PS3: When to say when (IGN)

Originally posted by THX
Better graphics in above HD resolutions are out there, don\'t be scurrd, or even worse, complacent.

No one wants the PS3 NOW, we are saying the PS2 is definitely in need of a replacement.  Then with the Xenon on the way the PS2 will look ancient.

We are saying the same thing.

When I say we shouldnt judge consoles by what we see on PC I mean that the console market works differently.PC surpassed PS2 not recently.It\'s beeing surpassing it fo more than 2 years.Yet this didnt mean that because we saw better graphics in PCs, PS2 should have been replaced already.It still offered.
PS2 should be replaced when market strategies, hardware, support, tools etc ensure strong competitiveness, lastability and success(Generally a stronger future) for the next generation console because its a different kind of market.
I want to be a satisfied PS3 consumer as much as possible.
We cant just compare PCs and consoles and decide that the next console should be released now.Because then the newer more powerful console wont offer in the long term as much as it should have.
It doesnt work like PCs.


So basically we are saying the same thing

Originally posted by Unicron!
Tell me where did I say I dont care about better graphics and hardware

Your post objects to their idea of releasing the PS3 due to the aging technical capabilities of the PS2.  I didn\'t say you don\'t care, however you are objecting to the idea that the PS2 is getting old and the graphics antiquated.

"Its funny that despite that the PS2 is selling as well if not better than the more powerful XBOX and GC they judge it just by the graphics.The games overall are top notch."

If your post was simply to object to the idea of PS2 being inferior to the Xbox and GC then you missed the point of the article.  Plus you should also note that the successor of a console usually comes around in the current console\'s peak years.  Sony would like to ride that momentum into the next gen rather than revive a slumping market.  

I am trying to understand what are you disagreeing with.Perhaps you should tell Sony to release it now too.

I know your english isn\'t the greatest but what part of "They specifically say that the PS3 is not needed at this very point and time, however they do say that 2006 sounds about right." didn\'t you understand?

Actually tell me who(the people you disagreed with) said he doesnt want better graphics.

Just you...

"Also they want the PS3 to be released sooner just to get the "oh godly graphics" sooner because they are bored of PS2\'s graphics.Yeah lets rush it shall we?Lets not delay the PS3. Sony shouldnt release it when they believe its the right time to ensure success.Right?We dont care how well it will do and what it will offer.We just care about the good graphics in the short term.Right?"

They didn\'t say they were bored with the graphics, though they are starting to hit a ceiling.  It\'s that there are bigger games coming that simply aren\'t achievable on the current consoles...time to move on.  The tech has come to a point where it outright surpasses anything that can be done at this point and time.  Time to move on.

I don\'t get what you\'re objecting to by releasing in 2006.  I, for one, would love to play Half-Life 2 with all the fancy features while sitting on my couch.  Sooner rather than later...if that\'s all right with you.

Console Market different than PC market.Stop comparing them

By all means, please point out the glaring differences.

I\'m going to get to the bottom line that as technology progresses so will the ability of developers.  I\'d ready to see what they have in mind.

The console market mimmicks the PC market more and more each generation.  Voice chat, upgradeability, online play.  Now people are taking out their harddrives and putting new ones in with mods to change the game.  I\'m all for it, just pointing out the industries aren\'t all that different.

Originally posted by Unicron!
We are saying the same thing.

When I say we shouldnt judge consoles by what we see on PC I mean that the console market works differently.PC surpassed PS2 not recently.It\'s beeing surpassing it fo more than 2 years.Yet this didnt mean that because we saw better graphics in PCs, PS2 should have been replaced already.It still offered.
PS2 should be replaced when market strategies, hardware, support, tools etc ensure strong competitiveness, lastability and success(Generally a stronger future) for the next generation console because its a different kind of market.
I want to be a satisfied PS3 consumer as much as possible.
We cant just compare PCs and consoles and decide that the next console should be released now.Because then the newer more powerful console wont offer in the long term as much as it should have.
It doesnt work like PCs.


So basically we are saying the same thing

When in the past 5 years did the PC become vastly superior to the console market?  It wasn\'t until just recently (2004) we started to see obvious differences with the likes of Far Cry, Doom 3, and Half-Life 2.  

Specifically referring to HL2 the physics are better than anything available on consoles at the moment.  The PC market has been taking steps to reach this point.  The technology has finally progressed to a stage where it\'s ready to leap into next gen.  That\'s why we\'re getting new consoles.

[clips]

Originally posted by Ginko
Wait, so the PC games are lacking in areas like animation but the consoles are not?

The console industry works on a different timetable.  It is evolving as well but due to the willingness of the market we only see upgrades every five or so years.

you guys make everything so complicated..let\'s keep this simple...upgrades are happening almost 6 months in the pc field hardware wise...this does not happen in the console field..only engines get upgrades..not the the hardware...so naturally pc games  are gonna look better than consoles games  currently being produced....see nice and simple....


and i agree with you as far as to why we see a new console generation every 5 years...it\'s true that at that time the technology in the consoles are basically peaked....and developers become more ambitious with what they want to put in a game...things that cannot be done on current consoles....

Originally posted by Ginko
Your post objects to their idea of releasing the PS3 due to the aging technical capabilities of the PS2.  I didn\'t say you don\'t care, however you are objecting to the idea that the PS2 is getting old and the graphics antiquated.

I object to the idea that PS2 should be released soon.The objection that PS2 is getting old is your own assumption

"Its funny that despite that the PS2 is selling as well if not better than the more powerful XBOX and GC they judge it just by the graphics.The games overall are top notch."

If your post was simply to object to the idea of PS2 being inferior to the Xbox and GC then you missed the point of the article.  Plus you should also note that the successor of a console usually comes around in the current console\'s peak years.  Sony would like to ride that momentum in the next gen rather than revive a slumping market.  

This was directed to this...ONLY----->"Roper and I are in the same bed on this one. Let\'s face it, the PS2 is dated. GameCube and Xbox games look better and load faster than comparable games on the PS2, so I say it\'s time for a whole new generation of consoles to rub up against each other and spawn some new babies.

---Tal Blevins, Editorial Director, IGN.com"

Beause this statement is no reason why PS2 should be replaced.

I know your english isn\'t the greatest but what part of "They specifically say that the PS3 is not needed at this very point and time, however they do say that 2006 sounds about right." didn\'t you understand?

I was directing my post to the people who disagreed with the people who believed that PS3 should be released later.Not all of them had the same opinion,Some disagreed with others

Just you...

"Also they want the PS3 to be released sooner just to get the "oh godly graphics" sooner because they are bored of PS2\'s graphics.Yeah lets rush it shall we?Lets not delay the PS3. Sony shouldnt release it when they believe its the right time to ensure success.Right?We dont care how well it will do and what it will offer.We just care about the good graphics in the short term.Right?"

They didn\'t say they were bored with the graphics, though they are starting to hit a ceiling.  It\'s that there are bigger games coming that simply aren\'t achievable on the current consoles...time to move on.

Yeah it is hitting the ceiling.But what are they bubbling about when PS3 is going to be released anyways?SOme of them want PS3 soon.I am disagreeing with the idea that PS3 should be released soon just becuase PS2 is obsolete compaed to PCs while forgeting other factors.

I don\'t get what you\'re objecting to by releasing in 2006.  I, for one, would love to play Half-Life 2 with all the fancy features while sitting on my couch.  Sooner rather than later...if that\'s all right with you.

Oh God.Once again I am telling you....I WANT BETTER GRAPHICS AS WELL
I am objecting against early release.Not against being released in 2006

By all means, please point out the glaring differences.

There is no battle of hardware or brands in PC market.Developers make games for PCs.They dont make games for IBM PCs, Compaq PCs etc.Gaming is an option.So a consumer doesnt have problem to upgrade often their PC.It wasnt bought only for games anyways.People choose ATI cards or Nvidia cards and most games are supported by both.There is no direct competition.
 Consoles though are different.Consoles are gaming devices ONLY and the consumer doesnt want to upgrade them to play some games.There are few consoles from few(3) companies that compete each other, each offering diferent kind of hardware, and has different kind of support/developers.
Its a battle of hardware/brand competition not just games.Not all 3 devices offer the same support or the same games.Also the kind of games they offer often differ from that of PCs
 If the console and PC market were the same then consumers would have being making direct comparisons between PCs and consoles.Consumers judge console gaming differently from PC gaming.Otherwise PCs would have replaced consoles after a couble of years of consoles\' life thanks to PCs technical superiority.
  There was and there will never be a direct competition between a PC and a console.  
  They are different markets.And the fact that an obsolete PS2 is selling more than obsolete PC hardware and still has support is enough proof.

Originally posted by Unicron!
I object to the idea that PS2 should be released soon.The objection that PS2 is getting old is your own assumption

If 2006 is too soon then when would you have it?  When the next GTA has so much clipping that it causes you to have a seisure?  NOBODY in that article suggested the PS3 needs to come out right now, they did however point out that the PS2 is showing its age.  

This was directed to this...ONLY----->"Roper and I are in the same bed on this one. Let\'s face it, the PS2 is dated. GameCube and Xbox games look better and load faster than comparable games on the PS2, so I say it\'s time for a whole new generation of consoles to rub up against each other and spawn some new babies.

---Tal Blevins, Editorial Director, IGN.com"

Beause this statement is no reason why PS2 should be replaced.

It\'s true though.  And he\'s not just suggesting that PS2 only be replaced, he did say a "whole new generation of consoles".  Obviously refering to the current generation needing to be upgraded.

I was directing my post to the people who disagreed with the people who believed that PS3 should be released later.Not all of them had the same opinion,Some disagreed with others

okay

Yeah it is hitting the ceiling.But what are they bubbling about when PS3 is going to be released anyways?SOme of them want PS3 soon.I am disagreeing with the idea that PS3 should be released soon just becuase PS2 is obsolete compaed to PCs while forgeting other factors.

If you bothered to read the entire article you\'ll see the same people making comments.  None of them suggested the PS3 should come out at this very moment and none of them said the PS2 is obselete.

What they did suggest is that the PS2 is starting to show it\'s age with the progression of technology and the ambition of developers.

Oh God.Once again I am telling you....I WANT BETTER GRAPHICS AS WELL
I am objecting against early release.Not against being released in 2006

If you had read the article then you wouldn\'t have felt the need to comment on it at all.

There is no battle of hardware or brands in PC market.Developers make games for PCs.They dont make games for IBM PCs, Compaq PCs etc.Gaming is an option.So a consumer doesnt have problem to upgrade often their PC.It wasnt bought only for games anyways.People choose ATI cards or Nvidia cards and most games are supported by both.There is no direct competition.

You missed my point.  The PC and Console market are similar due to the progression in technology, and remember I did point out they are on different cycles.

The PC game market has different consumers than the console market but they are all buying into the same thing, entertainment.  The technological capabilities of digital entertainment are constantly upgrading on the PC but they only take a leap in progression every few years.  That\'s why I mentioned the likes of Half-Life 2.  The current consoles are starting to plateau(sp?) and the PC has demostrated that we not only have the technology to move into next gen but the developers are ready as well.

The rest of what you said is irrelevant to the thread.

They are different markets.And the fact that an obsolete PS2 is selling more than obsolete PC hardware and still has support is enough proof.

Again, nobody said that the PS2 is, at this moment, obsolete.  You can read the article top to bottom and you won\'t see it.  However, and you admited it yourself, the PS2 is starting to hit a ceiling.  

So what should Sony do?  Rest on its laurels and ride the PS2 until it can\'t go any further  -OR-   end the generation on a high note and ride the momentum into the next?

I know which one I\'d choose...

You are making unneeded arguements out of my post that do not exist if you have noticed

I see PC hardware (namely GPUs) as proving grounds for future consoles.  All the major players in PC graphics chips are also gonna be in our all consoles next gen as well.

How could you say that the consoles aren\'t mimicking PCs more and more with each passing generation?  The technology is perfected and improved upon in the PC arena, then the next gen PC GPU is packaged up and put in your brand new PS3 & Xenon.

One of the big reasons I sold my ps2 on ebay was just how underwhelmed I became with the graphics.  I\'m also a big FPS fan and couldn\'t go any longer without my KB & mouse.  I\'m totally spoiled now (graphics wise), being able to run most of my games @ 1600x1200 is amazing.  The next big step in console gaming has to be the resolution.. but you can only do so much with old analog TVs.  Those of us that have HDTV  are gonna see consoles finally break out of the past and match the PC where it has truley been lacking... resolution.

Originally posted by Unicron!
You are making unneeded arguements out of my post that do not exist if you have noticed

I just like making a scene, as of lately you\'ve become an easy target

Anyway, bottom line is that developers are outgrowing the potential of the current consoles.  blah, blah, blah...
 
JBean said the rest quite nicely.

The fact that consoles are lending hardware characterstics has nothing to do with the kind of market though.

I like the pc market better.. mods for certain games and such


plus the games are cheaper (for the most part)



consoles get their best games from japan... PC games come mostly from the US and Europe

there\'s your difference

Bored to quote myself

The markets are different, I don\'t contend that, but they share the same technology.  They\'re both moving forward, just in a different manner.  The PC constantly upgrading while the consoles only do it every five or so years = progression.

Just to clear this up before we go any further, it\'s just recently that the PC market and the console market have become so similar.  Before that it was the arcade industry and consoles.  The same logic applies though, both moving forward, blah, blah.

Think of it as a cycle.  

A console is released with the latest tech available, it has to be a considerable leap from the last generation and be a viable solution for the next five years due to the nature of the console market.

Meanwhile there is constantly new tech, releasing more powerful iterations every several months.  (Be it on the PC, Arcade, etc.) The R&D creates more powerful tech and also generates revenue for more R&D.  Eventually the tech reaches a point where it is considerably more powerful and is ready to leap.  This jump from one generation in capability to the next usually falls somewhere between every 3-4 years.  The PC, Arcade, what have you, begins to surpass the current console by a significant margin.

We get a new console when the tech is ready and just as the developers have exploited the potential of the current generation.  It\'s like clock work.

We are nearing the end of this generation and everything seems to be in place.  The PC games are beginning to create a gap in visuals and gameplay.  The developers have expressed their interest in more powerful hardware and it also happens that both ATi and Nvidia are developing their next generation of technology.  Not to mention developers with resources like Unreal Engine 3 that just aren\'t going to happen on the current generation of consoles.

I don\'t know, maybe all that stuff happening is just a coincidence.

[clips]

ginks i basically said the same thing..only in less words...you lilly livered sap sucka!......