[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by BurningRanger

So who's affected by this? Well, unless you are, or have in your household, a 20-something hardcore gamer, you absolutely will not be playing a Playstation 3. Period.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

But take a look at the demographics -- the average gamer is a 24 to 28 year old male, if I remember correctly. I'd imagine that most 24 - 28 year old guys are either fairly recently out of college or have been in the workforce for about a decade, possibly at the same job. Assuming that, it's likely they've got enough capacity and earning power to save up for a PS3. Hell, I'm 23 and I've got enough earning power to buy a PS3.

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by BurningRanger

600 big ones is a lot of money. And this is assuming there's any store on the face of the planet that isn't going to force you to buy their "ZOMG PLAYSTATION 3 COMBO PACKAGE! PS3 + 2 CONTROLLERS + 3 GAMES! ONLY $1000!" Especially between the launch and Xmas. You'll be lucky to find a Playstation 3 by next spring for less than a grand.

You're making one terrible assumption -- that people will be forced to buy into that package deal. Well, being an employee of EB Games/Gamestop, let me tel you this: when the 360 came out, there were no package deals. In fact, we didn't start offering package deals until March, just after MS's fiscal year ended. Not only that, but it had the prerequisite of trading in your Xbox to qualify for the deal. Yadda yadda details, suffice it to say that practically no one went through with it, at least not in my store.

No one's gonna be forced into buying a package deal from a store. "Period." You're whole rant has now been debunked. PEACE I'M OUT. Well not really.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm semi-stuck on which model to get. I don't have anything HD (eventually yes, but not for a good while) and the $500 does have the 1 HDMI output. The only real concern are the memory card slots.

Now, neither model will have a memory card slot for the PS1/2 card types, right? The $600 model has card slots for compact flash and PSP memory, and that's it from what I've read. So if that's really all it breaks down to (besides internal WiFi...I can get a wireless adapter for it), I'd rather get the $500 model.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

Wait a second. Does the PS3 not have spots for PS1/2 style memory cards?

If so, where's their fucking backwards compatibility fitting in here?

It was my impression that, and this was from a long time ago, there were not going to be PS1/2 memory card slots on the system anyway, before they even decided to go two-tier. Since they've no said one would have slots and one wouldn't, I would like to think that Sony included PS1/2 card slots on the $600 model, but I could be wrong.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well fuck it then. I'm getting the $500 model. 20 gigs is enough storage capacity for anything I'll use it for, and if it still works in high-def then fantastic.

When I get wireless at my apartment, I'll buy the inevitable wireless adapter for the system then.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Force-feedback will end up being one of those things that you take for granted, but when it's gone you'll really notice it and kinda want it back. Ah well.

Anyway, the announcement that a WiFi adapter and an external memory card device are being produced has convinced to splurge only on the $500 PS3 and not the $600 one. Ultimately, both models support some type of high-definition, be it through component cables or HDMI outputs, and considering how long it's likely going to be before I get an HD-capable (and a good one) television, I'm not too worried about HDMI.

Now, here's hoping for some supreme launch titles. But please Sony, hold the mushrooms.

Most amazing jew boots

$15 a month + $4.16 a month = $19.16 x 12 months = $229.92 a year. Not to mention the cost of the Xbox Live Starter Kit...that first year will run closer to $250 for, say, Final Fantasy 11.

It'd be $180 to play Final Fantasy 11 on either the PS2, PC, and assuming it makes it to the system, the PS3 as well. It's a good $70 difference.

Most amazing jew boots

Okay then, but the keyboard for the PS2/3 is negated by the keyboard for the 360. Soooo we're still even.

And I didn't twist your argument. You mentioned that MMORPGs are $15 a month on average, right? Since we were talking about the PS3's online service and the fact that some games, such as FF11, will still charge a fee, I merely took the two arguments and combined them. Final Fantasy 11 on the 360 adds up to about $230 a year, not including the Starter Kit. Presumably, on the PS3 it would only cost $180, as there's no charge.

The point here is that even if games still charge for online play, they will always come out cheaper on the PS3 simply because of the free online play, which will be a big draw for gamers who play their consoles online.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist

To play FFXI on the 360, you don't need to pay for a GOLD account since a SILVER will do. But, you need to pay for the PLAY ONLINE service from Sony to play it and that ain't free.

You don't have to pay for a gold account, true. But you can't have unlimited play time with a silver account either, be it for games that are both online-only and online-capable. If that's wrong, then my whole discussion is wrong. If that's right, then let's continue.

Quote:

Also, this is the same gimmick that Sony will do for the PS3. They keep saying that it'll be free to play online on their sytem, that they won't charge you a thing, but the company responsible for the game will. It ain't free playing online. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Square-Enix's pay-for-play methods have little to nothing to do with this, save for being used as an example. The point is that Sony's free online gaming service does, thus far, seem superior to Xbox Live's Gold Account, even more so when you consider having to pay for two online services as opposed to one with regards to MMORPGs.

Yes, I know that Final Fantasy 11 isn't free to play online. However, Sony won't charge you an additional fee on top of SE's.

Edit: Having just read Devo's post (and you were the second person, by the way. Not the 10th.), I concede. Since MMORPGs are online-only, and thus the only way you can play is online, I was under the impression you had to have Xbox Live Gold as well. My bad. Fuck, some of you guys are asshats, ya know? Ever stop to think that I might not own a 360?

Double Edit: Sorry, whoever SCHWARZE-6 actually is, but I never saw your post. I stopped at whoever NERD-1 is.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

You ignored Schwarze 6 and Sketch (since you didn't edit that post). Since when is not owning a console an excuse for being totally ignorant to costs you can research?

If I don't own an Xbox, you think I'd really care that much to know how Xbox Live operates? It's not like I get 100 people a day asking me about the Live service. It's one of those things that is a bit more geared toward owners of the system. Hell, I've never even gotten online with the PS2 save for a couple times on Ratchet and Clank 3.

And okay Jazz, I do see your point now, though I thought you were making a different one earlier.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

Then don't say anything at all if you're unsure. You were blatantly trying to make a point that RPGs are cheaper on the PS3, you are mistaken and I caught you. Don't try to play victim because I pointed out your apparent bias and ignorance on this subject.

Also, just because Sony says their online service will be free doesn't mean you have the right to act like this is an absolute at the moment. So your argument for cheaper game play on the PS3 means nothing at this point. How about trying to argue something more concrete?

Dude, what the hell? I admitted I was mistaken and thought wrong about the 360's online service. You practically jumped on the opportunity to point out an error that I made admission to. Now you're just being an asshole.

And I never said that the free online service was an absolute. I was making speculation. And damn you for putting words into my mouth -- I never said a thing about cheaper game play in general -- only in reference to MMORPGs under which I made an admission toward making a wrong assumption. Quit being such an ass and thinking you're the shit for pointing out mistakes.

How ya doing, buddy?

Not gonna bother quoting because this post is going right underneath yours anyway.

And did you read the rest of that post? The entire post was directed toward MMOs. I didn't realize I needed to point that out one more time. Have I played 360 Live? No, but I have seen it. Friend's got it. Soooo what?

And yeah, you have been an ass. Pointing out flaws is one thing, but you've done so in an asshole kind of way. Onto the subject matter at hand --

I used to think that paying for online services would "garner more dedicated servers and a more reliable service" until Guild Wars came out. They seem to be doing fairly well right now, and I haven't heard of them having any major malfunctions with their servers yet. Blizzard on the other hand...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Since we're on the topic of servers now, maybe comparing NCSoft to Blizzard isn't necessarily a good comparison as far as traffic strain goes. Ultimately, it'll boil down to how many people will get online with the PS3s. In my opinion, the Xbox got lucky when they used system link for multiplayer on Halo and saw how big of a success it was. The obvious progression at that point is going online, and they did.

I understand that the Xbox was able to go online before the big influx of online gamers, but if it weren't for Halo being such a smash hit with gamers would wanted to play multiplayer, I can't help but wonder if online gaming would've reached the peak it's gotten to.

Anyway, for right now I see this as a good thing. Sony's willing to shoulder the cost of a free online service, at least for now, and hopefully it'll be a more permanent thing. If it's free, that'll just attract more gamers to the prospect of online competition, and that's almost always a good thing.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Okay, I'm basically done with online shit now. The next thing you'll tell me is that the GameGear was online and the NES had system link.

I know that the Dreamcast was online, but that's as far back as I know, save for PCs. As for whoever that mod is, I was a PC gamer for years before I even got online with any of my games, so with the exception of the later FPSs like Unreal Tournament and Battle.Net, I didn't think online gaming through a PC garnered a large crowd.

I'm so anti-Halo it's ridiculous, but playing games online through consoles other than the PC wasn't something that had really broken through until the Xbox and Halo. I'm aware that other consoles were capable of gaming online, but I don't think any of them drew very large a crowd. If they did, it wouldn't have taken this long for online gaming to really hit.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The only problem with that statistic is chronology. How long has Battle.net been around (and gone unopposed, for that matter) compared to Xbox Live?

FELIPE NO

Considering this is a thread about a console and not a PC, you'd know that I've been trying to stay on track with console online gaming. Goddamnit, I don't even know how we got to this point now.

Xbox Live proved that consoles can do online gaming quite well and steadily gain popularity. Since, however, this is a thread about the Playstation 3 and I wanna get back on track with the thread, if the PS3 really does maintain a free online service, I imagine they'll surprass Xbox Live as long as they've got the games to garner the support.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

What are they lying about? They haven't lied about anything yet regarding the PS3's online service. And they never charged an additional fee for their online service for the PS2 either.

Edit: Left out a couple words. Sony has made abrupt changes to the PS3 itself, but they've thus far maintained their stance on free online play.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

What're you talking about? They had to have at least some form of online service to allow the games to get online in the first place. Sure they don't have a service like Xbox Live, but it was still there.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08..._online_plans/

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2002/2/13-48

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The second article is basically a list of the ISPs Sony uses to allow gamers to get online. Those ISPs are providing Sony's online service in Japan.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Why? If you recall, the PSone was still getting releases all the way into 2005, which was 10 years after it's launch. And chances are the PS2 will also see the same decade-long lifespan. I'd say it stands well within reason to expect the PS3 to uphold the same longevity as well.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

In that case, then yeah, I agree. I'd suspect the PS2's "actual" lifespan to end probably two or three years post-PS3. I think some of the smaller developers will still be doing their last pieces on the PS2/GC/Xbox before moving into the higher budget consoles and development costs.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't mind the 360's blade-UI system, but there is one rather disturbing problem with it that neither the PSP nor, presumably, the PS3 will have -- when the UI is brought up during gameplay, the game doesn't frickin' pause. So there are these giant menus that fill up nearly half the screen in the middle of your gameplay, and that button's close enough to the rest of the controller layout to where it can be accidentally touched.

The PSP's UI, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem. It can't be accessed during gameplay without leaving the game itself, which is a damn good thing -- I don't think I'll be needing to view movies or listen to music while I'm playing my game. However, you can access it while watching a movie....and the movie pauses. Dun dun duuuuuuuuuuuun.

I suspect the PS3 will have similar features.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What? I've watched people lose rounds of Fight Night Round 3 because someone hit that 360 button. They lose because the game is still in-progress when those blades come up.

FELIPE NO

Nobody's taking reservations at EB Games or Gamestop. If they are, I'd advise not doing it.

The official word we've received from the upper management is that EB/Gamestop will not be taking pre-orders on the PS3 (and most likely the Wii) until after the Manager's Conference, which won't end until late October. The reason for this lies in part with what happened during the 360 launch.

Microsoft told us we would be getting so many units, and to allocate those to individual regions, then districts, and lastly the stores themselves. But, just a week before launch, we were informed that the majority of stores were getting less than half of what they were promised.

This year, EB/Gamestop will not be taking any crap from customers. I was more than pissed off at the number of people who blamed me for Microsoft's failure to launch the number of consoles they promised us. So now the company's retaliation is to not take any reservations (and that includes making a call list) for the system until we have it triple-confirmed by Sony that this company is getting X number of units, period.

Now, for those of you who believe the stores are taking pre-orders -- it's impossible. At the most, they're making a call list (which the company already frowns on) for when the pre-orders become available. Why is this impossible? Because we don't even have the damn SKU number for the pre-order yet. Thus, it's impossible.

We're taking reservations on PS3 and Wii games, but not their systems. Questions?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's not really Resistance's look that has me wanting to buy it. It's being developed by the same guys who did Ratchet and Clank, so I'm looking forward to actually playing it, and not looking at it.

The Ratchet and Clank games have always had stellar gameplay, so I can't really see why that wouldn't translate over to Resistance.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I know I'll be picking up Warhawk, Genji 2, Fatal Inertia, and Untold Legends. Resistance will likely be next, and I'll have to see more about Bladestorm.

There's nowhere I can't reach.