Some new Playstation 3 info!
@ E3: They will be shipping 2 million units by the end of the year!
It will be launched with 400,000 units in North America and 100,000 units in Japan!
@ E3: Will be launched worldwide by Q4 2006
Just announced, it will not make it to Europe, Australasia, Russia, the Middle East and Africa until March 2007!
This makes X360's launch look like a picnic!
Hahahahaha @ PS3 news
Moderator: Moderators
Hmm, I think Wii is gunna be best...
lol, a picnic...
While it does have MUCH stronger gfx, it cost a LOT more!
Anyways, I have recently become a Prime fan, you better damn well know what I mean, lol..
I plan on getting the Wii cuz it has a base and buildup already..
MP3, LOZ:TP, and a lot of others I ain't interested in
lol, a picnic...
While it does have MUCH stronger gfx, it cost a LOT more!
Anyways, I have recently become a Prime fan, you better damn well know what I mean, lol..
I plan on getting the Wii cuz it has a base and buildup already..
MP3, LOZ:TP, and a lot of others I ain't interested in
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
The 64 was ass as far as hardware goes... Wii is inferior to the PS3, but not to the degree that it makes developing a game for the console more difficult. It was a terrible move at the time to build the 64 still based on consoles rather then disks. It's nice that Nintendo once again has intelligent designers behind the wheel.neddiedrow wrote:Quite frankly the only reason I ever had to buy a console not from Nintendo in my entire life time was the pathetic switch of mass-convience RPG development to the inferior Playstation.
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
Well, I agree that the Wii is the way to go... anything else you all said I won't bother to argue with because you at least see that the Wii is teh Stuffs.
Basically, N64 was a flop because the overheard on distribution (due to the cartriage format) was too much higher then the cheap CDs sony was using, producers have to cover distribution costs, not nintendo.
The actual hardware in the N64 was superior (if barely) to the sony... and the graphics were deffinitely a little cleaner... but then again the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast were powerhouses, only plagued by horrible load times and poor marketting... so meh right?
Anyways... I'm glad that in the next generation sony is shooting themselves in the foot, because I still blame them for there not being a CDROM expansion for the SNES and for stealing my final fantasy.
Basically, N64 was a flop because the overheard on distribution (due to the cartriage format) was too much higher then the cheap CDs sony was using, producers have to cover distribution costs, not nintendo.
The actual hardware in the N64 was superior (if barely) to the sony... and the graphics were deffinitely a little cleaner... but then again the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast were powerhouses, only plagued by horrible load times and poor marketting... so meh right?
Anyways... I'm glad that in the next generation sony is shooting themselves in the foot, because I still blame them for there not being a CDROM expansion for the SNES and for stealing my final fantasy.
"Sony has failed. They fail the gaming market, and they fail the home media market.
First off, the PSP is slowly going down the shitter. With the disaster that was UMD, the lack of decent games, the slew of harware problems, and the extremely overpriced hardware and software, it's no wonder. As it's been stated.. "UMD is a bad answer to a question nobody was asking in the first place". Sony tried to muscle their way into the market with UMD, and it was completely rejected by consumers. And I'm not even COMPARING it to the DS. The PSP can't even stand on it's OWN, let alone COMPETE with another handheld.
And on the subject of gaming handhelds, the PSP is NOT a gaming handheld. It's a media handheld. Sony was just using the PSP to try and get their own proprietary format discs into the "mainstream" market. Don't kid yourselves with this gaming handheld bullshit. The PSP is NOT a gaming handheld, and it never was. If it was a true gaming handheld, it would have had a hell of a lot more force behind it's games, instead of behind the shitty media functionality.
And now, on to the PS3. The PS3 is going to fail as well. Blu-Ray (much like UMD), Sonys main selling point, is a complete fucking disaster. Microsoft jumped in the market and is pushing HD DVD like a fat man taking a shit. And for the most part, it's going well. While HD DVD players are still $500, and nobody in their fucking right mind would buy one now, the fact is, that for the most part, consumers have accepted HD-DVD as the next step in formats. If Sony could say, get out Blu-Ray right NOW, put players at a $100 price point, and pull about 20 titles out of their ass, then yeah, they probably have a shot at staying in the game. But it's not going to fucking happen.
And, the PS3... out in November? What a joke. I wouldn't be suprised if Sony missed this holiday season, and is forced to release it early 2007.
Sony and Microsoft are just fighting for the spot, being the one, singular console that is in EVERYONES living room, as the center of their media world. For a minute, lets assume that Sony will actually make it by Christmas. The PS3 will sell for $600. Microsoft will likely cut the price of the Xbox to a couple hundred dollars less than that, depending on what you buy. This again, comes down to what both companies are pushing: Their proprietary DVD formats. Microsoft and HD-DVD will already have gotten some momentum by then, and there will be a reasonable number of titles avalible for HD-DVD. Blu-Ray is still the virgin format here, struggling along to try and get a meager handful of titles out. Expect things like Spiderman 2 on Blu-Ray.
On the subject of PS3 hardware, I can attest to the fact that Sony is having problems out the ass with hardware. The first indication is by how MUCH they've cut back. I remember seeing early development shots of the back of the PS3, with multiple high-speed ports, USB, Firewire, dual gigabit ethernet.. and look at it now. It's practically a PS2 from the rear. Why did they cut all that out? Hardware problems, and pricepoint.
And lastly, the games. Microsofts hardware is ALL out on the table. The devs have 100% of it to use, to work with, and to produce games for. Sony is still waddling along with developers and their devkits. This is going to leave developers not nearly enough time to put out some quality games. This basically boils down to a strong (although generally shitty) game lineup by Microsoft, and a scraped together, half-asses attempt by Sony to put out as many games possible before launch.
So, here's what we have.
Ninteno: Gonna be Awesome
Microsoft: Large lineup, widespread HD-DVD support, lower pricetag.
Sony: Small and/or shitty lineup, nobody cares about Blu-Ray, expensive.
Of course, this is assuming that Sony can even make it by the holiday season. Even if they can, the PS3 will likely have slews of problems from rushed development, low numbers, and bad software. I honestly think Sony would be better off saying "screw it", and drop the PS3 altogether, lease their game developer liscences, sit this generation out, and work on development for a GOOD, next-gen console in a few years. Of course, they won't though, and they will take tremendous losses trying to push their way back into the market. No comprimises for Sony, as is evident with their Blu-Ray agreement. Basically, if you sign on with Sony for blu-ray, you ALSO sign on saying you will NOT support ANY other format. This leaves hardware manufactuers siding more with HD-DVD, and telling sony and their proprietary contracts to buzz off.
It doesn't take a buisness major to see what's going to happen here. By all means, I hate the 360, I think it's a piece of shit, and I was actually considering getting a PS3 up until E3, and up until I put the numbers togehter. The PS3 is garbage. There will ALWAYS be the fanboys who will buy a PS3 regardless of anything. It could be $1500 and have three games, and they would STILL buy it. But as far as the majority of the market is concerned, it's a disaster, and nobody cares about it.
It's over for Sony."
First off, the PSP is slowly going down the shitter. With the disaster that was UMD, the lack of decent games, the slew of harware problems, and the extremely overpriced hardware and software, it's no wonder. As it's been stated.. "UMD is a bad answer to a question nobody was asking in the first place". Sony tried to muscle their way into the market with UMD, and it was completely rejected by consumers. And I'm not even COMPARING it to the DS. The PSP can't even stand on it's OWN, let alone COMPETE with another handheld.
And on the subject of gaming handhelds, the PSP is NOT a gaming handheld. It's a media handheld. Sony was just using the PSP to try and get their own proprietary format discs into the "mainstream" market. Don't kid yourselves with this gaming handheld bullshit. The PSP is NOT a gaming handheld, and it never was. If it was a true gaming handheld, it would have had a hell of a lot more force behind it's games, instead of behind the shitty media functionality.
And now, on to the PS3. The PS3 is going to fail as well. Blu-Ray (much like UMD), Sonys main selling point, is a complete fucking disaster. Microsoft jumped in the market and is pushing HD DVD like a fat man taking a shit. And for the most part, it's going well. While HD DVD players are still $500, and nobody in their fucking right mind would buy one now, the fact is, that for the most part, consumers have accepted HD-DVD as the next step in formats. If Sony could say, get out Blu-Ray right NOW, put players at a $100 price point, and pull about 20 titles out of their ass, then yeah, they probably have a shot at staying in the game. But it's not going to fucking happen.
And, the PS3... out in November? What a joke. I wouldn't be suprised if Sony missed this holiday season, and is forced to release it early 2007.
Sony and Microsoft are just fighting for the spot, being the one, singular console that is in EVERYONES living room, as the center of their media world. For a minute, lets assume that Sony will actually make it by Christmas. The PS3 will sell for $600. Microsoft will likely cut the price of the Xbox to a couple hundred dollars less than that, depending on what you buy. This again, comes down to what both companies are pushing: Their proprietary DVD formats. Microsoft and HD-DVD will already have gotten some momentum by then, and there will be a reasonable number of titles avalible for HD-DVD. Blu-Ray is still the virgin format here, struggling along to try and get a meager handful of titles out. Expect things like Spiderman 2 on Blu-Ray.
On the subject of PS3 hardware, I can attest to the fact that Sony is having problems out the ass with hardware. The first indication is by how MUCH they've cut back. I remember seeing early development shots of the back of the PS3, with multiple high-speed ports, USB, Firewire, dual gigabit ethernet.. and look at it now. It's practically a PS2 from the rear. Why did they cut all that out? Hardware problems, and pricepoint.
And lastly, the games. Microsofts hardware is ALL out on the table. The devs have 100% of it to use, to work with, and to produce games for. Sony is still waddling along with developers and their devkits. This is going to leave developers not nearly enough time to put out some quality games. This basically boils down to a strong (although generally shitty) game lineup by Microsoft, and a scraped together, half-asses attempt by Sony to put out as many games possible before launch.
So, here's what we have.
Ninteno: Gonna be Awesome
Microsoft: Large lineup, widespread HD-DVD support, lower pricetag.
Sony: Small and/or shitty lineup, nobody cares about Blu-Ray, expensive.
Of course, this is assuming that Sony can even make it by the holiday season. Even if they can, the PS3 will likely have slews of problems from rushed development, low numbers, and bad software. I honestly think Sony would be better off saying "screw it", and drop the PS3 altogether, lease their game developer liscences, sit this generation out, and work on development for a GOOD, next-gen console in a few years. Of course, they won't though, and they will take tremendous losses trying to push their way back into the market. No comprimises for Sony, as is evident with their Blu-Ray agreement. Basically, if you sign on with Sony for blu-ray, you ALSO sign on saying you will NOT support ANY other format. This leaves hardware manufactuers siding more with HD-DVD, and telling sony and their proprietary contracts to buzz off.
It doesn't take a buisness major to see what's going to happen here. By all means, I hate the 360, I think it's a piece of shit, and I was actually considering getting a PS3 up until E3, and up until I put the numbers togehter. The PS3 is garbage. There will ALWAYS be the fanboys who will buy a PS3 regardless of anything. It could be $1500 and have three games, and they would STILL buy it. But as far as the majority of the market is concerned, it's a disaster, and nobody cares about it.
It's over for Sony."
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
OH SHIT, WE FORGOT, HALO MAKES EVERYTHING BETTER.
No it doesn't. I'm not getting some Shitty console just to play some game Microsoft will release on PC a year later anyways. Halo's plot sucks, And the controls suck. Why play something where I can't type, Aim, actaully change the rez to something good to improve performance, make mods for, map for or hope for a sequal I won't have to get a whole new console for.
No it doesn't. I'm not getting some Shitty console just to play some game Microsoft will release on PC a year later anyways. Halo's plot sucks, And the controls suck. Why play something where I can't type, Aim, actaully change the rez to something good to improve performance, make mods for, map for or hope for a sequal I won't have to get a whole new console for.
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
Also, Most of the consoles Squander the "incredibly high specs" away on trivial stuff. Look at the Xbox, Its faster in evereyway (If I remember correctly) than the Gamecube, But which looks better? The gamecube. Because Nintendo makes its consoles to use its power more effectively, instead of trying to make ultra-fast-ram-which-looks-good-but-in-fact-you-have-to-load-the-program-twice type thing.
Good to see people with some god damn sense!
PS2 had shit for graphics...
Now they JUMP it up and make us pay 600$ for it, and a PPU (lol, nubby idea ^^)
I saw a gundam game..
The graphics were like real life..
One problem, GUNDAM GAMES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THAT DAMNIT! They need the cartoonish (if you could call it that, I am sure the Wii or gamecube can shove the light level down some) graphics that the Wii will have..
And, halo sux...
They made half the weapons in the first game so shittily they scrapped 'em in the second one, lol
Anyhow, Sony tries to get down with the PSP in the handheld section..
They got shot down like a fighter in WWII, and burned...
SO, I think Wii wins..
However, Chrome Hounds looks interesting from my POV..
PS2 had shit for graphics...
Now they JUMP it up and make us pay 600$ for it, and a PPU (lol, nubby idea ^^)
I saw a gundam game..
The graphics were like real life..
One problem, GUNDAM GAMES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THAT DAMNIT! They need the cartoonish (if you could call it that, I am sure the Wii or gamecube can shove the light level down some) graphics that the Wii will have..
And, halo sux...
They made half the weapons in the first game so shittily they scrapped 'em in the second one, lol
Anyhow, Sony tries to get down with the PSP in the handheld section..
They got shot down like a fighter in WWII, and burned...
SO, I think Wii wins..
However, Chrome Hounds looks interesting from my POV..
blah blah blah.Dueling Analogs wrote:Jump back to the original Delaystation... I mean Playstation, what made that system the best? Was it the 3D engine? Nope, the Nintendo 64 was better. Was it how it handled 2D games? Nope, the Sega Saturn was superior. It must have been how fast games loaded... sorry, I couldn't resist. It was the library of third party titles. A similar situation holds true to the current generation where the XBOX was far superior to the PS2 in every way except third party titles.
Sony has never been the best system for gaming, but because of their third party titles we keep coming back. The big name third parties are already backing the PS3 based on that same concept. The problem is, until gamers can convince the third parties that we're willing to support whomever gives us the best system and not just whatever Sony dishes out this cycle will continue to repeat over and over again...
http://www.duelinganalogs.com/
-
Pathfinder
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 05:02
Although sony is taking a big risk with the PS3, that doesnt mean it will be a failure. So what if blue-ray doesnt make it into the mainstream. It will still be used for PS3 and the PS3 can play dvds to.
Im astonished how people say there will be no great games. How could Armored core 4, Warhawk, Mercenaries, Fatal Inertia be considered "shitty" games.
People seem to complain about the price. So what that you cant afford a 600 dollar system. Just because you cant afford it doesnt mean others cant.
Im astonished how people say there will be no great games. How could Armored core 4, Warhawk, Mercenaries, Fatal Inertia be considered "shitty" games.
People seem to complain about the price. So what that you cant afford a 600 dollar system. Just because you cant afford it doesnt mean others cant.
The issue isn't whether I can afford it or whether someone else can, the issue is how many can. If the PS3 sells only 2 million during the first half year there is very little incentive for developers to make a game for the PS3, especially considering the high cost of development. The PS3 needs a larger userbase than its competitors to generate the same profit per game. That's the Wii's strength, it's cheap development means that you need to sell fewer copies on it to break even. With the rising cost of development it wouldn't surprise me if a game that sells less than a million units is unprofitable.Pathfinder wrote:People seem to complain about the price. So what that you cant afford a 600 dollar system. Just because you cant afford it doesnt mean others cant.
The PS2 had all those games because it had the largest userbase. Sony's current moves will slow adoption of the system down and one year from now you might still see many people holding out on the PS3 in order to wait for a price drop but developers areseeing the smaller sales already and decide that releasing a PS3 exclusive game is unprofitable. That means sooner or later the 360 or Wii (or maybe even both) will clobber the PS3 in terms of game library size and most undecided users will opt to buy a system hat costs less and offers more games.
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
The PS2 onlly had lots of games because the Play Station was so good (for its time) It took CDs, had good loading times and you could run 3D games on there (alhtough they looked like shit, but meh, It was 1998)
So people got a PS2 because it was the sequel to the Play station.
Thats just my opinion though.
Who would honestly get an original PS2? They looked like crap, And the Power supply got so hoty the wires melted. :O
So people got a PS2 because it was the sequel to the Play station.
Thats just my opinion though.
Who would honestly get an original PS2? They looked like crap, And the Power supply got so hoty the wires melted. :O
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Made me sick to have to recommend (since apparently I know everything about games, computers, viruses, hacking, hardware, and phone tech support) the PS2 to a relative that wanted to know what system to buy. Well... Gamecube's faster and better-looking and cheaper... Xbox has really good multiplayer and usually winds up with the best graphics... and PS2 has 3x the games of any other system. v.v
Oh, but don't forget silly, PS3 games are going to cost $80-$100 USD.The PS3 needs a larger userbase than its competitors to generate the same profit per game
Last edited by Caydr on 09 Sep 2006, 18:48, edited 1 time in total.
No, they're not. At that pricepoint the loss of units sold outweights the gain from the price hike by far. You make approximately 2x the profit but you sell less than half the numbers. Even if people have a strong desire to own the game most will just buy used and as such don't add to the dev's bottom line.
And before you drag up that Hirai quote, he meant that they're not going to make a huge increase immediately, he never said they're going to cost 100$ later. The "no rentals, no resale" patent rumor was debunked as well.
And before you drag up that Hirai quote, he meant that they're not going to make a huge increase immediately, he never said they're going to cost 100$ later. The "no rentals, no resale" patent rumor was debunked as well.