[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

The jump from VHS to DVD was a huge. No more stupid rewind/forwards, we can actually skip chapters, clearer quality, more space, that was huge.

Now, the only thing good I see coming out of this is maybe a bit more crisp audio, and video, because of the increased space, and all that other tech related stuff.. DVDs still cost a pretty penny, but Blu-Ray disks? I can only imagine..

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Inhert

the problem you don't see is that to have a game with so beautiful real-time 3D graphic, you need this blu-ray disc, otherwise the game would fit on like what 5 dvd >.>

i'm not saying that it's the blu-ray that does the performance, but heh the game does take a lot of space now for those graphic and game content >.>

You would be right about this except for a couple things.

Most games are only now starting to actually use a whole single-layer DVD (aka Oblivion at 4.18GB). I don't see how 4-9GB isn't enough for ANY game. It's true that HD video pre-rendered cutscenes will take up alot of space. But if game studios would actually implement good video codecs (e.g. AVC/H.264), then there is nothing to worry over size, even if they stupidly use the HUGE pre-rendered scenes.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Hey, is it possible that the first gen PS3 games will be on regular DVD's thus reducing the cost (like the first PS2 games were on CD's), or is Sony going to force all PS3 games to be on Blu-Ray?

How ya doing, buddy?

PS3 Online (Including Gaming) Is Free "offical"

Quote:

One of the latest PlayStation 3 rumors to make the rounds over the past couple of days was in regard to "free" online gameplay, or the apparent lack thereof. Even though Sony reps at both the Game Developers Conference and the E3 stated otherwise, due to the fact that Sony's E3 conference powerpoint presentation didn't explicitly state the fact, some sites jumped to conclusions. Well it just isn't true.

This morning, SCEA's PR Manager helped to clarify the situation. When asked to confirm whether playing games online via the PlayStation 3 would be free of charge, it was stated, plain and simply, "Please note that online gaming will be free right out of the box". There ya go.

Of course, like Square Enix did with Final Fantasy XI on the PS2, Xbox 360 and PC, a limited amount of publishers may still charge a fee for MMO-style titles.

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2006/5/17-51

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

probably, and then like the PS2, which loses its cd reading function in a year, the PS3 will get disc read errors for DVD's. I am still not able to play my early PS2 games because of this lameness, and I forsee having the same problem with the $600 PS3. I miss you Gungriffon Blaze~! (my first PS2 game)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by garthvadr3

probably, and then like the PS2, which loses its cd reading function in a year, the PS3 will get disc read errors for DVD's. I am still not able to play my early PS2 games because of this lameness, and I forsee having the same problem with the $600 PS3. I miss you Gungriffon Blaze~! (my first PS2 game)

Well, to be fair, only the first gen PS2's had a serious problem with that (and some of the later ones). This is why I refuse to buy a launch PS3, I learned my lesson with PS2 that launch systems are bound to have bugs and problems. I missed Gungriffon Blaze as well until I got a slim PS2. Then I realized that I had become jaded by much better games and that Gungriffon really isn't that great in retrospect. Anyway, I'm sure Sony doesn't engineer thair stuff to break on purpose (like the planned obselecence in cars?), they're simply really bad at engineering it to not break. And why is everyone insisting on buying the $600 version? If the $499 version comes with Wi-fi and Memory card slots then I'm all for getting that one.


Free online gaming with PS3? I'm sold. I don't like Microsoft's "Live" system where you have to pay for it, even if it is $80 a year, that's still $80!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Mobius One

Free online gaming with PS3? I'm sold. I don't like Microsoft's "Live" system where you have to pay for it, even if it is $80 a year, that's still $80!

It's $50 a year.

That's $4.16 a month for any online game on XBox and XBox360, with voice chat.

Most MMORPGs cost at least $15 a month. For a single game.

How ya doing, buddy?

$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

Even if the first party controller won't have vibration, you can bet some third part brand will implement it the first chance they get.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

$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.

Woah, woah, woah. What the fuck did you just do.

You just twisted my argument.

I never mentioned playing an MMORPG on an Xbox / Xbox360.

I compared the price of a single subscription fee for 1 game (take your pick from any major MMORPG) to the price of a single subscription fee for dozens, if not 100+ games with voice chat.

All you did was say "well, but the starter kit is..." Yes. The starter kit is $70. But you need to get a headset if you want to talk, don't you? That's 20 bucks of the price. A keyboard for the PS2 would be the same price.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by SouthJag

$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.

It's $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold. You can play FFXI with Xbox Live Silver, which is free.

FELIPE NO

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?

I feel like you intentionally missed Jazz's point.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by SCHNEE-1

Bah, i'd rather have the rumble feature back. Come on Gelb, even you agree feeling the Engines on your Su-37 in Ace Combat on the controller feels better than a controller that does nothing.

Well, I play Ace Combat with a Hori Flightstick 2, and as far as I know the crap Sony got sued over for using force feedback/vibration doesn't apply to them, so I won't be missing out on anything, really. So long as Hori makes a stick for the next Ace Combat or the current one is compatible with it I'm set.

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

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.

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

Protip: It cost money to run servers. I'd rather pay and get something top of the line like XBL than have something that was free and sketchy (See: SegaNET).

If Sony is really going to go with their service being free, I sure hope they put the kinda effort into their network that MS did, otherwise I'll be dissapointed, and I don't even OWN a 360 yet. I've just seen it in action and know that it rocks.

I was speaking idiomatically.

My main point (just to finally clarify) was that millions of people pay $15 a month to play games like WoW or City of Heroes, but a $4.16 a month fee is somehow considered expensive even though it supports a ton of games and you're essentially guaranteed that servers are maintained properly.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

80$CAN for a GOLD account on Xbox Live to play ANY game you want is top-notch in my book. Charging an extra to play a specific game, like FFXI is a crime. A 'BAD' crime!!

I do say RRRAAAAAPPPPPPEEEEEEE!!!!

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

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...

We might as well split this off into another thread, but I felt I had to fix a few misconceptions with the Guild Wars analogy.

1) They don't handle nearly as many people as World of Warcraft does.
2) It's not a real MMORPG. It's equivalent to something more like Diablo 2, where you have a common lobby, then individual game rooms. Thus, lots less server strain.

And Sony already has a kind of online service for the PS2 and PSP, but it's decentralized and completely up to the game company on how to run it (in terms of quality control). Hopefully the free service for the PS3 won't be like this.

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

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

Hi, I'm a PC gamer, I've been playing games online since I got my first copy of Command & Conquer: Red Alert. I've been dying for consoles to have decent online play ever since I realized how nice it is not to need all of your friends to come over to your house to play a game.

I was speaking idiomatically.