Upscaling is only limited to HD in the case of DVDs, and that's because of the HDCP stuff. For games, they will upscale over component. And off-hand, I'd say that the upscaling does have its benefits. The cut scenes in FF12 look great on my PS3, even though the standard game footage shows no improvement at all. Rogue Galaxy looks better all around.
Don't you have smoothing on? each static scence in FFXII looks greatly improved. as soon as you move it's not as good but still much better then without smoothing in HD or SD. At least on my 50" at 1080p.
The MD failed because it was yet another proprietary Sony format which offered too little too late, especially as the CD market was already well established. MDs may have had a place in portable media but soon after they started gaining traction MP3 players saw to that.
The MD didn't "fail". It was a massive success in Asia but did not make significant inroads in North America. To Sony they had a great success in one market. Or would you also say something like the Xbox 360 also failed because it maid no inroads into japan?
Nintendo isn't doing anything new. All of this was done before by them. The Power glove. They just came up with an implementation that doesn't suck. Right place, right time, right product. But "new" and "innovative" it is not. just "right".
the iPhones quality is better, it's performce is higher, and it's value is greater then the newton. OOPS! looks like it's got all three.
It's got quality. It's got performance over most other smart phones but value...? 600 plus a 3yr lock in. Except for Apple Zealot it has little value. As those who need all those functions can get 80% of it for 30% of the cost via a black berry and those that don't can spend 10% of it and get a decent phone.
Sure, Microsoft is losing money. But it's been pretty much accepted by everyone (except Nintendo) that when you launch new hardware, you're going to lose money earlier on and make some back later when you have a larger install base to milk for cash. But I think video games are chump change to Microsoft. But Microsoft and Sony aren't in this battle as just a video game system. Microsoft and Sony want to take out Netflix, Blockbuster, Cable company by turning their machine into THE TV/Home Theater and of the future, and rake in $30-$100 a month in entertainment subscriptions. These companies have time to wait, and they want to make sure they control the distribution channel that everyone will be using for entertainment content in 10 years. If this takes of, Microsoft would probably use a Media PC for folks that don't want a 360. Of course, Apple and Google, TiVo, and the cable companies are also preparing to compete for this as well. Again, a good thing as long as their are low barriers to switching, and most of the content is available through most systems.
Myth: With the exception of Microsofts two machines and Sega's last offering no one has taken a loss on a console for any significant period of time. Nintendo isn't the exception they are the rule. MS is the exception. Also, nothing official about a loss has come out about the PS3 but the PS2 was sold at a loss only for the very first month according to Sony.
I haven't computed the numbers, but I find it difficult to believe that inflation has caused the price to DOUBLE in seven years. The value of the dollar isn't so hot, but Japan isn't the booming economic paradise it once was either. I agree with the rest of your statements.
What has doubled in the US in the last seven years is gas prices. In 2000, I paid $1.50/gal. Today it is over $3/gal. Consumers don't have the $599 for a game console and the $300-$3000 for an HDTV to enjoy it on. The Wii has very limited Hidef capabilities, but it also works great on a SDTV. I can use it on my seven year old POS Maganvox without any problems. Anyone interested in a PS3 is also interested in Blueray or high quality graphics for games.
In my case, the lack of an HDTV is changing my purchasing decisions. I can not get benefit out of an xbox360 or PS3 over my Wii. I can not buy many set top box devices like an Apple TV. I have no interest in buying an HD-DVD or Blueray player. I have basic cable so i'm not "scared" that I may lose television signals.
At the very least against the Canadian dollar the US dollar has lost a little under half (40%) from it's peak value in the last decade. Against the euro and pound it's lost about 30% from it's peak. The yen followed similar patterns although I don't think the magnitude is as great. Majority of the non chinese, non home grown products tend to be about 40% more then what they were in 2000. The chinese have pegged their currency with yours to encourage trade.
Because the Wii is more fun than the PS3 (IMO), so the better the Wii does, the better the odds that more fun games will come out for it. Simple as that.
Fun is subjective. Wario ware + wii sports + rayman all RPGS ever made for any system. However I have a thousand dollar game library and multiple systems she has a wii, wii sports a game cube and mario party 6. Time will tell which market is more profitable. I hope to Odin it's US because I can't stand wario ware.
Nintendo profits off of every Wii sold. Sony (apparently) looses money on each PS3 sold, as does Microsoft with the 360. So it looks to me that the only console that's in the green is the Wii.
The Wii is undeniably profitable. The PS3 is "thought" to be sold at a loss but they said the same thing about the PS2 and they were wrong. According to several announcements, outside of the first month the PS2 was making money but "analysts" predicted a long long period of selling at a loss. Analysts make random assertions with any info they get. The 360 was marginally profitable from the start if you didn't count sunk R&D but it was the high fail rate that incurs a lot of the extra costs and pushes back into the red. We don't know the individual margins but we do know the division as a whole lost a lot of money. So unless the Games division throws nightly stripper parties with free coke, has an glass ceiling office in downtown dallas, or spent 7 billion making the masterchiefs suit for real they are likely losing their shirts on warranty and repair or their defective machines or they are still selling 360's at a loss and the analysts who predicted marginal profitability were talking out their ass.
Ummm... PRICE? In 2000, the PS2 released with a price of 39,800 Yen (with an exchange rate of 106.31 Yen to US Dollar), which made it ~$375 US. The 60GB PS3 (the only one with full functionality) launched at a price of 62,800 Yen. So not quite double the launch price, but that is pretty high.
Both currencies have dipped int he last several years so it's a bit of an unfair comparison. For the cash of value of a ps2 you would have spent on other stuff in 2000 you can get slightly more (20-30%) for the value of a PS3 today. Thats sort of subjective too since a lot of goods find a certain price point and never move despite increase in costs. For Canadians we didn't see such a ludicrious price increase because.. well our dollar didn't nose dive like the Americans did.
I don't know about in Japan, but in the US, it's not just more expensive, it's twice as (or 100% more) expensive as the PS and PS2 were at launch (PS: $299; PS2: $299; PS3: $599).
By comparison, the Wii launched for 25% more than the Game Cube, which itself launched at the same exact price as all of Nintendo's previous console systems (NES, SNES, N64, GC: $199; Wii: $249). The XBox 360 launched for 33% more than the XBox (XBox: $299; XBox 360: $399).
Seriously, though, the PS3 launched for $200 more than the already overpriced console that had been out for a year. That's seriously dumb.
The other bit you may have to face is the fact the US dollar has fallen against all other currencies in that time as well. For me my PS2 was $449 + tax + mem card when I got it and my PS3 was $649 I think. It was around that ball park but I forget the exact digits. Mem car wasn't needed. Adjusting for inflations leaves a pretty slim price difference. What happened to Sony was it was releasing another expensive machine to two major markets whose currency had dipped and economies weren't as hot. They didn't follow the economic indicators and release a cheaper machine earlier like Nintendo did.
Isn't it just possible that EA offered this guy a higher salary than he was earning at Microsoft? Maybe he gets to work from home. Maybe he just doesn't like the weather in Redmond. Just because a guy leaves a company doesn't inherently mean anything significant. If the success of the Xbox360 is dependent on whether or not Peter Moore remains at Microsoft then they've got some serious issues.
Sure, His Voluntarily exit is just as likely that Steve Ballmer making significantly less then John Riccitiello.
They still have nearly 3x the install base of the ps3, a huge lineup of games coming in the next 6 months and a 65nm redesign that will allow the to finally be profitable on the hardware side. Ditching the Zune i can see, but ditching a product that is just edging towards a profit? And shifting towards a market that is shrinking by the day is absoutely absurd.
And still several billion in the hole. They may get lower turn over and better thermal efficiency from the 65nm fab but will it make enough of a difference to share holders? because MS doesn't especially give a fuck about you or me (neither does Sony or Nintendo), they only care about our money. The 360 hasn't edged towards profit due mainly to design flaws and their made cheap and break easily. They know once the word gets out it would fuel an exodus to the wii for the main stream and to the PS3 for the hardcores. They wisely extended all warranties to blunt the PR mess their high fault rate would cause. Unfortunately it now makes them further in the hole.
You can get cables that switch form component to composite without much problems. Although it does add more wire and one extra step to dilute the signal.
Well, for a while, it sounded like the cheaper 60GB version was only going to be available for about two weeks. (Starting... now!) So it was like a brief price cut followed by the price jumping right back up again. In other words, it sounded like it wasn't really a price cut, just an attempt to dump a few old units before selling the new ones at the original price.
There are more then a "few" PS3's in the channel right now. This fire sale aught to last a good month or more.
So what happens to the customer who happens to own a copy of several of the 10 percent of titles, after the optical drive in the PS2 in the other room wears out? Particularly, the six single-player Final Fantasy games in PS family formats (VII, VIII, IX, X, X-2, XII) are said to have emulation problems. Nintendo, on the other hand, has over 99 percent compatibility from GB to GBA SP, from GBA to DS, and from GameCube to Wii.
Own them most of those on a EE chip enabled PS3. On software emulation (enable upscaling) XII runs fine and the AA definately helps that game look amazing. X runs fine but I haven't' played it much. The rest I haven't played recently so I don't know.
Your arguments are wholly unsupported. I at least provided a link which gave some data. I acknowledge you said you would ignore this but I wish to reply simply to outline indignation != right. The study referenced at the end of the brief article you use as a source outlines only that "just 30 per cent of owners of DVD-capable machines knew they actually enabled DVD playback".It would seem inexplicable to truly have 70% of the console player demographic unaware their machines could play DVD's since that demographic is principly the 13-35 set which tends to know these things. We don't know what exactly the question was we only know the result that 30% were aware their game console played DVD's, we don't know what they considered owner (A parent with a Xbox at home may not be away the Xbox their kid plays on plays DVD). I scanned the web for the exact paper but was unable to unearth it. This may not have anything to do with the PS3 as it's a pretty generic statement. Most people who currently own PS3 are early adopters. Early adopters tend to be richer and more technical. They would be more likely to be aware that their PS3 plays BD disks. The phrasing of Dale Gilliam the researcher would be more generic saying that his study suggest only 30% of a sampled group were aware the game console in their house played DVD's. The methodology is highly important because if they only surveyed the person who used the machine they will get a different answer then the person who bought it or simply the head of the house hold.
Also the article itself has problems as it gives 2:1 360 vs ps3 however this shows that is not the current trend. It seems to be 4:3 360 vs ps3 at worse (week of may 13th) in the last several months. We'd have go go back to feburary or so to see the 360 doing 2:1.
many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games Seems to be part of your argument. However it's just a random assertion no worse or better then mine, your article did not cover this. The only reliable source I have read to says there were large PS3 returns were early on when a lot of people bought them only to resell them. What source exactly tells you there has been on going large scale returns? Or are we leaning on the ambiguity of "many" to cover 1-infinity. Officially release return rate for faults are 1%. I could not find any other data.
Also, you don't have to be confrontational to get your point across. "I suppose you could substitute your own reality?" That was unnecessary to a good argument. I'll be ignoring further posts by you. The statement is supposed to be flippant not confrontational but sometimes subtleties get lost in the facelessness of the internet. (mythbusters:adam savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own!")
We know for sure that SONY cannot win a format war because then the universe would implode. We also know that Toshiba is not winning this format war. The logical conclusion is that the whole HD-DVD concept is about to fail miserably in favour of increased internet bandwidth and magnetic storage. Heck, the standard offers over where I am is already in excess of 5 mbit. By the time either HD DVD format has a chance to overtake DVD ( guessing 5-10 years at least ) it will be more than enough to doom the entire HD-DVD concept. Unless the MPAA can cripple broadband deployment in key markets ( read US ) sufficiently of course.
We're doomed for sure then because of the CD, 3.5" floppy and so on.
If you buy a Bluray player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play Bluray discs. If you buy an HD-DVD player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play HD-DVDs. But according to one report, 70% of console owners don't realize that their game systems play DVD discs[1]. It seems like including every PS3 purchase (many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games) as a Bluray player sale artificially inflates the success of Bluray. Excluding them entirely may not be fair, but including them probably skews the conclusion even more.
There is a high correlation with owning a PS3 and buying a BD movies. The returns aren't that significant and were only in the launch phase where some individuals wished to buy them to resell but saw the market wasn't there for that. Your arguments are unsupported by reality. I suppose you could substitute your own reality?
Actually, most FPSs bore me from lack of depth in exactly the same way, for the same reasons. They're repeatitive, episodic, and quick to pick up and put down... and this comes from someone who is inately HORRIBLE at FPSs.
My theory is that there's very little difference between the mental dedication of Halo and Rayman Rabbids, but that the "badass" meter reads high enough for FPSs that most people who play them on a regular basis, tout the games, and themselves as "hardcore gamers".
Maybe they're slightly removed on the continuum, simply because you don't find people dedicating hundreds of hours to Raving Rabbids. But a game with an arc that REQUIRES 40-60 hours of play and includes a lot of problem solving, I would consider much more "hardcore", even if it doesn't read as high on the "badass" meter.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Zelda, Metroid, Fallout, Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Grand Theft Auto - all of these are at the center of hardcore gaming. Most FPSs don't qualify, in my book, since they don't inherently require any length of time or dedication.
And item pickups? Arcade games invented item pickups back in the day, and I'd be hard pressed to call Allyway a hardcore game (maybe now, since it requires someone who is interested in games that are not readily available).
It's not just about time. The learned skills for FPS/RTS make them hardcore as they aren't very fun without basic skills. Try playing without looking around, circle strifing, nading, even moving and shooting etc.. Time isn't the only issue. Most main stream players lack these skills and will thus never buy a FPS. I have friends who are "softcore" and my GF. They will not pick up a FPS/RTS even though they don't require any dedication of time. They do require some prerequisite skill or they aren't much fun. They'll gladly sink themselves into cooking mama or elite beat agents.
I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).
Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.
Your list of non-hardcore games are in fact hardcore. Non-hardcore game sis more like cooking momma because all the FPS's, RTS, sports games etc... all assume you know a certain gaming grammar. Power ups, ammo, weapon swap, box puzzles, strifing, rocket jump, micro, macro etc... all things that are "hard core". non-hardcore games are generally the ones that bore you after 20 min with their lack of depth (cooking momma, Rayman, etc..).
All those landmines I buried in my front lawn made me look like a total psychopath when they blew up all those postal carriers, girl scouts, and neighborhood cats. Apparently, I can restore my status as a fine upstanding member of the community by simply suing the manufacturer of said landmines!
If you hired a security company to burglar proof your home and were not present for the installation of land mines then you might have a case.
Are we going to start that anytime soon. Slashdot seems to be such MS fan boys... when it comes to video games. We seem to be crucifying Sony for their Hubris shouldn't we be doing the same to MS for their arrogance in selling crappy hardware? A estimated 30% fail rate for a consumer electronic device is pretty shoddy (30% is estimated cost of replacements that MS has budgeted for). MS is already evil, already anti-consumer, and slashdot gives them a pass because?
Imagine the losses Sony endures after they cut their price with additional $100. And now the competition leaves them in the dust again. Let's say MS puts the price with $50 down (let's be conservative right). Note, the prices have been de-retardified for better comparison:
Sony produces the PS3 in house, In the half a year since launch they should have significantly ramped up yield and reduced production costs. unless you have really good info I wouldn't bank on Sony taking a huge loss, they stopped takign a loss on the PS2 shortly after launch and the PS1 never was sold at a loss. The only consoles known to be sold at a loss are the PS2 for a brief period, the DC, The Xbox and the 360. The PS3 was speculated to have been sold at a loss but Sony doesn't do that shit and has never confirmed it. It's high initial price tag is likely because they didn't wish to sell it at a loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Upscaling is only limited to HD in the case of DVDs, and that's because of the HDCP stuff. For games, they will upscale over component. And off-hand, I'd say that the upscaling does have its benefits. The cut scenes in FF12 look great on my PS3, even though the standard game footage shows no improvement at all. Rogue Galaxy looks better all around.
Don't you have smoothing on? each static scence in FFXII looks greatly improved. as soon as you move it's not as good but still much better then without smoothing in HD or SD. At least on my 50" at 1080p.
The MD failed because it was yet another proprietary Sony format which offered too little too late, especially as the CD market was already well established. MDs may have had a place in portable media but soon after they started gaining traction MP3 players saw to that.
The MD didn't "fail". It was a massive success in Asia but did not make significant inroads in North America. To Sony they had a great success in one market. Or would you also say something like the Xbox 360 also failed because it maid no inroads into japan?
Nintendo isn't doing anything new. All of this was done before by them. The Power glove. They just came up with an implementation that doesn't suck. Right place, right time, right product. But "new" and "innovative" it is not. just "right".
the iPhones quality is better, it's performce is higher, and it's value is greater then the newton.
OOPS! looks like it's got all three.
It's got quality. It's got performance over most other smart phones but value...? 600 plus a 3yr lock in. Except for Apple Zealot it has little value. As those who need all those functions can get 80% of it for 30% of the cost via a black berry and those that don't can spend 10% of it and get a decent phone.
Sure, Microsoft is losing money. But it's been pretty much accepted by everyone (except Nintendo) that when you launch new hardware, you're going to lose money earlier on and make some back later when you have a larger install base to milk for cash. But I think video games are chump change to Microsoft. But Microsoft and Sony aren't in this battle as just a video game system. Microsoft and Sony want to take out Netflix, Blockbuster, Cable company by turning their machine into THE TV/Home Theater and of the future, and rake in $30-$100 a month in entertainment subscriptions. These companies have time to wait, and they want to make sure they control the distribution channel that everyone will be using for entertainment content in 10 years. If this takes of, Microsoft would probably use a Media PC for folks that don't want a 360. Of course, Apple and Google, TiVo, and the cable companies are also preparing to compete for this as well. Again, a good thing as long as their are low barriers to switching, and most of the content is available through most systems.
Myth: With the exception of Microsofts two machines and Sega's last offering no one has taken a loss on a console for any significant period of time. Nintendo isn't the exception they are the rule. MS is the exception. Also, nothing official about a loss has come out about the PS3 but the PS2 was sold at a loss only for the very first month according to Sony.
Overall, Mars is the hardest place to land in the inner solar system
I think the sun presents a greater issue.
I haven't computed the numbers, but I find it difficult to believe that inflation has caused the price to DOUBLE in seven years. The value of the dollar isn't so hot, but Japan isn't the booming economic paradise it once was either. I agree with the rest of your statements.
What has doubled in the US in the last seven years is gas prices. In 2000, I paid $1.50/gal. Today it is over $3/gal. Consumers don't have the $599 for a game console and the $300-$3000 for an HDTV to enjoy it on. The Wii has very limited Hidef capabilities, but it also works great on a SDTV. I can use it on my seven year old POS Maganvox without any problems. Anyone interested in a PS3 is also interested in Blueray or high quality graphics for games.
In my case, the lack of an HDTV is changing my purchasing decisions. I can not get benefit out of an xbox360 or PS3 over my Wii. I can not buy many set top box devices like an Apple TV. I have no interest in buying an HD-DVD or Blueray player. I have basic cable so i'm not "scared" that I may lose television signals.
At the very least against the Canadian dollar the US dollar has lost a little under half (40%) from it's peak value in the last decade. Against the euro and pound it's lost about 30% from it's peak. The yen followed similar patterns although I don't think the magnitude is as great. Majority of the non chinese, non home grown products tend to be about 40% more then what they were in 2000. The chinese have pegged their currency with yours to encourage trade.
Because the Wii is more fun than the PS3 (IMO), so the better the Wii does, the better the odds that more fun games will come out for it. Simple as that.
Fun is subjective. Wario ware + wii sports + rayman all RPGS ever made for any system. However I have a thousand dollar game library and multiple systems she has a wii, wii sports a game cube and mario party 6. Time will tell which market is more profitable. I hope to Odin it's US because I can't stand wario ware.
Now do the rest of the math...
Nintendo profits off of every Wii sold. Sony (apparently) looses money on each PS3 sold, as does Microsoft with the 360. So it looks to me that the only console that's in the green is the Wii.
The Wii is undeniably profitable. The PS3 is "thought" to be sold at a loss but they said the same thing about the PS2 and they were wrong. According to several announcements, outside of the first month the PS2 was making money but "analysts" predicted a long long period of selling at a loss. Analysts make random assertions with any info they get. The 360 was marginally profitable from the start if you didn't count sunk R&D but it was the high fail rate that incurs a lot of the extra costs and pushes back into the red. We don't know the individual margins but we do know the division as a whole lost a lot of money. So unless the Games division throws nightly stripper parties with free coke, has an glass ceiling office in downtown dallas, or spent 7 billion making the masterchiefs suit for real they are likely losing their shirts on warranty and repair or their defective machines or they are still selling 360's at a loss and the analysts who predicted marginal profitability were talking out their ass.
Ummm... PRICE? In 2000, the PS2 released with a price of 39,800 Yen (with an exchange rate of 106.31 Yen to US Dollar), which made it ~$375 US. The 60GB PS3 (the only one with full functionality) launched at a price of 62,800 Yen. So not quite double the launch price, but that is pretty high.
Both currencies have dipped int he last several years so it's a bit of an unfair comparison. For the cash of value of a ps2 you would have spent on other stuff in 2000 you can get slightly more (20-30%) for the value of a PS3 today. Thats sort of subjective too since a lot of goods find a certain price point and never move despite increase in costs. For Canadians we didn't see such a ludicrious price increase because.. well our dollar didn't nose dive like the Americans did.
I don't know about in Japan, but in the US, it's not just more expensive, it's twice as (or 100% more) expensive as the PS and PS2 were at launch (PS: $299; PS2: $299; PS3: $599).
By comparison, the Wii launched for 25% more than the Game Cube, which itself launched at the same exact price as all of Nintendo's previous console systems (NES, SNES, N64, GC: $199; Wii: $249). The XBox 360 launched for 33% more than the XBox (XBox: $299; XBox 360: $399).
Seriously, though, the PS3 launched for $200 more than the already overpriced console that had been out for a year. That's seriously dumb.
The other bit you may have to face is the fact the US dollar has fallen against all other currencies in that time as well. For me my PS2 was $449 + tax + mem card when I got it and my PS3 was $649 I think. It was around that ball park but I forget the exact digits. Mem car wasn't needed. Adjusting for inflations leaves a pretty slim price difference. What happened to Sony was it was releasing another expensive machine to two major markets whose currency had dipped and economies weren't as hot. They didn't follow the economic indicators and release a cheaper machine earlier like Nintendo did.
SharePoint is worth its weight in gold
Well, considering electrons are almost massless it's worth $0.00001? ohh you mean the CD, 150$?
Isn't it just possible that EA offered this guy a higher salary than he was earning at Microsoft? Maybe he gets to work from home. Maybe he just doesn't like the weather in Redmond. Just because a guy leaves a company doesn't inherently mean anything significant. If the success of the Xbox360 is dependent on whether or not Peter Moore remains at Microsoft then they've got some serious issues.
Sure, His Voluntarily exit is just as likely that Steve Ballmer making significantly less then John Riccitiello.
They still have nearly 3x the install base of the ps3, a huge lineup of games coming in the next 6 months and a 65nm redesign that will allow the to finally be profitable on the hardware side. Ditching the Zune i can see, but ditching a product that is just edging towards a profit? And shifting towards a market that is shrinking by the day is absoutely absurd.
And still several billion in the hole. They may get lower turn over and better thermal efficiency from the 65nm fab but will it make enough of a difference to share holders? because MS doesn't especially give a fuck about you or me (neither does Sony or Nintendo), they only care about our money. The 360 hasn't edged towards profit due mainly to design flaws and their made cheap and break easily. They know once the word gets out it would fuel an exodus to the wii for the main stream and to the PS3 for the hardcores. They wisely extended all warranties to blunt the PR mess their high fault rate would cause. Unfortunately it now makes them further in the hole.
You can get cables that switch form component to composite without much problems. Although it does add more wire and one extra step to dilute the signal.
Well, for a while, it sounded like the cheaper 60GB version was only going to be available for about two weeks. (Starting... now!) So it was like a brief price cut followed by the price jumping right back up again. In other words, it sounded like it wasn't really a price cut, just an attempt to dump a few old units before selling the new ones at the original price.
There are more then a "few" PS3's in the channel right now. This fire sale aught to last a good month or more.
So what happens to the customer who happens to own a copy of several of the 10 percent of titles, after the optical drive in the PS2 in the other room wears out? Particularly, the six single-player Final Fantasy games in PS family formats (VII, VIII, IX, X, X-2, XII) are said to have emulation problems. Nintendo, on the other hand, has over 99 percent compatibility from GB to GBA SP, from GBA to DS, and from GameCube to Wii.
Own them most of those on a EE chip enabled PS3. On software emulation (enable upscaling) XII runs fine and the AA definately helps that game look amazing. X runs fine but I haven't' played it much. The rest I haven't played recently so I don't know.
Also the article itself has problems as it gives 2:1 360 vs ps3 however this shows that is not the current trend. It seems to be 4:3 360 vs ps3 at worse (week of may 13th) in the last several months. We'd have go go back to feburary or so to see the 360 doing 2:1. many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games Seems to be part of your argument. However it's just a random assertion no worse or better then mine, your article did not cover this. The only reliable source I have read to says there were large PS3 returns were early on when a lot of people bought them only to resell them. What source exactly tells you there has been on going large scale returns? Or are we leaning on the ambiguity of "many" to cover 1-infinity. Officially release return rate for faults are 1%. I could not find any other data. Also, you don't have to be confrontational to get your point across. "I suppose you could substitute your own reality?" That was unnecessary to a good argument. I'll be ignoring further posts by you. The statement is supposed to be flippant not confrontational but sometimes subtleties get lost in the facelessness of the internet. (mythbusters:adam savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own!")
We know for sure that SONY cannot win a format war because then the universe would implode. We also know that Toshiba is not winning this format war. The logical conclusion is that the whole HD-DVD concept is about to fail miserably in favour of increased internet bandwidth and magnetic storage. Heck, the standard offers over where I am is already in excess of 5 mbit. By the time either HD DVD format has a chance to overtake DVD ( guessing 5-10 years at least ) it will be more than enough to doom the entire HD-DVD concept. Unless the MPAA can cripple broadband deployment in key markets ( read US ) sufficiently of course.
We're doomed for sure then because of the CD, 3.5" floppy and so on.
If you buy a Bluray player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play Bluray discs. If you buy an HD-DVD player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play HD-DVDs. But according to one report, 70% of console owners don't realize that their game systems play DVD discs[1]. It seems like including every PS3 purchase (many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games) as a Bluray player sale artificially inflates the success of Bluray. Excluding them entirely may not be fair, but including them probably skews the conclusion even more.
There is a high correlation with owning a PS3 and buying a BD movies. The returns aren't that significant and were only in the launch phase where some individuals wished to buy them to resell but saw the market wasn't there for that. Your arguments are unsupported by reality. I suppose you could substitute your own reality?
Actually, most FPSs bore me from lack of depth in exactly the same way, for the same reasons. They're repeatitive, episodic, and quick to pick up and put down... and this comes from someone who is inately HORRIBLE at FPSs.
My theory is that there's very little difference between the mental dedication of Halo and Rayman Rabbids, but that the "badass" meter reads high enough for FPSs that most people who play them on a regular basis, tout the games, and themselves as "hardcore gamers".
Maybe they're slightly removed on the continuum, simply because you don't find people dedicating hundreds of hours to Raving Rabbids. But a game with an arc that REQUIRES 40-60 hours of play and includes a lot of problem solving, I would consider much more "hardcore", even if it doesn't read as high on the "badass" meter.
Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Zelda, Metroid, Fallout, Final Fantasy, Oblivion, Grand Theft Auto - all of these are at the center of hardcore gaming. Most FPSs don't qualify, in my book, since they don't inherently require any length of time or dedication.
And item pickups? Arcade games invented item pickups back in the day, and I'd be hard pressed to call Allyway a hardcore game (maybe now, since it requires someone who is interested in games that are not readily available).
It's not just about time. The learned skills for FPS/RTS make them hardcore as they aren't very fun without basic skills. Try playing without looking around, circle strifing, nading, even moving and shooting etc.. Time isn't the only issue. Most main stream players lack these skills and will thus never buy a FPS. I have friends who are "softcore" and my GF. They will not pick up a FPS/RTS even though they don't require any dedication of time. They do require some prerequisite skill or they aren't much fun. They'll gladly sink themselves into cooking mama or elite beat agents.
I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually is probably along side Final Fantasy, neither might be super-popular, but it still requires a lot of time to really get anything out of it (from what I've heard).
Pretty much any RPG or adventure game, these days, could be classified as "hardcore" simply because of the amount of time it takes to complete them... there are no "stages" to judge your progress like with Halo or Mario. Battlefield 2142? That's starting to get more hardcore, since there are A LOT of long-term goals defined in the game if you play it for long enough.
Your list of non-hardcore games are in fact hardcore. Non-hardcore game sis more like cooking momma because all the FPS's, RTS, sports games etc... all assume you know a certain gaming grammar. Power ups, ammo, weapon swap, box puzzles, strifing, rocket jump, micro, macro etc... all things that are "hard core". non-hardcore games are generally the ones that bore you after 20 min with their lack of depth (cooking momma, Rayman, etc..).
All those landmines I buried in my front lawn made me look like a total psychopath when they blew up all those postal carriers, girl scouts, and neighborhood cats. Apparently, I can restore my status as a fine upstanding member of the community by simply suing the manufacturer of said landmines!
If you hired a security company to burglar proof your home and were not present for the installation of land mines then you might have a case.
Are we going to start that anytime soon. Slashdot seems to be such MS fan boys... when it comes to video games. We seem to be crucifying Sony for their Hubris shouldn't we be doing the same to MS for their arrogance in selling crappy hardware? A estimated 30% fail rate for a consumer electronic device is pretty shoddy (30% is estimated cost of replacements that MS has budgeted for). MS is already evil, already anti-consumer, and slashdot gives them a pass because?
Imagine the losses Sony endures after they cut their price with additional $100. And now the competition leaves them in the dust again. Let's say MS puts the price with $50 down (let's be conservative right). Note, the prices have been de-retardified for better comparison:
Sony produces the PS3 in house, In the half a year since launch they should have significantly ramped up yield and reduced production costs. unless you have really good info I wouldn't bank on Sony taking a huge loss, they stopped takign a loss on the PS2 shortly after launch and the PS1 never was sold at a loss. The only consoles known to be sold at a loss are the PS2 for a brief period, the DC, The Xbox and the 360. The PS3 was speculated to have been sold at a loss but Sony doesn't do that shit and has never confirmed it. It's high initial price tag is likely because they didn't wish to sell it at a loss.