Awwww crap. Price for PS3?

I didn\'t know Sony refuse to allows any 2-D as there were some 2-D titles for the psone.  Like Mega Man X4, Castlevania:SOTN.

 Thats a BS rumor IMO.What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.
 
 People didnt prefer the PSX just because they said "hey thats 3D and the other is not" (Other consoles had their own share of good 3D titles). The experience was simply different and people were generally interested on 3D consoles (and I mean on all consoles).PSX stood out though because SONY made sure the PSX got some superb original franchises and support something others lacked.

 Proof is that the PSX did better in all territories.

 But the reason why the PSX still feels a better experience than the PS2 for most is the fact that it was a new experience as you said as it shifted from 2D to 3D which opened new doors to new franchises.

^True.

Once again the release schedule differences between NTSC & PAL regions make some differences.

Sega Saturn initiated pretty well in PAL land and early adopters picked it up, really. However, after some time the anticipation for N64 started to build up.

It took Nintendo long to launch N64 in Europe. \'Suddenly\' Sony PSX was there
and ppl gave it a chance becuz it featured better & more 3D graphics games
than Saturn. So, in fact the PSX got ppl better 3D graphics, and thus more true  3D gameplay, at a pricepoint about the same as Saturn (which\'s games didn\'t really evolve anymore).

N64 innovated with the analogue stick control paving the way for Sony. It\'s a funny history ; Sega innovates with true 3D gaming, Virtua Racing & Virtua Fighter. However, the Saturn didn\'t handle 3D games as well as the Sega Arcade machines. PSX took and ran with the concept becuz Sony designed hardware capable enough to churn out 3D easy enough.

From PSX to PS2, Sony took the analogue stick up from N64 and made it dual stick. We all know who had the most commercial succes....(also becuz of the N64 cartridges and hefty N64 license fees on third party devs)

Which isn\'t necessarily a bad thing ; the huge installed user base and the dvdrom system gave cinematic influenced games like FF & MGS flourishing grounds and it catered for room for diversity.

I never had a PSX myself, but I can almost certainly say the PS2 experience tops my N64 experience and the PSX envy i had while not having it.

[Living-In-Clip]

Thats a BS rumor IMO.What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.
 
 People didnt prefer the PSX just because they said "hey thats 3D and the other is not" (Other consoles had their own share of good 3D titles). The experience was simply different and people were generally interested on 3D consoles (and I mean on all consoles).PSX stood out though because SONY made sure the PSX got some superb original franchises and support something others lacked.

 Proof is that the PSX did better in all territories.

 But the reason why the PSX still feels a better experience than the PS2 for most is the fact that it was a new experience as you said as it shifted from 2D to 3D which opened new doors to new franchises.

I would hardly consider it a rumor when Sony itself said they was focusing on 3D and 2D titles didn\'t appear until Sony saw that 2D titles could still pull in massive sells (Street Fighter Alpha and CastleVania:SOTN). I am not complaining, but trying to pass it off as a rumor is insane. The whole point is this.

The PSX ushered in 3D gaming for the masses, even with all the hype, the PS2 or even PS3 can\'t match that. It doesn\'t bring a new way to gaming, it simply fine tunes it.

As for other consoles having 3D of their own  - no shit, sherlock. Let\'s look at \'em.

Saturn  - Surprise launch and over priced.

N64 - Didn\'t launch until way after the PSX.

3DO - Full Motion Video games, almost all. Oh and expensive.

Jaguar - No one cared. Atari was dead in the water.

The whole point is Sony didn\'t have competition and that allowed them to bring 3D gaming to the masses.

I would hardly consider it a rumor [SIZE="4"]when Sony itself said they was focusing on 3D [/SIZE]and 2D titles didn\'t appear until Sony saw that 2D titles could still pull in massive sells (Street Fighter Alpha and CastleVania:SOTN). I am not complaining, but trying to pass it off as a rumor is insane. The whole point is this.

originally posted by me:What Sony did was prevent developers from ending up the PSX like the 3DO and the Jaguar which were bombarded with SNES, Genesis and other old or low quality games that didnt take advandage of the hardware.

The PSX ushered in 3D gaming for the masses, even with all the hype, the PS2 or even PS3 can\'t match that. It doesn\'t bring a new way to gaming, it simply fine tunes it.

Didnt say anything different. If you mean PS2&3 by "it" that is

As for other consoles having 3D of their own  - no shit, sherlock. Let\'s look at \'em.

Ofcourse but the point is they failed to offer the quality Sony did. Lets see your points

Saturn  - Surprise launch and over priced.

Thank you. Sony offered a price that matched the quality it offered. Didnt say anything different

N64 - Didn\'t launch until way after the PSX.

But Sony took on SEGA and Nintendo, who already had their popularity built in the games industry, had their dedicated fans and their own popular established franchises from the previous generations. When the N64 launched Sony wasnt totally alone in the market. The thing is Sony was doing a better job so they still continued at the top because they playied well their cards with both the developers and the consumers. Still by difference*shrugs*

3DO - Full Motion Video games, almost all. Oh and expensive.

Jaguar - No one cared. Atari was dead in the water.

Ofcourse no one cared. Its their fault. As I said previously they were bombarded with NES, Genesis and other old or low quality games. WHo was gonna care about these games? They didnt play their cards well from the beginning. Unlike Sony who tried to prevent this from happening with the PSX.

 

The whole point is Sony didn\'t have competition and that allowed them to bring 3D gaming to the masses.

its just that Sony did a better job than them. You described this in your own points. Its not like the others werent targeting the masses. All companies target the masses if they want to succeed. They just "sucked" at being competitive enough to match the quality Sony was trying to offer.  *shrugs*

Btw I agree fully with Knotter8

[Living-In-Clip]

Idiot.
That\'s all i can say.

But Sony took on SEGA and Nintendo, who already had their popularity built in the games industry, had their dedicated fans and their own popular established franchises from the previous generations. When the N64 launched Sony wasnt totally alone in the market. The thing is Sony was doing a better job so they still continued at the top because they playied well their cards with both the developers and the consumers. Still by difference*shrugs*

Like that is an accomplishment.
Let\'s see here...

Sega - Launches Saturn with incomplete development tools, suprise launch and a $400 dollar price tag. No one cared due to Sega\'s faults.

Nintendo - Launched late and with the cartridge format.

Sony didn\'t have any real competition in the 32bit generation. That is how they was able to be the ones who brought 3D gaming to the masses, not to mention the name brand "SONY" which made it "cool" to own a videogame.

:Rolleyes:

^There\'s a little more to it than that.

Like I said, the Saturn launched pretty well here and it was received pretty well, especially by the early adopters. Whereas SNES\'s 3D gaming innovated but couldn\'t take it further than Starfox, Sega took it that step ahead with the true 3D games like the Virtua games on their arcade machines & Saturn.

Then a sort of hiatus came ; Sega\'s Saturn games didn\'t really get better from that point on. In fact they were getting a bit worse, repetitive. Slightly analogue to the drag Atari 2600 bumped into. It also didn\'t help Saturn\'s launch price didn\'t really go down.

Ppl were getting aware of 3D graphics also becuz of 3D pc videocards which were a bit too expensive for the masses ; exclusive to pc enthusiasts with alot of money. So, the market in PAL land was a bit in a slump anticipating the delayed N64.

Et voila, there the Sony PSX was at a price point cheaper than Sega Saturn.

And here\'s my point ; for that time, the PSX games innovated. Imho, they took 3D games where Sega stuttered. Rave reviews were given to games like Tekken, Ridge Racer, Wipe Out, FF7 etc.

Don\'t mention 3DO or Atari Jaguar becuz here in Europe they got crushed by Sega\'s Megadrive & Saturn and SNES, not PSX.

Indeed, if Nintendo would have brought N64 quicker to market, PSX would have had a tougher time. Still, the cartridge format would have been a major factor anyway...

[Paul2]

In my opinion, like what the above poster have said, what really hurt Nintendo64 was the cartridge based format.  Hence, making some loyal 2nd party developers to Nintendo to jump ship, like Squaresoft where as soon as they heard Nintendo64 is going to be catridge based, they immediatedly jump to a disc base console, and the PlayStation is the answer.  I guess Sega Saturn doesn\'t stand a chance because of its more expensive price tag and something about harder to make games on.

Like that is an accomplishment.
Let\'s see here...

Sega - Launches Saturn with incomplete development tools, suprise launch and a $400 dollar price tag. No one cared due to Sega\'s faults.

1)If it wasnt for the PSX, Sega would have stayied with a 2D console.

2)PS2 came with incomplete tools as well. And it was even worse.

3)People cared. Until Sony kept improving while SEGA remained static.

4)That doesnt proove that there was no competition. You only prove that SEGA was making the wrong decisions while Sony was making the right ones

Nintendo - Launched late and with the cartridge format.

So?A NINTENDO 64-bit console, with cardridges, and non-developers freindly enviroment

You described what I said earlier. Sony had better strategies than others. You didnt say anything different.

You admit indirectly that Sony did a better job.

Sony didn\'t have any real competition in the 32bit generation. That is how they was able to be the ones who brought 3D gaming to the masses, not to mention the name brand "SONY" which made it "cool" to own a videogame.

:Rolleyes:

If the PSX never came SEGA would have stayied with 2D games while Nintendo would have stayied with an expensive cardridge based console with limitations.

No one would have done a better job than Sony at bringing the 3D gaming era to the masses.

The only thing you are doing is tell us how much better Sony\'s decisions and strategies were compared to its competitors

You still support my and the others\' arguements the more you try to argue

on the "Sony"&"cool" part: *sheesh* what a childish arguement

PSM (unnofficial) says $399 US, 322 Euro.  Not an official announcement, but you gotta think a mag entirely devoted to Sony consoles would have pretty good sources.

/mourn xbox 360

/mourn xbox 360

You really are obsessed. Meanwhile I\'ll enjoy my 360 and pick up a PS3 when it comes out. Not really concerned about the price.

[clips]

one console per gen is my motto,..and i gotta roll with the ps3,...399 for a console is actually pretty steep,...i can afford it, but i probably won\'t be runnin\' out the door to get one,..it\'s kinda hard for me to put down 400 on a console,..regardless of the tech that comes with it...i\'ll most likely wait for the second batch of ps3\'s or wait until they launch with some titles that interest me.

Regarding the mourning of the 360... I haven\'t played mine in a while, after the initial fun of the launch wore off.  It\'s been all DS for me. I use my 360 for DVDs.
 
They priced themselves out of contention for me. Same with PS3. I\'m looking forward to Revolution.
 
2K Sports sent me NCAA and MLB. I played NCAA once and it sucked. I have yet to even try MLB. The 360 has been that enticing for me... I wish I could get motivated to at least finish Condemned.....

In contrast to the earlier rumours, this one sounds cheap and affordable.

You really are obsessed. Meanwhile I\'ll enjoy my 360 and pick up a PS3 when it comes out. Not really concerned about the price.

i\'m enjoying all its A+ titles on my PC
:thumb: