[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Slayer X

I can't comment on the Ace Combat but I can say with some confidence that you will see Katamari on the PS3 also, simply because Sony owns 49% of Namco so... common. No I can't say that 100% for sure, but yeah.

Wrong again.

You're thinking Cellius, that cell-centric company Namco and Sony paired up for. Sony owns 49% of that, not of Namco Bandai. NB owns the other 51% of Cellius though. We haven't heard shit from them yet, but then again they've only been around for just under 2 months.

Namco Bandai itself is a publically traded company, with Bandai having officially purchased Namco in September of 2005, which I'm sure you recall. Even though they operate pretty autonomously for the most part, Bandai still owns Namco. While Sony may have some stake in the company, it would be nothing near 49%.

Quote:

Secondly without an official announcement of these games existance I highly dought that any of that information is even reliable, if not just total speculation in itself. However, you know that they didn't pull the games out of thin air and despite conflict of details, it's for certain that these games must be on their ways for debut and soon.

You sound like your grasping because the PS3 is hemmoraging exclusives at a pretty fast rate here. The AC6 rumour turned out true. Look at Devil May Cry. It's all but confirmed that Monster Hunter 3 is going to show up too. I would hardly be surprised if these two other Namco titles ended up 360 exclusives as well.

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

Well, that much we can agree on. I'm not cheering one way or the other, it's just that people take some of the news rather seriously, and I had misconstrued your comments as meaning that you were hoping it would remain PS3 exclusive. My bad.

Agreed on the whole buying all three thing too

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

Originally Posted by Lix

1280x720 is 720p. You're doing it wrong. Additionally, though, 1080p on a monitor is 1920x1080, so Acer could probably run it in 1080i. Although, I wouldn't imagine something like a 15-21" monitor running 1080p Oblivion to be superior to, say, a 28-40" HDTV on 1080i. (See what I did there? A high end computer and high quality monitor would be roughly around the same price as a relatively large HDTV with 1080i.)

I haven't really dealt with 1080p, so I can't comment on if it's significantly better. From what I've heard of it, it's extremely bandwidth consuming.

Uh, what? Having a memory buffer to deinterlace a 1080i signal would eat up just as much processing power* as running at 1080p, seeing as how 1080i sources need to have twice the frame rate to be deinterlaced on a progressive display such as a computer monitor.

Not only that, but considering the distance one is sitting from their PC monitor most of the time, the comparison with display sizes is moot. Optimum viewing angles and distances start coming into play when you compare shit like that.

* Well, almost. But for the purposes of this comparison it's roughly the same thing.

I was speaking idiomatically.

BR durability has nothing to do with the hardware playing back the disc content. The stand alone players and PS3 alike have nothing to do with how little damaged a BR disc gets.

The BR discs have a clear polymer coating called Durabis that make them far more scratch resistant than your average optical disc media.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Kuhazan

blu-ray will probably just encourage game developers to leave "worthless" content on the disc and not clean up after themselves.... prepare to buy a cheat device to unlock caned content

More than likely, with the slow speed of the PS3's BR drive, there will just be data duplication all over the disc to cut down on load times. Oblivion already does this. It might well become common practice, who knows.

FELIPE NO

I don't expect anything, I'm just throwing the idea out that instead of developers being lazy and not optimizing the code or leaving "worthless content" on the disc like my quoted friend there said, they might choose to double up in order to cut down on load times.

Way to over react and miss my point, though. :thumbsup:

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

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26704

Ahahahahahahahaha. WHAT.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Don't be so sure.

Kaz confirms it, albeit it another langauge.

The translation is "We don't produce the 60 GB model for the American marked anymore, so when they are outsold, we are only left with the $599 model. We do not want a divided price strategy for the American audience, and we quickly found out that the American consumers do not want two different models."

I mean, it's obvious what they're doing. The 80 gig unit will be cheaper to produce for them, so they'll take less of a loss on it. What they should have done is just phased the damn thing out, and just replaced with the 80 gig unit when 60 gig units sell out, claiming it as a value add or something. This temporary price drop might move the last of the 60s a bit faster, but after hyping the shit out of a price drop only to stop selling it later is just gonna backfire.

Doing it like this just makes them look like the bad guy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Aardark

What?

Yeah, I changed the wording because that didn't make sense, by bad.

Anyway, to elaborate, looks like DEVELOPMENTS~~

Yeehaw, PR a-go-go

"As announced this week, SCEA's product offering in North America consists of a 80GB PS3 available in August at $599 and a 60GB PS3 available now for $499. We have will have ample supplies of both models to meet the needs of our consumers for the foreseeable future."

Okayyyyyy, so in the article they don't once deny that they have stopped production on the 60s. In fact, all that seems to be saying is "Yeah, we have a bunch of 60s left, we won't run out for a few months." Does that mean that 60s will eventually go poof in January? March? Summer next year? Who knows? There's also reason to believe the 80 gig could drop to 499 later. Could. I dunno if it WILL, but it could. In fact, it damn well better.

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

Sorry to derail this a bit from the current Heavenly Sword discussion, but since this thread is monstrous, I'd figure I'd ask.

What is GFF's thoughts on the Warhawk beta, for those who got in? I know Iwata's already, but what about everyone else's? I'm not even sure who got in and who didn't, to be honest.

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

Originally Posted by Forsety

EGM trashed the crap out of Lair (6.0, 5.5, 5.0). I really hope Heavenly sword ends up being a lot better than a dead average game too.

'Course I know it's pointless to take them seriously anyway since they aren't the most reliable reviewers around, but it's still sad to see.

mario strikers charged: 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 (LOL)
blue dragon: 6.5, 7.5, 6.5

They do a good job showing how unreliable they are without anyone pointing it out on their own, but I felt it was funny that a crappy game like 'Mario Strikers Charged' scored better than both Lair and Blue Dragon. Harhar.

Have you played Charged and therefore able to make a comparison yourself, or are you basing it's quality on how many sales the previous game had like you did in the Fire Emblem thread?

Reviews are just opinions. For God's sake, why do you CARE what numbers it gets?

On an unrelated note, Blue Dragon's numbers are spot on though if the demo is any indication.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well, Play also gave Sonic the Hedgehog a 8.5, and called Odin Sphere a flawless 10, so they might not be the most trustworthy review source either here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Odin Sphere, while an absolute blast, is hardly flawless from either a technical or gameplay standpoint. Sonic is....well, hell, if you agree with them, who am I to argue?

I guess it is easier to trust a review source if you agree with them most of the time though. I can't say I agree with HCG or Play any more often than I agree with EGM, IGN, or anything else, so my case is different from yours.

FELIPE NO

You trolling me, boy? I ain't fighting with you. I'm just pointing out how good a job you're doing at shoving that foot into your mouth. I wouldn't be calling your shit if you just stopped spewing it, y'know. If you need help with that though, I'm sure we can resurrect the old Forum Guide program and someone will write you up a lesson plan in no time.

How ya doing, buddy?

Brandish and RotK are quality, so you can't bash the shit out of them entirely. Dynasty Warriors is a total love it or hate it kinda deal too.

They lose a hell of a lot of respect for junk like Winback though, so I'll give you that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Not really, if the demo is any indication, DW:G is just Dynasty Warriors with robots. a dash doesn't change much. What little new stuff there is will not convert any non-fans. Not by a mile and a half.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Good news for Slayer and other Canucks with those PStriples.

The Warhawk with bluetooth headset bundle is 20 bucks cheaper in Canadaland from that there Best Buy than it is in the US of A.

Links:

60 USD bucks at EB~
40 Canuckars at BB.ca~

Most amazing jew boots

?????

Originally Posted by BB.ca

Warhawk Bundle With Bluetooth Headset (PlayStation 3)

Releases 28 Aug/07. Take to the skies and engage in high-speed aerobatic dogfights or hover to provide crucial aerial support to surging...

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

Yeah, well, you didn't post it~

Also I'm willing to bet it's a mistake, but you should be able to argue your store down to that price if you bring a printout or something of the page.

If it IS a sale or something, then shit, sweet.

I was speaking idiomatically.

A B&M will price match the website.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The price on the site is still reading as 39.99. Print that off, take it to one of the stores, they'll match it. Simple as that. The fact that they are out of stock on the site does not imply that the stores themselves will not have any stock tomorrow.

We shall see, I suppose.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by chato

EDIT : Hey now, its fun and all but I don't see much difference in the sprites so it's whatever.

That's cause there isn't. :bobofrowny:

All they did was "lawlz let's apply a shitty smoothing filter" instead of actually updating the sprites.

Same deal for the 360 version. =\

Boo-urns.

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

Cutting the EE out would not save a whole hell of a lot on manufacturing costs per unit, y'know.

Most amazing jew boots

Yes and you must have missed it, respectively. It's certainly better now than it used to be, though.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Aardark

...okay? The EE chip costs about 30 dollars, which means that if Sony had used software emulation right from the start, at this point they would have saved more than a hundred million dollars from that. Throughout the whole lifetime of the PS3, it could save them as much as a billion dollars. It's not exactly small change.

Uh, yeah. I know that.

Let me throw a hypothetical situation out there, actually. The profit margin of this console (by itself) is basically zero at this point. Before the price drop, they were losing about 300 bucks on every 20 gig (manufacture cost: 805.85), and 240 on every 60 gig (manufacture cost: 840.35). Assuming, for a moment (since I don't have figures for manufacturing costs that postdate the price drop), that those manufacturing costs remain basically similar, they now lose 340 on every 60 gig.

While saving a little bit on each unit is great, they're going to have to sell 16 80 gig consoles with the 30 dollar savings to make up for one person saying they now won't buy the thing if it doesn't contain hardware emulation. Or, similarly, they'll have to sell 3 80 gigs to make up the 100 dollar price difference if Joe Customer goes to nab a 60 now so that he gets his EE.

Hell, If Joe Customer really wants his EE, and the 60s are no longer made, and he buys secondhand, that's basically the same deal. At this point you'd figure moving MORE units would make more sense than potentially reducing customer support by removing a key feature. (It could be argued that as time goes on, backwards compatibility means less and less, but right now it's still rather important.)

That doesn't take into account how much they are saving in other areas with the move to the 80 gig, but at this point I don't see just removing the EE as that beneficial to them from either standpoint. It also assumes that after the 60s are gone, they'll be putting the 80s at the new, lower price point, which I imagine they will.

This, of course, assumes that people are smart enough or observant enough to care about the backwards compatibility issue, which may or may not be the case. Sony's obviously banking on the fact that they aren't, though.

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