PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: QuDDus on June 29, 2005, 01:36:08 PM
-
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/28/news_6128295.html
-
That\'s overpriced. And the fact that they might still be selling at a loss is retarded. For their sake I hope the manufacturing costs plummet.
I won\'t buy one for $400.
-Dan
-
hmm, $400 isn\'t that expensive when you consider they added the Blu Ray support.
Stand a lone Blu Ray players expected to sell higher than that, as little as $1,000 and over...
-
Originally posted by Paul2
hmm, $400 isn\'t that expensive when you consider they added the Blu Ray support.
Stand a lone Blu Ray players expected to sell higher than that, as little as $1,000 and over...
Think the general consumer cares? General consumer is happy with DVD, so Blu Ray means nothing to them. The price is overpriced for a console. It\'s that simple.
-
..Merrill Lynch Japan predicts that Sony will sell each PS3 at the price of 44,800 yen ($410) in Japan and $399 in America..
-
gonna sell like hotcakes
im certainly getting one at that cheap pricepoint
hell, the dreamcast launched at 399$ how many years ago?
-
What???
DC launched at $199...
You mean Saturn?
-
In 1995, the PSX sold for $299. It\'ll be over 10 years later for the PS3 launch and they\'re selling it for $399.
I\'m buying it. I\'ll be elite one day. You watch.
-
doh, meant saturn
i remember there was only a soccer game and one other title at launch
regardless, 399$ is a steal.
still wish the industry would go back to having a pack in game.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Think the general consumer cares? General consumer is happy with DVD, so Blu Ray means nothing to them. The price is overpriced for a console. It\'s that simple.
I believe many videogame console owners care. Look at the ps2 at launch time, buyers get one not only for ps2 games, they get one because it can also play DVD, and backward compatible with PSOne. It was a smart move for PS2 to include DVD playback. They are the first console to include that because Dreamcast doesn\'t have it, neither does Gamecube which comes out later.
if ps3 is selling at $400, I am very sure that it will sells like hotcake. Why bother buying a stand a lone Blu Ray player that cost around $1,000 when you can get ps3 for $400.
-
I don\'t mind paying that much at launch. I usually spend 2-3 times that on games and accessories anyway.
-
i\'ll definatly be buying for that fuckin price, if anyone complains they\'re just broke biatches. I was expecting 6-700 hundred range so this is a great save.
-
considering next gen games will be $60 means ps3+games+memory card+extra pad = $$$$$$$$$$$$
will still buy though.
-
I don\'t know how it can cost $400 when the new Xbox is $300. With that price difference the PS3 should be a lot more powerful how is that possible
-
Originally posted by Halberto
I don\'t know how it can cost $400 when the new Xbox is $300. With that price difference the PS3 should be a lot more powerful how is that possible
It has a Blueray drive.
xbox is using standard dvd drive.
While gates did hint at a future hd-xbox360
-
Seeing as I\'ll have an Xbox 360 by then just because and a Nintendo Revolution because I it already offers something I want, Sony has to give me a reason to buy their console.
Playing fancy DVDs on my increasingly shittier tv isn\'t going to cut it.
If I got to predict I\'d say it\'ll be either 300 which I might swing or 350 which I\'d skip for awhile.
It\'s just too much money for nothing. A bunch of sequels.
I don\'t even have a reason to pick up Xbox 360 except Perfect Dark, maybe, and that it\'s coming first so might as well grab it.
Sony is going to need to be more competitive on the pricepoint, especially if Xbox is undercutting them with the momentum they already have and a year\'s headstart. Nintendo might win back a few gamers like me who had been losing faith.
The new DS titles and the backward compatibility of the Revolution alone have me ready for what\'s coming. I\'m tired of the derivative, uninspired sequels and knock-off games. Nintendo looks like the last hope.
I\'m heading off topic, but the bottomline is I feel if the PS3 is more of the same, then I\'ll find a better place to spend my $400. If it\'s a useless upgrade like Xbox 360 looks like it will be, then it has to be at least somewhat affordable.
HD or Blue Ray mean nothing to me.
-Dan
-
$400 is not a lot consider that they added the Blu Ray. But I will wait for the price to drop some more, and usually 1st generation videogame consoles may have some glitches and problems such as overheat, laser doesn\'t read disc like how the first generation ps2 were that it will be solve in later generation.
So, its better to buy ps3 a year or two later. But if it can play Blu Ray video, its hard to pass up for only $400...
-
I\'m going to buy 10 of them. Bammo. EBay sucka.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
I\'m going to buy 10 of them. Bammo. EBay sucka.
Especially if there ends up being another shortage. SHOW ME THE MONEY.
Anyway, that is gay but its not terrible. Though it does sort of shift the tides in MS\'s favor just a bit. Youre getting equal performance for 25% less than ps3 not to mention that your library of games will have already started to mature etc.
Im sure ill still get one anyway though. Top GFX cards cost more than that when few PC games even fully utilize their power (or so im assuming).
Not the end of the world
-
why do you need to get it at launch anyway? wait a year or two and it\'ll be half price!
-
We had to buy PAL launch PS2 for about 525 Euros back in 2000.
This price seems like no problem then.
-
I spent more for PS2 and XBox at launch, so no problem to spend 400/450 euri for the most powerful console eve-created :D...but it\'s just me....
-
I\'m tired of the derivative, uninspired sequels and knock-off games. Nintendo looks like the last hope.
same !!! cant wait for the new Mario, new Zelda, new Metroid, new Animal Crossing..
errrmm.. wait...
I believe many videogame console owners care. Look at the ps2 at launch time, buyers get one not only for ps2 games, they get one because it can also play DVD
I am with LiC on this one.. no "general type dude" know what Blu-ray is. Go around the office, ask around ppl who you work with.
When PS2 launched, DVD was known. you could buy DVD movies everywhere, in every popular shop.
Go to wallmart and ask little tommy at the electronic counter for a blu-ray movie ? Good luck. unless you are a techno fan, you dont know what blu-ray is.
-
the world is about to find out
and we\'re tech hungry consumers
your average parent will choose the PS3 over the xbox 2 just because it has "blu-ray" on the box
-
Sony will spoon feed blu-ray into our vocabulary. This is Sony. They know how to market. Add the Playstation name to Blu-Ray...then everyone will know.
-
The ones who now nag about the price will get either console anyway, eventually.
It\'s not that difficult to start saving up a monthly amount of cash so you\'ll have plenty by the time these consoles launch.
The only use for such premature price discussions is to have just another argument in the console war discussion.
-
Let\'s see if this prediction holds true. Either way, $400 isn\'t a whole lot of money.
-
heh
-
I predicts PS3 will be sold out at launch time like how PS2 were at launch time.
Assuming the console were ship in 1 million units. There will be people waiting in line, and I believe at least a few million people know the name Blu Ray, hence one of the reasons they waited in line for.
And I think the console will sell out in the first few months until the production finally surpasses the demand.
-
Ms should launch the 360 for $250
Make sony lower the price
-
Microsoft should definitely (and you know they will) drop the price when PS3 launches, also apparently the day the next Halo arrives.
Saving 400 bucks isn\'t the issue. It\'s wasting all that cash on a PS3 that\'s the problem.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Microsoft should definitely (and you know they will) drop the price when PS3 launches, also apparently the day the next Halo arrives.
Saving 400 bucks isn\'t the issue. It\'s wasting all that cash on a PS3 that\'s the problem.
-Dan
Well there is no otherway you will be able to get a gaming machine and blueray player $400.
-
wasting?
imagine PS3 launching with a remake of FF7.
hi closet, meet xbox 2
-
Originally posted by mm
wasting?
imagine PS3 launching with a remake of FF7.
hi closet, meet xbox 2
Sad day when Sony can bank on a remake. Even sadder when that\'s all the consumer really wants. Not to mention that the consumer will pay extra money for Sony\'s stupid format.
-
...remake of FF7.
stop teasing me. I\'d bash a few baby seals so this comes true.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Sad day when Sony can bank on a remake. Even sadder when that\'s all the consumer really wants. Not to mention that the consumer will pay extra money for Sony\'s stupid format.
They aren\'t banking on one game (a remake, as you called it), silly. There will be sequels such as GT5. But you know damn well that a FF7 remake would sell more games than Halo 7.
-
microsoft did it
*cough* halo 2
FF7 was the greatest game ever made, of course the gaming world wants a remake. hell, it could be the exact same game with upgraded graphics, and i\'d be the 2nd in line (after gmanjoe tripped me and got in 1st)
blu-ray stupid?
sound like a child
:laughing:
-
I have to agree an ff7 remake will almost asure that the price wouldn\'t even be thought of when buying the ps3.
The game was just that huge. I\'d take an ff7 remake over everyother ff. None have come close to having that special magic ff7 had.
-
Agreed.
I\'d take the same exact game straight, word for word, action for action with those demo graphics anyday, easy. Sad? maybe. It would be great to have some small additions changes but if there were none, i wouldnt complain.
-
I would camp out in line for 3 months for a FF7-remake. Naked. But with my credit card stashed up my "card slider". :p
-
Originally posted by mm
microsoft did it
*cough* halo 2
FF7 was the greatest game ever made, of course the gaming world wants a remake. hell, it could be the exact same game with upgraded graphics, and i\'d be the 2nd in line (after gmanjoe tripped me and got in 1st)
blu-ray stupid?
sound like a child
:laughing:
FF7 greatest game ever made? What crack are you smoking? It was a linear RPG, for God\'s sake.
Blu-Ray = stupid. Just like UMD.
-
Linear? Not quite...Vandal Hearts was linear.
-
Just call \'em as I see them. I remember buying FF7 due to hype and being bored to tears. I can think of plenty of other games that top it in every possible aspect, first one that comes to mind is Castlevania: Sotn. Then again, it\'s all personal opinions / preference.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Blu-Ray = stupid
As opposed to... what?
-
Originally posted by Samwise
As opposed to... what?
Their is no standard next gen format. Current dvd\'s are fine and the price would be cheaper
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Just call \'em as I see them. I remember buying FF7 due to hype and being bored to tears. I can think of plenty of other games that top it in every possible aspect, first one that comes to mind is Castlevania: Sotn. Then again, it\'s all personal opinions / preference.
Castlevania=apples
FF7=oranges
-
^^^
both games, and since mm did say FF7 is "the greatest GAME ever" he\'s entitled to his opinion.
-
No LIC is not entitled to his opinion here! He is wrong! :evil:
And it\'s not linear because there are many side quests/characters which you can do at any point in the game.
-
Originally posted by cloud345
No LIC is not entitled to his opinion here! He is wrong! :evil:
And it\'s not linear because there are many side quests/characters which you can do at any point in the game.
Right - because side quests makes it not linear.
Gotcha.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
-
)
Originally posted by cloud345
there are many side quests/characters which you can do at any point in the game.
you can do characters? :eek:
let me be the first to do aeris and tifa then! (preferably together :D
-
It was a linear RPG, for God\'s sake.
lol, did you even play it
Blu-Ray = stupid. Just like UMD.
you can\'t possibly be this ignorant
-
I don\'t think buying remake is sad as long as there are graphical update and with better sound quality too. Look at movies we watched. although i am no star wars fan, I like to bring out this, Star Wars were transferred to VHS, then to Laserdisc, and now on DVD. There are some changes in those transfer, alongside with picture quality improvement and surround sound. And people still buy them over again.
I believe these people wouldn\'t mind buying it again in next generation format in High Def.
There are many new movies release on DVD, and some are remake such as Terminator 2. I remember there were two version of terminator 2.
But a videogame remake like FFVII, I think its going to be a big update. Things that couldn\'t or weren\'t done on PSOne, now maybe be done on PS3. Beside seeing the game in high def, there will be more polygon counts per character, much improve physics, CG quality textures, and added the voice acting too. And possibly, the field area now will be all in 3-D. That, in my opinion is a big update there if they plan to do that.
Film, on the other hand, is limited somewhat. They can remake it on later and newer format, but the biggest change are the pixel details. The framerate don\'t change. Movies run at 24fps, even if its in high def, the framerate still remain at 24fps...
I know comparing movies to video games are like comparing apples to oranges...
but if people are willing to buy a remake in movies. I don\'t see what\'s wrong with buying a remake on videogames?
-
I never got into Final Fantasy so I might pick it up to play it for the first time. I might rather play FF3 on Revolution\'s emulator. Or Chrono Trigger. Two games I would have liked to have played.
FF7 had a lot of hype, though, and you guys seem to be enjoying it all over again from Main.
But $400 is still a waste. And I don\'t care about the fancy discs.
I\'d rather it play normal DVDs and when you opened the disc slot, a hundred dollar bill came out.
-Dan
-
100$ that much?
few hours of overtime for me
/shrug
-
$399 (console) + $50 (game) + $20-30 (memory card) = too expensive for me.
Blu-Ray is nothing as of the moment, and seeing as how I don\'t have the means to buy an HD TV to take advantage of said technology then there\'s no reason for me to invest in it. I suspect that the majority of us are in the same situation.
Also, there will be a format war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray so I\'ll be sticking with DVD until there is a clear cut winner between the two.
I don\'t give a flip that it has cell technology in it. Don\'t use it as an excuse for a higher price tag.
I have no idea what I would do with seven usb ports so don\'t expect me to pay for them.
Oh, and can someone please point me to the link that says Square is remaking Final Fantasy VII? Last I read they commented that they have no plans to remake it. Oh, and I agree with Lickster that it\'s just another Final Fantasy game. Not a bad game by any means, but not the greatest RPG I\'ve played.
-
I won\'t get a ps3 untill atleast 1 year has passed, so they iron out any bugs first.
-
sheesh, and i thought i was cynical
you guys are hopeless
-
hey if u like buggy systems with dodgey lens, bad slide trays, crappy bios etc etc by all means go for it. :)
-
you just described any tray loading console ever made
:rolleyes:
oh, and please stick to trolling off-topic
thanks
-
Blu-Ray , why bother when the media standard is not set yet? It\'s just another Sony format ala Mini Disc / UMD. Don\'t get me started on UMD, it only increases my hatred for Sony. Start a new format just for the PSP can play movie\'s. Give me a f**kin\' break.
Yes, I played FF7 and no I was not impressed in the slightest.
And I could afford a PS3, but I won\'t pay $400 for a console when it doesn\'t include a friggin\' pack in game. Another thing that amazes me people are saying "that\'s cheap for a Blu-Ray player", yeah, you sound like the Japanese when they bought the PS2 just because of a stupid DVD player.
-
Originally posted by mm
you just described any tray loading console ever made
:rolleyes:
oh, and please stick to trolling off-topic
thanks
yep, i described every made console in its beginnings..
trolling, you\'d know all about that.
-
UMD\'s rock, don\'t know why you\'re so biased all of a sudden
bandwagon get a comfortable seat?
-
I like how $299 is fine and dandy, but $399 is just waaaay to expensive. I mean, it\'s a $100 difference, it\'s NOTHING. Unless you\'re working slave wage, but then you probably have more important issues to deal with than coughing up another 100 bucks.
And PS2 was $299 some five years ago. $299 today is less today than it was back then.
-
Since when is $299 fine and dandy? I think it\'s at the extreme end of the price bracket for a console.
My Xbox and Playstation 2 are the only two consoles I\'ve ever paid more than $200 for, and I regret both purchases at that price point. I won\'t be jumping on the next generation band wagon anytime soon, and if the PS3 really turns out to be $399 without price drops (as Kutaragi (sp?) suggests) then it will be a very long time before I get my hands on one.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Since when is $299 fine and dandy?
Since every major console has launched at or beyond that price? Not counting various kiddy products of course. ;)
-
As interesting as blu ray is, its not well known or well supported yet. By the time ps3 comes out im pretty sure that it still wont be heavily supported. To tac on another 100 dollars for blu ray isnt really the smartest thing in the world. Sure it gives you crazy storage capacity which is a plus for sure, but we just havent made it there yet.
Considering ps3 is the second console to come out, they, in some respects are at a huge dissadvantage since it seems like the gap in performance between ps3 and xb3600 isnt the same as ps2 and dreamcast. With a whole year to develop a library etc. the xb360 already has a leg up, and with ps3 already recieving some heat more than a year before it releases isnt that great.
If blu ray isnt a strong competitive aspect, then its not worth it.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Since every major console has launched at or beyond that price? Not counting various kiddy products of course. ;)
I might be wrong about this, but I believe that the Sega Saturn was the first major console to launch for more than $200. Granted the price point was not Sega\'s only problem, but I can\'t help but think that the $100 difference may have swayed a consumer or two towards the cheaper Playstation.
Anyway, the core audience will buy the console at whatever price. They just want the new tech from their favorite console maker. The hardcore, as they\'re usually referred to, is a limited market though. It\'s the mass market that Sony relies on, and it\'s been a trend that they don\'t jump on board until the $199 price point and below.
I find it hard to believe that Sony will launch it at $399 AND adopt a new policy of infrequent price drops. If they do then I find it hard to imagine the PS3 becoming a mass market success. That\'s only because I have yet to see it happen, and perhaps Sony will be the first?
IDK, Kutaragi (sp?) is confident that "everyone will want one so bad." I guess we\'ll just wait and see what happens...
-
noone remembers the 3DO launching at $699?
yeah $399 is a boatload of money
:rolleyes:
-
3DO was not from a major console maker. Throw it in with the Turbo Duo and Neo Geo. All over priced and all failures.
Please, try to keep up.
-
were they released? did people buy it?
the price had nothing to do with it
it was lack of software
nice try, but no points awarded
-
Were they received by the mass market? Where are they now?
If price has nothing to do with it then why don\'t console makers release new systems at cost? Why take the loss if price has nothing to do with it?
-
it\'s the second time Sony win the console war, and though I was a bit disappointed from PS2(from XBox too), I have to admit that Sony seem to know how to win! They are not stupid, and we should wait at least one year after PS3 launch to know if blu-ray is ok or not...
Sony are forerunner, and this time PS3 really seems almost perfect, hardware speaking ! but it\'s just me...let\'s wait and see...
-
Were they received by the mass market? Where are they now?
no software?
-
I can already see this isn\'t going to go anywhere, but I\'ll entertain you for a while.
For what reason(s), in your opinion, didn\'t they get software support?
-
LIC your just a grumpy old man
*shakes fist*
Everyone is crying about 399 then when the system comes out theyre going to buy it.....yuo all want the games to be as nice looking and as good as they can be, but as soon as the prices go up you whine. Make up your mind.
-
Originally posted by mm
noone remembers the 3DO launching at $699?
yeah $399 is a boatload of money
:rolleyes:
Guess how many 3DOs I bought.
I have $400. I just won\'t spend that much for a PS3.
It\'s like spending $20 for a Snickers.
You could, but you\'d be retarded. PS3 makes you retarded.
;]
-Dan
-
well, snickers > PS3
so you got me there
:)
-
Originally posted by Eiksirf
Guess how many 3DOs I bought.
I have $400. I just won\'t spend that much for a PS3.
It\'s like spending $20 for a Snickers.
You could, but you\'d be retarded. PS3 makes you retarded.
;]
-Dan
Wow, with thinking like this, well.... I\'m kind of surprised you\'re still alive.
-
You girls are retarded. I guess you don\'t even think about the fact that it\'s a stand alone High Definition DVD Player. I\'d buy the player alone for 400 bucks. So I am essentially getting the game ability for free.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
You girls are retarded. I guess you don\'t even think about the fact that it\'s a stand alone High Definition DVD Player. I\'d buy the player alone for 400 bucks. So I am essentially getting the game ability for free.
If I had the money to invest in a HDTV then I\'d go ahead and get a great HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player to compliment it, not the bottom of the barrell piece going into the PS3.
But hey, we all have different standards.;)
-
The world needs ditch diggers too I guess.
-
As I’ve been saying. I don\'t buy any new technology until it’s been tested by the general consumer, for them to find all the defaults and for me to benefit by the outcome. :)
-
I don\'t ever want to hear about the "bandgwagon" again from you, MM. I was the ONLY one on this forum that bought one a PS2 on launch day and had enough common sense to say, hey, it f**kin\' sucked..
UMD rocks? Sure, for a gaming format. Why make another format for movies? There is no reason what so ever for it. They don\'t rock. They\'re just another properitary Sony format.
And yeah, it\'ll be a Blu-Ray player also. Tell me, this time next year how many Blu-Ray movie\'s will be out? Even if there is, what does it matter if the industry has not decided on a format? Not to mention, I am not buying a PS3 just for the Blu-Ray playback. It\'s retarded. Just like I think it was retarded for people to buy PS2\'s because of DVD player (which was SHODDY at best).
This generation will be the first where I won\'t jump and buy consoles come day one. Why? I learned from the last one. The only console worth owning on day one was the DC.
It has nothing to do with money. It has nothing to do with lack of HDTV (I have one). It has to do with the fact that $400 dollars for a console is stupid, espically when there is no pack in game. I am not buying a gaming console to play movie\'s, therefor "Blu-Ray" means ZIPPO to me.
were they released? did people buy it?
the price had nothing to do with it
it was lack of software
nice try, but no points awarded
You trying to tell me if those consoles had "killer apps", they would of had good sells on launch day? If so, you\'re crazy. People still view games as toys and most people don\'t want to pay upwards of $400 dollars for toys.
-
just cause your too cheap to pay $400 doesnt mean there isnt 10 million other gamers out there on launch day that wont (me included)
you are making excuses left and right
People still view games as toys
welcome to 1990
we\'re not talking about a gameboy here
-
Believe me, $400 is not too much for something like the PS3.
The only problem is that if Xbox 360 launches first (which it will) if it costs $100 less (which it might) and if it has comparable graphical abilities (likely) then the PS3 will be a tougher sell.
Still.. won\'t the PS3 be using HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, and run PS1/PS2 games? Huge incentives right there.
-
Originally posted by Blade
Believe me, $400 is not too much for something like the PS3.
The only problem is that if Xbox 360 launches first (which it will) if it costs $100 less (which it might) and if it has comparable graphical abilities (likely) then the PS3 will be a tougher sell.
Still.. won\'t the PS3 be using HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, and run PS1/PS2 games? Huge incentives right there.
I see Ken has already sold his "super computer" to you. The PS3 will amount to nothing more than a game console when all is said and done.
-
Originally posted by mm
just cause your too cheap to pay $400 doesnt mean there isnt 10 million other gamers out there on launch day that wont (me included)
There are loads of people who pay for over-priced Sony products when there\'s even better tech right next to it for less, but then again there aren\'t enough of these brandname-buyers it seems. How is Sony\'s electronic division doing these days?;)
-
Originally posted by mm
just cause your too cheap to pay $400 doesnt mean there isnt 10 million other gamers out there on launch day that wont (me included)
you are making excuses left and right
welcome to 1990
we\'re not talking about a gameboy here
Duh, Sherlock. It doesn\'t matter, the general consumer still makes up most the market and most the general consumers think of games as toys.
Not making excuses, just saying the PS3 offers nothing for me to pay an extra $100 bucks, then turn around and pay $50 for a game and $30 for a memory card.
-
most the general consumers think of games as toys.
wrong
again, this isnt 1990
just saying the PS3 offers nothing for me to pay an extra $100 bucks, then turn around and pay $50 for a game and $30 for a memory card.
oh, you played it already?
im jealous
-
I remember when the PS2 Launched in 1999 some people even traveled from Europe or USA to Japan just to buy the more expensive japanese version.
It took only a few days to sell 750,000 units in one city only.I dont think $100 more will hurt them much unless good launch titles lack, and MS manages a bigger presence than expected with XBOX360.
-
i probably won\'t get one at launch..just for the fact that i want them to sort out the bugs of the first batch...maybe i\'ll wait for the 2nd phase,...either way i\'m coppin\' one. and for all of you that\'s cryin over the price..ever heard of Lay-Away?....drop a hundred bucks on it every time you get paid, and you won\'t even notice that 400 dollar price tag....see? it\'s simple...
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
remember when the PS2 Launched in 1999 some people even traveled from Europe or USA to Japan just to buy the more expensive japanese version
Now thats just dumb. That is unless you have the money to just blow.
Originally posted by clips
i probably won\'t get one at launch..just for the fact that i want them to sort out the bugs of the first batch...maybe i\'ll wait for the 2nd phase,...either way i\'m coppin\' one. and for all of you that\'s cryin over the price..ever heard of Lay-Away?....drop a hundred bucks on it every time you get paid, and you won\'t even notice that 400 dollar price tag....see? it\'s simple...
Uhm, Bruh. I dont think they know what lay away is.
:p
-
Originally posted by mm
wrong
again, this isnt 1990
oh, you played it already?
im jealous
Don\'t need to. History repeats itself. Sony always has a poor launch, in terms of game quality.
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Now thats just dumb. That is unless you have the money to just blow.
:) heh yeah it is but it happened.And it could happen again
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Don\'t need to. History repeats itself. Sony always has a poor launch, in terms of game quality.
PS1 wasnt that poor
Oh and its up to the developers not to Sony
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
:) heh yeah it is but it happened.And it could happen again
PS1 wasnt that poor
Oh and its up to the developers not to Sony
Right. Sony has no say in launch titles. They don\'t own any development studio\'s. Oh and only PSone launch title worth noting was \'Warhawk\'.
-
Don\'t need to. History repeats itself. Sony always has a poor launch, in terms of game quality.
PS:
Ridge Racer
Battle Arena Toshiden
ESPN Extreme Games
Kileak : The DNA Alternative
The Raiden Project
Street Fighter: The Movie
Rayman
NBA Jam T.E.
Total Eclipse
Power Serve Tennis
Warhawk
Twisted Metal
PS2:
Madden NFL 2001 (EA, Sports)
SSX (EA, Sports)
NHL 2001 (EA, Sports)
FIFA 2001 MLS (EA, Sports)
Kessen (EA, Adventure)
X Squad (EA, Action)
Swing Away (Paradise Golf in Japan) (EA, Sports)
Sim Theme Park (to be renamed as Theme Park World) (EA, sim)
Street Fighter EX3 (Capcom, Fighting)
Tekken Tag Tournament (Namco, fighting)
Ridge Racer V (Namco, Racing)
Summoner (THQ, RPG)
Ready to Rumble (Midway, Boxing)
Star Wars: Starfighter (LucasArts, Action-Shooter)
Unreal Tournament (Infogrames, First-Person Shooter)
Evergrace (Agetec, RPG)
Armored Core 2 (Agetec, Action)
Eternal Ring (Agetec, RPG)
Timesplitters (Eidos, First-Person Shooter)
Fusion GT (Hresvelgr in Japan) (Crave, Racing)
Smuggler\'s Run (Rockstar, Racing-Adventure)
Midnight Club (Rockstar, Racing)
PSP:
# Ape Escape: On the Loose, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# ATV Offroad Fury: Blazin\' Trails, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# Darkstalkers Chronicle: The Chaos Tower, Capcom
# Dynasty Warriors, KOEI
# FIFA 2005, Electronic Arts
# Gretzky NHL, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# Lumines, Ubisoft
# Metal Gear Acid, Konami
# MLB, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# MVP Baseball, Electronic Arts
# NBA, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# NBA Street Showdown, Electronic Arts
# Need for Speed Rivals, Electronic Arts
# NFL Street 2 Unleashed, Electronic Arts
# Rengoku: Tower of Purgatory, Konami
# Ridge Racer, Namco
# Smartbomb, Eidos Interactive
# Spider-Man 2, Activision
# Tiger Woods PGA TOUR, Electronic Arts
# Tony Hawk\'s Underground 2 Remix, Activision
# Twisted Metal: Head On, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# Untold Legends: Brotherhood of the Blade, Sony Online Entertainment
# Wipeout Pure, Sony Computer Entertainment America
# World Tour Soccer, Sony Computer Entertainment America
yeah, real unimpressive list LIC
:rolleyes:
-
My problem with past Sony launches is that there hasn\'t been a must-have game to release along side it. There are some good ones in there, but not a killer app so to speak. It\'s the same reason I didn\'t buy a Gamecube when it first released, no Mario. Smash Bros. and Waverace are great, but I consider those type of games as compliments to my triple A games. Meh, maybe it\'s just me.
I\'d love to see the PS3 launch with an Insomniac or Naughty Dog title. I still wouldn\'t pay $400 for the console, but I\'d still love to see it happen. I wonder if Insomniac\'s I-8 will be ready for launch?
-
wtf?
not looking at the same list?
Ridge Racer
SSX
Wipeout Pure
and gamecube?
what, Luigi\'s Mansion wasnt good enough?
:laughing: at nintendo
-
Originally posted by mm
wtf?
not looking at the same list?
Ridge Racer
SSX
Wipeout Pure
and gamecube?
what, Luigi\'s Mansion wasnt good enough?
:laughing: at nintendo
Racing, Sports, and Puzzle games are great, I love them, but they aren\'t "killer apps." Imo, of course.
A great platform, adventure, or FPS is what I would consider killer app launch material.
-
SSX = Trash
Wipout Fusion = Crap
Ridge Racer = Jaggy and to "arcadey"
Battle Arena Toshiden = Pretty, but terrible gameplay.
At most, you have Twisted Metal and Warhawk.
There is not a single "killer app" in any PS launch. Infact, there wasn\'t one out of the last three SYSTEMS.
-
True, that. Then again, the bar has been set pretty high by competing systems. Shall I?
NES - Super Mario Bros
SNES - Super Mario World, Super Castlevania IV, Final Fantasy IV
Dreamcast - Soul Calibur, enough said.
Saturn - Virtua Fighter
Xbox - Halo (not my favorite, but certainly leaps and bounds better than any PS2 launch title except maybe SSX)
Nintendo 64 - Super Mario 64, yow!
-
Battle Arena Toshiden was the shit what are you crazy
-
LIC, when did you become to jaded?
honestly, it\'s tired
first, you cry there was nothing.
so i get the lists, then there\'s no "killer app"
then how did sony\'s units dominate the industry? how come the demand is so strong?
just grasping at air now
i guess it takes teh halo to be a successful launch
whats your next excuse?
-
Originally posted by Halberto
Battle Arena Toshiden was the shit what are you crazy
yea i admit, when i first got my ps, i played the s**t outta that game...
-
im looking thru the lists again, and im disgusted that you cannot find any great titles there LIC
it\'s really a shame, you missed out
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Right. Sony has no say in launch titles. They don\'t own any development studio\'s. Oh and only PSone launch title worth noting was \'Warhawk\'.
Pah.As if MS owned like many development studios.Overally PS1 outclassed the Saturn in a short period of time.And Wipeout was one of those titles that set new standards.
You are wrong that the only launch title worth noting was warhawk.Thats just you.Ridge Racer and Twisted Metal were 2 of the best games around back then.
And considering that Playstation was Sony\'s first effort in the videogame industry they did very good.
The games displayied in PS\'s demo1 disk simply showed a lot more than what the Saturn offered then.
Oh aI almost forgot.....Jumping Flash.
-
There is not a single "killer app" in any PS launch. Infact, there wasn\'t one out of the last three SYSTEMS.
I agree in regards to the PS2 launch and PSP, however If i recall correctly PS1 may not have had what we consider killer app for launch, but it had a few quality titles, I remember alot of people going crazy over Twisted metal including myself. I do agree that there was no Halo or SONIC
LIC, when did you become to jaded?
This was far too hypocritical, for me to resist.
mm you are one to speak of; hell you take the crown for that title. You accuse him of being jaded when you display even more so for every Xbox game that ever existed, plus everything else that ever existed on this planet and yet you expect anyone to believe you have any real unbiased objective opinion or outlook.
first, you cry there was nothing.
so i get the lists, then there\'s no "killer app"
Kind of reminds me of the same thing that you do when ever you get backed in corner to any debate. Make excuse after excuse, until you tire the other individual out. For the record when the man said there was nothing he was referring to the fact that the game line up was less then steller, but you already knew that, so your list proves nothing but your own so called resonable opinon that you like to pass along as fact.
then how did sony\'s units dominate the industry? how come the demand is so strong?
We all know the answer to that, but it has little to do with there launch titles, which pretty much negates your point. Hell DC had a good launch line up but it died pretty quickly.
guess it takes teh halo to be a successful launch
I guess so :rolleyes:
-
wrong, i hate all console gaming
nice try tho
points awarded for effort
-
It\'s the thought that counts!
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
We all know the answer to that, but it has little to do with there launch titles, which pretty much negates your point. Hell DC had a good launch line up but it died pretty quickly.
True but that makes the discussion pointless since its proof that a couple of killer app launch titles dont determine signifigantly the console\'s success and the quality games that will be released later
-
Originally posted by mm
LIC, when did you become to jaded?
honestly, it\'s tired
first, you cry there was nothing.
so i get the lists, then there\'s no "killer app"
then how did sony\'s units dominate the industry? how come the demand is so strong?
just grasping at air now
i guess it takes teh halo to be a successful launch
whats your next excuse?
Hype. Sony sold units the same way crap movie\'s are made and make millions. Hype. Nothing but hype. Not to mention, let\'s face it, the Saturn had the worst possible launch, Nintendo had not launched yet, so Sony was in a position to come out with a medicore launch and make it look great. .. After that, they established a lead and rode that lead with the PS2 hype. The same they plan on doing with this next launch.
As for Toshiden, it was a great looking game, but the gameplay was broken.
just grasping at air now
i guess it takes teh halo to be a successful launch
If you read, you\'d note I said the last three systems have not had a good launch title. What I meant, is the NGC / XBOX / PS2 did not have any good launch titles. I bought all three and was dissapointed with all three on launch.
As for "missed out"? I don\'t think so. I spent plenty of money on Sony at launch and regretted every dime of it. Same with MS and Nintendo (Cube). Can\'t say the same with the DC, which had solid titles from day one and while the N64 may of only had TWO games at launch, they was both "KILLER APPS".
-
Wasnt the first wipeout a launch game for ps as well? Man, when ps came out i was going nuts (to a certain degree). I really liked saturn, but ps was great. I had too much fun with it. Was jet moto a launch game too?
Wow, i cant believe mm mentioned Total Eclipse. lol. That blows my mind. And i thought, my friend and I were the only two people that played that game and or enjoyed it in the slightest.
Meh,
Call me a fanboy or w/e you may want to think, but both ps and ps2 launches had enough for me. I dont need any huge "killer app" at launch. I really dont care. If you need something that big just to get the console then you\'re either spoiled, or are just.... different.....from me, i guess (though i wouldnt consider myself a casual gamer by any means).
-
The other systems usually had one killer ap(sometimes not even considered a killer ap either) and nothing else good enough to pick up the interest anyways.
The N64 when launched it sold better than both PS1\'s and Saturn\'s launch combined.People went crazy with Mario64.But later sales dropped like a rock.
PS1 thought had many good titles to choose from
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
SSX = Trash
You\'re in the minority there. Most people love this game.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Wipout Fusion = Crap
That was not a launch title. If you meant Wipeout Pure, again, you are in the minority since many people say it\'s better than Wipeout XL.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Ridge Racer = Jaggy and to "arcadey"
The arcade game was the same. Not my type of game but if that\'s the way it was on the arcade, that\'s the way it\'s gonna be on the console. sheesh!
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Battle Arena Toshiden = Pretty, but terrible gameplay.
The first true 3D fighting game. It\'s changed the whole fighting genre.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
At most, you have Twisted Metal and Warhawk.
Warhawk was not a launch title but it was close. It definitely is one of my favorite games.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
There is not a single "killer app" in any PS launch. Infact, there wasn\'t one out of the last three SYSTEMS.
Mario64 got the highest rated game for a luanch title from nearly every gaming magazine. It\'s evident you have a hardwired hostile opinion against Sony so no matter what is said or how successful it becomes, you will still have a bitter opinion. I\'m surprised you\'re bitter about the UMD. It\'s a portable gaming system and it requires a medium for its size and to combat piracy.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
The first true 3D fighting game. It\'s changed the whole fighting genre.
Virtua Fighter came out in 1993, way before Battle Arena Toshinden.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Virtua Fighter came out in 1993, way before Battle Arena Toshinden.
They cha-cha\'d back and forth. No sidestepping like BAT. Virtua Fighter "looked" 3D.
-
Toshinden actually introduced 3-D movement to fighters. Thus, it is considered the first true 3D fighter.
-
Fuck you G-Man.
Last time I try and stick up for you. You just had to steal my thunder.
p.s. cats = dogs
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Fuck you G-Man.
Last time I try and stick up for you. You just had to steal my thunder.
p.s. cats = dogs
Heh...sorry! :D I waited for you to say something but you took too long. You were prolly napping....like a cat. ;)
-
The only game I played when ps2 launched was TTT.
Everything else sucked. I am glad I had a dc or it would have been a gaming nightmare.
Playstation has not had a great launch of games since it launched.
Dc had the best launch out of all of the console and it did not survive.
Sad:(
-
anybody remember those crash bandicoot commercials? :p this was when crash was a mascot of sony. i used to love how they use to rip nintendo by having crash protest in front of nintendo studios..:p.i think he also got carried away by the nintendo security guards! ..damn you don\'t see that type of mudslingin\' anymore..truly classic stuff...:p
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
They cha-cha\'d back and forth. No sidestepping like BAT. Virtua Fighter "looked" 3D.
You couldn\'t side step, but the throws and such would move them in 3 dimension space.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
You couldn\'t side step, but the throws and such would move them in 3 dimension space.
Still not much freedom like a true 3D game.
-
Still not much freedom like a true 3D game.
But it was still 3D.
-
I could draw a cube and it looks 3D.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Still not much freedom like a true 3D game.
It was all rendered in 3d using polygons and allowed movement on the x, y, and z planes.
-
Exactly.
Long Live VF!!!!
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Exactly.
Long Live VF!!!!
i\'ve always thought the tekken series was better than vf...that is debateable (spel) tho...as i know some will say vf move set is deeper...who knows too bad they can\'t do like a tekken vs vf in the same sense that they have done capcom vs aw hell somebody help me out here, what\'s the name of that other arcade game that has identical character\'s to capcom\'s? anyway that\'s the game i\'m talkin about...
*ahh king of fighters...that\'s it!..thanks for nothin\' ladies* :mad:...;)
-
Originally posted by Rikku
It was all rendered in 3d using polygons and allowed movement on the x, y, and z planes.
What movement besides left and right? Wait a minute....this argument was settled 10 years ago! BAT was the first true 3D fighting game. VF was a pretend 3D.
-
Toshiden was the first true 3D fighing game, but it was still broken and sucked.
-
but that\'s like your opinion...and stuff
-
Originally posted by mm
but that\'s like your opinion...and stuff
Same applies to everything you say. Well, minus the fact that magazines and reviewers are alike will admit that Toshiden had broken gameplay, but beautiful graphics. I still recall when Gamefan gave it such high ratings and then turned around a few issues later and said the only reason they liked it was because of the graphics and that infact, the gameplay was subpar at best.
I guess you all think the PS2 had "solid" launch titles.. When I think of good launch titles, I think of the N64, Super NES or even the DreamCast. Those was systems with solid launch titles.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Same applies to everything you say. Well, minus the fact that magazines and reviewers are alike will admit that Toshiden had broken gameplay, but beautiful graphics. I still recall when Gamefan gave it such high ratings and then turned around a few issues later and said the only reason they liked it was because of the graphics and that infact, the gameplay was subpar at best.
The same could be said of any game after several months.
-
LIC, i dont think you own a single console
-
Some of you people act as if VF1 was the best thing ever and just that game alone equals to succesful launch.
What other games were released really? :rolleyes:
Not to mention that the Saturn version was buggy.And old.
-
Originally posted by mm
LIC, i dont think you own a single console
I\'d like to know how you figure this. Why? Because I don\'t bow down before the almighty Sony. I enjoyed my PSone just fine (prefered my Saturn tho\'), but I can\'t say I have enjoyed the PS2 all that much.
Originally posted by Unicron!
Some of you people act as if VF1 was the best thing ever and just that game alone equals to succesful launch.
What other games were released really? :rolleyes:
Not to mention that the Saturn version was buggy.And old.
Huh? No one is acting like VF1 was the greatest thing ever. I never even said the Saturn was a succesful launch, infact, it was a terrible surprise launch. It wasn\'t until VF:Remix that we saw any potenial power that the Saturn offered. The argument was that the PSone lacked true launch titles, along with the PSTwo and PSP. I look at the lists and I can honestly say that the PSone had the best launch of the three and if Nintendo or Sega would of been on the ball, then the PSone launch would be considered subpar at best.
The same could be said of any game after several months.
Not true.......
Super NES = Super Mario World. Still a great game.
Nintendo 64 = Mario 64. Still an amazing game.
Dreamcast = Soul Calibur ... Still the all time best 3D fighting game.
The same can\'t be said about "any game after several months". A true game stands the tests of time and a crap game, like Toshiden won\'t ...
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Huh? No one is acting like VF1 was the greatest thing ever. I never even said the Saturn was a succesful launch, infact, it was a terrible surprise launch. It wasn\'t until VF:Remix that we saw any potenial power that the Saturn offered. The argument was that the PSone lacked true launch titles, along with the PSTwo and PSP. I look at the lists and I can honestly say that the PSone had the best launch of the three and if Nintendo or Sega would of been on the ball, then the PSone launch would be considered subpar at best.
But then there is no point arguing about Sony having a weak launch since all companies have the same problem
Also remix was released a year or two after the Saturn\'s launch
PS1\'s launch in Japan lacked.But I remember it having some great titles when it launched outside Japan.It was a stonger launch than Saturn\'s.Not the best but it was better and wowed.
Jumping Flash, Warhawk, Twisted Metal, Battle Arena Toshinden, Ridge Racer and specifically WipeOut really made the Saturn look weak despite that it had potential to compete the Playstation.
Ok you can say that Battle Arena Toshinden shows gameplay issues now(God its full of them) but back then they didnt show as much.Characters didnt have many moves and the Pal Version I had was terribly slow but it was probably the first true 3D fighting game and was enjoyable as a first effort.I ve spent hours and hours on it.It was also atmospheric for a game of its time.
I agree though that PS2\'s launch was weak.But it did have a few good games.It suffered for the same reasons Saturn\'s launch suffered thanks to its acrhitecture and unfinished library tools.
Fortunately though there were a few good games to choose from.And Onimusha didnt come late either.
-
LIC\'s personal opinion greatly differs from mine. PS2\'s launch games were awesome, IMO.
I still play SSX as well as Dynasty Warriors 2. In fact...SSX was quite a successful game. How can you say it was a flop without sounding so biased? Those games sold millions of copies. That\'s about an objective of an opinion as one can get. I know numbers doesn\'t equal quality but if we\'re to leave personal opinions out, that\'s the simplest way. The PS2 was THE most successful console debut so far. None have equaled it before or since (GC got the most ho-hum debut).
-
Yeah SSX was a great launch title.I dont know about Dynasty Warriors though.It was good but nothing comparable to what SSX was I think.
It got more praise than it deserved.Especially about the graphics.Some sites talked so much about its graphics supposedly having tenths of characters on screen all at Soul Calibur\'s detail.
Probably I am blind because I havent seen that detail they were talking about yet.
Yep probably thats it....I saw lots of fog.
The gameplay didnt feature anything that couldnt be done on PS1 either.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
The gameplay didnt feature anything that couldnt be done on PS1 either.
Every Dynasty Warriors version from 2 and up have sold over a million copies. Each.
The gameplay feature of DW2 was calculating several battles at once in a stage with over a thousand participants. This was also Koei\'s 1 of two games that debuted on the PS2. They still were sort of noobs with this. The PSX would have melted into your carpet if it had to do that.
Holy cow...aren\'t you the one who argued about how unsuccessful Dynasty Warriors was at the Main Forum??? You need to step back. Arguing is not your forte. :p
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Holy cow...aren\'t you the one who argued about how unsuccessful Dynasty Warriors was at the Main Forum??? You need to step back. Arguing is not your forte. :p [/B]
i was thinkin\' the same thing...didn\'t you cats already settle this argument?
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Every Dynasty Warriors version from 2 and up have sold over a million copies. Each.
The gameplay feature of DW2 was calculating several battles at once in a stage with over a thousand participants. This was also Koei\'s 1 of two games that debuted on the PS2. They still were sort of noobs with this. The PSX would have melted into your carpet if it had to do that.
Holy cow...aren\'t you the one who argued about how unsuccessful Dynasty Warriors was at the Main Forum??? You need to step back. Arguing is not your forte. :p
Its irrevelant how much it sold.As I said the game isnt bad.But its not great either.Its just good.
I didnt say that the graphics can be done on a PS1.I ment the gameplay.
About the over thousand participants they existed on the map.But not on screen at the same time.They were separated in packs and you faught those packs separately.
There was no draw distance either.
That game was no indication of the PS2\'s true capabilities and I am sure that its easily doable on a DC.
As for the last part I didnt say that Dynasty Warriors was unsaccesful.Dont put words I didnt say in my mouth.
L-I-C found the opportunity to twist my words and started a pointless 3 page arguement about things I didnt mean.Dont start it again.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Its irrevelant how much it sold.As I said the game isnt bad.But its not great either.Its just good.
I didnt say that the graphics can be done on a PS1.I ment the gameplay.
About the over thousand participants they existed on the map.But not on screen at the same time.They were separated in packs and you faught those packs separately.
There was no draw distance either.
That game was no indication of the PS2\'s true capabilities and I am sure that its easily doable on a DC.
As for the last part I didnt say that Dynasty Warriors was unsaccesful.Dont put words I didnt say in my mouth.
L-I-C found the opportunity to twist my words and started a pointless 3 page arguement about things I didnt mean.Dont start it again.
LIC destroyed you. :laughing:
-
What?He destroyied me?Oh God.Why did you tell me?Show some mercy.Please.I am doomed....
-
Btw something tells me that Sony will have Sega\'s fate this generation.
One of the reasons Sega couldnt compete with Sony was because of the saturn\'s high manufacturing cost and weaker financial strength.The Playstation could be sold cheaper and Sony had the ability to lower the price even more.
A great blow to Sega that made them feel uneased.
MS seems more like Sony and Sony seems more like Sega back in 1994.MS is financially stronger, and XBOX360 is cheaper to produce.
If the PS3 doesnt offer the difference people are expecting and its sold $100 more, interest will be lost for it and move towards XBOX360 which would already have more titles available when PS3 becomes available and not to mention that MS might lower the price even more when that time comes.
Losses could be worse than expected and revenues lower
Sony might be overtaken by the arrogancy Sega had a decade ago
-
Uni, you don\'t belong in a debate with people who actually have an IQ.
As for SSX, I bought it and I still don\'t see why anyone considers it a good game. That\'s my opinion, but I don\'t think you can argue that an EA game, like SSX qualifies the PS2 launch as a "good launch". At best, it was a diamond in the rough (if you are to believe that it was a good game, to begin with).
And Uni, if you are going to argue that the gameplay didn\'t feature anything that couldn\'t be done on the PSone, then just stop right there. You could not fit that many characters on screen on the Psone. So, just shut the hell up.
-
Oh dear lord its L-I-C the mr polite-know-it-all!Show mercy.Poor me.....I am doomed.Please dont destroy me
-
The PS3 isnt doomed. People will spend $400 for the technology. By the time the hype dies down the console will be at 300-330$.
When gamers see Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy 13, Metal Gear Solid 4 etc on PS3, they will buy it. The games will sell this machine maybe not early on, but 1-2 years in its life younger gamers will get the money for it
Xbox360 has only Halo
So, fine, purchase 360 to get cheap next gen graphics. Sort of like getting a cheap thrill. Games suck, though
Start saving your money now, friends
Or, you could always go cheap. The choice is yours
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Oh dear lord its L-I-C the mr polite-know-it-all!Show mercy.Poor me.....I am doomed.Please dont destroy me
That\'s fine, avoid the point.
The point, for the record was............
I didnt say that the graphics can be done on a PS1.I ment the gameplay.
About the over thousand participants they existed on the map.But not on screen at the same time.They were separated in packs and you faught those packs separately.
There was no draw distance either.
You are saying that the gameplay could of been done on the PSone, when it couldn\'t. The graphics was a direct influence to the gameplay, due to the fact you had so many characters on the screen. It\'s an example of, graphics influencing gameplay. And while you was fighting "packs", it was still more than the PSone could handle, at least in a reasonable manner.
It\'s just another example of you chiming in, when you are clueless.
When gamers see Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy 13, Metal Gear Solid 4 etc on PS3, they will buy it. The games will sell this machine maybe not early on, but 1-2 years in its life younger gamers will get the money for it
Xbox360 has only Halo
That seems very narrow minded. MS only has HALO? What about Perfect Dark Zero? Project Gotham Racing 3? The list goes on and on. Granted, none of them are as big titles as the PS3 (which none of appeal to me, then again, none of MS\'s line up appeals to me either). No, the PS3 isn\'t doomed. Don\'t recall saying that. We are arguing that it is to high priced for the main consumer on launch day. Then again, Sony\'s hype can do a lot, otherwise how would they stay in business selling subpar electronic equipment?
;)
-
Uni, I don\'t care if you don\'t want to debate the point and just admit defeat, that\'s fine. Don\'t make this thread even longer with responses like the last previous two. I\'ll just delete them. If you want to debate, that\'s fine, otherwise STFU.
:)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
That seems very narrow minded. MS only has HALO? What about Perfect Dark Zero? Project Gotham Racing 3? The list goes on and on. Granted, none of them are as big titles as the PS3 (which none of appeal to me, then again, none of MS\'s line up appeals to me either). No, the PS3 isn\'t doomed. Don\'t recall saying that. We are arguing that it is to high priced for the main consumer on launch day. Then again, Sony\'s hype can do a lot, otherwise how would they stay in business selling subpar electronic equipment?
;)
I\'m guessing your hoping a bunch of B games and a lower price tag and an earlier release date will push MS ahead of Sony. We will see how the masses respond to this marketing technique.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
I\'m guessing your hoping a bunch of B games and a lower price tag and an earlier release date will push MS ahead of Sony. We will see how the masses respond to this marketing technique.
Hoping? I could care less. I won\'t buy either one on launch day. They both look fairly crappy to me.
I simply think that a $400 dollar price tag for a console that doesn\'t have a pack in game or memory card is outrageous.
I think you need to go back and read about seven pages, so you\'re on the same page as the rest of us on the subject.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
The PS3 isnt doomed. People will spend $400 for the technology. By the time the hype dies down the console will be at 300-330$.
When gamers see Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy 13, Metal Gear Solid 4 etc on PS3, they will buy it. The games will sell this machine maybe not early on, but 1-2 years in its life younger gamers will get the money for it
That depends.MGS4 although stated a PS3 exclusive Konami can port it on XBOX360 if they see more profit there.The same counts for Sqauaresoft games.
It also depends when these games will be available on the console.If they are launch titles then great(doubtful).But if they are not and these companies show the same interest for XBO360 it wont seem like the advandage Sony had the past generations.
Some gamers will get the money to buy it 1-2 years later but the important thing is to sell well both Software and Hardware from the beginning.
Its also important how well XBOX360 will do compared to PS3.
Also you avoid that Sony will have to face bigger losses with each console sold.And decision made by MS to compete really affect Sony\'s decision making like market price.And that means consumers
If you take a look at the numbers estimated and they proove right it would be extremely hard for Sony to cover the losses especially now that competition is more intense
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Uni, I don\'t care if you don\'t want to debate the point and just admit defeat, that\'s fine. Don\'t make this thread even longer with responses like the last previous two. I\'ll just delete them. If you want to debate, that\'s fine, otherwise STFU.
:)
bouhouhou ok mr L-I-C.I admit defeat(Did I mention that I am a liar?) ;)
-
Biggest mistake MS is making is launching first. Gives Sony time to make last mintue changes and make games look better than what MS has out. They should wait and at most, launch two months ahead of time!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Biggest mistake MS is making is launching first. Gives Sony time to make last mintue changes and make games look better than what MS has out. They should wait and at most, launch two months ahead of time!
hmmm..i don\'t know LIC, for some reason i feel ms is in a better position this time around than sony. i don\'t think graphics will make the difference this time around, and even tho sony is comin with what blu ray technology? (see i think the general public won\'t even care about that) i really don\'t even know what that\'s about, but if ms can sell it\'s xbox at a lower price plus have some solid titles by the time ps3 releases, i can see them doing fairly well...
but then again who knows even tho it\'s costing sony financially to make ps3, maybe by the time it\'s ready to launch they will have cut down production costs by then...
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Also you avoid that Sony will have to face bigger losses with each console sold.And decision made by MS to compete really affect Sony\'s decision making like market price.And that means consumers
If you take a look at the numbers estimated and they proove right it would be extremely hard for Sony to cover the losses especially now that competition is more intense
You know, I don\'t think you would\'nt mind having a Microsoft microwave, MS oven, MS TV, MS Speakers, MS mp3 player..
I\'ll let you in on a secret MS wants to rule the console business not just be the top, but be the only one. Their ultimate goal is total domination and submissivness in console gaming. PC gaming is too wild and free to be tamed and ruled, so they turned their attention with great jealousy and envy to Sony, who runs the billi]on dollar industry with ease. Why can\'t we smash these puny corporati]ons and run this industry our selves? We will soon patent games and charge fees for using our exclusive console technology. How do I know this? Isn\'t it evident!! I was at a book store a few days ago and noticed all the multi platform video game magazines had the 360 on the cover, none had the PS3 except for the PS mags, which, to great heartache and dismay, are slowly being bought out by MS. Exhibit A: PSM: I opened last months issue to find a XBOX 360 mini magazine inside claiming it was my next console!! It has begun, slowly yes, but it has begun. Exhibit B: I read a multiplatform mag to discover VERY LITTLE PS3 info!! They said YOU WON\'T BELIVE 360 graphics and had a 5 page 360 secti]on! (they were from E3) Yet they had a little column in the corner for the PS3 with Tiny words that looked like they were in Times New Roman 8 size. Armed withm an unlimited budget and the will and experience to rule what it wants in its eye, MS looks like an unstoppable machine. Unless, of course, We, the gamers, stand up to MS, all hope is lost. MS will be the only company in the business. SLure, Magnavox may make a console but it will fail
-
meh alliswell..i think you can apply that logic to any major corporation. sony included...
-
Originally posted by alliswell
You know, I don\'t think you would\'nt mind having a Microsoft microwave, MS oven, MS TV, MS Speakers, MS mp3 player..
I\'ll let you in on a secret MS wants to rule the console business not just be the top, but be the only one. Their ultimate goal is total domination and submissivness in console gaming. PC gaming is too wild and free to be tamed and ruled, so they turned their attention with great jealousy and envy to Sony, who runs the billi]on dollar industry with ease. Why can\'t we smash these puny corporati]ons and run this industry our selves? We will soon patent games and charge fees for using our exclusive console technology. How do I know this? Isn\'t it evident!! I was at a book store a few days ago and noticed all the multi platform video game magazines had the 360 on the cover, none had the PS3 except for the PS mags, which, to great heartache and dismay, are slowly being bought out by MS. Exhibit A: PSM: I opened last months issue to find a XBOX 360 mini magazine inside claiming it was my next console!! It has begun, slowly yes, but it has begun. Exhibit B: I read a multiplatform mag to discover VERY LITTLE PS3 info!! They said YOU WON\'T BELIVE 360 graphics and had a 5 page 360 secti]on! (they were from E3) Yet they had a little column in the corner for the PS3 with Tiny words that looked like they were in Times New Roman 8 size. Armed withm an unlimited budget and the will and experience to rule what it wants in its eye, MS looks like an unstoppable machine. Unless, of course, We, the gamers, stand up to MS, all hope is lost. MS will be the only company in the business. SLure, Magnavox may make a console but it will fail
You are one paranoid kid. A very misinformed paranoid kid at that.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
You know, I don\'t think you would\'nt mind having a Microsoft microwave, MS oven, MS TV, MS Speakers, MS mp3 player..
I\'ll let you in on a secret MS wants to rule the console business not just be the top, but be the only one. Their ultimate goal is total domination and submissivness in console gaming. PC gaming is too wild and free to be tamed and ruled, so they turned their attention with great jealousy and envy to Sony, who runs the billi]on dollar industry with ease. Why can\'t we smash these puny corporati]ons and run this industry our selves? We will soon patent games and charge fees for using our exclusive console technology. How do I know this? Isn\'t it evident!! I was at a book store a few days ago and noticed all the multi platform video game magazines had the 360 on the cover, none had the PS3 except for the PS mags, which, to great heartache and dismay, are slowly being bought out by MS. Exhibit A: PSM: I opened last months issue to find a XBOX 360 mini magazine inside claiming it was my next console!! It has begun, slowly yes, but it has begun. Exhibit B: I read a multiplatform mag to discover VERY LITTLE PS3 info!! They said YOU WON\'T BELIVE 360 graphics and had a 5 page 360 secti]on! (they were from E3) Yet they had a little column in the corner for the PS3 with Tiny words that looked like they were in Times New Roman 8 size. Armed withm an unlimited budget and the will and experience to rule what it wants in its eye, MS looks like an unstoppable machine. Unless, of course, We, the gamers, stand up to MS, all hope is lost. MS will be the only company in the business. SLure, Magnavox may make a console but it will fail
Welcome to the world of business. Every company wants to be number one, so what is exactly your point? You are a paranoid kid. MS is not the \'boogeyman\'. They are just like any other company, they want to make money in any possible way.
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilikeshinyobjects.com%2Fgifs%2Fpopcorn.gif+&hash=977df53a334c81d620bb0290e9719babebe34dc3)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Biggest mistake MS is making is launching first. Gives Sony time to make last mintue changes and make games look better than what MS has out. They should wait and at most, launch two months ahead of time!
ps3 is launching in spring 06 6months after xbox360 what last minute changes can sony make?
-
ask sega
-
ps3 is launching in spring 06 6months after xbox360 what last minute changes can sony make?
Ditch the Blu-ray drive in order to drop the price down by $100 to $299 to compete with XBAhhhhXXXX.:rolleyes:
-
will developers going to be happy if sony ditch blu ray?
As for me, i like the addition of blu ray...
-
No loss for American/European devs. Only some Jap developers might get upset do to the fact that they love using FMV, which will be in HD(lots of space would be needed then)
Sure Blu-ray is nice, but F##K paying an extra $100 more just to have it, when it doesn’t in any way add or enhance the gaming experience. Hell I\'d prefer it if Sony spent that extra 100 towards the gaming hardware. If I want a blue-ray player I\'d rather get the better stand alone player. The one in ps3 will be bare bones. No different than using your ps2 as a reference DVD player. Think about it how many people who buy PS3 or will even have a HDTV. Most people in the US still have SDTV.
-
but a game console last an average of 5 years. The time difference between ps2 and ps3 is 6 years. If ps3 is going to last another 6 years before ps4 comes out, that mean it will last up to 2012. In those next 6 years, blu ray and hdtv will be the norm. Not to mention HDTV prices going to fall to the point where most consumers can get one.
Also, PS3 games will be in 1080p. Hopefully all games should be in 1080p. So, a consumer can get a PS3 now and play it on their NTSC TV, which the game downconvert to 480i either via analog or digital video connection. Well NTSC is analog, so in this case analog video connection. Then wait for a few years where HDTV is very cheap that an average consumer can upgrade to HDTV and this time connect the video connection in HDMI and play in either 720p/1080i, or even 1080p hdtv display.
You gotta think for the future and the longivity of the console. So, a blu ray add-on is a smart move to lure buyers. i was concerned on how sony manage to add a blu ray at around the same time stand a lone blu ray players come out.
DVD player comes out at 1997 in america, and ps2 comes out in 2000, after the first 3 years, the add-on for dvd playback should cost consirably less than blu ray which hasn\'t comes out yet. and if sony is willing to sell ps3 with blu ray support for $400. That, i think is quite cheap. It may not have the video quality of stand a lone blu ray player. But who knows what video performance will ps3\'s blu ray gives, but ps3 have two hdmi outputs. and maybe by going digital video, the quality should be great. i see a pattern here with sony console.
psOne - analog video and analog audio output.
ps2- analog video and audio with optical digital audio output.
ps3- support both analog audio/video and digital audio and video output.
I also see another patter here:
PsOne - most games runs at around 320 x 240 resolution. About VCD quality.
PS2 - most games run at 640 x 480 resolution. About DVD video quality.
Ps3 - 1080p. That\'s ultimate HD quality there. And adding blu ray seem to hold the pattern wells since blu ray can encode and support up to 1080p.
-
Also, PS3 games will be in 1080p
What good is 1080P when .01% of HDTV support it at the moment. Also Bear in Mind 1080P if the developers choose to support it, those resolutions are not a standard, also we have yet to see the performance penalty in PS3 when out putting at those resolutions.
If ps3 is going to last another 6 years
Doubt that, we are moving at a much faster pace then when the psx2 came out, competition is fiercer etc... XBOX360 5 years tops.
However this is speculation and nothing more than my opinon.
You gotta think for the future and the longivity of the console. So, a blu ray add-on is a smart move to lure buyers.
Huh, I am a bit confused here. When you speak of future and longevity, you seem to be fouced on watching movies in a format that is yet to be determined to win an ugly war. How are they future proofing there system with a format that might turn obsolete. Like I said earlier better Sony invests in hardware that will have a longer life span then attempting to use there popular to market and instill there Blu-ray by charging the customer an Extra $100 for it.
Also I think most of us know the real reason why Sony has opted to include the Blu-ray in PS3. They want to win the New HD-media War and by adding Blu-ray to ps3 which in my opinion is a very smart strategic move, which will help put a blow into the HD-DVD camp. Fact is I do not mid Blu-ray, matter of fact I\'m all for it, However Sony forcing people to pay extra so that they can load there Trojan house is not kosher with me. Who knows what the end result will be maybe Sony will get away with the risk being played here, but with XBOX retailing for $299 and you can bet a drop to $250 when PS3 launch\'s for $400. Guys like me can easy fork out the $399 price, not a big deal, But looking at this from the Mainstream\'s point of view, things change. $400 is allot to the average Joe trying to pay for collage or rent, especially the young ones who have to beg mommy and daddy for the console.
Anyways I\'d rather just wait and see what SONY plans to do, as of now, it\'s too early to know anything indefinably.
-
I agree with NVIDIA256 we are moving at a much faster rate. I don\'t see 6 years. 5 years top myself. I would not be surprise if 4 years becomes the new norm. Seeing how technology is moving at a faster rate.
I don\'t see ps3 til 2012. I think ps4 would be late 2010. Times are changing and technology is moving at much faster rate than it did before. So these console are really going to start looking dated. If they are generations behind the current technology.
-
How is technology moving at a faster rate? This generation (PS2) will last about 6 years..
-
Sony might have fell on their own made trap.
-
next gen games will be $60 next gen + $35memory stick+ $40 wireless pad + $400next gen ps3.
I agree with some $300 seems too much. And you get no pack in game.
Especially when you have rent+car+insurance+ect.......to pay
I have to save months in advance to buy these thing. Like I am saving for xbox 360 now.
consumers running out to buy a $400 console only insures these console makers that they can charge higher prices and consumer will still buy. Sad but true. The price of consoles will do nothing but continue to rise after ps3.
count me out on a $500 ps4
-
imo consoles will pinnacle out again technology follows that pattern of rapid growth and then it just hits a high point stays there for bit and then a breakthrough comes and bam another rapid climb
also i love how i see some people argue over price when i have seen them post about buying the newest 400-500 dollar video card for their pc...last i checked they may come with packed in game but they dont do crap without the $ for the nice pc rig to play it on - but thats ok so you can play a few games...but a console thats on par and for most - more powerful then avg users pc 400 is too much?
-
If consoles life spans shorten, then the price has to come down. General consumers cannot justify $300 - $400 upgrades every four years.
-
*Waits in line with $400 in hand....
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If consoles life spans shorten, then the price has to come down. General consumers cannot justify $300 - $400 upgrades every four years.
You guys are not the economics genius you all pretend to be. You think corporate giants like MS and Sony will want to replace their consoles every 3-4 years? Think of the cost to develop it. Think of the royalties that they\'ll lose if developers can\'t put out more than 3 games per console in that short amount of time.
Hello.
-
also i love how i see some people argue over price when i have seen them post about buying the newest 400-500 dollar video card for their pc...last i checked they may come with packed in game but they dont do crap without the $ for the nice pc rig to play it on
This is a very good point you bring up, however the mainstream does not spend $500 for a PC video card, only the hardcore do. Indeed it is hypocritical on the surface for people to complain about a $400 console when they spend much more for a video card that will never be fully or even 60% utilized before it becomes obsolete. None the less comparing the price scheme of Consoles to PC gear is apples to oranges(similar but not the same). In the console realm there has been a standard price point set for quite some time. $299 is what we expect to pay; I have no Problem dishing out $699 for PS3 as long as the Price warrants the "Gaming"Hardware inside.
Personally I wish Consoles would retail with $1000 worth of state of the art Hardware, retailing for $899. Could you imagine what a beast that would be, unfortunately in order to justify manufacturing cost and R&D(by having to build a huge installed user base) SONY and MS have to be able to sell there product to a much wider Audience, and the only way to accomplish this is to have a product that is affordable to a wider spectrum of people in the mainstream sector. Try and see it from the average Joe\'s point of view. He walks in a store sees XBOX360 for $250 and the PS3 for $399, meanwhile 360 with probably have better looking games due to developers having more time to work on them, plus HALO 3 being released when PS3 comes out. I mean right there is a blow for SONY. I agree that that those who waited for the PS3 will buy it no matter what M$ offers in price and content, but the average Joe is not that loyal.
SO what does this all mean, well I believe Sony feels that it\'s a justifiable risk upping there selling point by integrating another business venture they hope to dominate in (HD-MEDIA). This isn\'t about what is best for us consumers, instead Sony is taking advantage of it\'s loyal, mass market hold it has with it\'s Playstation and using it as a catalyst to prop up there BLu-ray in hopes to win a fierce Battle against the HD-DVD camp. M$ would probably do the same thing if there were in Sony’s shoes. This is what business is all about, SONY is taking a risk here, but if they succeed it will pay off big time in royalties.
My opinion is that ever since SONY had reached the pinnacle of there dominance in the game industry with PS2, there Arrogance has blinded and now help facilitate in them losing focus on the strategies which made them so successful. PS used to be a game machine, Now Ken K has said Numerous times that PS3 is not a game machine but a computer/home entertainment device and that gaming is not there only focus with PS3 now. The playing field has yet to start, but I predict that SONY is going to lose alot more Market share this time around due to #2 main reasons
#1 They are launching last(which gives M$ opportunity to steal user base, plus allows them to further drop the price on PS3 launch day) with a more expensive console.
#2 M$ is playing harder with a far better strategy this time round.
All I give really Give a damn about are the games, and If SONY delivers as they have done so in the past "quality content" which I expect will illustrate the power and potential of the HYped CELL, then $399 is a OK with me. Then again I prefer to wait ti out a little,before I purchase both 360 and PS3.
-
I see where you are coming from NVIDIA256. I would rather my ps3 be a $400-500 power house gaming machine. Than a entertainment console.
I buy consoles for the games. Not for their ability to play dvd\'s and be media storage whore.
-
These points are faithful and true
A. The PS3 is not overpriced.
B. The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.
C. Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine. Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution
Sony is going in the multi-function direction, which, IMO, brings more masses to its product. Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids, but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and play their Hi-Definition movies etc.
The PS3 is a steal at 4 or even $500. That is reason alone to buy it. I was searching the web for a HI-Def DVD player now I dont need to anymore I found one. And it is very high end, too.
Let\'s look. Pay $100 more for a PS3 over the 360 and you get:
- Hi-Definition movie playback ($300 DVD Player)
- A 1080P DVD player (Add 50-100 to High Def DVD player)
- A system that can act as a hub for network friendly devices ($70 wireless G router)
- Built in wireless internet connectivity ($80 wireless G card)
- The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines
Thats worth $100 more to me
-
Originally posted by alliswell
These points are faithful and true
A. The PS3 is not overpriced.
B. The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.
C. Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine. Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution
Sony is going in the multi-function direction, which, IMO, brings more masses to its product. Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids, but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and play their Hi-Definition movies etc.
The PS3 is a steal at 4 or even $500. That is reason alone to buy it. I was searching the web for a HI-Def DVD player now I dont need to anymore I found one. And it is very high end, too.
Let\'s look. Pay $100 more for a PS3 over the 360 and you get:
- Hi-Definition movie playback ($300 DVD Player)
- A 1080P DVD player (Add 50-100 to High Def DVD player)
- A system that can act as a hub for network friendly devices ($70 wireless G router)
- Built in wireless internet connectivity ($80 wireless G card)
- The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines
Thats worth $100 more to me
What if you want your ps3 just to play video games? Which is why most people buy consoles.
How about scrap all the other bs and just make a high-end game console.
And the fastest graphic processor is yet to even be determined.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
What if you want your ps3 just to play video games? Which is why most people buy consoles.
How about scrap all the other bs and just make a high-end game console.
And the fastest graphic processor is yet to even be determined.
The intention is to get people to do more than just play video games.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
You guys are not the economics genius you all pretend to be. You think corporate giants like MS and Sony will want to replace their consoles every 3-4 years? Think of the cost to develop it. Think of the royalties that they\'ll lose if developers can\'t put out more than 3 games per console in that short amount of time.
Hello.
Hey genius, I never said MS and Sony would want to replace their consoles every 3- 4 years. I simply said, if it happened, a price drop would have to happen.
-
My cell phone is a damn JOKE. It comes with an alarm clock, calculator, and camera. I just want it to make PHONE CALLS, WTF.
That is all.
-
Originally posted by THX
My cell phone is a damn JOKE. It comes with an alarm clock, calculator, and camera. I just want it to make PHONE CALLS, WTF.
That is all.
I feel the same about games. All you people who buy game systems for DVD playback are crazy. Go buy a DVD player. I don\'t want a \'jack of all trades, master of none\'. I want a dedicated game system, just like I want a dedicated DVD player.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I feel the same about games. All you people who buy game systems for DVD playback are crazy. Go buy a DVD player. I don\'t want a \'jack of all trades, master of none\'. I want a dedicated game system, just like I want a dedicated DVD player.
^^^truth.com
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I feel the same about games. All you people who buy game systems for DVD playback are crazy. Go buy a DVD player. I don\'t want a \'jack of all trades, master of none\'. I want a dedicated game system, just like I want a dedicated DVD player.
For convenience, ps2 double as a dvd player could be convenience somehow. A consumer could buy 2 or more dvd players for their home. One in the living room, one his/her\'s brother\'s bedroom. And a ps2 in his/her\'s bedroom.
Also, its a good move sony add DVD-ROM support for ps2. Looks, most games uses the DVD-ROM format and if ps2 still stick to CD-ROM format. then Final Fantasy X will require about 7 CDs to fill up the space because there is like a 45 minutes plus of CG rendered video in MPEG-2. The CG rendered is dvd-video quality...Xenosaga uses double layer DVD. That could means up to 13 CDs to store that many data.
Since the ps2 support DVD-ROM format, why not just add DVD-Video playback too. Flexibility is a plus.
In my house, i have 3 stand a love dvd players. One in each room and my own\'s room, i use the ps2 to play dvd video instead of buying another one since my tv is ntsc, not EDTV or HDTV. The quality is not that great, and there are noticable video noise, but its cool for me since i am not demanding top quality out of ps2.
-
These points are faithful and true
Stop insulting the intelligence of the forums members here.
B. The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.
:eek: :eek: Then what is it, an adult entertainment hub.
C. Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine. Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution
OMG! Pull the blinders up Kid. You’re too funny that this is almost sad. PS3\'s increase in cost has nothing to do because it\'s a multi-function computer(which by those terms Xbox360 and the XBOX was), if you actually have read around, the Blu-ray Drive is costing SONY $100, The console as a whole costs SONY$500 and they will sell it at $100 loss for $399. So if you minus the Blu-ray that makes the console $299 just like its competitor. Go figure.
Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids, but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and play their Hi-Definition movies etc.
Not if it\'s to rich for there blood, especially when there is a cheaper counter-part.
- The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines
It\'s as if you do not even attempt to make it look legit. Dude stop being a fanboy, and maybe we might take you seriously here. Not even I would ever make a statement like that, unless I was a devoted loyal slave for the Sony Corp. Nobody here knows which console will be the most powerful graphics’ wise, only blind sheep would think otherwise.
Your whole Post reads like a PS3 advertisement. I assume you are new here; little advice put a more effort into disguising your posts. Nothing Wrong with people whom have different opinions, we welcome diversity on these forums as long as your posts are genuine and objective, not blind fanboyism which you are obviously proud of, since you put little effort to hide it.
You want to have a serious discussion, your more than welcome to, just make sure to drop the whole I love and WORSHIP SONY at home.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I feel the same about games. All you people who buy game systems for DVD playback are crazy. Go buy a DVD player. I don\'t want a \'jack of all trades, master of none\'. I want a dedicated game system, just like I want a dedicated DVD player.
I was actually being sarcastic. :) I\'m all for all-in-one devices for little electronic gizmos, videogames included.
And for the record I do use the alarm clock, tip calculator, and camera on my cell phone. It\'s very handy.
-
And for the record I do use the alarm clock, tip calculator, and camera on my cell phone. It\'s very handy.
I use the tip calculator quite often. It\'s very cool.
-
It comes with an alarm clock, calculator, and camera
Doubt it drove the price up $100 more. Nothing wrong with certain devices that do more than there intended purpose, but to force it on the consumer when it\'s costing them big money is another story. AT least with cell phones you can choose from regular phone to PDA /mp3 player phone.
By the way I still use a Digital Nokia Phone from 2000. i hate the new phones there dial buttons suck on all of them, they are to small(my finger hits three buttons) now and no real tack feel. Also I hate the designs on the new phones. The only new Phone I liked was that SONY/Erickson phone that had the antenna hidden, that was a very astatically cool looking phone, simple but practical.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
What good is 1080P when .01% of HDTV support it at the moment. Also Bear in Mind 1080P if the developers choose to support it, those resolutions are not a standard, also we have yet to see the performance penalty in PS3 when out putting at those resolutions.
at the moment, its maybe true 1080p display is rare, and pricey. But in a few years, that may change.
One can play their ps3 on ntsc output in 480i. Then in a few years upgrade to hdtv and play it in 1080p or 1080i/720p for that matter.
its maybe true we will see performance penalty when outputting it in 1080p, but both xbox and ps3 have like 512 MB of RAM there. 256 of VRAM, and 256 on Main RAM. That is pretty high. So, that sounds like a good amount of ram to output 1080p running 60 plus of frames per second. So, in most case, 1080p is doable. If for some reasons 1080p is not doable because there are too many characters on screen or too many polygons uses that can\'t keep the game running at 60fps, running in 720p or 480p will do. But I doubt that could happen since both x-box and ps3 are so powerful + 512 MB of RAM + easier to program than ps2 = very high quality videogames. So, unless the developers are lazy or making a tight budget games. We should be able to see games running at 1080p @ 60+ fps...:)
Also I think most of us know the real reason why Sony has opted to include the Blu-ray in PS3. They want to win the New HD-media War and by adding Blu-ray to ps3 which in my opinion is a very smart strategic move, which will help put a blow into the HD-DVD camp.
I agree with you there. If I have to choose between the two format war. I go with Blu Ray simple for its higher storage than HD-DVD. So, I prefer Blu Ray to win the next generation video format than HD-DVD.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Doubt it drove the price up $100 more. Nothing wrong with certain devices that do more than there intended purpose, but to force it on the consumer when it\'s costing them big money is another story.
So you think HD movie play is driving the cost up that much? All a DVD player is is an optical drive + computer. The PS3 already has both. It would be a crime not to include it with the PS3.
If anything it will drive the costs down because if Blu-ray succeeds, Sony will be sitting on a boatload of cash which will put them in a very healthy position while competing with the 360.
-
at the moment, its maybe true 1080p display is rare, and pricey. But in a few years, that may change.
One can play their ps3 on ntsc output in 480i. Then in a few years upgrade to hdtv and play it in 1080p or 1080i/720p for that matter.
I know but, most people still have SDTV, and when 1080P TV\'s start to chum out, they will be very expensive and since HDTV\'s have not even saturated a tenth of the market yet, and the ones that have are only 1080i/720p. Don\'t get me wrong I think it\'s great that PS3 will output 1080P, however you mentioned the ram, but that\'s not going to cut it since that memory will need to be used far more important things, go over to beyond3d they have this long discussion on the 1080P for ps3 and most everywhere aggress it\'s a waste there wont be enough 1080p TV sales to merit 1080p as a resolution goal for most cutting edge games until next gen. That is, assuming, the Hardware can even handle a cutting edge game with AA, AF, HDR, and all the other bells and whistles of a top notch game at 1080p.
MS can get away with requiring 720p with 4xAA as the standard because they\'ve built a GPU that negates the performance hit associated with AA, with the PS3 AA at 720p resolutions may have a large impact on performance so 1080P would hurt even more, how much is yet to been seen. In PS3\'s case why would you use excess headroom to go to 1080p when you can use it to make your 720p game simply run faster and better? In other words I hope the PS3 can run it\'s games at 1080P will only a small performance hit, but as I mentioned above I highly doubt it. So is 1080P in gamming really practically, that is the question.
-
So you think HD movie play is driving the cost up that much
"According to the latest issue of Japanese magazine Toyo Keizai, Merrill Lynch Japan Securities has recently calculated an analysis that the production of a single PlayStation 3 console will cost Sony approximately 54,000 yen to make ($494), as of its initial release in 2006.
Merrill Lynch Japan estimates that the machine\'s main components--namely its Cell chip, RSX, and BD-ROM drive--will cost about 11,000 yen ($101) each. After adding the other electronics that will be used in the PS3, the machine\'s production cost goes up to 54,000 yen.
-
Come on Nvidia you know better than that.
CPU + GPU + BD-ROM = $303 ??
So a new processor that was R&D\'ed by Sony from the ground up is only $101? A new state-of-the-art custom GPU developed by Nvidia is $101? A new BD-ROM only costs $101, less than a DVD/CD-R combo drive?
Cost to manufacture is different from overall total cost to the company. You knew this right?
Either way if you took out Hi-def media play all those components would still be there. I can only imagine a red laser mechanism slowly loading a next generation GTA4, ugh.
-
I can\'t believe you homos are actually arguing with Clowd again. :laughing:
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I feel the same about games. All you people who buy game systems for DVD playback are crazy. Go buy a DVD player. I don\'t want a \'jack of all trades, master of none\'. I want a dedicated game system, just like I want a dedicated DVD player.
I must be crazy then. My PS2 is hooked up to my PC, which is hooked up to my 21 inch LCD widescreen monitor. My PS2 plays DVD movies all the time.
You like all that clutter of cables? If the console can play games, music and movies....I don\'t see why that is crazy.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Hey genius, I never said MS and Sony would want to replace their consoles every 3- 4 years. I simply said, if it happened, a price drop would have to happen.
My point is - THAT\'S NOT gonna happen. So why even bring up the "if that happens" factor since it would be just lunacy on Sony and MS.
-
Originally posted by alliswell
These points are faithful and true
A. The PS3 is not overpriced.
B. The PS3 is NOT a game machine aka video game console.
C. Sony never intended the Playstation to be only a game machine. Multi-functioned computers (PS3) cost more than game machines ex: 360, Revolution
Sony is going in the multi-function direction, which, IMO, brings more masses to its product. Not that many people will buy a video game machine for their kids, but they will buy an entertainment computer that can play games for their kids,and play their Hi-Definition movies etc.
The PS3 is a steal at 4 or even $500. That is reason alone to buy it. I was searching the web for a HI-Def DVD player now I dont need to anymore I found one. And it is very high end, too.
Let\'s look. Pay $100 more for a PS3 over the 360 and you get:
- Hi-Definition movie playback ($300 DVD Player)
- A 1080P DVD player (Add 50-100 to High Def DVD player)
- A system that can act as a hub for network friendly devices ($70 wireless G router)
- Built in wireless internet connectivity ($80 wireless G card)
- The fastest graphics processor of the next gen machines
Thats worth $100 more to me
I would have agreed with you only if competition wasnt strong or if Sony was alone in this "battle".
Relative to how well XBOX360 will offer and do in the market these dont have the same signifigance.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If consoles life spans shorten, then the price has to come down. General consumers cannot justify $300 - $400 upgrades every four years.
thats a very huge IF.Its almost impossible to happen if not totally impossible
-
I must be crazy then. My PS2 is hooked up to my PC, which is hooked up to my 21 inch LCD widescreen monitor. My PS2 plays DVD movies all the time.
You like all that clutter of cables? If the console can play games, music and movies....I don\'t see why that is crazy.
Because PS2 / Xbox DVD playback is piss - poor? Because I rather have my five-disc changer? Because I rather have a DVD player with all the great options, instead of a stripped down player in a console?
-
Because PS2 / Xbox DVD playback is piss - poor
So very true, anyone with a nice Digital SDTV or HDTV has no business using a console as a DVD player. In defense of the console makers, most people probably would not be able to tell the difference sound quality and picture quality wise since they have shabby hook ups(Cheap tv\'s or cheap cables etc...)
-
5 years ago, the PS2 DVD player was on par with other DVD players. You\'re comparing that to DVD players that came after. The slim PS2 has progressive scan and is a much better quality than the old PS2.
Next.
-
5 years ago, the PS2 DVD player was on par with other DVD players.
Where did you get this info from. More importantly could you be a little more specific in terms of what DVd players in comparsion you are referring to, cause alot of the players from $380(which were the ones most people bought, (since the $70 ones did not exsist then) and up had better picture quality , features and sound transport than the ps2. As I said eairler most people probably would not be able to tell the difference picture quality wise, due to the reasons I stated above.
The same has to be true for Sony\'s stripped down Blu-ray player, After all a the stand alone ones are going to cost the same as PS3 once they get cheap.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Where did you get this info from. More importantly could you be a little more specific in terms of what DVd players in comparsion you are referring to, cause alot of the players from $380(which were the ones most people bought, (since the $70 ones did not exsist then) and up had better picture quality , features and sound transport than the ps2. As I said eairler most people probably would not be able to tell the difference picture quality wise, due to the reasons I stated above.
The same has to be true for Sony\'s stripped down Blu-ray player, After all a the stand alone ones are going to cost the same as PS3 once they get cheap.
There was a review made by one of those online electronics site. They did a comparative review and found it to be a decent player. However, they also noted that the DVD player in the US PS2 was almost a year old since it\'s debut in Japan. IGN also did a review back then and had similar opinions.
After all a the stand alone ones are going to cost the same as PS3 once they get cheap.
Once they get cheap. It\'ll be atleast a year or more before the dedicated Blu-Rays cost lower than a PS3. Admit it, comparing my \'00 PS2 to today\'s DVD player is not a fair argument.
-
Better yet, all you people worried about Blu-Ray, exactly why do you think the industry will want to move away from DVD? People have spent a ton of money on DVD\'s, the general public does not have a high-end HT and does not want to upgrade past DVD.
-
The console was only 300 bux. The DVD playback was a welcome addition for some. I have 2 DVD players at one house and 4 TV\'s. Being able to watch DVD\'s anywhere i game is an added plus. Quality isnt an issue with me really. I\'ll still watch a VHS/Beta without complaining.
I guess it all depends on what your standards are and what you do and dont need. True, for those that really dont give a shit about blu ray, having to pay and extra bill is somewhat of a pain. Its not the end of the world and if one decides to wait for a price drop then thats their choice. Also, hopefully storage space wont be an issue with HD DVDs because then it will be a different story (though i doubt it will be).
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Better yet, all you people worried about Blu-Ray, exactly why do you think the industry will want to move away from DVD? People have spent a ton of money on DVD\'s, the general public does not have a high-end HT and does not want to upgrade past DVD.
Good question that\'s always discussed on the internets but being that BR players can read standard DVDs it\'s not much of an issue compatibility-wise.
The real issue is getting people to switch over based on better quality, and this is a matter of letting people see what they\'ve been missing. Viewing a movie in blocky, low res mpeg-2 with 4:2:0 color sampling just doesn\'t cut it anymore to people who\'ve seen HDTV in action. The world watches too much TV to settle with 640x480 NTSC/PAL in the 21st century. Hell the last "big" thing to happen to TV was color in the 60s.
You can still enjoy a movie with DVD but evolution is a natural step. Just like going from PS2 to PS3.
-
Admit it, comparing my \'00 PS2 to today\'s DVD player is not a fair argument.
No, Cause I never compared it to todays players. I was comparing it to my Panansonic DVD player that I purchased at the time of PS2 launch in the US. I also still stand by my statement that the PS2 DVD was not of the same calibur as any of the mid priced, stand alone players.
There was a review made by one of those online electronics site. They did a comparative review and found it to be a decent player
Here take a look at thisreview
"So, we took my PS2 down to the local electronics store and compared it side-by-side to component DVD players, primarily Sony’s from $249.99-$349.99 (you can call this the control group), playing the same chapters of the same DVD’s on an A-B flipper. The PS2 held up okay, though it did pale a bit when it came to picture brightness and rendering flesh tones"
But forget that review, I compared my PS2 to my stand alone player, and while I do agree the PS2 DVD is decent and does the job more than adequte for the mainstream user, it still laged behind. As the other poster mentioned it all comes down to standards.
-
Well, it\'s all moot right now. Sony has set Blu-Ray in stone and we\'ll see how the public takes it. Chances are, the PS3 will sell very well and people will demand HD quality movies over the standard DVD by then. At least that\'s what MS and Sony are hoping for.
-
Originally posted by THX
Good question that\'s always discussed on the internets but being that BR players can read standard DVDs it\'s not much of an issue compatibility-wise.
The real issue is getting people to switch over based on better quality, and this is a matter of letting people see what they\'ve been missing. Viewing a movie in blocky, low res mpeg-2 with 4:2:0 color sampling just doesn\'t cut it anymore to people who\'ve seen HDTV in action. The world watches too much TV to settle with 640x480 NTSC/PAL in the 21st century. Hell the last "big" thing to happen to TV was color in the 60s.
You can still enjoy a movie with DVD but evolution is a natural step. Just like going from PS2 to PS3.
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Well, it\'s all moot right now. Sony has set Blu-Ray in stone and we\'ll see how the public takes it. Chances are, the PS3 will sell very well and people will demand HD quality movies over the standard DVD by then. At least that\'s what MS and Sony are hoping for.
I disagree. People don\'t want to rebuy their collections.
-
the movie companies desperately want a new format that can\'t be copied as easily as DVD. DVD was cracked right off the bat by some dumbass company that left their encryption key available to the public.
But no matter what they do, encryption will always eventually be defeated.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I disagree. People don\'t want to rebuy their collections.
Who said anything about rebuying? Anyone can migrate to the newer players when available and start to pick up any new titles they buy in HD. Watch your old ones as much as you like.
Even if you don\'t have an HDTV you can see the difference pretty dramatically in the increased color sampling ratio, coupled with no mosquito noise and blockiness.
-
Originally posted by JBean
the movie companies desperately want a new format that can\'t be copied as easily as DVD. DVD was cracked right off the bat by some dumbass company that left their encryption key available to the public.
But no matter what they do, encryption will always eventually be defeated.
Exactly.
I know there are rumours of HD-DVD\'s being released around the 4th Quarter of this year, one being Batman Begins. The problem is, until the industry decides on a single format, the market will be divided and people won\'t embrace it. Just like SACD / DVD-AUDIO.
-
Originally posted by THX
Even if you don\'t have an HDTV you can see the difference pretty dramatically in the increased color sampling ratio, coupled with no mosquito noise and blockiness.
Actually, next generation still uses the 4:2:0 Y Cb Cr sampling. Again, to save space and compression. Hopefully the generation after Blu Ray, Holographic Versatile disc will finally break the barrier and have a flexibility of sampling ratio ranging from 4:2:0 to 4:4:4. Andhopefully support RGB in 24 bits color instead of the filtering matrix thingy that YUV does...
-
Originally posted by THX
Who said anything about rebuying? Anyone can migrate to the newer players when available and start to pick up any new titles they buy in HD. Watch your old ones as much as you like.
Even if you don\'t have an HDTV you can see the difference pretty dramatically in the increased color sampling ratio, coupled with no mosquito noise and blockiness.
Do you think the average consumer cares about that? The main thing that sold DVD\'s was extra features and the fact they would not wear out like a VHS tape... The average consumer does not care about audio or video quality. And sadly, the average consumer makes up the market.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Do you think the average consumer cares about that? The main thing that sold DVD\'s was extra features and the fact they would not wear out like a VHS tape... The average consumer does not care about audio or video quality. And sadly, the average consumer makes up the market.
Somehow I disagree, once they started seeing the benefits of HD-DVD or Blu Ray being shown on HDTV set, they will start thinking of getting one. BTW, HDTV sets are slowly dropping in price tag. Now, you can get a 30" CRT widescreen hdtv for only $700. And the price continue to fall, maybe next year, you can get a 30" HDTV for $500 and the year after that...When something is hot and new, the cost is ridiculously expensive. But as with time, the price will eventually drop to the point where majority of consumers will get one. Like how those dvd players were when they first introduce. They were like $1,000 and over. Now, one can get a decent one for less than $100. Just give it time.
Consumers do care once they are informed and once when Blu Ray or HD-DVD become populars and the price is in the reasonable range. I guess we have to wait and see in a few years.
-
Originally posted by Paul2
Somehow I disagree, once they started seeing the benefits of HD-DVD or Blu Ray being shown on HDTV set, they will start thinking of getting one. BTW, HDTV sets are slowly dropping in price tag. Now, you can get a 30" CRT widescreen hdtv for only $700. And the price continue to fall, maybe next year, you can get a 30" HDTV for $500 and the year after that...When something is hot and new, the cost is ridiculously expensive. But as with time, the price will eventually drop to the point where majority of consumers will get one. Like how those dvd players were when they first introduce. They were like $1,000 and over. Now, one can get a decent one for less than $100. Just give it time.
Consumers do care once they are informed and once when Blu Ray or HD-DVD become populars and the price is in the reasonable range. I guess we have to wait and see in a few years.
Where do you work? How many people do you work around? I only ask, because where I work, very few have an HDTV and many could care less about owning one, even with price drops. Yes, eventually people will buy one, but I don\'t think they are goin\' to care about the extra video quality over DVD.
Comparing DVD player sells to anything else isn\'t quite fair. People was not buying movie\'s like they are now. Why? Because for one thing, VHS wore out. Another was the movie\'s was not priced right. I still remember when a copy of T2 on VHS costed a $100 bucks new.. The same won\'t happen with DVD\'s.. Not to mention, extra features was something that the mass consumer jumped on. It wasn\'t video / audio quality, otherwise people wouldn\'t still be hooking up $100 DVD players via RCA cables, now would they?
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Where do you work? How many people do you work around? I only ask, because where I work, very few have an HDTV and many could care less about owning one, even with price drops. Yes, eventually people will buy one, but I don\'t think they are goin\' to care about the extra video quality over DVD.
I don\'t work...yet...so I am not sure about that.
Comparing DVD player sells to anything else isn\'t quite fair. People was not buying movie\'s like they are now. Why? Because for one thing, VHS wore out. Another was the movie\'s was not priced right. I still remember when a copy of T2 on VHS costed a $100 bucks new.. The same won\'t happen with DVD\'s.. Not to mention, extra features was something that the mass consumer jumped on. It wasn\'t video / audio quality, otherwise people wouldn\'t still be hooking up $100 DVD players via RCA cables, now would they?
I believe there are more than one thing why DVD is more preferable than VHS. VHS wore out maybe a good reason why consumer ditch tape, but don\'t forget there are other things too. Such as, no need to rewind the tape or fastforward for that matter. One can go to a specific chapter, and rewind or fastfoward less than tape. DVD is more compact than regular size tape. And another big reason why: Picture quality is far superior than VHS tape. No degration when make disc copy either.
If you think picture quality isn\'t something consumer care, then I guess VCD players would have been popular here in USA. But VCD players wasn\'t popular either because of its noticeable compression artifacts and low resolution of only 352 x 240. When compare to tape, the VHS tape\'s picture looks sharper, and no noticable compression artifacts that the VCD display. the color on VCD may look better, but the artifacts and low resolution make VHS looks superior. VHS is analog and analog degrade quality over each generation of copy. But its still superior than VCD.
So, in my opinion, once the hdtv become the norm, and once blu ray become affordable, majority consumers will get one.
-
believe there are more than one thing why DVD is more preferable than VHS. VHS wore out maybe a good reason why consumer ditch tape, but don\'t forget there are other things too. Such as, no need to rewind the tape or fastforward for that matter. One can go to a specific chapter, and rewind or fastfoward less than tape. DVD is more compact than regular size tape. And another big reason why: Picture quality is far superior than VHS tape. No degration when make disc copy either.
All things that DVD fixed and HD-DVD / Blu-Ray won\'t be able to tout...
If you think picture quality isn\'t something consumer care, then I guess VCD players would have been popular here in USA. But VCD players wasn\'t popular either because of its noticeable compression artifacts and low resolution of only 352 x 240. When compare to tape, the VHS tape\'s picture looks sharper, and no noticable compression artifacts that the VCD display. the color on VCD may look better, but the artifacts and low resolution make VHS looks superior. VHS is analog and analog degrade quality over each generation of copy. But its still superior than VCD.
VCD was not a big step up in quality over VHS. Another thing was companies did not stand behind it here. Not to mention, lack of stand alone VCD players. Lack of extra\'s (a big push).
So, in my opinion, once the hdtv become the norm, and once blu ray become affordable, majority consumers will get one.
Provided the industry decides on a standard, unlike DVD-AUDIO / SACD.
-
Originally posted by Paul2
Actually, next generation still uses the 4:2:0 Y Cb Cr sampling. Again, to save space and compression.
Can you provide a link to this? High-Profile H.264 definitely supports 4:2:2 but I always just assumed this was going to be the standard since the color resolution on anything HD looks leaps and bounds better than NTSC/DVD.
I may be wrong but Googling on my end didn\'t turn up anything concrete other than the two formats have the ability to go higher than 4:2:0.
Originally posted by LIC
Do you think the average consumer cares about that? The main thing that sold DVD\'s was extra features and the fact they would not wear out like a VHS tape... The average consumer does not care about audio or video quality. And sadly, the average consumer makes up the market.
Then call it a niche like DVD first was in the 1990s. I remember how weird it was to see Blockbuster one day have 2 shelves of the latest DVDs, then it slowly grew after that.
I do see what you\'re saying though. Who wants to store a bunch of bulky, ugly, aging VHS tapes when shiny optical discs are available? I am tempted to say the switch from DVD -> HD-DVD/BR will take longer than VHS -> DVD but no one really knows. One convenient point is that everything will have to be broadcast in HD in 2008, which will only help the "cause." Not to mention those flat panel LCD HDTVs are selling like hotcakes (and they\'re always getting cheaper!).
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Do you think the average consumer cares about that? The main thing that sold DVD\'s was extra features and the fact they would not wear out like a VHS tape... The average consumer does not care about audio or video quality. And sadly, the average consumer makes up the market.
^^^This may be hard for some to take but it\'s true. The average consumer does not care. And they are not going to buy their dvd collection all over again. Take a poll and ask most people outside hardcore gaming and tech freaks they don\'t even know what blueray is.
-
How funny will be when this thread will be resume in the next two years!:D ...nothing has changed from previous generation :)
-
Originally posted by THX
Can you provide a link to this? High-Profile H.264 definitely supports 4:2:2 but I always just assumed this was going to be the standard since the color resolution on anything HD looks leaps and bounds better than NTSC/DVD.
I don\'t have a link, but I remember seeing WMV-9 HD in the same 4:2:0 sampling that MPEG-2 has for lossy compression. I think that\'s main profile or something like that. As for MPEG-4, I honestly have no idea but I assume its the same too. I didn\'t know high profile is 4:2:2 Y Cb Cr sampling.
Seeing how much more compression efficient MPEG-4 and WMV-9 can be, that I think it could do 4:2:2 Y Cb Cr sampling with ease.
Both Blu Ray and HD-DVD runs at 1x speed of 36 Mbits per sec.
with 4:2:0 sampling and 80:1 compression, that = about 9 Mbits of space per second.
but with 4:2:2 sampling and 80:1 compression, its only equal roughly 12.5 Mbits per second. So, i think i wouldn\'t be surprise if its support 4:2:2 sampling. It will saves a lot of headaches of than using 4:2:0 which is tricky to upsample to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.
with 1080i/720p, and if it runs at 30 Mbits per second @ 4:2:2 Y Cb Cr, that will have about 33:1 compression ratio.
with 1080p @ 4:2:2 Y Cb Cr running at the same bandwidth of 30 Mbits per second will have about 66:1 compression which is possible based on that MPEG-4 and WMV-9 is 3x more efficient than MPEG-2 or can compress up to 120:1 ratio.
Forgive my mumbo jumpo, but i think its possible to support 4:2:2 on blu ray and hd-dvd...
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
.Provided the industry decides on a standard, unlike DVD-AUDIO / SACD.
You have a point there. The competition between Blu Ray and HD-DVD is here. And this may confuses consumers more and who knows which format will win.
But I think ps3 supporting blu ray will give it an upper hand on the format war.
-
Originally posted by Paul2
You have a point there. The competition between Blu Ray and HD-DVD is here. And this may confuses consumers more and who knows which format will win.
But I think ps3 supporting blu ray will give it an upper hand on the format war.
Competition equals confusion. Confusion means the consumer won\'t feel secure about purchasing a certain format. Once again, I point to DVD-A / SACD.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
^^^This may be hard for some to take but it\'s true. The average consumer does not care. And they are not going to buy their dvd collection all over again. Take a poll and ask most people outside hardcore gaming and tech freaks they don\'t even know what blueray is.
That is not an indication at all.
People were estimating the same thing with the indtoduction of DVDs yet today its the no1 choice.
BR supports DVDs anyways.So no harm done.No one will be forced to rebuy his collection.Instead he will have the opportunity to buy movies he doesnt already own in BR format.
The logic of your post implies that generally these high definition formats are a waste of time and money and should never be introduced in the market.Not just on the PS3.
Personally what worries me the most though is the cost of the console.Not for the consumer but for Sony.They are more vulnerable to financial and market headaches.And this for the consumer that will buy the PS3 is not positive at all.
\'
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
That is not an indication at all.
People were estimating the same thing with the indtoduction of DVDs yet today its the no1 choice.
BR supports DVDs anyways.So no harm done.No one will be forced to rebuy his collection.Instead he will have the opportunity to buy movies he doesnt already own in BR format.
Very good point made there. Like he said, you aren\'t force to buy blu ray in order for it to be play on blu ray player, or in this case the ps3. Because they (ps3 and blu ray) are backward compatible with dvd and CD-audio too.
Like how ps2 is and many other dvd players are. backward with CD-Audio by just including either 2 in 1 len of DVD and CD or a seperate laser for CD-Audio and one for DVD.
So, you don\'t have to worry about incompatiblity with the dvd collections that you own.
-
Alright, let\'s say Blu-Ray becomes the main stay high definition format. What do you think the disc will be priced at? Anything over $25 / $30 is simply to much for the average consumer and we all know they will be more expensive than the average DVD, which is at this point, around $20 - $25.
-
One thing to look at is how many PS3s will be sold by 2008. Then how many of those users will have migrated to HDTVs by then.
I\'m guessing disc prices will first be around $30. Less on the net. DVDs also cost $30 on release in 1997. I even remember Suncoast and their ripoff, $34.99 price tags.
Question for most of you.. When did you buy your first DVD player? Our household got one in late 1999.
-
Probably closer to 2001. That\'s in the house. For me, I still play DVDs on my Xbox. (Gave up using the PS2 for anything like that.)
-Dan
-
I got the first one back in late 2000. Around Oct. 2000, that time I was trying to get my hand on PS2. But its sold out many places. So, my brother goes and bought a stand a lone dvd player costing $250.
-
Oh my...this got me thinking. Will I FINALLY be able to burn movies longer than 2 hours in my G4 Mac? (I do wedding and vacation videos on the side).
Blu-ray....hmmmm.
-
more than two hours of wedding video????
*shoots myself in the head*
-
My first DVD player was a DVD-ROM in my PC, around year 2000.
-
My first DVD player was a DVD-ROM in my PC, around year 2000.
Same except I had one in early 1999, even came with the first version of WinDVD.
-
I got a DVD ROM in 1998
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Alright, let\'s say Blu-Ray becomes the main stay high definition format. What do you think the disc will be priced at? Anything over $25 / $30 is simply to much for the average consumer and we all know they will be more expensive than the average DVD, which is at this point, around $20 - $25.
anything newly introduced is expensive anyways.Someday it should happen.The sooner it is released the sooner the price will drop
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I got a DVD ROM in 1998
anything newly introduced is expensive anyways.Someday it should happen.The sooner it is released the sooner the price will drop
And with that note, if it is released to early and the public is not ready to embrace it, it will be dead in the water , like Beta.
;)
-
Yeah true,.But the difference is that people wont be buying BR players as stand alone devices.
They will own one just buy wanting to own a PS3.So if PS3 does well, millions of people will already own a BR player automatically despite that they wouldnt have cared about a BR player.
Some of them will give the BR a chance even out of curiosity since they will have the ability to try it.
Things would have been different though if the only way to own a BR player was to buy an expensive stand alone device.That would have surely made people hesitate to buy it.
Atleast thats what Sony hopes
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
And with that note, if it is released to early and the public is not ready to embrace it, it will be dead in the water , like Beta.
;)
That\'s a myth. Beta was very successful in Asia and is still used in many of the broadcast studios (even now) all over the world.
-
Originally posted by Phil
more than two hours of wedding video????
*shoots myself in the head*
THat\'s what I said.
"Are you sure you want it that long? That\'s a lot of tripod shots."
And her reply was "No. You\'re going to carry the camera around. You will get videos of all my relatives. I\'m paying you for the whole day."
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
That\'s a myth. Beta was very successful in Asia and is still used in many of the broadcast studios (even now) all over the world.
Yes sir. I know people that still use beta. My gf\'s step father actually bought movies in beta up until a year ago or so. The quality is better than that of VHS if i remember correctly. I have the original starwars movies on beta so ive been looking to bust that out for a while.
And her reply was "No. You\'re going to carry the camera around. You will get videos of all my relatives. I\'m paying you for the whole day."
Stupid women and their weddings. I hope its worth the money.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
That\'s a myth. Beta was very successful in Asia and is still used in many of the broadcast studios (even now) all over the world.
And VCD is popular in Asia, doesn\'t mean crap about the American market.
-
yes but...isnt gaming derived from a japanese market anyhow?
and last i checked vcd compabilities are in just about any dvd player stateside and incorporated into most all of the burner software, while us doesnt have a black market of vcd movies everywhere :p it does seem to support vcd in some shape or form
hell i even have vcd movies on dvds that i play thru dvd player, altho then again i am not avg consumer, most other gamers i know, know how/or about vcd
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
And VCD is popular in Asia, doesn\'t mean crap about the American market.
Your point was that beta was a failure when that is simply not true.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
My first DVD player was a DVD-ROM in my PC, around year 2000.
Ditto. Got DVD-ROM on my computer in 2000. Then got a DVD player soon after and then my PS2 after that (Christmas of launch). I didn\'t start using my PS2 as a DVD player for a long time since it was plugged into a VCR and it has problems running that way. Since then, we have gotten nothing but DVD players and DVD movies.
-
I dont know the point of arguing about the blu ray since what people should care about is how well PS3 would do
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I dont know the point of arguing about the blu ray since what people should care about is how well PS3 would do
Because Sony is also banking on Blu-Ray doing well, due to the PS3.
How hard is that to understand?>
-
Next Gen entertainment needs a large storage format
PS3 and blue ray offer that
Normal DVD disks are quickly becoming out of date with the coming of High Definition
This is like Microsoft Xbox 1.0 making xbox live Broadband only, it is the future
PS3 is getting blue ray because it is the future. I heard of PS2 games running out of room on DVD. How in the world are they going to fit HD games on Xbox 1.5\'s DVD format?
That is one of the many reasons why Blue Ray is going to be in the PS3 and is worth the extra $50-100.
Unless you want a 2 disc fighting game.
To see ending movie, insert disc 2 :laughing:
-
So most here got their first DVD player roughly 3 years after release. This means if history repeats itself, BR/HD-DVD won\'t catch on until 2009.
You guys honestly don\'t see yourself owning an HDTV by that time?
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Because Sony is also banking on Blu-Ray doing well, due to the PS3.
How hard is that to understand?>
Exactly the point.
Gamers (that means YOU) care about the console doing well and dont care much about Blu Ray except on how it will affect gaming.Sony is the one that should worry about it doing well as a generally used format(like ahm....movies).Not gamers.
Yet most posts are discussing how well will the Blu Ray do as a stand alone format....in console discussions.
-
This is like Microsoft Xbox 1.0 making xbox live Broadband only, it is the future
You just never quit "1.0" So for now on to avoid hypocrisy you will call the Sony console "PS 3.0"
That is one of the many reasons why Blue Ray is going to be in the PS3 and is worth the extra $50-100.
Tell that to the consumer(who calls the console by it\'s proper name, not 1.5 fanboy talk), You see the mainstream aren’t hardcore Trolls like you, that mortgage there parents house just to own the latest Sony machine. Blu-ray is all fine and Dandy but your statement indicating that the significant extra Cost of the unit is worth/justified, falls short considering the little impact Blu-ray storage will have on the mainstream consumer. They wont even now the difference when gaming from it, to the XBOX beta2 version 1.5.0.1
To see ending movie, insert disc 2
Is that you Ken Kutaragi?
:laughing: :laughing:
I heard of PS2 games running out of room on DVD. How in the world are they going to fit HD games on Xbox 1.5\'s DVD format?
"1.5", Man you just love trolling. Oh by the way Current XBOX and PS3 games are still 90% using DVD-5 media. The only argument For more storage would be for HD FMV which the Japanese developers like using in there games. You make it seem as if it\'s a curse for a game to use more than 1 Disc, Funny how I never heard the gaming community or you bitch about it before. Nothing wrong with Sony having a higher storage capacity, which is better. Yet I hardly see a major advantage here. While there is certainly pros and cons to both sides, I doubt any of it matters to you.
I love how you forgot to mention that the 2x BLu-ray has a much slower access time then current DVD drives. blu ray has a native transfer speed of 54Mbps (6.75MB) while DVD has a native speed of 11.1Mbs (1.3875MB) thus it appears at first glace that the bluray drive in the Ps3 will have a transfer rate of almost 5x that of the x360, but wait, thats not true. the x360 drive runs at 12x effectively bumping that to 133.2Mb or 16.65MB nearly 3x faster than that of first gen bluray at 6.75MB. So longer loading/read-access times.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Only for FMV
Same thing was said years ago about DVD.But how wrong people were about it.
Some games really need that extra storage and I am not talking about FMVs
MGS2 and 3, GT4, GTA San Andreas to name a few are examples that needed that extra storage DVD offers.
Developers want as much storage as possible.Even Tecmo wants HD for XBOX360
-
Developers want as much storage as possible.Even Tecmo wants HD for XBOX360
No disagreement there, as for temco there space issue was due to HD FMV, which Like I said eats space right up.
-
No one can argue that MS should of went with another disc format. If nothing else, because in the long run FMV will eat up a lot of space and we all know how developers love usin\' the crap. I mean, look at almost any modern game and the developers spend more time developnig the CGI / FMV than working the actual gameplay out. It\'s disgusting.
Does that mean Blu-Ray is the answer to all? No. Would it be a good stand alone format for gaming? Sure. But why assume it will succeed as a movie format, when the movie industry itself does not know what format it truly wants to embrace? I\'m sorry, but it annoys me to NO END that Sony thinks they need to keep creating these formats, when the rest of the industry is not conforming. Everytime I see a new movie and a big logo that says "ALSO ON UMD", my stomach turns and I want to puke. The only way I will buy a PSP is if Sony gets Konami to make a 2D CastleVania, otherwise I have ZERO interest in Sony\'s handheld and their sub-format, as I like to call it.
/end off-topic rant
Unless you want a 2 disc fighting game.
To see ending movie, insert disc 2
Because we all know fighting games have a lot of FMV and epic endings. Honestly, if you want to make an example, at least pick a decent one.
-
Since M$ is so adamant to launch there console first, obviously they are tied to using DVD media Instead of HD-DVD. No other choice. Some have suggested that Toshiba might be able to sneak one in the Xbox360 before mass production takes place; personally I think it\'s a 1 in a hundred chance, very very very unlikely.
Overall BLu-Ray has better storage capacity, it\'s more future proof and it will play select movies. Does that mean XBOX360 is in trouble, highly doubt it. DVD-9 media will satisfy most of the developers this gen.
The only way I will buy a PSP is if Sony gets Konami to make a 2D CastleVania
Teasing Us is not very nice!
-
Something I like to points out here:
-About FMV, I think they can be done in real time that\'s consider CG quality because next generation console is powerful enough for that. So no need to use the extra disc space to store Rendered FMV...when it can be done by hardware.
-High Def video can use about 9 Mbits if its uses MPEG-4 or WMV-9. So that mean it can store about 60 minutes in DVD-single layer or 120 minutes dual layer. As long as it uses the better codec (MPEg-4 or WMV-9), i think space isn\'t too much to concern about. But that require aggressive compression, and MPEG-4 and WMV-9 can deliver that...
So, if they consider render video in either codec by using disc\'s space, Blu Ray may have the upper hand that it can uses lesser compression than DVD-9 and can store other things alongside too like lossless high def audio quality. Not to mention 1080p @ 60fps video is possible on Blu Ray thanks to its storage.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Since M$ is so adamant to launch there console first, obviously they are tied to using DVD media Instead of HD-DVD. No other choice. Some have suggested that Toshiba might be able to sneak one in the Xbox360 before mass production takes place; personally I think it\'s a 1 in a hundred chance, very very very unlikely.
Overall BLu-Ray has better storage capacity, it\'s more future proof and it will play select movies. Does that mean XBOX360 is in trouble, highly doubt it. DVD-9 media will satisfy most of the developers this gen.
Teasing Us is not very nice!
Isn\'t Toshiba the one\'s saying that any HD-DVD will be HDMI only?
I will dig up the article.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
No disagreement there, as for temco there space issue was due to HD FMV, which Like I said eats space right up.
True but what about the examples of games I mentioned that are using the extra space on the DVD for other data and not FMV?
Besides.There is no point disgussing.All we care about is how well PS3 will do generally
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
True but what about the examples of games I mentioned that are using the extra space on the DVD for other data and not FMV?
Besides.There is no point disgussing.All we care about is how well PS3 will do generally
I hope it fails the market implodes and gaming goes thru a \'dark ages\', much like the Atari days. Weed out most these casual fans that have bought the \'Tomb Raiders\', the \'Madden\', \'GTA\' games and ruined gaming in general.
:)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I hope it fails the market implodes and gaming goes thru a \'dark ages\', much like the Atari days. Weed out most these casual fans that have bought the \'Tomb Raiders\', the \'Madden\', \'GTA\' games and ruined gaming in general.
:)
Yeah … because we all know the one thing this industry doesn’t needs is customers.
God damn casual gamers buying the games they want…how dare they… Don’t they know that playing games is like being a wine connoisseur.
God damn peons
/end LIC elitist style rant
;) :p
-
LIC has bad taste in video games. :p
And as for the "most of that space is for FMV" comment...I have to laugh. BWAHAHA! Oh man....whew! I remember not so long ago when people would say "You don\'t need all that space!"
My...how things have changed. I look at a CD-R and think...I\'ll need at least 5 of those to back this up. Then the DVD-R arrived...now I\'m thinking..."crikey...I can only fit two hours of footage on this."
It\'s all relative. As a person who needs infinite amount of data storage, it\'s never too much. I think programmers feel the same way.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Yeah … because we all know the one thing this industry doesn’t needs is customers.
God damn casual gamers buying the games they want…how dare they… Don’t they know that playing games is like being a wine connoisseur.
God damn peons
/end LIC elitist style rant
;) :p
Fuck the consumers. The industry is in a prepetual shit hole because of the consumers. Much like the movie industry, anything that makes any money gets a sequel now\'a\'days and the sequels are almost always half-assed.
Personally, the only gaming I have done in awhile is WoW and that is it. Console gaming has went to hell. This will be the first launch that I will not buy anything on day one. There is just no reason. When I look back and the money spent on the last generation, not only on launch, but all around and then look at how much fun I had with those games, it\'s sad. Very little fun was to be had.
The last good console was the DC and we see how the average consumer treated that one....
-
^
word
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I hope it fails the market implodes and gaming goes thru a \'dark ages\', much like the Atari days. Weed out most these casual fans that have bought the \'Tomb Raiders\', the \'Madden\', \'GTA\' games and ruined gaming in general.
:)
You know...the more the users and success the more games from good developers sell.--->more profits for good developers.--->that includes capcom
And the games you mentioned doesnt affect the numbers of exceptional games.
-
he last good console was the DC and we see how the average consumer treated that one....
Yet the Big Guns are still unable to deliver the variety of AAA content that Sega did with DC.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
^
word
You know...the more the users and success the more games from good developers sell.--->more profits for good developers.--->that includes capcom
And the games you mentioned doesnt affect the numbers of exceptional games.
Except that Capcom has sucked ass as of late.
Nice try tho\'!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Except that Capcom has sucked ass as of late.
Nice try tho\'!
Okami, Viewtiful Joe, Onimusha, DMC, Resi4, Killer7 to name a few.
I still see lots of creativity and non-casual, exceptional gaming from Capcom
Capcom doesnt suck ass.Actually it "sucks" as much as it has "sucked" before.
The problem is you are trying to convince yourself something that is not totally true about todays gaming.
-
While it would be nice to weed out a lot of these casual gamers that buy up garbage games etc. if we did happen to go through a dark age and games were still somehow developed on the same technological as today, the prices would be rediculous. Thats what PC\'s are here for, more or less.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Okami, Viewtiful Joe, Onimusha, DMC, Resi4, Killer7 to name a few.
I still see lots of creativity and non-casual, exceptional gaming from Capcom
Capcom doesnt suck ass.Actually it "sucks" as much as it has "sucked" before.
The problem is you are trying to convince yourself something that is not totally true about todays gaming.
Killer 7 was pathetic and should of stayed canned.
Viewtiful Joe was good at first. Lacked any staying power tho\'.
Onimusha 3 was how long ago?
DMC was good, the sequel sucked and the third one got almost no attention, even if it was a step forward.
Resident Evil 4, don\'t get me started on this disgrace to the series...
The problem is not that I am trying to convince myself something about gaming. The problem is, you are the very thing I rant about, the casual gamer who is content being force fed crap-ass modern games.
-
it\'s tru that the average gamer, buys up those so called AAA games, but alot of them at least imo are average at best...take madden for instance....that game has been average since 02...gta? even tho i liked S.A. the best out of the whole series...it\'s just like all the other gta\'s..even tekken has become just average...but to be honest, you can only do so much to a fighting game...
only games that imo felt fresh in the series was beyond good and evil and god of war....and to a small extent rise to honor....everything else that has been out has been rehashes of games that try to copy other games....
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Killer 7 was pathetic and should of stayed canned.
Viewtiful Joe was good at first. Lacked any staying power tho\'.
Onimusha 3 was how long ago?
DMC was good, the sequel sucked and the third one got almost no attention, even if it was a step forward.
Resident Evil 4, don\'t get me started on this disgrace to the series...
The problem is not that I am trying to convince myself something about gaming. The problem is, you are the very thing I rant about, the casual gamer who is content being force fed crap-ass modern games.
They are all original titles except Resi4.
And so what if onimusha 3 came a year ago?Thats not the point.Its the games that have been released this generation thats the point.
DMC was superb,as well as DMC3.So what if it didnt get the attention it deserved?It is great and its a good game nevertheless
Did you know that Capcom\'s profits fell after releasing some crap games like DMC2?What does that mean??People understand the difference between a good DMC and a bad one.
You are the minority as far as Resi4 goes.
If you go back to the 16bit days you ll find tons of crappy games.Its not as if gaming got worse.It was always the same.
The main thing that has changed is that more gamers both hardcore and average play games than before.Average gamers existed even back in the old days
EA sports games have always been crap and they were selling greatly since the mega drive days.
The REAL problem is that some people see it as a trend to moan about everything to show off how much of a "hardcore gamer" they are.
Average gamers and hardcore gamers always existed.
Its true that games without substance sell, its true that games like GTA sell because of violence etc (as if I own it or something or support their existence :rolleyes:.Well guess what.I dont ) but the good games are still there.
Another thing that has changed compared to the old days is that games are more costy and time consuming to make.(important)
the end....actually almost
I dont care what you think about me.You are wrong anyways..The real fact is that you are trying to find an opportuinity to start bitching just to show off
I am not the only one who has seen this.There are many good games out there you started bitching about like GT (even mm who bitches about gaming today saw this), ICO etc.But the truth in this is that they are not your type.And everything that is not your type according to you and ONLY YOU they are crap.
-
It is true that LIC is a very bitter old gamer who doesnt think FFVII or other great games were good.....but if that\'s how he choses to be let him do it.....poor man :(
-
Originally posted by clips
gta? even tho i liked S.A. the best out of the whole series...it\'s just like all the other gta\'s..
Coz it\'s not GTA4. Sheesh. Same gaming engine, different setting.
Think of the current GTA series as Street Fighter 2 that came in different flavors year after year.
-
why fix what isn\'t broken?
-
or in better terms why fix what is profitable
-
Originally posted by mm
why fix what isn\'t broken?
Isn\'t San Andreas up for Game of the Year?
-
Call me cheap, call me what ever but I am NOT paying $400 for a game system. I don\'t care if it has blue-ray, green-ray,purple-ray of what ever ray, it is not worth it. This is suposed to be a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM for GOD sakes not a fancy du dad system. Hell for $400 I can buy a nice pc.
-
Originally posted by Skippy
Call me cheap, call me what ever but I am NOT paying $400 for a game system. I don\'t care if it has blue-ray, green-ray,purple-ray of what ever ray, it is not worth it. This is suposed to be a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM for GOD sakes not a fancy du dad system. Hell for $400 I can buy a nice pc.
I paid $300 for the PSX in 1995. $400 today is like $300 back in 1995. Get with the inflation rate. :p
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Blu-Ray , why bother when the media standard is not set yet? It\'s just another Sony format ala Mini Disc / UMD. Don\'t get me started on UMD, it only increases my hatred for Sony. Start a new format just for the PSP can play movie\'s. Give me a f**kin\' break.
Lets not forget the Sony Betamax. I remember when VCR\'s became afforable back around 1981 or 1982 and my mother went to the PX in Germany and bought a Panasonic VHS player. My dad had a fit and took it back for the Sony which he thought was going to be more successful. God I hated that Betamax and the poor selection of movies offered when compared to VHS.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
I paid $300 for the PSX in 1995. $400 today is like $300 back in 1995. Get with the inflation rate. :p
Eactly, the same way people complain how gas prices are higher than they\'ve ever been before. Adjusted for inlfation, people were paying out the ass in 1983.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chartoftheday.com%2F20030827.gif&hash=cfe8a90d2d5367ef2bac35c8bbc5a695b78f29e9) (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp)
Gas price lesson of the gay
-
""A recent survey conducted showed that consumers generally prefer the Blu-Ray Disc format over HD-DVD (High Definition DVD). Both formats are contenders to become the standard next generation DVD format and both sides won’t give up arguing that their technology is the best for consumers and for business. In the survey, 1200 people were questioned and the result was 58% prefered Blu-Ray, 26% were undecided and 16% preferred the HD-DVD format.
Of the consumers questioned, those who actually showed real interest in next generation formats overwhelmingly chose Blu-Ray also. 66% favoured Blu-Ray Disc, 19% were undecided and 15% preferred the HD-DVD format. "While we are still in the pre-launch phase for both formats, Blu-ray Disc is the early front-runner," said Mark Penn, whose firm conducted the poll. "Consumers perceive Blu-ray as the favourite on technology company support, gaming, storage, and disc versatility."
Some of the biggest reasons why Blu-Ray was the preferred format the ability to play the discs in more devices (PCs, upcoming consoles), backward compatibility with current DVD media and the larger disc capacity the format has over HD-DVD. "From day one, we\'ve focused on delivering the best possible consumer experience while building support from the best brands in the world," said Maureen Weber, chief BDA spokesperson. "The result is a format that delivers a consistent, compatible consumer experience across a range of platforms, which is clearly something that resonates with consumers."
The Blu-Ray Disc Association has announced that Blu-Ray hardware (players, recorders and computer drives) are expected from Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sharp, Dell, Phillips, LG, Pioneer, Mitsubishi and Samsung. The Blu-Ray disc format will also be used in Sony\'s next generation Playstation 3 (PS3) console. The format war looks like it may lead to a repeat of the VHS vs. BetaMax war which cost billions of dollars and was a pain for consumers.""
Source:
TechNewsWorld
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/44618.html
-
Ahh inflation, the trend where everything gets more expensive, but my wages still suck. At least I have charts to comfort me.
-Dan
-
Originally posted by Skippy
Call me cheap, call me what ever but I am NOT paying $400 for a game system. I don\'t care if it has blue-ray, green-ray,purple-ray of what ever ray, it is not worth it. This is suposed to be a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM for GOD sakes not a fancy du dad system. Hell for $400 I can buy a nice pc.
lol he said du dad.
-
Hell for $400 I can buy a nice pc.
good luck playing more than solitaire on it
-
:laughing:
-
Originally posted by mm
good luck playing more than solitare on it
Yeah, no kidding. :rolleyes: You could probably get one of those *cough* \'nice\' *cough* DELL desktops for that price.
-
Maybe he could play Scorched Earth on it! And that game rocked!
-
Everyone wants a jack of all trades. And wonders why the consoles are like shit.
-
Everyone wants a jack of all trades. And wonders why the consoles are like shit.
I don\'t think the consoles are shit, so I\'m not wondering that. And your avatar still kicks ass.
-
Yeah where did you get that avatar?:nerd:
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
I don\'t think the consoles are shit, so I\'m not wondering that. And your avatar still kicks ass.
If only it was slower.
-
Originally posted by mm
good luck playing more than solitaire on it
Hey, I could probably play Starcraft on it, lol.
-
Or PacMan.
-
Hey, Pac Man rocks, lol.
-
Got through about pages 5 and 6...
All I have to really chime in with is that $400 is a lot of money. The largest group of consumers when it comes to gaming are not your +21 year olds who have both a steady job and income. Even if we\'re talking about parents purchasing for children, do you think they\'re going to be inclined to buy 8 year old Johnny a 400 dollar new toy?
I\'m just a poor college kid, and 400 dollars is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn\'t help that gaming isn\'t my top financial priority, so I have better things to spend my money on in the first place. I\'m going to do the same thing I did with the PS2, wait at least 1-2 years after the system is launched. At that rate I can size up the three next gen systems and make my own unbiased selection.
-
This generation will have a lot of people holding out and playing the waiting game. I\'ll be in that group for the first time.