification costs, etc.). None of the platform companies are in the business of letting EVERY Joe Gamer who-thinks-they-have-a-cool-idea an easy way to get their game launched.
Now the best place for Joe Gamer to get involved is with PC games, where lots of titles are readibly moddable. But for it to work well, the developers have to build in modability (everything in the game is scriptable, extensible, etc.). On top of that, having it on PC makes it much easier for gamers to trade mods. This CAN be done in the console space, but it's much harder since it's a closed environment. However things like the Xbox Live Marketplace were supposed to be eventually host user-created content, so that may be something that comes to console gaming in the not-too-distant future.
Going back to indie development on a totally original game, any platform you try to take your game to, whether it be a console, or an established games website (like Yahoo or MSN Games, or Real Arcade), is going to want to have proof that you will be a good partner to work with. Websites are probably going to be less demanding than the console companies. So if you're serious about getting into the business, even as an indie developer, I'd start there.... and if that seems too hard for you, then bite the bullet and just interview for an existing, well-established developer. Lots are hiring.
Except I want to make a multiplayer game for Everyone, and Internet play results in a nearly automatic Teen rating due to COPPA. How do I fit four people around one PC monitor if most PCs aren't connected to televisions? Not all games benefit from being networked with a separate view for each player; games that don't benefit include Bomberman, Tetris, and Smash Bros.
Sounds like you have a game design issue, which can't really be solved on the PC platform. Different platforms have different strengths and weaknesses. Obviously party games ARE hard to do on the PC, because computer monitors are almost always smaller than TVs, and more importantly, they reside in people's offices and not living rooms. But I don't know why you're using this to debate that indie devs are screwed, since there are many indie titles for the PC that aren't party games.
Console games are great for party games, since you've got that "10 foot experience" thing going for you. You can do things like split-screen, or have everyone share the same viewpoint. What DOESN'T work well for console platforms are games which have to have a lot of detail, such as many RTS or strategy games, or require a fine-tuned control scheme (mice are more accurate than controllers for most people).
Now, if you're serious about wanting to make an awesome party game, but need an entry point to the console industry, then take a look at the other replies here (including mine). There's Xbox Live Arcade and the Virtual Console on Wii. That's certainly a start.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
That doesn't make sense at all.
First of all, the indie dev community is alive and well. You'll find most of them working on web games: from larger houses such as GameHouse and PopCap, to your Garage Games, Reflexive Entertainment, etc. You can play a lot of these games at sites like http://games.msn.com/http://games.yahoo.com/http://www.realarcade.com/ and more.
Most of the games they make are single-player, but some can be multiplayer. And you're an idiot if you think that all multiplayer games must require broadband (as you alluded to in another comment).
As for getting on consoles, MS is leading the way with Xbox Live Arcade, where you can find a number of games by indie titles. And they're selling quite well. Both Nintendo and Sony are hinting towards having downloadable games to consoles as well, although it's still unknown whether they are welcoming indie developers the same way. I would imagine they have to, and that would be a good thing.
Now, if you're lamenting that an indie developer is never going to be able to create the next Halo or Madden title, then that's probably true... since those games feature high production values. But that doesn't mean indie companies can't make fun games, or make money to boot. They can, and are.
Once the indie developers start getting larger and have more capital, then you will see them start creating more traditional console titles. They'll work with the platform companies in the usual way, so they're more like regular developers now.
You're also forgetting XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade), home to many popular indie titles: Bejeweled, Zuma, Outpost Kaloki, Wix: Fable of Souls, etc. You've got hundreds of indie developers clamoring to get on-board, which is "good thing" for gamers.
It's still unknown whether or not the PS3 marketplace will have support for indie developers, or whether they will just continue to cater towards the big name companies. What they demoed in their press conference was Namco's Ridge Racer, downloaded onto their PSP, which is quite different than what the 360 currently offers.
Sorry, the link you provided had the following update:
Update: Seems that we posted a mistranslation. According to IGN's translation Wada's words were "We plan on solidifying our plans by E3 to offer both on the PS3 and Xbox 360, or place both on just one [system]," which indicate Square-Enix is considering the possibility to offer the titles on both the X360 and PS3.
Apparently they decided to offer both titles on just the PS3, since it's now E3. The could change their minds, but it might be too late, if Sony made them sign an exclusivity contract. After hearing all the uproar over the PS3 pricing, Square-Enix might have gone "Doh!".
What I was at least hoping to see was some new franchise on the 360, similar to what Square-Enix did for Nintendo consoles with Crystal Chronicles. And no, FFXI doesn't count, since it's merely a port and for a game that was released years ago no doubt.
I'll admit that I am a neophyte when comes to understanding the tangled mess that is HD movies/output/DRM/etc. That's why I asked those questions in the first place, whether or not I would need HDMI to play Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies. So apologies if was jumping to conclusions. That said...
The movie studios have been the ones requesting HDCP/HDMI. Consumer electronics companies that make players would rather just ignore protected outputs which have extra cost. They don't care about protecting movies, just selling more devices and profit margins.
The process has pros and cons. It limits the available technologies which can be used. It makes it difficult to use new output technologies, but does prevent companies from making proprietary outputs which only works with one manufacturers players and TVs.
There is no technical way for Movie Studios to enforce HDMI. There is no flag that can be put in mvies to say only play on HDMI outputs.
What you just mentioned seems a little scary. Okay, so you say movie companies can't enforce HDMI, and that it's in the hands of the consumer electronics makers. Well, Sony happens to be in BOTH businesses. Does that mean they could really screw over consumers if they really needed to do X? There's also the conflict of interest. SCEA just wants to sell as many PS3s as they want, but Sony Pictures wants to sell as many Blu-ray movies as they want and clamp down on piracy. They have to reach some sort of compromise with each other, and that may or may not affect users in a bad way.
Oh wait, that's already happened. If Sony didn't have to push Blu-ray, then the cost of the PS3 would be far cheaper. It could just be an add-on, like MS is doing with the 360 and presumably what Nintendo may do with the Wii. Then gamers EVERYWHERE would win. (Unless you really believe the bunk that bigger disc capacity = better games)
Whatever happened to making just a game console? The Wii, albeit having a funny name, looks too interesting to pass up. The games just look like fun: Mario Galaxy, new Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid. The 360 has got a ton of options: traditional games (FPS, sports, racers, Gears of War, Halo 3, blah), fun XBLA games, retro titles on XBLA (CONTRA!!!!), and the whole "mini-game" aspect of collecting achievements and gamerscore.
But you're trying to sell me on the PS3 because it can play movies in HD? Puh-lease.
What Sony and their fanbois should be doing is trumpeting up the game exclusivity they still have, and not trying to defend the price so much. I admit I will be getting a PS3 at some point, because it'll be the only place to get God of War 2, MGS4, and all the FFXIII games. I may wait a year or two, but those are games I want to play that I can't get anywhere else.
In short, yes technically HD-DVD and Blu-ray require HDMI. But there are several articles out there (Google it, I'm lazy) that mention several Hollywood studios not enforcing this, at least initially.
You know, the following conversation could have theoretically taken place at Sony:
1 year ago Sony Pictures: So, you tell us, should we enforce HDMI for our movies? Sony Entertainment: Yes! Totally! Only the PS3 will have an HDMI output. Do it and the 360 and Revolution will be screwed! We'll be the only console that can play movies in HD! MwaHAHAHA!
1 month ago Sony Pictures: Okay, we just finished our prep work. All of our Blu-ray discs are going to require HDMI. Sony Entertainment: Oh, didn't you get the memo? You need to scratch all of that. The core PS3 isn't going to have HDMI. Sony Pictures: WTF? Make up your mind guys!
Well, "far crappier" is relative. I was mostly comparing to the difference between the core and premium 360, which is essentially a different set of AV cables, and an HD or no HD (which you can upgrade up from). To go from the PS3 core to premium, you'd need to upgrade to the larger HD, buy a WiFi adaptor, buy a memory card/stick adaptor, and buy the HDMI add-on... assuming they all exist.
As for the question whether or not the TV-out is a big deal, I assume you mean the HDMI output. There's an open question as to whether or not the PS3 core will be able to output Blu-ray movies to their full potential, since it won't be able to utilize HDMI. Technically, you're supposed to use HDMI, but it looks like most content companies are backing off that requirement. Note that MS is in the same boat, since their HD-DVD add-on won't use HDMI output either.
This is mostly a moot point since many HDTVs apparently don't have an HDMI input. The funny thing is that most Sony fanbois *were* downplaying that fact, trying to trumpet up just how necessary HDMI output was, because the original PS3 specs had TWO of them, while no other console even had one. But now Sony and their fans are backpedaling, since the core version doesn't have it, and they're trying to defend the core version as not being totally worthless.
Personally, I don't really care. My HDTV does have HDMI input, but I highly doubt I'm going to be buying that many HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs, until I know which format wins... and that won't be known for a while.
But if I were to get a PS3 (and I probably will at some point, since I'm a sucker for Square-Enix fans), it seems like a no brainer to get the premium one. The core one has just too many open questions, and it's only $100 cheaper. But $600 is a lot of money, so I'm going to be waiting until well into 2007 or even later.
You should also know it's "Blu-Ray". Or Blu-ray, or something like that. It's not "Blue-Ray" with an E.
The reason why it's called that in the first place is because the technology uses a blue laser. But I guess dropping the "e" off the end makes it seem more hip and cool. *shrugs*
I know this is a troll post by a Sony fanboi, but I couldn't resist.
It seems to me the company that needs to defend themselves the most from claims of lies and trickery is Sony. Shall we jump into the time machine and see what claims Sony made last E3? Let's see here... 4 ethernet ports (now only 1), 2 HDMI ports so you can output to two TVs (now only 1, and that's only on the premium), the boomerang controller is gone (although that's probably a good thing), Killzone 2 with awesome "in-game graphics" mysteriously missing this E3, and a Spring 2006 ship that has been delayed. Furthermore, they scoffed at MS for the 2 SKU model, but then went ahead and did it themselves (and WORSE since the core model is far crappier than the premium). Then during this year's conference, they talked about how their controller was truly innovative, even though everyone in the audience knew it's just a knock-off of the Wii-mote. And finally, their slides of the two SKU model during the conference listed the only difference as the size of the HD. But the press release later showed drastic differences between the two.
I'm not saying MS is amazing, doesn't make mistakes, etc. In fact, I think the 2 SKU model is pretty stupid as well, and the supply issues were pretty damaging. But man, compared to Sony, they look like saints recently.
And if MS is looking saintly, then Nintendo must be God.:)
You can sure tell who the fanboys are by the backpeddling they do.
Xbox Fanboy: "Uhh those shortages, it's going away next week. I heard they're bringing on another factory, I heard it myself from my sister's-boyfriend's-coworker's-friend-of-a-friend . Yeah the shortages are good for business, it builds hype, umm yeah. Oh by the way, do you know if Walmart has any 360s yet?"
Nintendo Fanboy: "Hey guys, it's just a name! Let's be mature now. The console itself hasn't changed. Guys... guys? Stop laughing already!"
Sony Fanboy: "Actually, having two SKUs isn't that bad, it gives the consumer more choices, yeah that's it. And you don't REALLY need HDMI or WiFi or rumble-features. Oh, and the high price means that you'll really be proud once you finally afford that premium PS3! Blu-ray forever!"
FYI, the Xbox 360 does not include an HDMI output, and that will be an addon made available later. I see no reason the basic PS3 and the Xbox 360 aren't in the same boat.
I wasn't trying to compare the 360 and PS3 feature-for-feature, since obliviously Sony is in a better position to beat MS in that sense, getting to ship their console a year later.
My point is that the big deal with the PS3 is the ability to play Blu-ray movies. I presumed this would be "out-of-the-box" support. Undoubtedly I can do this with the $600 PS3, but will that functionality be available in the $500 one? Does it HAVE to go through HDMI, or can it go through the regular main AV output of the PS3 (as you suggested)?
Lots of questions still yet to be answered. I would also like to know how much the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 will be, and how it's handling its output.
Slashdot Mirror
If you talk to average joe gamer, HD elitism has been going on since last gen EVEN IF THEY DON'T OWN AN HDTV.
:P
...
Sure, let's go down the street and talk to Average Joe and see what he thinks.
In some way, I agree that HD elitism has been going on for a while. Heck, you don't even have to be a gamer to realize that HD > SD. If you're a sports fan, you KNOW how awesome HD sports looks (watching football on my father-in-law's 60" DLP pretty much sold me on getting one myself). And everytime you go into a Best Buy or Circuit City, you're inundated with HDTV screens that show how blatantly obvious HDTV is better than SDTV. I definately agree that the "hot new item" to get is an HDTV, if you don't have one yet.
But HD movies? HD-DVD or Blu-ray versus regular DVD? Sorry bub. Not for another few years. Heck, I wonder how many people would even notice the difference between the resolutions (480p vs 1080p). I know I do, but my wife doesn't really notice. Nor do many of our friends. Maybe a few years from now
Frankly as it's under $1000 it's in impulse buy territory for me.
:)
$600 is not a lot of money, I spent $300 on a pair of shoes this weekend because I thought they looked good.
Okay, I make a decent wage (well over the average income), and I'm married to a woman who's into names like Louis Vuitton and Burberry, but even I can't plunk down $300 for a frickin pair of shoes.
Now if it was for a video card or something, then yeah maybe.
Gosh, I wish I could mod you up!
I'll add my 2 cents as well. The PS2, even though DVD had been fairly established by then, was a crappy DVD player. Using the controller was pretty lame (it was wired, and it was hard to remember what each button was supposed to do). Maybe for its time it was a decent entry-level DVD player, but everyone now realizes that there are many standalone DVD players far superior to the PS2 one.
Now the PS3 as a Blu-ray player? I'd be even MORE skeptical. And even if it was fairly decent, you know that better players are going to come out in the not-too-distant future. Do I really want to be locked down to the Blu-ray format now? Personally, I'd rather wait until it's readily apparent which format has won, THEN I'll start investing in a player and HD movies. But that'll be years from now.
So I'm absolutely not considering the PS3 as a Blu-ray player. It's a game console, first and foremost, with an unfortunate mandatory and expensive add-on attached to it.
... of course by the time the PS3 comes out, I wouldn't be surprised at all of the 360 price drops, or they at least start offering some sweet bundling deals. Gears of War, extra controller, free year of Live, all bundled together = Bad News for Sony.
I'm definately not alone in saying, "Screw Blu-ray! Just give me a GAME console!" Do I own an HDTV? Heck ya. Am I one of the few that notice a difference between 480p DVDs and 720p HD TV shows? I'll even admit yes to that. But do I really want my game console playing HD movies, *especially* if it's going to cost me an extra few hundred dollars? Most definately NOT.
I am not going to invest in any HD movie format until it's well established which format wins, and I'm not alone (how many times did Beta/VHS get mentioned today?). Even if I did get a PS3 (and I will be getting one, but not till the price drops heavily), I wouldn't get any Blu-ray movies until I know which format to get. Additionally, I would probably just invest in a Blu-ray or HD-DVD standalone player. I know my PS2 was barely adequate as a DVD-player, so I don't have high hopes for the PS3, nor should I. Anyway, by the time the format is decided, standalone players will be a lot more affordable AND probably have a lot more features than the PS3 anyway (better audio capabilities, holds multiple discs, etc.).
Gamers said much the same thing when MS touted all of the media capabilities of the 360. It can stream music, videos, even watch TV. Woo, whatever. Now I've played around with those options on my 360, and sure it's neat. But at the end of the day, I use my 360 to play games. It'll be the same with the PS3. I just wish I didn't have to pay >$200 more dollars because some Sony execs had the same ideas you did.
Do I LIKE that type of draconion DRM? Heavens no. It usually does more harm than good. But it definately is more trivial than adding in "multiplayer spawn" functionality to your game. The former is something you can just license or share across games. The latter is something that can't be abstracted out so easily, so it's non-trivial work for every game.
In a world where there was unlimited time and money, then yeah I'd love for all games with multiplayer to have that type of option. Unfortunately that doesn't happen. What we DO get a lot, though, are multiplayer-only demos. They let you try out the game (even though they're usually limited in some way), and ultimately should encourage you to buy the game.
If a game is good enough, I'm fine with spending money to buy it. And I'll encourage my friends to do the same. What's wrong with that?
I think you're confusing multiplayer play with LAN-play. Most multiplayer games now are done over the Internet, with either some sort of embedded matchmaking system or server list, where you choose who you want to play with. Everyone in this system is a fellow owner of the game, and that's to be expected.
Now the problem is when you have a bunch of friends who you want to do multiplayer with that don't own the game already. This happens most often at LAN parties. Well, that's definately more of a corner-case scenario nowadays. For one thing, LAN parties don't happen all that often anymore because they don't NEED to. With broadband availability, I can play relatively lag-free games of Counter-Strike with my friends over TCP/IP. Heck, with things like Ventrilo and TeamSpeak, I won't even lose out on the verbal trash-talking either.
And even in the case where I do get my buddies together, all it takes is making sure everyone brings a copy of their game. Sure, there are times where I really want to play game X, but no one else owns it. Do you know what? We just don't play it. My friends usually wouldn't want to play something they're not that familiar with
So in summary, most games don't require "multiple purchases" if you're going to do multiplayer the usual way (finding opponents who already own the game). The only scenario I can imagine where that's necessary, LAN gaming, isn't exactly super popular anymore.
Bzzzt! Larger media does not mean better games. It typically means, yes, more CG and FMV. Now, is that really a good thing? I'm actually a big fan of J-RPGs and I'm saying this. (And yes I will be getting a PS3, but good god not for a few years)
Besides, with many next-gen titles, you can really use the in-game engine to render cut-scenes, and that's arguably better with FMV. You already see this now with many PS2 and Xbox titles, and not many people are clamoring for more pre-rendered FMV.
And finally, with many games being multi-platform, companies will always develop to the lowest common denominator. That's why the original Xbox HD never got utilized that much by 3rd parties, and why Blu-ray capacity isn't going to be that big a deal.
You've got to be kidding me. A few MONTHS is NOT "well into the mass manufacture". Try a few YEARS. Yes, Blu-ray costs will go down dramatically after the first year, but the PS3 is essentially being released in its first year. That's why the PS3 is so dang expensive. I'm hoping (along with many others) for a massive price drop in 2007, but unfortunately for Sony, all of their competitors already have a huge head start in terms of pricing, so they'll always lag a few hundred dollars behind.
Okay, I can't argue with you too much here, since I've argued the same thing. (I own an HDTV as well) People seem to think that HD = Plasma = Thousands of dollars. It's not. There are decent HD sets for under a grand. Yeah, they're CRTs and not the flashy new tech (LCD, Plasma, DLP), but they're definately more affordable.
The fact is that TVs, like many other pieces of consumer electronics, are always breaking down or being replaced. Who in their right mind today would buy a regular SD set without at least THINKING about going HD? I'm sure the salespeople are telling them about the "imminent" switchover to HD (scare tactics). At the very least, all the shiny HDTVs are basically screaming "BUY ME" to consumers.
Yeah, Apple did an amazing job with the iPod. But the mass market consumer is a different audience than the gamer/techno-geek that Sony is vying for. Arguably it is Nintendo that might do a better job here than Sony.
HOWEVER. The launch of the XBOX 360 cannot have faded much from our minds. Shortages. Outrageous prices on eBay. Microsoft taking a loss on the systems anyway. Even though I despise Sony, I have to concede that it would be awfully dumb of them to launch this system at a lower price. They're going to sell out. There's going to be a shortage for months. They might as well take as LITTLE loss as possible on these machines.
... zing!).
No, it's stupid. Yes, you may make a few million on those early adopters, but you have the potential to lose far more in things like mind-share, brand loyalty, etc. which all lead to losing MORE in the end. As soon as Sony announced the price for their PS3, and it was hundreds of dollars more than many gamers were expecting, they instantly switched allegiances to MS. (It probably helped a lot that GTA IV was no longer Sony exclusive for the first few months) Heck, these gamers probably even bought 360s that week (providing they could find any
Sony is smarter than to release the PS3 at a high price just to take advantage of short supply. They know the dangers of high price points. They are the ones who sank the Dreamcast by announcing a cheaper-than-expected price for the PS2.
The reason for the high price is simple: cost of goods. Blu-ray is expensive. If they didn't have to do Blu-ray, then the cost would be much more in-line then what most gamers are willing to pay for.
Somehow I feel you're just trolling, but I'll bite ...
I have a degree but no job. Which games do you suggest I mod which run on an 0.866 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM?
There are lots of older games that run on that hardware. The original Half-Life game did, and that's what the incredibly successful Counter-Strike was based off. So you can start there. Or save up, get a better computer, and try working on more recent titles.
There are no games companies in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Do you suggest that I move? If so, how?
You want me to give you life advice or something? Or did you want people to give you fricking handouts? For most folks, there is no "easy button" for life. Get a job. If you want to go to a place with lots of games companies, save up and move to Washington or California, where there are a lot of them. But only do so if you've actually got skills.
So how do I make and sell a party style PC game that supports four players on one monitor if the markets for 1. PC games that can be played on a TV-size monitor and 2. PC games that can be played on four PCs owned by a single family are so tiny?
... there are a ton of them on free web game sites)
You don't. The same reason you don't make highly detailed games requiring fine control (ie a mouse) on consoles.
If you want to make a party style game that supports 4 players on one monitor, then you have to bite the bullet and try to find a way to break into the console games business. As I've mentioned before, the best way to do this currently is via Xbox Live Arcade. But apparently they are inundated with requests from hundreds of developers, so it won't be easy to get their attention unless you have a killer game. In the future, there may be a similar option with Sony and Nintendo's consoles, although you may want to start making phone calls now.
And if you don't have a killer game in the first place, then why bother? There isn't a market for mediocre/poor console games done by an indie/amature developer. (Well I wouldn't pay for one
I've wanted to do that, but none have been even close to willing to advance me the money for relocation from my parents' basement in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the State of Washington.
I hope you're joking. But if you're serious and you're still just a kid dreaming to get into the games industry, what you need to do is focus on your skills and studies. Get into a decent college, learn CS the right way, and in your spare time, work on modding existing games. Then when you graduate, interview at a games company somewhere and get your foot in the door. Once you've got experience and made enough contacts, THEN you can think about trying to develop and publish your own titles.
I'm glad you replied, because I did want to talk about opening up platforms, but didn't know if anyone would be interested in hearing my thoughts.
... not because the platform companies WANT to lock users out, but due to technical and cost limitations. Some of the issues, and potentially how they can be solved (especially in this generation) ...
...
I totally agree that the PC market is an example that opening up games turned out to be a BOON for developers. Take World of Warcraft for example. Blizzard did a fantastic job of letting modders do almost anything they wanted to the UI. The community has created an amazing set of new features that Blizzard developers didn't have to spend one minute on (aside from making the interface moddable). Morrowind and Oblivion, by Bethesda, are also great examples of extremely moddable games. As for original games, Counter-Strike is probably the best example (yes it's a "mod" of HL, but it's essentially a whole game itself).
So I'm a big fan of user-created content. However, the way I see it, the barrier to entry for consoles is high
1) Controller interface sucks for creating content/writing code: Newer consoles now allow you to plug in a USB keyboard and mouse, so this is now solved
2) Need place to store content: Arguably, memory cards weren't large enough to hold user-created content. But now that hard-drives are becoming fairly standard, this is no longer an issue
3) No easy way to allow users to share content: This is tricky, since platform companies don't want their box to be hackable/moddable, so this needs to be secure (can't just be a matter of letting users stick discs in the system that run arbitrary code). Fortunately with central online services and marketplaces, such as Xbox Live Marketplace and what Sony demoed for the PS3, this is solved. Let users create in-game content and then share it on Marketplace. Heck, they could even set up a mini-economy, where gamers use points to buy/sell items. I think MS talked a lot about this at E3 last year, although most gamers seemed not to care. But that leads me to the next issue
4) Average CONSOLE gamer doesn't seem to care about creating their own content: This is a tricky one. I would agree that the average console gamer is probably less technical than your average PC gamer, so they're not apt to dive into script languages and such. But that can be solved by creating better tools. Spore is a great example of this. From what we've all seen, it looks dead easy to create fairly complex creatures and environments.
So modding console games? I'm totally for it, and I think it's now possible with the newest generation of consoles. But is it going to happen right away? Of course not. Sony and Nintendo are still focused on launching their systems (and they NEED to be). Ironically, MS might be leading the way here. I've heard that Viva Pinata will have user-created content that's sharable on Marketplace, but we'll see if that actually happens. It would be really cool if it did, and the nex
In typical Microsoft fashion, multiplayer required that you have as many original game CD's as players.
... but this workaround didn't work for all titles.
I'm not sure I get you, because most PC multiplayer games are like that. It's not something that Microsoft "invented". If you wanted to play multiplayer with your friends, ideally each one of you should have bought the game. Many games, regardless of developer, check that your CD is in the drive in order to let you play. Now some will let you take the CD out once the game is running, so you can then hand it to a friend
I know this first-hand because in high school and college, my friends and I ran into the same problems as you did. But it wasn't for any MS titles.
Some companies (I think Blizzard was one) did let you spawn multiplayer-only versions onto other computers, which was especially useful for LAN parties and such. I do wish more game companies did something like this, although it's obviously a non-trivial work item to do. If it was between more levels in a game, better gameplay, fewer bugs, or multiplayer-only-spawned versions for LAN play, I'd ditch the latter.
I'm looking forward to Wii and its business model, but NOA has historically been a stickler about who can become a licensed developer, requiring a business and marketing plan and an approved title before developers can even begin to investigate the technical aspects of the platform.
:P
... and if that seems too hard for you, then bite the bullet and just interview for an existing, well-established developer. Lots are hiring.
Gee whiz, a console maker wanting to make sure potential developers are serious before they invest time and money in supporting them? Go figure!
Now I don't know the specific details of what you're saying, but even if it's true, that sounds fairly reasonable. SDKs are not cheap. Even if you pay for one, there are support costs (calls from developers wanting answers to questions on how X works), as well as all the fees associated with getting a game actually launched to shelves (contracts, lawyer fees, game certification costs, etc.). None of the platform companies are in the business of letting EVERY Joe Gamer who-thinks-they-have-a-cool-idea an easy way to get their game launched.
Now the best place for Joe Gamer to get involved is with PC games, where lots of titles are readibly moddable. But for it to work well, the developers have to build in modability (everything in the game is scriptable, extensible, etc.). On top of that, having it on PC makes it much easier for gamers to trade mods. This CAN be done in the console space, but it's much harder since it's a closed environment. However things like the Xbox Live Marketplace were supposed to be eventually host user-created content, so that may be something that comes to console gaming in the not-too-distant future.
Going back to indie development on a totally original game, any platform you try to take your game to, whether it be a console, or an established games website (like Yahoo or MSN Games, or Real Arcade), is going to want to have proof that you will be a good partner to work with. Websites are probably going to be less demanding than the console companies. So if you're serious about getting into the business, even as an indie developer, I'd start there.
Console games are great for party games, since you've got that "10 foot experience" thing going for you. You can do things like split-screen, or have everyone share the same viewpoint. What DOESN'T work well for console platforms are games which have to have a lot of detail, such as many RTS or strategy games, or require a fine-tuned control scheme (mice are more accurate than controllers for most people).
Now, if you're serious about wanting to make an awesome party game, but need an entry point to the console industry, then take a look at the other replies here (including mine). There's Xbox Live Arcade and the Virtual Console on Wii. That's certainly a start.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
... since those games feature high production values. But that doesn't mean indie companies can't make fun games, or make money to boot. They can, and are.
That doesn't make sense at all.
First of all, the indie dev community is alive and well. You'll find most of them working on web games: from larger houses such as GameHouse and PopCap, to your Garage Games, Reflexive Entertainment, etc. You can play a lot of these games at sites like http://games.msn.com/ http://games.yahoo.com/ http://www.realarcade.com/ and more.
Most of the games they make are single-player, but some can be multiplayer. And you're an idiot if you think that all multiplayer games must require broadband (as you alluded to in another comment).
As for getting on consoles, MS is leading the way with Xbox Live Arcade, where you can find a number of games by indie titles. And they're selling quite well. Both Nintendo and Sony are hinting towards having downloadable games to consoles as well, although it's still unknown whether they are welcoming indie developers the same way. I would imagine they have to, and that would be a good thing.
Now, if you're lamenting that an indie developer is never going to be able to create the next Halo or Madden title, then that's probably true
Once the indie developers start getting larger and have more capital, then you will see them start creating more traditional console titles. They'll work with the platform companies in the usual way, so they're more like regular developers now.
You're also forgetting XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade), home to many popular indie titles: Bejeweled, Zuma, Outpost Kaloki, Wix: Fable of Souls, etc. You've got hundreds of indie developers clamoring to get on-board, which is "good thing" for gamers.
It's still unknown whether or not the PS3 marketplace will have support for indie developers, or whether they will just continue to cater towards the big name companies. What they demoed in their press conference was Namco's Ridge Racer, downloaded onto their PSP, which is quite different than what the 360 currently offers.
Sorry, the link you provided had the following update:
Apparently they decided to offer both titles on just the PS3, since it's now E3. The could change their minds, but it might be too late, if Sony made them sign an exclusivity contract. After hearing all the uproar over the PS3 pricing, Square-Enix might have gone "Doh!".
What I was at least hoping to see was some new franchise on the 360, similar to what Square-Enix did for Nintendo consoles with Crystal Chronicles. And no, FFXI doesn't count, since it's merely a port and for a game that was released years ago no doubt.
I'll admit that I am a neophyte when comes to understanding the tangled mess that is HD movies/output/DRM/etc. That's why I asked those questions in the first place, whether or not I would need HDMI to play Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies. So apologies if was jumping to conclusions. That said ...
The movie studios have been the ones requesting HDCP/HDMI. Consumer electronics companies that make players would rather just ignore protected outputs which have extra cost. They don't care about protecting movies, just selling more devices and profit margins.
The process has pros and cons. It limits the available technologies which can be used. It makes it difficult to use new output technologies, but does prevent companies from making proprietary outputs which only works with one manufacturers players and TVs.
There is no technical way for Movie Studios to enforce HDMI. There is no flag that can be put in mvies to say only play on HDMI outputs.
What you just mentioned seems a little scary. Okay, so you say movie companies can't enforce HDMI, and that it's in the hands of the consumer electronics makers. Well, Sony happens to be in BOTH businesses. Does that mean they could really screw over consumers if they really needed to do X? There's also the conflict of interest. SCEA just wants to sell as many PS3s as they want, but Sony Pictures wants to sell as many Blu-ray movies as they want and clamp down on piracy. They have to reach some sort of compromise with each other, and that may or may not affect users in a bad way.
Oh wait, that's already happened. If Sony didn't have to push Blu-ray, then the cost of the PS3 would be far cheaper. It could just be an add-on, like MS is doing with the 360 and presumably what Nintendo may do with the Wii. Then gamers EVERYWHERE would win. (Unless you really believe the bunk that bigger disc capacity = better games)
Whatever happened to making just a game console? The Wii, albeit having a funny name, looks too interesting to pass up. The games just look like fun: Mario Galaxy, new Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid. The 360 has got a ton of options: traditional games (FPS, sports, racers, Gears of War, Halo 3, blah), fun XBLA games, retro titles on XBLA (CONTRA!!!!), and the whole "mini-game" aspect of collecting achievements and gamerscore.
But you're trying to sell me on the PS3 because it can play movies in HD? Puh-lease.
What Sony and their fanbois should be doing is trumpeting up the game exclusivity they still have, and not trying to defend the price so much. I admit I will be getting a PS3 at some point, because it'll be the only place to get God of War 2, MGS4, and all the FFXIII games. I may wait a year or two, but those are games I want to play that I can't get anywhere else.
Screw Blu-ray.
I asked this question initially on an earlier article, and got a pretty good answer to it: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185334&c id=15296698
In short, yes technically HD-DVD and Blu-ray require HDMI. But there are several articles out there (Google it, I'm lazy) that mention several Hollywood studios not enforcing this, at least initially.
You know, the following conversation could have theoretically taken place at Sony:
1 year ago
Sony Pictures: So, you tell us, should we enforce HDMI for our movies?
Sony Entertainment: Yes! Totally! Only the PS3 will have an HDMI output. Do it and the 360 and Revolution will be screwed! We'll be the only console that can play movies in HD! MwaHAHAHA!
1 month ago
Sony Pictures: Okay, we just finished our prep work. All of our Blu-ray discs are going to require HDMI.
Sony Entertainment: Oh, didn't you get the memo? You need to scratch all of that. The core PS3 isn't going to have HDMI.
Sony Pictures: WTF? Make up your mind guys!
Well, "far crappier" is relative. I was mostly comparing to the difference between the core and premium 360, which is essentially a different set of AV cables, and an HD or no HD (which you can upgrade up from). To go from the PS3 core to premium, you'd need to upgrade to the larger HD, buy a WiFi adaptor, buy a memory card/stick adaptor, and buy the HDMI add-on ... assuming they all exist.
... and that won't be known for a while.
As for the question whether or not the TV-out is a big deal, I assume you mean the HDMI output. There's an open question as to whether or not the PS3 core will be able to output Blu-ray movies to their full potential, since it won't be able to utilize HDMI. Technically, you're supposed to use HDMI, but it looks like most content companies are backing off that requirement. Note that MS is in the same boat, since their HD-DVD add-on won't use HDMI output either.
This is mostly a moot point since many HDTVs apparently don't have an HDMI input. The funny thing is that most Sony fanbois *were* downplaying that fact, trying to trumpet up just how necessary HDMI output was, because the original PS3 specs had TWO of them, while no other console even had one. But now Sony and their fans are backpedaling, since the core version doesn't have it, and they're trying to defend the core version as not being totally worthless.
Personally, I don't really care. My HDTV does have HDMI input, but I highly doubt I'm going to be buying that many HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs, until I know which format wins
But if I were to get a PS3 (and I probably will at some point, since I'm a sucker for Square-Enix fans), it seems like a no brainer to get the premium one. The core one has just too many open questions, and it's only $100 cheaper. But $600 is a lot of money, so I'm going to be waiting until well into 2007 or even later.
You should also know it's "Blu-Ray". Or Blu-ray, or something like that. It's not "Blue-Ray" with an E.
The reason why it's called that in the first place is because the technology uses a blue laser. But I guess dropping the "e" off the end makes it seem more hip and cool. *shrugs*
I know this is a troll post by a Sony fanboi, but I couldn't resist.
... 4 ethernet ports (now only 1), 2 HDMI ports so you can output to two TVs (now only 1, and that's only on the premium), the boomerang controller is gone (although that's probably a good thing), Killzone 2 with awesome "in-game graphics" mysteriously missing this E3, and a Spring 2006 ship that has been delayed. Furthermore, they scoffed at MS for the 2 SKU model, but then went ahead and did it themselves (and WORSE since the core model is far crappier than the premium). Then during this year's conference, they talked about how their controller was truly innovative, even though everyone in the audience knew it's just a knock-off of the Wii-mote. And finally, their slides of the two SKU model during the conference listed the only difference as the size of the HD. But the press release later showed drastic differences between the two.
:)
It seems to me the company that needs to defend themselves the most from claims of lies and trickery is Sony. Shall we jump into the time machine and see what claims Sony made last E3? Let's see here
I'm not saying MS is amazing, doesn't make mistakes, etc. In fact, I think the 2 SKU model is pretty stupid as well, and the supply issues were pretty damaging. But man, compared to Sony, they look like saints recently.
And if MS is looking saintly, then Nintendo must be God.
You can sure tell who the fanboys are by the backpeddling they do.
d . Yeah the shortages are good for business, it builds hype, umm yeah. Oh by the way, do you know if Walmart has any 360s yet?"
... guys? Stop laughing already!"
Xbox Fanboy: "Uhh those shortages, it's going away next week. I heard they're bringing on another factory, I heard it myself from my sister's-boyfriend's-coworker's-friend-of-a-frien
Nintendo Fanboy: "Hey guys, it's just a name! Let's be mature now. The console itself hasn't changed. Guys
Sony Fanboy: "Actually, having two SKUs isn't that bad, it gives the consumer more choices, yeah that's it. And you don't REALLY need HDMI or WiFi or rumble-features. Oh, and the high price means that you'll really be proud once you finally afford that premium PS3! Blu-ray forever!"
FYI, the Xbox 360 does not include an HDMI output, and that will be an addon made available later. I see no reason the basic PS3 and the Xbox 360 aren't in the same boat.
I wasn't trying to compare the 360 and PS3 feature-for-feature, since obliviously Sony is in a better position to beat MS in that sense, getting to ship their console a year later.
My point is that the big deal with the PS3 is the ability to play Blu-ray movies. I presumed this would be "out-of-the-box" support. Undoubtedly I can do this with the $600 PS3, but will that functionality be available in the $500 one? Does it HAVE to go through HDMI, or can it go through the regular main AV output of the PS3 (as you suggested)?
Lots of questions still yet to be answered. I would also like to know how much the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 will be, and how it's handling its output.