How is that in any way trolling? Because it wasn't negative for the PS3? Because it pointed out a problem with the Wii? He provided three (3!!!) links to information!
I can generally accept this when it comes to Game Cube games. I was never knocking the hardware, outside of their media format. It was still an issue when it came to features though. I don't know if you can name a multi-format sports game that didn't have to have significant features cut so it could fit on the Game Cube disc.
But the fact that the passing generation already had multi-disc DVD games while Microsoft sticks with the same format still seems like an issue to me. There's a very real reason they were going to have an HD-DVD drive until it was no longer viable for their launch window. They didn't cut it to save the consumer any cash - they cut it entirely so they could beat Sony to the market by a significant ammount of time. Now that console games are stepping up the resolution to "HD" standards, that disc space is really going to become an issue. People keep pointing at Oblivion as a demonstration that big next-gen games can fit on a single DVD... but Bethesda barely managed that and they had to reduce texture resolution to do it.
Of course in many ways I think not having the hard drive as a standard part of the system (just for caching) almost hurts them more. Loading times on the 360 version of Oblivion were incredibly painful - on my PC they were barely noticeable at all and only hitched the gameplay when I entered or exited a large town. It'll be interesting to see how the PS3 version of that game turns out.
The big multi-disc RPGs on the PS2 had multiple discs because of voice, actually. They mostly use the in-game engine now instead of pre-rendered stuff. Bethesda had to reduce texture resolution to fit Oblivion onto a single DVD with how much voice-work they had done.
There are games (such as The Warriors) which require rumble for some of their functions... but there will be an accessory for the PS3 that allows you to plug in PSX/PS2 contollers and memory cards so it won't be that much of an issue. In Japan it's going to retail for an ammount of yen that came out to $13 American so I imagine it'll retail for $20-25 here in the states. I'll be a sucker and buy one just so I can move the saves on my memory cards over to the PS3 hard drive. I'm running out of space on my memory cards so if this thing reall does retail for the same price or less than a brand new PS2 memory card then I'll be a happy camper.
Why will nobody accept that Blu-Ray actually add something important to the system? And I don't mean as a movie player. There will be launch games for the PS3 that will already be larger than something you could fit on a dual-layer DVD-9 and it's just going to get worse as system life progresses. After developers are comfortable with both systems, the increased texture resolution alone will give the PS3 a graphical advantage while the storage capacity of DVDs continues to put a crimp on what the 360 can do.
Just look at the Game Cube from the passing generation. It has more powerful hardware (by far) than the PS2 and wasn't that far off from what the XBox was capable of... but multi-platform games consistantly looked worse AND lacked features because their proprietary disc format just didn't have the storage that was available on the PS2 and the XBox.
There are already multi-disc DVD-9 games for the PS2. The inclusion of Blu-Ray will give Sony and developers a lot more in the way of flexibility and it's not actually costing THAT much more. The $500 PS3 can do everything and more than the $400 XBox 360. Sure, it's 25% more, but the advantages offered purely from a gaming standpoint seem worth it to me. And screw Blu-Ray movies as far as I'm concerned. There's no way in hell I'm re-buying any of my DVDs.
And keep this in mind: The XBox 360 would have had an HD-DVD drive (that would have driven up the price, likely to PS3 levels) if the studios had hammered out their encryption schemes and DRM in time for Microsoft to make their launch window.
I can testify to the same thing at all four EB/Game Stop locations in my area. Every single person that works there who's been asked by a customer about the PS3 hears about how horrible the system is going to be and why don't they buy a 360 instead? I'm sure it'll calm down quite a bit once PS3 games start appearing on the shelves and suddenly it'll be the best thing "evar".
From the pictures, the $500 unit looks matte black (same texture as the PS2), which for me is just another reason to get it over the $600 unit. WiFi and the memory stick ports (not PS1/PS2 memory card ports, which would have helped sell me on the $600 unit) don't matter to me at all and I'll likely stick a cheap 250 GB hard drive in my PS3 so the 40 GB space difference in hard drives doesn't matter to me either.
There is a lot of cool technology at play in the PS3 and the games I care about (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, pretty much any Japanese game) will all be on the PS3 (and for the most part, not on the 360) so that's all it really took to sell me on Sony's system. It all comes down to the games.
Please. If the PS3 controller is sold for $40 here it'll be the same price in store as the WIRED 360 controller. You have to pay an extra $10 for the wireless controller that you have to replace batteries with. You have to pay even more for the play and charge kit.
People are really over-estimating the motion and "exercise" that will be required to play games for the Wii. You'll still be able to sit on the couch or in a bean bag with an elbow in your lap or propped on an arm-rest while you move the wii-mote around like a mouse. Inputting commands with the wii-mote isn't really any different from using mouse-gestures with a program like Opera.
It's not like you're going to be standing and spinning around to do things - you still have to point the wii-mote at the television - hence the motion strips you'll have to slap on your tv. Go sit on your couch in front of the tv, hold your hand out while holding the tv remote and see just how much you can move it while still pointing it AT the tv.
Try looking at the OTHER games then. You want the PS3 equivalent of Halo? At the time, it looks like that game will be Resistance: Fall of Man. It's being made by the Ratchet and Clank team, it's an FPS, it LOOKS like it'll be a PS3 exclusive, the game is gorgeous, and the early previews make it look like a very interesting game (especially with what they're doing with weapons).
I agree that way too much importance is placed on which console has the biggest graphics penis. That said, when you're second to the party, you have to be able to hold something over your primary competitor, and graphics have always been a big focus in the console wars.
While White Knight Story has an overworld map, the transition from exploration to combat is seamless - you see enemies on the screen, run up to them and start hacking on them. It's very similar to the combat in Star Wars - Knights of the Old Republic.
You'll see much of the same in Final Fantasy XII when it comes out for the PS2 at the end of October. And while it's too early to tell at the moment, FF XIII looks like it'll have a similar method of combat.
Well, considering that the XBox 360 is pretty much dead in the water in Japan, most (I say most because Mistwalker looks to be making their games 360 exclusive) Japanese RPGs are going to (again) end up on the Sony platform. For all of it's posturing, you're likely to see almost all of Square Enix's major releases on the PS3 unless the system completely bombs. And even if Final Fantasy isn't your thing, take a look at the recently released footage for White Knight Story. Looks like an old school J-RPG that's using a KOTOR style combat system (only more intricate).
And how can Oblivion really qualify as an example of what's wrong with the PS3 when the game is already out for the 360 and the PC? And how can you know that the PS3 is going to concentrate on pretty graphics with no depth? It certainly wasn't a problem with the PS2. Are you making these assumptions based purely on announced launch titles?
How is this in any way a Sony move? It's a move made by Bethesda software to sell more copies of Oblivion.
And while a new Ratchet and Clank game will eventually come out for the PS3, that team is currently working on Resistance: The Fall of Man. Oh, and it'll have multiplayer, too. I hate the idea of console FPS games (I can't stand an FPS without a mouse and keyboard) but I've got to admit that it's a very interesting (and impressive, graphically) looking game.
Why? Even PS3 and Sony haters should want the system to be moderately successful - because otherwise there is no competition. And as the FUD about the PS3 (way too much of it generated by the talking heads at Sony making off-the-cuff remarks and guesses) begins to clear up and actual information begins to solidify, it looks like the system will actually be viable.
They're not altering any game assets. The only real way we'll see a difference between the 360 version and the PS3 version will be by the frame rates, the draw distance and the levels of AA/AF they use.
It's not really a big selling point at all. It's just another game available for the system. This really doesn't seem to be news worthy of being posted on/. and SEEMS to have been posted only so Zonk can get in another sideways comment on the PS3 (from the way-to-catch-up department).
The screenshots look pretty much the same, the game has been finished and out for other systems for some time now and Bethesda has probably had plenty of time to port it over to the PS3 dev kit. While it won't give the best idea on the graphic capability of games developed specifically for the PS3, it could give an early idea of what multi-platform games will look like on both systems.
Out of the box, PS3 games SHOULD looks just as good or just as bad as their XBox 360 counterparts. It's years down the road when the developers have figured out how to get everything out of the system that the graphics of the PS3 should really have an edge over the 360. At least, that's my impression.
What are you talking about? Where's the desperation? There's a new console, Bethesda has a next-gen game that's been out for a while that they want to sell more copies of and they add a little bonus to the game as an incentive to buy a copy for the new system. This happens all the time. Bethesda wants to make more money off of their game, so they put it on another platform. Where's the desperation?
The PS3 has full backwards compatibility with all PSX and PS2 games - thus it can read CD and DVD-based media. However, I have no idea if the PS3 is equiped with the software to play DVD movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooooh, an argument for Sony and against Microsoft... and you got modded down to troll for it! You got Zonked!
How is that in any way trolling? Because it wasn't negative for the PS3? Because it pointed out a problem with the Wii? He provided three (3!!!) links to information!
We should just call this the "Zonk" mod.
Nevermind the consumers who always want flashier graphics, eh?
I've never heard such a thing. Links?
I can generally accept this when it comes to Game Cube games. I was never knocking the hardware, outside of their media format. It was still an issue when it came to features though. I don't know if you can name a multi-format sports game that didn't have to have significant features cut so it could fit on the Game Cube disc.
But the fact that the passing generation already had multi-disc DVD games while Microsoft sticks with the same format still seems like an issue to me. There's a very real reason they were going to have an HD-DVD drive until it was no longer viable for their launch window. They didn't cut it to save the consumer any cash - they cut it entirely so they could beat Sony to the market by a significant ammount of time. Now that console games are stepping up the resolution to "HD" standards, that disc space is really going to become an issue. People keep pointing at Oblivion as a demonstration that big next-gen games can fit on a single DVD... but Bethesda barely managed that and they had to reduce texture resolution to do it.
Of course in many ways I think not having the hard drive as a standard part of the system (just for caching) almost hurts them more. Loading times on the 360 version of Oblivion were incredibly painful - on my PC they were barely noticeable at all and only hitched the gameplay when I entered or exited a large town. It'll be interesting to see how the PS3 version of that game turns out.
The big multi-disc RPGs on the PS2 had multiple discs because of voice, actually. They mostly use the in-game engine now instead of pre-rendered stuff. Bethesda had to reduce texture resolution to fit Oblivion onto a single DVD with how much voice-work they had done.
I love how a pair of insightful comments get modded down because they point out flaws in the arguments of Sony's opposition.
There are games (such as The Warriors) which require rumble for some of their functions... but there will be an accessory for the PS3 that allows you to plug in PSX/PS2 contollers and memory cards so it won't be that much of an issue. In Japan it's going to retail for an ammount of yen that came out to $13 American so I imagine it'll retail for $20-25 here in the states. I'll be a sucker and buy one just so I can move the saves on my memory cards over to the PS3 hard drive. I'm running out of space on my memory cards so if this thing reall does retail for the same price or less than a brand new PS2 memory card then I'll be a happy camper.
Why will nobody accept that Blu-Ray actually add something important to the system? And I don't mean as a movie player. There will be launch games for the PS3 that will already be larger than something you could fit on a dual-layer DVD-9 and it's just going to get worse as system life progresses. After developers are comfortable with both systems, the increased texture resolution alone will give the PS3 a graphical advantage while the storage capacity of DVDs continues to put a crimp on what the 360 can do.
Just look at the Game Cube from the passing generation. It has more powerful hardware (by far) than the PS2 and wasn't that far off from what the XBox was capable of... but multi-platform games consistantly looked worse AND lacked features because their proprietary disc format just didn't have the storage that was available on the PS2 and the XBox.
There are already multi-disc DVD-9 games for the PS2. The inclusion of Blu-Ray will give Sony and developers a lot more in the way of flexibility and it's not actually costing THAT much more. The $500 PS3 can do everything and more than the $400 XBox 360. Sure, it's 25% more, but the advantages offered purely from a gaming standpoint seem worth it to me. And screw Blu-Ray movies as far as I'm concerned. There's no way in hell I'm re-buying any of my DVDs.
And keep this in mind: The XBox 360 would have had an HD-DVD drive (that would have driven up the price, likely to PS3 levels) if the studios had hammered out their encryption schemes and DRM in time for Microsoft to make their launch window.
I can testify to the same thing at all four EB/Game Stop locations in my area. Every single person that works there who's been asked by a customer about the PS3 hears about how horrible the system is going to be and why don't they buy a 360 instead? I'm sure it'll calm down quite a bit once PS3 games start appearing on the shelves and suddenly it'll be the best thing "evar".
From the pictures, the $500 unit looks matte black (same texture as the PS2), which for me is just another reason to get it over the $600 unit. WiFi and the memory stick ports (not PS1/PS2 memory card ports, which would have helped sell me on the $600 unit) don't matter to me at all and I'll likely stick a cheap 250 GB hard drive in my PS3 so the 40 GB space difference in hard drives doesn't matter to me either.
There is a lot of cool technology at play in the PS3 and the games I care about (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, pretty much any Japanese game) will all be on the PS3 (and for the most part, not on the 360) so that's all it really took to sell me on Sony's system. It all comes down to the games.
You can always use the wireless controller - different format but it'll do anything movie-related that a dvd, err, blue-ray player, remote will do.
The controller being wireless takes out any sting the lack of a remote might cause - for me, at least.
Please. If the PS3 controller is sold for $40 here it'll be the same price in store as the WIRED 360 controller. You have to pay an extra $10 for the wireless controller that you have to replace batteries with. You have to pay even more for the play and charge kit.
People are really over-estimating the motion and "exercise" that will be required to play games for the Wii. You'll still be able to sit on the couch or in a bean bag with an elbow in your lap or propped on an arm-rest while you move the wii-mote around like a mouse. Inputting commands with the wii-mote isn't really any different from using mouse-gestures with a program like Opera.
It's not like you're going to be standing and spinning around to do things - you still have to point the wii-mote at the television - hence the motion strips you'll have to slap on your tv. Go sit on your couch in front of the tv, hold your hand out while holding the tv remote and see just how much you can move it while still pointing it AT the tv.
Try looking at the OTHER games then. You want the PS3 equivalent of Halo? At the time, it looks like that game will be Resistance: Fall of Man. It's being made by the Ratchet and Clank team, it's an FPS, it LOOKS like it'll be a PS3 exclusive, the game is gorgeous, and the early previews make it look like a very interesting game (especially with what they're doing with weapons).
I agree that way too much importance is placed on which console has the biggest graphics penis. That said, when you're second to the party, you have to be able to hold something over your primary competitor, and graphics have always been a big focus in the console wars.
While White Knight Story has an overworld map, the transition from exploration to combat is seamless - you see enemies on the screen, run up to them and start hacking on them. It's very similar to the combat in Star Wars - Knights of the Old Republic.
You'll see much of the same in Final Fantasy XII when it comes out for the PS2 at the end of October. And while it's too early to tell at the moment, FF XIII looks like it'll have a similar method of combat.
Well, considering that the XBox 360 is pretty much dead in the water in Japan, most (I say most because Mistwalker looks to be making their games 360 exclusive) Japanese RPGs are going to (again) end up on the Sony platform. For all of it's posturing, you're likely to see almost all of Square Enix's major releases on the PS3 unless the system completely bombs. And even if Final Fantasy isn't your thing, take a look at the recently released footage for White Knight Story. Looks like an old school J-RPG that's using a KOTOR style combat system (only more intricate).
And how can Oblivion really qualify as an example of what's wrong with the PS3 when the game is already out for the 360 and the PC? And how can you know that the PS3 is going to concentrate on pretty graphics with no depth? It certainly wasn't a problem with the PS2. Are you making these assumptions based purely on announced launch titles?
How is this in any way a Sony move? It's a move made by Bethesda software to sell more copies of Oblivion.
And while a new Ratchet and Clank game will eventually come out for the PS3, that team is currently working on Resistance: The Fall of Man. Oh, and it'll have multiplayer, too. I hate the idea of console FPS games (I can't stand an FPS without a mouse and keyboard) but I've got to admit that it's a very interesting (and impressive, graphically) looking game.
If I had mod points left you'd be getting them.
Why? Even PS3 and Sony haters should want the system to be moderately successful - because otherwise there is no competition. And as the FUD about the PS3 (way too much of it generated by the talking heads at Sony making off-the-cuff remarks and guesses) begins to clear up and actual information begins to solidify, it looks like the system will actually be viable.
They're not altering any game assets. The only real way we'll see a difference between the 360 version and the PS3 version will be by the frame rates, the draw distance and the levels of AA/AF they use.
Here's a good question: Will the game be 1080P?
It's not really a big selling point at all. It's just another game available for the system. This really doesn't seem to be news worthy of being posted on /. and SEEMS to have been posted only so Zonk can get in another sideways comment on the PS3 (from the way-to-catch-up department).
The screenshots look pretty much the same, the game has been finished and out for other systems for some time now and Bethesda has probably had plenty of time to port it over to the PS3 dev kit. While it won't give the best idea on the graphic capability of games developed specifically for the PS3, it could give an early idea of what multi-platform games will look like on both systems.
Out of the box, PS3 games SHOULD looks just as good or just as bad as their XBox 360 counterparts. It's years down the road when the developers have figured out how to get everything out of the system that the graphics of the PS3 should really have an edge over the 360. At least, that's my impression.
What are you talking about? Where's the desperation? There's a new console, Bethesda has a next-gen game that's been out for a while that they want to sell more copies of and they add a little bonus to the game as an incentive to buy a copy for the new system. This happens all the time. Bethesda wants to make more money off of their game, so they put it on another platform. Where's the desperation?
The PS3 has full backwards compatibility with all PSX and PS2 games - thus it can read CD and DVD-based media. However, I have no idea if the PS3 is equiped with the software to play DVD movies.