[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

I don't give a shit who wins, I'll be able to get PS3 and the games I want that are exclusive for it "at the moment" and thats all that matters. I'm still gonna get Wii as well.

FELIPE NO

Does anyone know a site other than gametrailers that has downloadable trailers for everything E-3 related? Because that site hasn't let me download anything all day and it's gotten rather tiring.

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

I honestly think the PS3 will do well simply because of fans. I've never bought a console on it's launch date but PS3 is definately making me think about it. The Revolutions (I refuse to call it that sad excuse for a penis joke name) game line up just isn't impressive. All I've seen is Red Steel and the new Zelda (though I thought that was coming out for GC, I don't fuckin' know... or care). From what I've seen though, the PS3 line up looks like it will have more games at launch than the 360 will have by then.

Expensive, yes. Worth it? Definately.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

See, this is what I just don't understand. Not a criticism, don't take it as such. I'm 22 and I'm fucking DYING for a Wii. (yes, I know, I know) It looks to be perhaps more "childish," but an assload more fun. And childish can be good. Look at Katamari Damacy. The Wii looks to open doors that weren't thought of before (and sorry, Sony's half-assed imitation won't do it half as well, even though insipid news sites like IGN will give them credit for "innovating" on it), and to do so for far less money on the part of the end-user. If the Wii can be cheap, fun, and (most likely) more physically durable than the PS3 (PS2 D.R.E. problem I am looking at you), then I'm sold and the PS3 can get fucked.

Well yeah you’re right, I took my age as a simple example, it’s more the philosophy behind it, you know, all I meant is that the Wii appeals to a different audience then the PS3 or the 360, thus doesn’t directly compete with the others, meaning one gamer could likely go out and buy a Wii and a PS3 or a 360, but much less likely to buy a PS3 and a 360.

Originally Posted by russ

Not when you're not interested in bluray.

Exactly you are right, then it’s much less of a bargain for those not interest in blu-ray, and at the same time when you think about it, what other HD-gaming-PS3-like alternative will we have in November 2006 for $500 or less?

If somebody knows that he will have another option that will REALLY satisfy his gaming needs as the PS3 would have, then WHY would he even CARE for the PS3 and its price, hanging around this thread and etc? I think the answer is because maybe in fact, he do care, because he would prefer a PS3, because he is under the impression that he won’t REALLY have another option like the PS3... thus in that case Sony has it right on, they will have the exclusive stuff, thus charging a little extra, and still getting out a big winner. Like Mercedes do too (I know it's a bad example but you get the point).



Guys, comparing consoles from back in 1992, or even 5 years ago is not really accurate, first there is the inflation (as Cetra clearly pointed out) and most importantly, the gaming market has evolve so much since then, you guys know that, especially here at GFF, we all know that.

On top of that, today, home theater rooms are becoming more and more mainstream, AND the gaming room is merging into the home theater room, earning a place of choice, because gaming as gotten much more spectacular then it once was, thus pleasing a much, much more large audience. And when you think about it: Who will have the best position to appeal both the home theatre aspect and the gaming aspect with a neatly packaged electronic box?

Really, buying a PS3 at launch will get you TWO (2) bleeding edge technology component, not ONE, TWO of them, for $600.

I think that Cetra made a key statement:

Originally Posted by Cetra

Seriously people, if you don't think the financial decision makers at Sony don't understand all of this, you need to take some basic financial classes.

Sony has been investing I don’t know how many millions over the years for both Blu-ray and PS3, how many times do you really think that those guys has rethink all this? Sony marketing people probably got a much larger view on the world then most of us, even those who are studying, and/or working in the field of marketing, gaming, HT, or consumer electronics.

Really, I’m not an expert on this, I don’t work in any of those fields, I’m only noticing what’s happening from the customer point of view (both on the gaming and HT side), and my best guess is that not only Sony will sell PS3s like crazy at $600, but also it's likely that they will probably have a shortage of supply like the Microsoft do...

Maybe someone working in the video-gaming field could analyse the "evolving gaming market" a little further (Cetra?).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Mercury

Really, I’m not an expert on this, I don’t work in any of those fields, I’m only noticing what’s happening from the customer point of view (both on the gaming and HT side), and my best guess is that not only Sony will sell PS3s like crazy at $600, but also it's likely that they will probably have a shortage of supply like the Microsoft do...

Maybe someone working in the video-gaming field could analyse the "evolving gaming market" a little further (Cetra?).

Companies are suppose to have all sorts of "informed" people that conduct "research" to make sure wrong products/marketing/prices/etc. don't make it out the door. However, for some reason, even with these guru-advisors, companies still fuck up. That's why things like this happen:












I'm not suggesting that the PS3's the next nGage. My point is that enough people within Nokia, despite all the research and seasoned professionals, thought that the nGage (along with the stupid "side talking") was a good idea. Good companies make stupid and bad decisions all the time.

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

Except Sony isn't Nokia, and is still the current industry leader, despite last night's showing.

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

I think this system's success is almost a slam dunk. It may be expensive as hell, but it has both new technology and a lot of backwards compatibility to support it through the initial lean times (which happens for every system.) I suspect part of the reason the DS survived it's lean initial period was the fact that it had a library of GameBoy Advance Games to support it, just as GameBoy Advance before it had GameBoy and GameBoy color titles, and so on. The PSP didn't have a library of titles to fall back on. It's still struggling in some respects. So the PS3 will hav eall the old titles from about 10 years of gaming to help it along.. Just like the Wii will have GameCube and almost all other Nintendo platforms to support it initially. Microsoft didn't make the 360 backwards compatible enough for it's audience. Not a good foot to start out on. I predict Microsoft will take ultimately take 3rd place to Nintendo over that. And Sony will come out on top, having the best of both worlds, even with the extreme price.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Stealth

Except Sony isn't Nokia, and is still the current industry leader, despite last night's showing.

As were Sega and Nintendo at some point in the past. Just because you're on top, it doesn't mean that you can't slip off and fall if you mess up.

Most amazing jew boots

Nice job missing the Point. When was Nokia the industry leader in hand helds. Oh right never.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Stealth

Nice job missing the Point. When was Nokia the industry leader in hand helds. Oh right never.

Yeah, way to call out on your own mistake. Nokia may have never been on top, but Sega and Nintendo definately were at the very top at some point, and now, well, Sega's just...sad. And Nintendo's in close competition trying to regain it's spot. How did you not catch this when I used it as an example?:eyebrow:

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

Alright, you're just not gonna get it until I explain your shitty parallelism between NOKIA, and SONY.

SONY knows just a tad more on how to run a gaming division than fucking Nokia.

Was it that hard to understand?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Stealth

Alright, you're just not gonna get it until I explain your shitty parallelism between NOKIA, and SONY.

SONY knows just a tad more on how to run a gaming division than fucking Nokia.

Was it that hard to understand?

Wow. If you're gonna create posts that exude dry, cynical sarcasm, have the decency to make sure they're not idiotic. I tried to point out to you that my post that "missed the point" was comparing Sony to Nintendo and Sega, and yet you still come to me with this "ZOMG! SONY IS NOT NOKIAAAA !!!111!!" wtf?

Forget Nokia for a second. Nintendo and Sega (actual videogame companies) were at some point in the past, at the very top of this industry. Today however, they're far from being the domineers of the business. Suggesting that just because Sony is at the very top now, it doesn't mean that they can't fall off to the bottom of the chain if they make enough stupid decisions like pricing a videogaming console $600.

I hope you stopped getting your nipples tied in a knot and understood what I meant now that I broke it down for you to the lowest denominator.

I love it when dense people act arrogant. =/

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

Walk into an EB and you'll see some prime examples.

There was a mid-40s woman talking about the latest RPGs with the clerks one time I went. Hell, I saw a black woman in her mid-30s come into an EB and excitedly ask if they had the new Dynasty Warriors game on its release day. Not to mention all the 20-30 year old guys I saw on line to pick up GTA:SA and PSPs at their respective midnight launches.

Perhaps it's just your particular neighborhood.

I'm not saying nobody that age plays games, but polls say 95% of gamers are men, and combine that with a lady in her 40s being a gamer? It happens, but it's VERY VERY rare. Less than 1% of gamers are probably 40+ women.

But all you have to do is look at it logically. I say the reason online polls have a high percentage of gamers in the 25-35 range, is because I'd say that kids 15-20 don't vote in polls very often. Kids in their teens just want to game, they aren't into interacting online as much, but become moreso when they get older.

Plus it's no secret that the older you get the less and less time you have to game. I don't need polls and the like. I'm just looking at it with common sense.

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

Originally Posted by DragoonKain

I'm not saying nobody that age plays games, but polls say 95% of gamers are men, and combine that with a lady in her 40s being a gamer? It happens, but it's VERY VERY rare. Less than 1% of gamers are probably 40+ women.

But all you have to do is look at it logically. I say the reason online polls have a high percentage of gamers in the 25-35 range, is because I'd say that kids 15-20 don't vote in polls very often. Kids in their teens just want to game, they aren't into interacting online as much, but become moreso when they get older.

Plus it's no secret that the older you get the less and less time you have to game. I don't need polls and the like. I'm just looking at it with common sense.

Not to mention that polls are garbage. They're junk numbers that can easily be manipulated to "prove" your point no matter how far off you are from the facts.

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

Originally Posted by Terran Gell

I honestly think the PS3 will do well simply because of fans. I've never bought a console on it's launch date but PS3 is definately making me think about it. The Revolutions (I refuse to call it that sad excuse for a penis joke name) game line up just isn't impressive. All I've seen is Red Steel and the new Zelda (though I thought that was coming out for GC, I don't fuckin' know... or care). From what I've seen though, the PS3 line up looks like it will have more games at launch than the 360 will have by then.

Expensive, yes. Worth it? Definately.

Whether the PS3 is worth it varies on the gamer. You have to factor in how much you game. I don't game as much as I used to. The older I get the less I game, so for me $600 isn't worth playing the thing a couple times a week. Sure there will be a game here or there that I play hardcore and sacrifice sleep for, but that is maybe 3 times a year? To me it's not worth it.

Before I got Oblivion I hardly even used my 360. I played Oblivion hardcore for about 2/3 weeks and now I'm back to not using the thing again, and I won't be using it until Madden 07 comes out. Then once that comes out it'll be another 3 months collecting dust until I get a game that I really want.

How ya doing, buddy?

Hey losers, knock off the console faggotry.

Why are you guys all bitching about shit involving other consoles in the "PS3 DISCUSSION THREAD" instead of talking about the actual announcements involving PS3 games and features.

Most amazing jew boots

RR, because that's what happens around E3. Especially when it's so easy to do after such a bad Press Conference as Sony's. This is probably the most active time of year for the gaming forums. You should expect this by now.

FELIPE NO

Now that the Big Three have showed their cards, I thimk Sony is in for a very uphill battle. Nintendo and Microsoft's lineups seem much better. Nintendo has their Holy Trinity--Mario, Zelda and Metroid--available at launch. Fanboys are busting nuts over that shit. Hell, I'm busting a nut. Then Microsoft is pulling out their 2nd generation games that are much more polished than the games we saw last November. Crackdown specifically has me very excited. Sony's big guns won't come out until next year at the earliest. Even if Sony comes out on top, it'll be by the hair off their ass.

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

I beg to differ. MS just has a head start. I can see Nintendo doing very well this time around, but wait until a year from now when PS3 will be pumping out some incredible games.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Welcome to the gaming forums in general, fanboys and haters, console faggotry is usual even when it's not e3 week.

Incase you've managed not to notice (which I'm guessing you haven't since you only have one post in Sony) I've actually been modding Sony for at least six months now and the forum's managed to do a pretty good job of staying out of fanboy wars. I'd make some sweeping generalization about the Microsoft forum, but I don't like speaking about forums I don't visit often.

Then again, maybe I just don't get why some of you people get so hung up arguing about which thing you're not going to own for over a year is better than the other.

(And is "We should expect it" really a good excuse? We should expect trolling on the boards at times, so should we let it go?)

How ya doing, buddy?

Eh, it isn't as bad as it could be, RR. I'd say we're being fairly civil for the most part.

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

Okay. So we basically saw little to nothing of Tekken 6. You think Namco-Bandai will show more of the game?

How ya doing, buddy?

Just a question:

Do you guys really think the Playstation name is strong enough to get Joe Consumer to spend another $200 on their video game system over the Xbox 360 when the games look virtually identical?

The Wii is still a wild card to me, since it's price will certainly make it appealing, it's hard to see how the general public will react to it, but if it's like the reaction to the DS it could be INSANE.

But the battle between Microsoft and Sony may have just been decided right here. A couple factoids for you guys:

*The Xbox 360 is going to have an HD-DVD add-on estimated to be around $200-$250, which basically allows people that actually give a shit about the new HD formats before one format wins to get their disc on, while Sony kinda shoves it down your throat and makes you eat the cost.

*Madden and GTA are gonna both be on Xbox 360, and despite all your feelings about Halo 2, Halo 3 is gonna be huge with the casual market. You guys aren't thinking about the average consumer.

*Despite people's tendency toward brand loyalty, the Xbox name is well-established in USA (Japs don't give a shit about Microsoft, but I have a feeling they'll embrace the Wii more than anyone else there, which could cut into Jap PS3 sales majorly) so people may not automatically buy a PS3 like so many of you are assuming.

*Despite the PS3's superior power, I highly doubt that most developers will want to utilize the additional processors availible in the Cell processor, instead focusing simply on the two identical parallel processors to allow easier porting to the Xbox 360. It's very, very smart from an economical standpoint to have games on all systems, so I'm sure that most teams will try to have their games on both systems if possible in order to maximize sales.

I mean, with all these new developments from E3, an Xbox 360 is looking increasingly appealing to me (In fact, I might actually pick one up in a few weeks), and I don't intend to get a PS3 until it has some seriously large price drops, but the Wii will be bought upon launch.

Sony is making some major mistakes here, people. I really don't think they are playing the right cards this time around. They are sounding too much like Microsoft to me, and I don't feel like paying for a Sony branded Xbox 360 after I buy my 360, and I don't think may consumers feel like paying that $200 premium either, but only time will really tell.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Wel, I for one don't care about the PS3's pricetag. Sure, I agree that is is a little steep for casual gamers, but let's look at it from Sony's point of view. PlayStation is not their only thing they want to bring to the market, they are also a company who produce other electronic stuff and Blu-Ray happens to be one major thing for them right now. It's only natural they would want to include it in the PS3 so they can reach a lot of consumers right from the get go.

Also, when Microsoft rolls out it's HD-DVD add-on, it would be about $200. When buying a 360 with identical features as PS3 would yield about the same pricepoint. But MS isn't a manufactor of other hardware, they come from the software side so they can afford to bring an add-on because they don't have to rely on HD-DVD. The difference is that Sony isn't promoting the PS3 as just a gaming console like MS tries to position itself right now. They claim PS3 is more than that. Wether you agree with that is another thing because it depends on wether you are just a gamer or are someone who also loves seeing movies at home in the best possible manner.

One other thing: why is it that people slash at Sony for releasing a $500-$600 product with a lot of features, when they are happily buying their iPods for $300 a piece? A little gimmick with only the ability to play music?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Ashram

One other thing: why is it that people slash at Sony for releasing a $500-$600 product with a lot of features, when they are happily buying their iPods for $300 a piece? A little gimmick with only the ability to play music?

Don't forget video and pictures. But I agree, iPod is small potatoes next to what you get with PS3. 2 iPods = PS3! I'd happily make that trade. Besides, PS3 is almost nothing compared to the cost of an up to date home entertainment system.

FELIPE NO