As the first article states, it's only the uninformed opinion of a financial analyst that PS3 development difficulties were responsible for the delay. Of course, the financial analyst also believes the PS3 version is a port of the 360 version, when in fact the PS3 has always been the lead platform for the game. Shows how much his opinion is worth.
Rockstar says they have challenges on both platforms (likely Cell development on the PS3 and stuffing everything onto a DVD-9 on the 360). Nothing to see here, folks...
$260 + tax for the full set (game, mic, 2 guitars, drum kit), according to Gamestop's preorder system. That's $200 for the single guitar bundle, then $60 for an extra guitar.
Of which GTA3 had 20 and GTA:SA had 70. Plus GTA:SA had photo goals, more hidden trinkets, several arcade games within the game, etc. Tons more non-violent side content than GTA3. So whether you're being general or specific, you're still wrong.
> GTA 3 was great in that it had lots to do and was a very open game. The stunts bonuses you could get added a nice non violent touch to the game. That aspect was greatly lost in the next 2 installments of the genre.
Huh? GTA:VC and GTA:SA had even more non-violent side content than GTA3. Much moreso in the case of GTA:SA. Did you even play those games...?
Yes, most of these lists miss Herzog Zwei as the father of all modern RTS games (and the Intellivision's Utopia as the father of the Civilization branch). And Star Control 2, even though it's just a more polished ripoff of the Starflight series (with Space War battle mechanics), was the game that really wound up defining that genre.
> You're implying that Nights Into Dreams isn't as good as Tomb Raider and get modded insightful? Now that's even more absurd than the top 100 list!
Nights was a hokey, buggy, mostly 2.5D non-platformer with a neat gimmick. I know, because I own it. The original Tomb Raider, on the other hand, was the first successful attempt to bring the gameplay of Prince Of Persia into 3D, and it's been the template for nearly every 3D environmental puzzle mechanic since then.
Tomb Raider was clearly the more historically important game, and I personally think it was a lot more fun to play than Nights.
Most "Top Anything" lists are silly and miss a number of obvious choices, but this list is downright idiotic. I give them points for including games like Gitaroo-Man and Tempest 2000, but some of the omissions and especially the ordering they chose are just obscene.
Virtua Tennis 3 better than Robotron?Nights Into Dreams better than Tomb Raider?Darwinia, Super Monkey Ball and R-Type Final making the list while classics like X-Com and Fallout are nowhere to be found? Don't even get me started on the timeframe and system bias evidenced here. What a joke...
> Credit cards are useful occassionally - my fiancee and I use hers maybe three times a year - but I'd much rather use my debit card. Aside from anything else, my debit card doesn't pretend to be giving me something.
If you used a dividend credit card instead and just paid it off every month, you'd actually get a rebate on everything you buy while strengthening your credit rating and never paying interest. Much better than a debit card, I'd say, unless you have absolutely no self control where credit is concerned...
The article claims that cargo truck driving has never been done justice in a game, so I think the author must have missed Truckin' on the Intellivision. You had to manage your loadouts, gas, and the routes you took (which included many of the major U.S. interstates), and you could carry multiple loads simultaneously, even if they were slated for different destinations. And the best part -- split-screen 2-player competitive mode, where you raced to make the most money in the least amount of time. You'd even see the opposing truck drive by you if you passed on the interstate.
An awesome game for its time -- and it was all about cargo trucks.
No, I was simply addressing both topics -- the cable/satellite on-demand services and the notion of digital download touched on by the grandparent post and your MP3 comparison. On-demand services have one set of problems and digital downloads have another set. I thought that was clear.
> the Home Theater fanatics I know are all waiting out the format war before they make the plunge.
The ones I've encountered have either bought players for both formats, or read the writing on the wall and gone with Blu-Ray.
> if the same equipment that provides your TV can also provide all of your movies and have those movies be even more easily accessible then the TV shows (you can pick your start time... pause, etc.) then where is the incentive to buy additional equipment for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?
The on-demand services provide a limited number of movies for a limited window of time, and they usually deliver the content at lower resolution and with higher compression than what you'd get with an HD video disc. The price is also higher if you rent at least 3 or 4 movies a month. So -- lower quality, higher price, and no option to buy HD movies for your permanent collection. What's the incentive to go with on-demand again...?
> Everyone I know with an HDTV has some form of "On Demand" for getting HD movies... I don't know a single person who owns either an HD-DVD or BRD player.
Then you need to get out more. I've had an HDTV since late 2001 and I don't subscribe to cable HD service -- I get a superior OTA signal for free from the major networks, and I'm not interested in the price or most of the content offered by cable HD service. I also own a PlayStation 3, so I automatically have Blu-Ray playback capability, and now I rent and buy movies exclusively in Blu-Ray format when available.
I don't want to have to wait for hours to download an HD movie and play it back from my computer through some dongle or device to my HDTV, and I don't want to have to devote an array of hard drives to keeping a reasonably-sized movie collection handy. For me, having the movie on its own disc is still the most convenient option. And with a Netflix or Blockbuster Total Access account I can keep a steady stream of HD movies coming through my home without any tech overhead or lead time.
Also, I personally know at least two other people with PS3s who are building Blu-Ray collections, and my local Blockbuster's Blu-Ray section always seems to have the latest discs checked out when I try to rent them, so I must not be alone.
> The cost of ownership is significantly lower too... pay your cable/satellite company $5 for the movie you want to see using the equipment you already have or buy a $500+ player and go to the store (or wait for delivery of) a rental + however much that costs.
Online rental services drive the cost per movie well below $5 with decent volume, and if you already own a PS3 for gaming, the Blu-Ray player is basically free. Plus, on-demand HD movies are usually 720p and more heavily compressed, while Blu-Ray movies are 1080p and not as bandwidth-constrained. Even if you count the cost of a disc player, the cost of ownership will still be lower over time, and you'll get a better quality image. You can also legally lend your disc-based movies to other people for free, which isn't possible with on-demand.
> the real victor was the MP3 and other digitally distributed forms of music...
The day you can download an entire HD movie in the time it currently takes to download an MP3 is the day your comparison will start to make sense.
Warner and Paramount are supporting both formats. Universal is exclusively HD-DVD, and the rest of the majors are exclusively Blu-Ray.
Between Warner and Paramount it looks like around 70-80 titles are currently available on both formats according to High-Def Digest's historical releaselists.
Warner's been a little quicker about getting their HD-DVD titles out, so they have about 20 more titles that are still waiting for Blu-Ray releases.
> But if a song is IP, why does it matter how it was copied? Copying it by looking at the paper, or copying by listening...
It has come to our attention that your brain makes available so-called "remembered" versions of copyrighted musical compositions owned or controlled by members of the NMPA and MPA, without permission from the publishers.
The versions of these publishers' musical works that you store in your brain are not exempt under copyright law. In fact, U.S. copyright law specifically provides that the right to make and distribute arrangements, adaptations, abridgements, or transcriptions of copyrighted musical works, including lyrics, belongs exclusively to the copyright owner of that work. Many, if not all, of the compositions in your brain, including the works listed on Schedule A, are protected by copyright. Therefore, you needed, but did not obtain, permission from the copyright owners to make a "remembered" version of those songs and to store them in your brain.
In short, we ask that you promptly remove all unauthorized copyrighted material from your brain and confirm its removal to us in writing. We anticipate and expect your cooperation in this matter. However, in the event that you choose to ignore this request, we shall press our demand that your brain be removed.
The difficulty curve was certainly rougher on GH2 than on GH1, but it wasn't insurmountable -- and I don't see any reason not to continue including challenging material for veteran players.
After playing GH1 to death, when I got GH2 I blew through Medium and literally got 5 stars on every song on the first try. On Hard I got 4 or 5 stars on the first try on all but a few tracks, and I didn't start running into a real challenge until I got to the upper echelons of Expert. Now I can 5-star almost all of the songs on Expert without much trouble. I even went back and 100%'d all of Medium and most of Hard before I got bored.
Should I want or need a decrease in difficulty? Isn't it the point of the higher difficulties to provide a greater challenge?
I guess I just don't understand how amping up the highest difficulty would wind up hurting anyone, aside from bruising their ego. Maybe it would make everyone happy if they introduced a new difficulty beyond Expert and scaled the original difficulties down a bit...? I don't know.
Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Lair, Warhawk, Stranglehold, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, Stuntman: Ignition, Heavenly Sword, and Sega Rally Revo are all due before the end of September.
I currently own Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis 3, and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on disc, plus Blast Factor and Q*Bert from the PS store. I would probably own 4 or 5 more disc-based games if they supported 1080i (I have a 1080i-only TV).
IMO, VF5 is the king of fighting games, period -- and it looks absolutely stunning on the PS3. VT3 is also a lot of fun, though its lack of online play compared to the 360 is annoying. M:UA is nice too, though the lack of voice chat is a head-scratcher, especially because the PS2 version supports it.
I currently own 4 Blu-Ray movies, and the increase in quality over DVD is so large that I can't imagine going back. My local Blockbuster is also the only place in my area that rents Blu-Ray movies, so I've given them some business on the rental front.
The SD slot is also nice for quick previews or slideshows of digital camera photos -- they look great in HD on my 50" TV.
So, the answer to your question is that I use it for everything you asked about, and my only real complaints are with the developers who choose not to provide 1080i compatibility, or who provide weak or nonexistent online support.
I'm enjoying my PS3 quite a bit, and if it weren't for so many developers targeting 720p without providing 1080i support (I have a 1080i-only TV), I'd have very little to complain about.
Pros:
First to get Virtua Fighter 5
No extra fees for online gaming
Blu-Ray movie playback (it's very difficult to go back to DVDs now)
Hard drive in every unit
Most comfortable next-gen controller
PS1 and PS2 backward compatibility
Cons:
No built-in 720p upscaling for 1080i-only TVs
No rumble (though this will be changing soon)
No online play for Virtua Tennis 3
Pricey
Once they get rumble into the Sixaxis and some marquee exclusives come out later in the year, the PS3 should be on much more solid footing.
> Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc. [...] Each console would then have its own flavor around it. [...] Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility.
> Microsoft has proven that they can design a solid online offering, providing centralized friends lists, voice, chat, messages, easy matchmaking, really cool and innovative (as well as retro) games on XLA, coutnless downloads (that work in the background) and more. The PS3 forces each developer to provide their own online support or demand that gamers subscribe to a third-party service.
Sony has proven that gamers who purchase a game can actually play it online without having to pay extra for the "privilege". The XBox 360 forces each player to provide their own friends for local multiplayer, or demands that gamers subscribe to their first-party service if they want to play anything online.
A lot of people act like XBox Live, wireless controllers, and direct-download games are somehow universal positives that everyone would find appealing. Personally, I don't want to pay extra to play my games online, I don't want to have to recharge my game controllers and deal with input lag and dropouts, and I want a physical backup of my game purchase so I don't have to deal with a computerized phone system when some server decides my game license isn't valid anymore.
> I have an HDTV and am an early adopter... but I'll probably only buy a PS3 once it has a few games I want to play.
Me too. I've had an HDTV since late 2001, and I was considering getting a PS3 once Virtua Fighter 5 came out -- but then I started reading about how the PS3 can't upscale 720p games to 1080i for HDTVs that only do native 1080i, and how Sony has made no promises to fix the problem. Until that gets resolved I'm not buying a PS3, because I'm sure as hell not going to buy a new HDTV just to support a game console, and I'm not going to play high def games in 480p when I have a high def TV.
Slashdot Mirror
As the first article states, it's only the uninformed opinion of a financial analyst that PS3 development difficulties were responsible for the delay. Of course, the financial analyst also believes the PS3 version is a port of the 360 version, when in fact the PS3 has always been the lead platform for the game. Shows how much his opinion is worth.
Rockstar says they have challenges on both platforms (likely Cell development on the PS3 and stuffing everything onto a DVD-9 on the 360). Nothing to see here, folks...
$260 + tax for the full set (game, mic, 2 guitars, drum kit), according to Gamestop's preorder system. That's $200 for the single guitar bundle, then $60 for an extra guitar.
Here you go. Better start saving your pennies...
> I was being specific to the unique Car stunts.
Of which GTA3 had 20 and GTA:SA had 70. Plus GTA:SA had photo goals, more hidden trinkets, several arcade games within the game, etc. Tons more non-violent side content than GTA3. So whether you're being general or specific, you're still wrong.
> GTA 3 was great in that it had lots to do and was a very open game. The stunts bonuses you could get added a nice non violent touch to the game. That aspect was greatly lost in the next 2 installments of the genre.
Huh? GTA:VC and GTA:SA had even more non-violent side content than GTA3. Much moreso in the case of GTA:SA. Did you even play those games...?
> Maybe it turned around after the first three hours or so, but I'll never know.
It did.
Yes, most of these lists miss Herzog Zwei as the father of all modern RTS games (and the Intellivision's Utopia as the father of the Civilization branch). And Star Control 2, even though it's just a more polished ripoff of the Starflight series (with Space War battle mechanics), was the game that really wound up defining that genre.
All the more reason why this list stunk.
> You're implying that Nights Into Dreams isn't as good as Tomb Raider and get modded insightful? Now that's even more absurd than the top 100 list!
Nights was a hokey, buggy, mostly 2.5D non-platformer with a neat gimmick. I know, because I own it. The original Tomb Raider, on the other hand, was the first successful attempt to bring the gameplay of Prince Of Persia into 3D, and it's been the template for nearly every 3D environmental puzzle mechanic since then.
Tomb Raider was clearly the more historically important game, and I personally think it was a lot more fun to play than Nights.
> have you even -played- Super Monkey Ball?
Yep. Played all the way through the "Deluxe" edition on the PS2. Fun game, extremely hard in places, but nowhere near the top 100 IMO.
I've also played Darwinia and R-Type Final, by the way. Both games have their strong points, but again, they're nowhere near the top 100 IMO.
Most "Top Anything" lists are silly and miss a number of obvious choices, but this list is downright idiotic. I give them points for including games like Gitaroo-Man and Tempest 2000, but some of the omissions and especially the ordering they chose are just obscene.
Virtua Tennis 3 better than Robotron? Nights Into Dreams better than Tomb Raider? Darwinia, Super Monkey Ball and R-Type Final making the list while classics like X-Com and Fallout are nowhere to be found? Don't even get me started on the timeframe and system bias evidenced here. What a joke...
> Credit cards are useful occassionally - my fiancee and I use hers maybe three times a year - but I'd much rather use my debit card. Aside from anything else, my debit card doesn't pretend to be giving me something.
If you used a dividend credit card instead and just paid it off every month, you'd actually get a rebate on everything you buy while strengthening your credit rating and never paying interest. Much better than a debit card, I'd say, unless you have absolutely no self control where credit is concerned...
The article claims that cargo truck driving has never been done justice in a game, so I think the author must have missed Truckin' on the Intellivision. You had to manage your loadouts, gas, and the routes you took (which included many of the major U.S. interstates), and you could carry multiple loads simultaneously, even if they were slated for different destinations. And the best part -- split-screen 2-player competitive mode, where you raced to make the most money in the least amount of time. You'd even see the opposing truck drive by you if you passed on the interstate.
An awesome game for its time -- and it was all about cargo trucks.
> I think you're confused
No, I was simply addressing both topics -- the cable/satellite on-demand services and the notion of digital download touched on by the grandparent post and your MP3 comparison. On-demand services have one set of problems and digital downloads have another set. I thought that was clear.
> the Home Theater fanatics I know are all waiting out the format war before they make the plunge.
The ones I've encountered have either bought players for both formats, or read the writing on the wall and gone with Blu-Ray.
> if the same equipment that provides your TV can also provide all of your movies and have those movies be even more easily accessible then the TV shows (you can pick your start time... pause, etc.) then where is the incentive to buy additional equipment for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?
The on-demand services provide a limited number of movies for a limited window of time, and they usually deliver the content at lower resolution and with higher compression than what you'd get with an HD video disc. The price is also higher if you rent at least 3 or 4 movies a month. So -- lower quality, higher price, and no option to buy HD movies for your permanent collection. What's the incentive to go with on-demand again...?
> Everyone I know with an HDTV has some form of "On Demand" for getting HD movies... I don't know a single person who owns either an HD-DVD or BRD player.
Then you need to get out more. I've had an HDTV since late 2001 and I don't subscribe to cable HD service -- I get a superior OTA signal for free from the major networks, and I'm not interested in the price or most of the content offered by cable HD service. I also own a PlayStation 3, so I automatically have Blu-Ray playback capability, and now I rent and buy movies exclusively in Blu-Ray format when available.
I don't want to have to wait for hours to download an HD movie and play it back from my computer through some dongle or device to my HDTV, and I don't want to have to devote an array of hard drives to keeping a reasonably-sized movie collection handy. For me, having the movie on its own disc is still the most convenient option. And with a Netflix or Blockbuster Total Access account I can keep a steady stream of HD movies coming through my home without any tech overhead or lead time.
Also, I personally know at least two other people with PS3s who are building Blu-Ray collections, and my local Blockbuster's Blu-Ray section always seems to have the latest discs checked out when I try to rent them, so I must not be alone.
> The cost of ownership is significantly lower too... pay your cable/satellite company $5 for the movie you want to see using the equipment you already have or buy a $500+ player and go to the store (or wait for delivery of) a rental + however much that costs.
Online rental services drive the cost per movie well below $5 with decent volume, and if you already own a PS3 for gaming, the Blu-Ray player is basically free. Plus, on-demand HD movies are usually 720p and more heavily compressed, while Blu-Ray movies are 1080p and not as bandwidth-constrained. Even if you count the cost of a disc player, the cost of ownership will still be lower over time, and you'll get a better quality image. You can also legally lend your disc-based movies to other people for free, which isn't possible with on-demand.
> the real victor was the MP3 and other digitally distributed forms of music...
The day you can download an entire HD movie in the time it currently takes to download an MP3 is the day your comparison will start to make sense.
Warner and Paramount are supporting both formats. Universal is exclusively HD-DVD, and the rest of the majors are exclusively Blu-Ray.
Between Warner and Paramount it looks like around 70-80 titles are currently available on both formats according to High-Def Digest's historical release lists.
Warner's been a little quicker about getting their HD-DVD titles out, so they have about 20 more titles that are still waiting for Blu-Ray releases.
> But if a song is IP, why does it matter how it was copied? Copying it by looking at the paper, or copying by listening...
It has come to our attention that your brain makes available so-called "remembered" versions of copyrighted musical compositions owned or controlled by members of the NMPA and MPA, without permission from the publishers.
The versions of these publishers' musical works that you store in your brain are not exempt under copyright law. In fact, U.S. copyright law specifically provides that the right to make and distribute arrangements, adaptations, abridgements, or transcriptions of copyrighted musical works, including lyrics, belongs exclusively to the copyright owner of that work. Many, if not all, of the compositions in your brain, including the works listed on Schedule A, are protected by copyright. Therefore, you needed, but did not obtain, permission from the copyright owners to make a "remembered" version of those songs and to store them in your brain.
In short, we ask that you promptly remove all unauthorized copyrighted material from your brain and confirm its removal to us in writing. We anticipate and expect your cooperation in this matter. However, in the event that you choose to ignore this request, we shall press our demand that your brain be removed.
Sincerely,
Ross J. Charap
The difficulty curve was certainly rougher on GH2 than on GH1, but it wasn't insurmountable -- and I don't see any reason not to continue including challenging material for veteran players.
After playing GH1 to death, when I got GH2 I blew through Medium and literally got 5 stars on every song on the first try. On Hard I got 4 or 5 stars on the first try on all but a few tracks, and I didn't start running into a real challenge until I got to the upper echelons of Expert. Now I can 5-star almost all of the songs on Expert without much trouble. I even went back and 100%'d all of Medium and most of Hard before I got bored.
Should I want or need a decrease in difficulty? Isn't it the point of the higher difficulties to provide a greater challenge?
I guess I just don't understand how amping up the highest difficulty would wind up hurting anyone, aside from bruising their ego. Maybe it would make everyone happy if they introduced a new difficulty beyond Expert and scaled the original difficulties down a bit...? I don't know.
Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Lair, Warhawk, Stranglehold, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, Stuntman: Ignition, Heavenly Sword, and Sega Rally Revo are all due before the end of September.
...for a second there I thought we were going to get a classic shoot-em-up in the PS Store. Oh well.
I currently own Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis 3, and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on disc, plus Blast Factor and Q*Bert from the PS store. I would probably own 4 or 5 more disc-based games if they supported 1080i (I have a 1080i-only TV).
IMO, VF5 is the king of fighting games, period -- and it looks absolutely stunning on the PS3. VT3 is also a lot of fun, though its lack of online play compared to the 360 is annoying. M:UA is nice too, though the lack of voice chat is a head-scratcher, especially because the PS2 version supports it.
I currently own 4 Blu-Ray movies, and the increase in quality over DVD is so large that I can't imagine going back. My local Blockbuster is also the only place in my area that rents Blu-Ray movies, so I've given them some business on the rental front.
The SD slot is also nice for quick previews or slideshows of digital camera photos -- they look great in HD on my 50" TV.
So, the answer to your question is that I use it for everything you asked about, and my only real complaints are with the developers who choose not to provide 1080i compatibility, or who provide weak or nonexistent online support.
I'm enjoying my PS3 quite a bit, and if it weren't for so many developers targeting 720p without providing 1080i support (I have a 1080i-only TV), I'd have very little to complain about.
Pros:
First to get Virtua Fighter 5
No extra fees for online gaming
Blu-Ray movie playback (it's very difficult to go back to DVDs now)
Hard drive in every unit
Most comfortable next-gen controller
PS1 and PS2 backward compatibility
Cons:
No built-in 720p upscaling for 1080i-only TVs
No rumble (though this will be changing soon)
No online play for Virtua Tennis 3
Pricey
Once they get rumble into the Sixaxis and some marquee exclusives come out later in the year, the PS3 should be on much more solid footing.
> Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc. [...] Each console would then have its own flavor around it. [...] Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility.
Welcome to 1993 -- it's the 3DO all over again.
They finally secure the rights to an Iron Maiden song and they make it a bonus track exclusive to the 360? That's just not right...
> Microsoft has proven that they can design a solid online offering, providing centralized friends lists, voice, chat, messages, easy matchmaking, really cool and innovative (as well as retro) games on XLA, coutnless downloads (that work in the background) and more. The PS3 forces each developer to provide their own online support or demand that gamers subscribe to a third-party service.
Sony has proven that gamers who purchase a game can actually play it online without having to pay extra for the "privilege". The XBox 360 forces each player to provide their own friends for local multiplayer, or demands that gamers subscribe to their first-party service if they want to play anything online.
A lot of people act like XBox Live, wireless controllers, and direct-download games are somehow universal positives that everyone would find appealing. Personally, I don't want to pay extra to play my games online, I don't want to have to recharge my game controllers and deal with input lag and dropouts, and I want a physical backup of my game purchase so I don't have to deal with a computerized phone system when some server decides my game license isn't valid anymore.
> I have an HDTV and am an early adopter... but I'll probably only buy a PS3 once it has a few games I want to play.
Me too. I've had an HDTV since late 2001, and I was considering getting a PS3 once Virtua Fighter 5 came out -- but then I started reading about how the PS3 can't upscale 720p games to 1080i for HDTVs that only do native 1080i, and how Sony has made no promises to fix the problem. Until that gets resolved I'm not buying a PS3, because I'm sure as hell not going to buy a new HDTV just to support a game console, and I'm not going to play high def games in 480p when I have a high def TV.